Connect with us

News

When a Trump rally t-shirt is more than just a shirt

Published

on

When a Trump rally t-shirt is more than just a shirt

A vendor sells 2024 Donald Trump campaign souvenirs at the Turning Point Action USA conference in West Palm Beach, Florida, on July 15, 2023.

Giorgio Viera/AFP via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Giorgio Viera/AFP via Getty Images

Trump rallies involve a lot of merch – vendors will sometimes set up overnight before a rally, preparing for the huge crowds. There are hats, socks, flags, buttons and, especially, t-shirts.

I go to a lot of these rallies. In the middle of it all, I’ve gotten a little obsessed with this one particular shirt.

Miranda Barbee bought one in the hours before a Trump rally on the beach in Wildwood, New Jersey, and held it up, reading aloud.

Advertisement

“I just bought this shirt for $20. It says ‘Biden sucks, Kamala –’ what does that even — ‘swallows’? I didn’t even see the front! That is so funny.” She flipped it around. “And the back says, ‘F**k Joe and the Hoe.’”

She and the friend she came with laughed.

“I honestly didn’t know the front said that,” Barbee added. “But I think that’s hilarious.”

These shirts have been sold prominently at recent rallies – vendors who specialize in these particular shirts often stand right outside the entrances and exits, catching the eyes of the streams of Trump fans.

They’re not official campaign apparel. When asked for comment, a campaign spokesperson didn’t address the shirts directly, instead pointing to a Biden official campaign shirt (slogan: “Free on Wednesdays”) that pokes fun at Donald Trump’s legal troubles.

Advertisement

Still, I wanted to know: why? Why do these shirts exist, and who’s buying them? Sooner or later, I had spent so much time thinking about it, I wanted to know if there was anything to be learned here.

The infamous Hillary Clinton nutcracker

“The Hillary Nutcracker & Corkscrew Bill”, a boxed set of a nutcracker and bottle corkscrew were available for sale during the 2009 holiday season.

Paul J. Richards/AFP via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Paul J. Richards/AFP via Getty Images

Sexism isn’t exactly new in politics.

Consider America’s decades of Hillary-Clinton hatred. One t-shirt slogan around the time of her 2008 presidential campaign read “I wish Hillary had married O.J.,” referring to O.J. Simpson who famously faced trial for his wife’s murder. He was acquitted.

And then there was the Hillary Clinton nutcracker…described gleefully by MSNBC’s Willie Geist in 2007 as “a Hillary doll with serrated stainless steel thighs that, well, crack nuts.” To this, Tucker Carlson — then also of MSNBC — responded, “When she comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs” and declared that he would be buying one.

Advertisement

Over the years, Michelle Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Sarah Palin would also be the targets of demeaning, often obscene merchandise.

But still, the open lewdness of the Trump t-shirts. That’s new, right? I asked Tim Miller, a Republican strategist who worked for Jon Huntsman and Jeb Bush’s presidential campaigns.

“It’s not like you couldn’t find a guy standing outside the RNC in 2012 selling some misogynistic Hillary stuff. It was there, but just the intensity of it,” he said, “just how crass it is, it’s definitely a category difference.”

That crassness has been around from the beginning at Trump rallies. As my colleague Don Gonyea reported in 2016, vendors then were selling shirts reading, “Hillary sucks, but not the way Monica does.”

The difference between parties

“What’s different about Donald Trump is that his campaign is not particularly worried about this type of misogyny being attached to his campaign, because at least to date, it hasn’t hurt him that much,” explained Kelly Dittmar, director of research for the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University.

Advertisement
A vendor sells t-shirts at a May 1, 2024, Trump rally in Freeland, Michigan.

A vendor sells t-shirts at a May 1, 2024, Trump rally in Freeland, Michigan.

Danielle Kurtzleben/NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Danielle Kurtzleben/NPR

Advertisement

One example: Even after a jury found him civilly liable for sexual abuse last year, polls didn’t budge.

Part of what’s going on is partisan, Dittmar adds — a reflection of an existing gender gap.

“I think there’s more kind of internal policing among Democrats about the fact that ‘this is contrary to our brand and it hurts us, by the way, with the constituency that is our most reliable one, which is women.’”

Furthermore, she says, this kind of language is often particularly directed at women of color, like Kamala Harris. The word “ho’” on the shirt undeniably makes this about race as well as sex.

Advertisement

Meanwhile, Dittmar says, the Republican base is majority-men.

“And of course,” she said, “of the women who do support [Republicans], they are more likely to say that this is just, you know, a joke.”

That was true of voter Christena Kincaid, who talked to me just after she had bought one of these shirts at a rally in Freeland, Michigan.

“It’s just a slang. That’s all it is,” she said. “It’s a goofy – it is a little over the top. I get it. But they’re just words.”

That idea, that they’re just words, fits with Trump’s brand as an anti-PC crusader who “tells it like it is,” which has involved loudly insulting women, from Clinton to Megyn Kelly to Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar.

Advertisement

But also, the idea that words don’t matter that much – that echoes the response to the infamous Access Hollywood tape, which Trump’s defenders shrugged off as “locker room talk.”

Trickle-down incivility

Rina Shah is a political strategist and a former Republican congressional aide, and a Republican who opposes Trump. She told me she thinks the shirts very much matter.

“If we’re allowing our kids to see this visually, even if it’s contained at a rally, the person who wears that shirt at that rally isn’t just going to wear that one day,” she said. “This flavor of incivility is permeating our nation’s social fabric.”

I did ask Bob Berger, who I met at that Freeland, Mich., rally, about wearing the shirt outside of a rally.

“Are you worried about offending anyone when you wear it?” I asked.

Advertisement

“No.”

“Do you think you’ll be careful where you wear it? Like around, I don’t know, grandkids?” I continued.

“Oh, maybe around the grandkids. I probably would be,” he replied.

What Rina Shah said about Trump’s incivility trickling down to his supporters seems true, whether it’s via clothing or simply their willingness to get nasty in talking about Biden and Harris.

“As much as I hope Joe Biden gets arrested, whatever, is not in office anymore. I’m like, we’re still stuck with the bitch.  I don’t want her either,” said Barbee, the voter I met at that New Jersey rally, referring to Harris.

Advertisement

I asked her: Does that language feel demeaning to you as a young woman – using words like bitch?

“I mean, she is a bitch,” she responded.

On top of that, you can also see all this — the t-shirt slogans, the cuss words, Trump’s vulgarity — as a marker of a gap in American politics: A yawning partisan gap in attitudes about gender.

“Those differences in gender beliefs are going to make it more permissible or not to put forth these types of messages without some sort of a backlash or pushing down,” Dittmar of Rutgers University said.

Studies have found that Trump voters — including women — in 2016 were particularly likely to have beliefs that political scientists term “hostile sexism.” Furthermore, some found that these beliefs were prominent in a way they weren’t in 2012. Those “hostile sexist” beliefs include, for example, the idea that women are too easily offended.

Advertisement

Barbee, at that New Jersey rally, the voter who talked to me the longest about her shirt, echoed some of those beliefs.

“I feel like feminism is becoming like a huge thing these days, but I also feel like it’s – people are overly sensitive, like they’re reacting to things they shouldn’t be reacting to. “

It’s an attitude that’s been around for a long time. But her new t-shirt? That represented something new.

News

Trump claims US stockpiles mean wars can be fought ‘forever’; Kristi Noem testifies before Congress – US politics live

Published

on

Trump claims US stockpiles mean wars can be fought ‘forever’; Kristi Noem testifies before Congress – US politics live

Trump says US stockpiles mean “wars can be fought ‘forever’”

In a late night post on Truth Social, Donald Trump said that the US munitions stockpiles “at the medium and upper medium grade, never been higher or better”.

He added that the US has a “virtually unlimited supply of these weapons”, meaning that “wars can be fought ‘forever’”.

This comes after Trump said that the US-Israel war on Iran could go beyond the four-five weeks that the administration initially predicted. The president also did not rule out the possibility of US boots on the ground in Iran during an interview with the New York Post on Monday.

Advertisement

“I rebuilt the military in my first term, and continue to do so. The United States is stocked, and ready to WIN, BIG!!!,” he wrote.

Share

Key events

During his opening remarks, Senate judicicary committee chairman, Chuck Grassley, blamed Democrats for the ongoing shutdown Department of Homeland Security (DHS) but highlighted four agencies: the Secret Service, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and the Coast Guard.

Democrats are demanding tighter guardrails for federal immigration enforcement, but a sweeping tax bill signed into law last year conferred $75bn for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which means the agency is still functional amid the wider department shuttering.

Share
Continue Reading

News

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

Published

on

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

The Supreme Court

Win McNamee/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Win McNamee/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Monday intervened in New York’s redistricting process, blocking a lower court decision that would likely have flipped a Republican congressional district into a Democratic district.    
  
At issue is the midterm redrawing of New York’s 11th congressional district, including Staten Island and a small part of Brooklyn. The district is currently held by a Republican, but on Jan. 21, a state Supreme Court judge ruled that the current district dilutes the power of Black and Latino voters in violation of the state constitution.  
  
GOP Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, who represents the district, and the Republican co-chair of the state Board of Elections promptly appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to block the redrawing as an unconstitutional “racial gerrymander.” New York’s congressional election cycle was set to officially begin Feb. 24, the opening day for candidates to seek placement on the ballot.  
  
As in this year’s prior mid-decade redistricting fights — in Texas and California — the Trump administration backed the Republicans.   
 
Voters and the State of New York contended it’s too soon for the Supreme Court to wade into this dispute. New York’s highest state court has not issued a final judgment, so the voters asserted that if the Supreme Court grants relief now “future stay applicants will see little purpose in waiting for state court rulings before coming to this Court” and “be rewarded for such gamesmanship.” The state argues this is an issue for “New York courts, not federal courts” to resolve, and there is sufficient time for the dispute to be resolved on the merits. 
  
The court majority explained the decision to intervene in 101 words, which the three dissenting liberal justices  summarized as “Rules for thee, but not for me.” 
 
The unsigned majority order does not explain the Court’s rationale. It says only how long the stay will last, until the case moves through the New York State appeals courts. If, however, the losing party petitions and the court agrees to hear the challenge, the stay extends until the final opinion is announced. 
 
Dissenting from the decision were Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Writing for the three, Sotomayor  said that  if nonfinal decisions of a state trial court can be brought to highest court, “then every decision from any court is now fair game.” More immediately, she noted, “By granting these applications, the Court thrusts itself into the middle of every election-law dispute around the country, even as many States redraw their congressional maps ahead of the 2026 election.” 

Monday’s Supreme Court action deviates from the court’s hands-off pattern in these mid-term redistricting fights this year. In two previous cases — from Texas and California — the court refused to intervene, allowing newly drawn maps to stay in effect.  
  
Requests for Supreme Court intervention on redistricting issues has been a recurring theme this term, a trend that is likely to grow.  Earlier last month  the high court allowed California to use a voter-approved, Democratic-friendly map.  California’s redistricting came in response to a GOP-friendly redistricting plan in Texas that the Supreme Court also permitted to move forward. These redistricting efforts are expected to offset one another.     
   
But the high court itself has yet to rule on a challenge to Louisiana’s voting map, which was drawn by the state legislature after the decennial census in order to create a second majority-Black district.  Since the drawing of that second majority-black district, the state has backed away from that map, hoping to return to a plan that provides for only one majority-minority district.    
     
The Supreme Court’s consideration of the Louisiana case has stretched across two terms. The justices failed to resolve the case last term and chose to order a second round of arguments this term adding a new question: Does the state’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority district violate the constitution’s Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments’ guarantee of the right to vote and the authority of Congress to enforce that mandate?    
Following the addition of the new question, the state of Louisiana flipped positions to oppose the map it had just drawn and defended in court. Whether the Supreme Court follows suit remains to be seen. But the tone of the October argument suggested that the court’s conservative supermajority is likely to continue undercutting the 1965 Voting Rights Act.   

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Published

on

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

A minor earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of 3.5 struck in Central California on Monday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 7:17 a.m. Pacific time about 6 miles northwest of Pinnacles, Calif., data from the agency shows.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Source: United States Geological Survey | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Monday, March 2 at 10:20 a.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Monday, March 2 at 11:18 a.m. Eastern.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending