Putting words in my mouth isn't clever. I was giving you a golden opportunity to itemize all the transparent DWs that are being used by the DEMS so far. I never said that they aren't there.
BTW there is a huge difference between policy and ambiguity via dog whistling. Clear and direction communication is policy, empty slogans aimed at contentious issues are not.
The definition of a dog whistle is ".... refers to the use of coded language or messaging that appears benign or neutral on the surface but is meant to send a specific signal to a particular group, often without others noticing the true intent."
So maybe when Dutton talks about not bringing in people from Gaza because of "safety" he's really talking to the racists. Or when Abbott said that a YES vote in the same sex marriage plebiscite would be anti-family, he's really just talking to the homophobes." Or when Dutton was going to court to stop refugees going to hospital on the mainland “We’re seeing people at hospitals missing out on medical services because people are taking it from Nauru and Manus. Australians will be angry about that as well.” DW to the racists again.
Is, "he's a threat to democracy!" a dog whistle ? No, however it's probably hyperbole or rhetoric used to energize a base.
These are what the two parties have submitted as their election platforms via The American Presidency Project. I will be interested if you could tell me which is offering policy.
www.presidency.ucsb.edu
www.presidency.ucsb.edu