| |
| ▲ | tomrod 21 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | They absolutely did, because many listen to the absokutely rank propaganda the right puts out and seek no real sources of information. | | |
| ▲ | yepitwas 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If they went in blind, they chose to. Not giving enough of a shit to learn about… in some cases, seemingly anything, doesn’t mean you get to later claim “oh I didn’t want this, how could I have known?” I’ve given a lot of leeway on that stuff over my life, and after this last election, that’s over. Anyone who doesn’t get it at this point has raised stupidity to such an art form that they’ve achieved immorality. That’s aside from the ones who just outright want bad things to happen, which is a lot of people. | | |
| ▲ | raw_anon_1111 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | One of my “friends” on Facebook who is a devout evangelical Christian that I went to school with between elementary school at a private Christian elementary school, a magnet middle school and she was one of the few white people at my majority black high school and even one of the fewer that didn’t segregate herself and made friends with everyone claimed that Charles Kirk was a good Christian and said I was insensitive for quoting his words after his death. I honestly had never heard of him before he was shot and looked up things about him thinking from all of the things said about him by her and other conservatives was that he was a traditional pre 2016 Republican who I might disagree with around the edges. But I could have a beer with him. I then looked up some of the things he said, showed her with links to videos, verified sources etc and she refused to even read the links because they would have forced her to confront her cognitive dissonance. For the record, she isn’t one of the fire breathing conservatives and 99% of her posts are quoting scriptures and family oriented. | | |
| ▲ | Herring 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's actually about tribal belonging. https://bigthink.com/articles/how-tribalism-overrules-reason... | | |
| ▲ | raw_anon_1111 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | I didn’t realize until after social media how a lot of people’s whole lives revolve around the community of the church and how lost they would be without their church community. That’s not by itself meant to be an insult. But I saw it in real time with her. Everything I knew about her as a person was at odds with her support of the current MAGA movement. I thought she would be bemoaning that Republicans didn’t choose another of the candidates last year like Pence who was a traditional religious conservative Christian and she would at least admit that she held her nose and voted for Trump because she thought Kamala was worse. I could have respected that if not agreed with it. I do have a good friend who is slightly on the other side of the aisle than I am. But he doesn’t demonize anyone. He is the good ol’ boy that I could have a beer with. | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | AlecSchueler 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | But they were open about wanting to do this stuff. | | | |
| ▲ | scarface_74 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You didn’t need “sources of information”. Trump was in office for four years before he was re-elected. It’s copium to think that people aré ignorant when in actuality, they are actively hostile to minorities, non straight, the college educated and non Christians. They would rather feel the fallout of Republican policies as long as it doesn’t help or actively hurts people not like them. In my former home state GA, the Republican governor spent years and tens of millions of dollars trying to get the Hyundai plant to GA that would have created 8500 jobs directly and no telling how many indirect jobs. ICE invaded the plant and the opportunity is now lost potentially. The governor still can’t bring himself to criticize the President and the Republicans in GA are cheering the raid. The engineers from Korea were training Americans. | | |
| ▲ | kbrkbr 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think it's rather the choice we are given at this moment in history. But I may be wrong. If you abstract away any other problems and boil it down to environment, health and work protections on the one hand, and restriction of unlimited immigration from countries with very different sets of values no matter the sociological developments that will likely follow you can only choose one. I just tried to summarize what we hear and see from voters in analyses as fairly as I could, not present my own opinion. If that did not work out, let me know. But in this case you choose the one problem that appears bigger or makes you more angry probably. | | |
| ▲ | add-sub-mul-div 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | You're giving something away by suggesting that a balanced framing is: (1) destruction of our world, health, and lower/middle classes vs. (2) brown people bypassing an insane bureaucracy that prevents us from effectively receiving the tired, poor, huddled masses that we explicitly invite on the country's figurative doormat. You can be against the latter, sure, but suggesting these sides are anything close to equal is a choice. Do you think we're stupid here? | | |
| ▲ | Herring 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | I actually think he was telling the truth (from his pov). Conservatives see the world in a very us-vs-them fashion. Makes it very hard for them to even notice nuances like in-group enemies (nevermind actually deal with them). It sounds like an oxymoron. Democrats correctly understand that immigrants are out-group benefactors. But they have blind spots too. We all do. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | DrewADesign 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Absolutely no one who voted for this mess went in blind. I think it depends. I suspect that political messaging has become so tailored that the Mercola/Natural News crowd that voted primarily because of RFK’s anti-vaxxing platform could have been getting so heavily hammered with the “this is the ’chemicals are bad’ administration” messaging that the anti-regulatory stuff seemed pretty quiet in comparison. And I’m pretty sure they also had things they disagreed with Harris about constantly rammed down their throats. I also think that democrat voters had negative things about Trump shoved down their throat, and that messaging difference is probably the main reason many on the right wing are absolutely mystified that people can hate Trump so much, even in spite of the ‘own the libs’ culture war garbage. I have a list of news sources I hit weekly from Dissent and Jacobin to mainstream TV news and newspapers, to Hot Air and Town Hall. Most are pretty politically homogenous, but discuss all sorts of topics. Then I see how laser-focused a relative’s Facebook feed is on topics that are important to her… not just the political platform on a whole, but those specific things. It’s forgivable that she’d think her primary concerns were representative of most people’s primary concerns, and why she’s thinks people that are heavily focused on other topics are kind of weird. | | |
| ▲ | scarface_74 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | The presidential debates were the most watched tv last year beating out football. Trump was in office for four years. No matter how filtered the news is, people knew exactly who Trump was. | | |
| ▲ | DrewADesign 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | And one hundred million more people voted than watched that debate. And of the people that watched it, I’ll bet most people couldn’t name half the topics discussed that weren’t in their list of top voting issues. I’m not saying they were deceived or didn’t have access to the information, I’m saying that the things they didn’t care about were easily drowned out by what they did. That’s how the human brain works. Nobody’s seeking out reasons to dislike someone they’re excited about and being emotionally validated by. Saying someone supports something just because it didn’t stick out enough to kill their support for someone doesn’t make sense. That’s no different than saying anyone that voted for Harris because trans rights were extremely important to them also supports Israel’s massacre. The world just isn’t that black-and-white. | | |
| ▲ | raw_anon_1111 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | We see that Trump is about a cult of personality. They didn’t care about the “issues”. He hates the sane people they hate | | |
| ▲ | DrewADesign 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | For a decade, the mainstream left has painted them like simple-minded maniacs foaming at the mouth driven by blind hate with no valid concerns or perspectives, while also fruitlessly attempting to not challenge them too much in the legislature, assuming that some day they’ll be kind and return our civilized decorum. We’ve simultaneously been marginalizing any populists that bubble up on the left, in a futile attempt to return to the Obama era status quo. We’ve seen where this approach takes us— repealed rights, messed up economy, etc etc etc. Time for mainstream dems to challenge their assumptions. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | daveguy 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Only ~60% of people eligible to vote in 2024 did vote with ~30% of eligible voters voting for the idiotscape we currently have. So, I think OP message was for the folks who didn't vote. Especially given the people against going backwards on environmental protection is a large majority of the population. If everyone voted, we wouldn't be dealing with this. Excluding future success of social media propaganda campaigns. We all need to fucking vote. Otherwise you get folks like Stephen Miller, Elon Musk, Laura Loomer puppetting an orange shell. | | |
| ▲ | raw_anon_1111 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | Because of the electoral college. It didn’t matter who didn’t vote. If 0% more people voted in Mississippi or Alabama and every single eligible voter voted in New York and California, it wouldn’t have mattered. | | |
| ▲ | daveguy 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's some bullshit. If everyone voted the electoral college would be dwarfed across the board. If 50% more people vote the difference won't be in just AL, MS, CA, NY -- it will be across the board. Stop trying to fuck with our elections by discouraging people from voting. | | |
| ▲ | raw_anon_1111 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | Really? Do you not know how the electoral college works? What do you think happens if there was 30% more participation in Blue states? | | |
| ▲ | daveguy 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | If 30% more people vote it won't just be people in "blue states". That's the goddamn point. It'll mean we, as a country, get closer to the things we have 60%+ agreement. You're discouraging voting with failures of logic, Mr 4 Month Raw Anon. "BuT wHaT iF tHeY OnLy vOtE iN bLuE sTaTeS?!" Seriously? ffs, a child could see through you. To everyone else -- remember this. Vote in numbers that can't be eclipsed by nihilist propaganda asshats like this tool. Let's make the margins huge in blue and purple states, miniscule to none in red states. The US can show the world a massive rejection of Trumpism if we all vote. | | |
| ▲ | raw_anon_1111 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | If 30% more voted in Alabama , Mississippi, Texas or Florida, do you think they would have voted democratic? Do you have any evidence that the demographics of people who don’t vote are disproportionate to the people who do in any of those states? If you know anything about American history, despite what Michelle Obama says “this is exactly who this country is” |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | GenerocUsername 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Well then maybe it's time to cut some dead weight from the left platform... Many centrists want clean water and sane society and bathrooms and woke ideology maybe needs to take a back seat in discourse for a while | | |
| ▲ | dawnerd 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | But then you alienate some of the most vocal part of the party and end up like in 2016 where they blame the Bernie bros instead of the dnc leadership. | |
| ▲ | giraffe_lady 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Isn't this what they have been doing? What nationally prominent democrats are vocal proponents of progressive social policies now? I certainly don't remember harris running on any of the things being implied here. > cut some dead weight This "dead weight" is the rights of minorities to participate in public life plain and simple. This is exactly why leftists are so skeptical or even hostile to "centrists." Once you're calculating whose rights you can drop for political convenience you share a lot more ideologically with the far right than with historic liberalism. |
| |
| ▲ | nozzlegear 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Harris lost the popular vote by less than 2%. I know that popular vote is not what gets a president elected, but you make it sound like nobody voted for Harris and the entire American electorate liked Trump's views and voted for him. | | |
| ▲ | vjvjvjvjghv 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's the thing. Trump would be eminently beatable if the democrats bothered running good candidates and had the courage to stand for something. But they are perfectly content collecting tons of money which probably goes to connected "consultants" who then spend 20 million on figuring out how to talk to people. | | |
| ▲ | raw_anon_1111 19 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It all started because Biden didn’t announce he wasn’t running again after the midterms and the Democrats tried to hide that he wasn’t losing his mental faculties. | |
| ▲ | nozzlegear 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think Harris was a good candidate who did stand for something, but she didn't get enough time to run her own campaign :) But I'm not interested in having a "she wasn't pure enough for my brand of politics" debate, I was only pointing out that almost half of those who voted did in fact vote for her – not Trump. | | |
| ▲ | vjvjvjvjghv 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If Harris had been a good candidate she would have gone on different podcasts without hesitation. That’s where the audience is these days. Her TV interviews were so scripted and inauthentic it wasn’t even funny. Despite all these she almost got half of the votes so imagine how a more likeable and authentic candidate would have done. | | |
| ▲ | nozzlegear 4 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I'm personally unconvinced that getting her on Rogan and other manosphere podcasts would've won her the election. It's easy to look back and attribute little misses like skipping an interview with Rogan to her loss, though it lines up with the popular misconception ¹ that young voters voted for Trump over Harris. Instead all signs point to her loss being something as mundane as the economy: > Further, nonvoting Democrats were more than twice as likely as voting Democrats to report feeling the economy is worse now than a year ago (46 percent vs. 22 percent) or that their incomes had recently decreased. And, perhaps not surprisingly given their economic precarity, Democratic nonvoters were substantially more likely than voters to support increased state welfare spending (61 percent vs. 52 percent). These class characteristics show nonvoting Democrats’ economic attitudes in a clearer light. Source: https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/democratic-nonvot... ¹ Have young voters really abandoned the Democrats? https://sites.tufts.edu/cooperativeelectionstudy/2025/04/17/... |
| |
| ▲ | tomrod 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | She was no Obama or Bill Clinton. At best a weak 80s style Democrat. Dan Carlin says it best. Political parties are built to win, and Democrats sometimes forget that. | |
| ▲ | tstrimple 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It’s actually the opposite. Immediately after Kamala got the nod there was an enormous amount of energy surrounding her nomination that she managed to entirely squander. If Kamala had less time as the main candidate she would have done better. She ran a shit campaign and bled support the entire time. I can’t imagine why anyone wasn’t impressed with her promises to maintain the status quo and her ability to campaign with war criminals from the Bush era. |
|
|
|
|
