OCASIO-CORTEZ: That's right, that's right, and listen, it's not even to deny the fact that these ads were effective in certain areas. What I think people are paying too much attention to is the first half of that ad, which says, that said, "Kamala Harris is for they/them." Everyone is focusing on that. They're not focusing on the second half of that ad where he said, "Donald Trump is for you."

OCASIO-CORTEZ: And Democrats very often, in their messaging, they speak in this, in terms and in concepts, and not in the second person. "I care about you," and political races are not about one candidate vs. another candidate. Too often, it gets pigeonholed like that. It is a race about who cares about you more.

Is it too cliche to use the term "cope" to describe the above? Because that's cope. The idea that those Trump ads were not effective because they accurately described the Democrat position on transgenderism is nonsense. Sure, there is some truth to the idea that the now-president-elect successfully convinced voters he cared about them, but the juxtaposition with Harris' views on transgenderism in those ads was the entire reason that argument worked. Would an ad simply saying "I care about you" have been as effective? Of course, not.

Democrats won't want to admit the obvious, though, because that would mean admitting their obsession with transgenderism is actually the problem. This isn't a messaging issue for them. Speaking in the "second person," as Ocasio-Cortez says, won't suddenly make boys playing girl's sports acceptable to most Americans. Nor will it make "gender-affirming care" for minors popular.

In other words, Democrats have a position issue. Until they change those positions, which will in turn change how they talk about them, they will continue to lose support among normal Americans. Ocasio-Cortez and others who want to gloss over that are doing their party no good. On the contrary, they are inadvertently telling us exactly why they lost.