Prior to 2020, I usually voted for third parties so I do understand that kind of thinking. The danger Trump represented was not obvious until well after he took office; it seemed early on like congress and institutional norms would restrain him. To swing the popular vote in the 2024 election, almost all of the third party votes would have needed to go to Harris, so I don't think that's sufficient to explain it.

By the end of his first term, the danger was hard to miss, and the attempt to remain in power after losing the election should have cemented it for everyone.

I was unhappy with Biden and Harris. I voted for them in 2020 and 2024 anyway because I understood the alternative.

▲

dpkirchner 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> The danger Trump represented was not obvious until well after he took office

I don't get it, was there anything surprising about him after his inauguration? He sure sounded dangerous on the campaign trail.

	▲	Zak 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The norm in 2016 was that candidates didn't make a serious attempt to do the more outlandish things they talked about in their campaign. When they did, advisers would usually talk them into a saner version of it, or congress wouldn't allow it.

▲

dylan604 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> The danger Trump represented was not obvious until well after he took office;

I just do not understand this sentence at all. The writing was clearly on the wall. All of the Project 2025 conversations told us exactly what was going to happen. People claiming it was not obvious at best were not paying attention at all. For anyone paying attention, it was horrifying see the election results coming in.

	▲	Zak 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Project 2025 did not exist in 2016. We are in agreement about 2024.