view the rest of the comments
politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
Persuadable voters seemed really focused on prices. It's hard not to be condescending here. Eggs are expensive because of bird flu. Rent is high because not enough housing is being built, mostly limited by local issues. Gas is high because of Putin's war. Anyone who thinks electing Trump will bring those prices down because they were lower last time he was president is fucking clueless.
I'm interested to see how much of a factor unenthusiastic Democrats were. Trump got about the same number of votes he did in 2020, but Harris got far fewer than Biden. It looks like a bunch of people who voted last time didn't vote this time. For them, the concerns the author dismisses might have been more important.
I’ve talked to a lot of people, and I never once heard anyone complain about her gender. In fact, I was rather surprised that I didn’t hear anything about that. It was 100% complaints about the economy, and no matter how I tried my best to explain how not only are the price of things not Biden’s fault, but we would have been much worse without Biden, it was like talking to a brick wall.
I believe that there were a fair number of people who just couldn't check the box for any woman, but we're too afraid to admit it publically (or even to themselves). While their complaints about the economy were legit, they might have also been a convenient excuse to hide the misogyny.
And didn't Obama confront this head-on? He told Black men "Look, you may not be inclined to back the woman here, but backing that man in particular would be a disaster". And he was dismissed by many as lecturing too much.
I highly doubt he people who couldn't check the box for a woman were part of the 10 million who showed up for Biden but not Harris. People made it perfectly clear what would get them to show up, and instead of listening she spit in their faces... Anyone who couldn't bring themselves to vote for a woman was almost certainly a Trump voter start to finish
we're???
/s
Haha, that was a typo, but I'm leaving it anyway, it's fitting
We also made it decidedly less convenient by making mail voting more difficult, and then the media kept blasting a "going out to vote might get you assaulted by Trump supporters" narrative that frightened people.
I’m fortunate to be well off, but I used to be below the poverty line in my city and qualified for social assistance (which I didn’t know about until a coworker told me). Having been in most of these voters shoes a little over a decade ago, I can tell you that don’t care about trumps rhetoric, he can stand there for an hour blathering non sense, but at the end of it he will say “I love you, I know you are hurting and I’m going to fix that”.
Then a long come the democrats telling these people who are living paycheck to paycheck or still in their parents house that they are privileged racist ass holes who could never understand what is like to struggle as a rich minority woman from California. Then the most unrelatable person in the world gets chosen to replace Joe Biden and rich democrats and dumb ass celebrities like Cardi “I brag about how I used to drug, rape, and Rob men” B start telling working class men that they are stupid and racist if they don’t vote for Kamala.
A lot of people couldn’t vote for a wannabe dictator, but they also couldn’t vote for someone who despises their very being.
That is a completely accurate depiction of what every member and supporter of the Democratic party has said, which has certainly been much more hurtful than Republicans' repeated threats to rape and kill us /s
I think the difference is Trump punches up, and Dems punch down. It's just that the folks on the bottom are more sensitive to it than folks on the top, so it translates into who they support.
Edit: Ten gazillion dollars says the downvoters have lambasted Trump supporters for being [insert epithet here] without even blinking. Meanwhile Trump bashes politicians, Hollywood, elites, Ivory Tower, DoJ, etc. It's so incredibly obvious.
I don't see how you could possibly see his attacks on migrants, trans kids, etc. as anything other than punching down.
Also, why are you holding the Democratic party accountable for down voters here or other randos online who say stuff about Trump supporters? They're pretty distinct groups, and the fact is elected Dems bent over backwards to talk as nicely about Trump supporters as they could.
And I actually think that was a big part of what I think their real voter engagement problem was, which is that everything Dems say comes off like inauthentic over polished political bullshit to a lot of voters. I think simultaneously trying to say "Trump is an existential threat to democracy" and "Trump supporters are not garbage" sounds insane (like, if you're supporting an existential threat to democracy you just inarguably are a garbage human being, sorry not sorry).
I don't think we should make it a centerpiece of our message or waste a bunch of time on it, but if we get a direct question about Republican party supporters we have to respect our potential voters enough to say "Yes, they are garbage, roughly 35-40% of this country are bad people who are willing to hurt others to get what they want and that's why it's so important for the rest of us to put aside our difference and work together to stop them."
He's "protecting" kids and "protecting" legal immigrants. Not saying I agree with them, but it's 100% how disinfected working class parents and legal immigrants see it. "He's not talking about us."
You mean like "deplorables" and "garbage?"
If you don't see the entire liberal order referring to marginalized working class Trump supporters as...
...repeatedly through multiple societal megaphones, then you're not listening carefully enough. Whether the party takes ownership of that snobbery or not is irrelevant to the fact that "the left" repeatedly and relentlessly punches down.
How's that message working out for us?
It's definitely true that white collar, urban liberals sometimes punch down at rural, blue collar white people. It does hurt them politically.
I'm having trouble seeing anything Trump says about anyone other than high-level elected officials as punching up though. Attacks on the sitting president are punching up by definition, but the challenger always does that.
It seems more to me that he's telling people who don't feel good about their position in society that there's someone below them. That was the message of slavery, of apartheid, and of Hitler. I find it hard not to condemn those who were receptive to it.
Do you know any Trump supporters? I mean that sincerely. Because I do, and no, they're not telling them someone is below them. They're telling them there's someone above them who's keeping them down. It doesn't help that the new dividing line between R and D is a college education. There are a bunch of rich, racist Trump supporters, to be sure, but blue collar workers without a degree are, on average, not going to be as well off as a college educated liberal.
Do you think that's how you'll win back their support?
Not many, and those who come to mind weren't receptive to that kind of messaging. Reasoning I've heard includes "Biden ruined the economy", "vote R no matter who", and "RFK and Tulsi Gabbard endorsed him".
The statements I've heard from Trump himself are "illegal immigrants are going to steal your job, the election, and your cat", and "trans people want to fuck your kid", which are about groups of people with very little political power.
No, that's very clearly how you heard what he was saying. If we're talking about messaging and its effectiveness then you strawmanning his words into inane caricatures won't help us figure out why his messages work.
Every single message he has put out about illegal immigrants boils down to "they're bringing drugs and crime, they're illegally voting, and open border liberals keep letting them in." Liberals have obsessed for so long about perceiving this as an attack on poor brown people that they forgot it's also ironically a defense of poor brown people.
I'm not going to cop to strawmanning here, but I will grant that people who are receptive to his messaging on immigration might hear it differently than I do.
Perhaps part of my difficulty understanding how someone could resonate with that messaging without being an irredeemable racist stems from it not being based in reality any time there are actual numbers available from law enforcement. Drug couriers are citizens far more often than they are immigrants. Illegal immigrants have a lower crime rate than citizens. Noncitizens attempting to vote is rare and usually results in prosecution. "Open border" means something very different to me, e.g. intra-EU borders than it seems to mean to Trump.
Despite all that, Trump's supporters feel like he's telling them the truth about these issues and everyone who contradicts him is lying. The explanations that come to mind for me are... uncharitable. I'd like to hear alternatives.
He got almost half of the Latino vote, and we are bleeding Latino support. That's not racism. It means there's something else happening.
Further, you'll get no argument from me that they believe lies. But we are seeing record numbers of asylum seekers, many of which are legitimately abusing the system. When we ignore that problem and pretend it's not happening and that it doesn't have acute financial impacts on border communities, we abandon our chance to provide a counterpoint to the lies.
"They're not voting" rings hollow when these folks see reports of arrests for non-citizen voting, and then see this happening. When we pretend these things aren't happening or downplay them, it not only feeds Trump's narratives, it also strips us of our ability to be fact checkers.
The people at the bottom of the economic ladder believe and support him. They are not all irredeemable racists. We need to stop disparaging them as such or we will never get them back.
I think the main thing I can take away from this is I'd be terrible at running a political campaign. I already knew that.
While I can understand how more traditional conservative messages resonate with people, Trump's are outside my Overton window. I can see the mechanics of how it works, and I can empathize with people who feel like the current system is failing them, but not with those who feel like Trump is going to fix it.
I'm disappointed your comments are attracting downvotes. They are on-topic and well-reasoned.
I appreciate your response and understand your conundrum. It's hard to make sense of this because his movement seems so abhorrent sometimes.
Consider for just a moment, though, that the downvotes are proving to you exactly the argument I'm trying to make. I'm squarely on the left and despise Trump, but for years the left has cared more about being "right" and punishing people who disagree in life and online, than about being open to diverse people and opinions.
I really hate to have to echo tired right-wing talking points, but the terminally online left is our single most toxic bloc, and they exert huge amounts of control over what topics and opinions are "allowable" online. You get hammered with downvotes and shouted out of the room any time you even try to consider another perspective, even if you do it politely. I can see how someone looking in from the outside would start to doubt our sincerity in arguing for diversity and tolerance. We're an awfully intolerant lot, all things considered.
They voted for a rapist with a pack of white supremacists. They are irredeemable and they were never going to vote the other way. Thinking you can win them over is insane.
If you want to write off half of the Latino population as irredeemable, then be my guest. Bernie wouldn't, and I hope an acolyte will emerge and follow his example. I'll be right there with them.
Latino has nothing to do with it. They're humans, and a sizeable portion of humanity is just awful. Trump erases morality and makes them proud of their awfulness. You probably believe that all humans are intrinsically good but that's wishful thinking.
I haven’t heard of any republican threat to raise and kill everyone, but a lot are unhinged and I’m sure it happens. But it’s not a central platform of the Republicans, while being condescending of working class men is a central campaign point of the democrats, in fact it was so bad that black and Hispanic men showed up in record numbers to vote for Trump
I mean, no offense but the fact that you haven't heard this just might mean you're deep inside an echo chamber. It's hard to have an exact measure of these thing, but Republican threats and celebrations of violence and sexual assault are at least as central to their party's platform as being opposed to bigotry is to the Democrats party's from where I'm sitting.
And I'm not sure why you think being opposed to bigotry is an attack on working class men. Like, if we want to talk about the working class and poor people, let's talk about the fact that transgender people are more likely than the average American to be living in poverty because of the discrimination they fave.
I will say that's an easy to miss fact because society in general doesn't like to platform working class people because they're not as eloquent or pretty and the Dems tend to behave the same way, so we hear more about wealthy celebrity members of queer communities and other marginalized groups. At the end of the day, tho, if you do really care about the working class you need to care about transphobic discrimination (among all the other kinds of discrimination) too, because it is absolutely a tool the capitalist class wields to keep us divided and oppressed.
You’re right. Americans as a whole are more stupid and racist than was previously thought.
It's true but not for the reasons we may default to believing. That they're just stupid, bad people who hate because they don't know better.
Those are all verbatim quotes from Fox News, redstate, talk radio, the massive ocean of right-wing bullshit that these fuckers dunk themselves in daily.
We're losing to this garbage propaganda because we don't invest in and understand media. As a nation, we don't understand it at all.
It's really that simple.
Resisting garbage propaganda requires effort, and when that garbage propaganda is being sprayed at you through a firehose, not everyone has the resolve required to resist it.
Lies and liars don't have to defend themselves, because the message they send does not depend on being true.
Absolutely true.
No, Trump voters are EXACTLY as stupid and racist as was previously thought... The mistake was thinking anyone was going to change their minds by meeting them in the middle, and thinking they could do so in a short amount of time without understanding how to really use social media propaganda (just bullying everyone while ignoring their legitimate demands was not a good strategy) shows how stupid the Dems are as a party
This is an incredibly important statement. You've perfectly summarized exactly how non-Harris voters felt. The opinions you share in here may or may not be true and the Lemmy population certainly doesn't like hearing it, but this was the thought process that brought trump to office.
Frankly, the way to save America is to attack corporations. Regulate, regulate, regulate, put money back in the hands of the voters. Whoever does this has the vote.
Don't even have to actually do it... Trump sure as hell won't... Just have to say it