| ▲ | burningChrome 6 hours ago |
| >>> Such a shame that so many U.S. citizens do not see the ramifications of their political decisions. Most US Citizens are not voting on what you think they're voting on. Most are worried about things that affect their day-to-day life like cost of eggs, the cost of gas, taxes going up, my 401K going in the dumpster. I live and breathe tech everyday. I see the dangers of it all around me. Day in and day out. You try and talk to people about how dangerous some of this stuff is. Unless people feel it somehow like having their identity stolen and they spend three years trying to fix it all? Nothing will ever change. People are 100% immune to this stuff now. Its the old frog in boiler water analogy. |
|
| ▲ | emsign 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| [flagged] |
|
| ▲ | toomuchtodo 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Well, that's the problem, these people are wildly uneducated and unsophisticated. They are voting their feelings. Prices levels do not come down without a depression, even if inflation slows. Their only solution is wages going up. Do they have a mechanism to push wages up? Taxes must go up, they have been too low for too long and the debt has accumulated (~$38T in US treasuries alone) and will need to be paid back or defaulted on. Insurance costs continue to rise due to rapidly increasing costs of materials and labor, as well as climate change (the US is currently spending ~$1B/year on climate driven events). Growth is over because the US population is not growing (tangentially, total fertility rate is below replacement rate in more than half of countries in the world, and this trend will continue). 401ks predicated on the S&P500 are held up by AI investment (which is outpacing consumer spending, the primary driver of the US economy, over the last year to the tune of ~$400B) and the Mag 7. When this stalls, everyone is going to be sad and not feel as wealthy as they did previously (“wealth effect”). Happiness is reality minus expectations, and the future is not going to be as good as the past, based on available data, evidence, and trends Everything is downstream of that. The vibes might be bad, but they ain't gonna get better. Financial Times: The consumer sentiment puzzle deepens - https://www.ft.com/content/f3edc83f-1fd0-4d65-b773-89bec9043... | https://archive.today/nFlfY - February 3rd, 2026 (some component of price increases has been predatory monopoly gouging covered extensively by Matt Stoller on his newsletter https://www.thebignewsletter.com/, but for our purposes, we can assume this admin isn't going to impair that component of price levels and inflation with regulation for the next 3 years) |
| |
| ▲ | jandrewrogers 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Well, that's the problem, these people are wildly uneducated and unsophisticated. They are voting their feelings. This is what people who "vote their feelings" would assert. Most people think they are "sophisticated" and "educated" on these issues, both Democrats and Republicans. There is ample evidence that this is not the case for either. Politics is completely driven by uncritical "just so" narratives. The people pushing the discourse never check or justify their assumptions with actual data. This is the real issue. | | |
| ▲ | kjreact 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > This is what people who "vote their feelings" would assert. Most people think they are "sophisticated" and "educated" on these issues, both Democrats and Republicans. There is ample evidence that this is not the case for either. Which begs the question: does democracy still work when voters are so easily misled? I don’t believe that the current generation is fundamentally more or less intelligent than the previous ones. Is technology to blame for disseminating misinformation too rapidly for us to cope? | | |
| ▲ | gadflyinyoureye 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | The early American system was never designed to function as a pure democracy. The founders were openly skeptical of direct rule by popular will, fearing volatility, mob psychology, and the tendency for short-term emotional reactions to override long-term stability. Instead, they constructed a layered federal republic intended to filter public opinion through successive levels of deliberation. In the original structure, the public directly elected members of the House of Representatives. This chamber was meant to serve as the immediate voice of the population — responsive, numerous, and frequently subject to elections. It represented popular sentiment but was intentionally balanced by slower, more insulated institutions. The Senate originally functioned as that stabilizing counterweight. Senators were selected by state legislatures rather than direct vote. This meant they were accountable primarily to the governments of sovereign states rather than transient public passions. The Senate therefore protected state interests, ensured continuity of policy, and acted as a brake on sudden shifts in national mood. The 17th Amendment, which later established direct election of senators, fundamentally altered this federal balance by shifting the Senate toward popular representation rather than state representation. The presidency was also designed to be buffered from direct democratic selection. The Electoral College was not merely a ceremonial intermediary. Electors were expected to exercise independent judgment and represent state-level deliberation. The system assumed electors would be politically informed individuals capable of evaluating candidates beyond campaign popularity or mass persuasion. In theory, this created a safeguard against demagogues or candidates elevated purely through public excitement. The vice presidency was structured differently from modern expectations. Originally, the candidate receiving the second highest number of electoral votes became vice president. This design forced cooperation between rival factions and ensured that dissenting political voices remained inside executive governance rather than entirely excluded from power. Although this sometimes created tension, it reflected a belief that competing perspectives strengthened stability. Underlying these mechanisms was a broader philosophy: governance should incorporate public input while filtering it through layers of institutional judgment. The founders feared what they called “tyranny of the majority,” where temporary popular consensus could override minority rights, long-term national interests, or constitutional boundaries. Advocates of restoring earlier structural features often argue that modern reforms unintentionally removed stabilizing mechanisms. They contend that direct election of senators nationalized political incentives, encouraging senators to prioritize national party platforms over state-specific interests. Similarly, modern expectations that presidential electors must follow popular vote outcomes arguably transformed the Electoral College from a deliberative body into a procedural formality. From this viewpoint, reintroducing intermediary decision makers could theoretically slow political volatility, encourage more qualified candidate evaluation, and strengthen federalism by returning power to state governments. However, proponents of such reforms often acknowledge that intermediary systems would require strong transparency, accountability standards, and anti-corruption safeguards. Without those protections, layered elector systems could risk elite capture or reduced public legitimacy. Critics of restoring these structures typically argue that expanded direct voting increased democratic legitimacy, voter participation, and political equality. They often contend that intermediary systems historically enabled exclusion and reduced accountability to the general population. The debate therefore centers on a classic governance tradeoff: stability and deliberation versus direct popular sovereignty. The original American constitutional framework leaned toward stability through representation filters, while modern reforms have leaned toward expanding direct electoral influence. |
| |
| ▲ | toomuchtodo 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > This is what people who "vote their feelings" would assert. Most people think they are "sophisticated" and "educated" on these issues, both Democrats and Republicans. There is ample evidence that this is not the case for either. ~130M American adults have low literacy skills with 54% of people 16-74 below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level. And they vote in some amount. Many may not be functional enough to be self aware about their level of education and sophistication, based on the data. https://www.apmresearchlab.org/10x-adult-literacy https://www.barbarabush.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/BBFou... |
| |
| ▲ | xienze 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
|
|
| ▲ | lotsofpulp 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > Most are worried about things that affect their day-to-day life like cost of eggs, the cost of gas, taxes going up, my 401K going in the dumpster. Are they? It seems to me like they’re worried about things like women having access to too much healthcare, too many non white people, and too many women leaders. They voted for a guy that wants to make the most expensive purchase of most people’s lives even more expensive: https://youtu.be/ToJxd3HBviE Not to mention the enormous tax increases by way of getting rid of the expanded ACA premium credits. |
| |
| ▲ | badc0ffee 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Talk to actual Trump voters and you'll see they support his tariffs and immigration crackdowns because they believe it will lead to economic prosperity and good jobs returning to their community. They believe the current system is fundamentally unfair to them. Even though that's totally backwards, and Trump is just making everything worse, that's what they believe. Framing immigration reform as "racists think there are too many non white people" is what costs Democrats elections. | | |
| ▲ | emsign 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > because they believe it will lead to economic prosperity and good jobs returning to their community. Maybe they say that but it's justification for their racist believes, which they still don't want to talk openly about. It just sounds better when someone invents some "benefits" of it. Like wild claims in an ad is helping the buyer justify their impulse shopping. | | |
| ▲ | badc0ffee 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | 70 million Americans voted for him. His biggest demographic win compared to the last election was non-white men. Immediately dismissing this as racism isn't going to help you understand it, or help the Democrats beat the Republicans. | | |
| ▲ | emsign 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | To the contrary! They were tricked to believe that they were part of society. They aren't. By voting for Trump they reassured themselves that it won't happen to them. Often times racism against the newest group of immigrants coming from the group of immigrants before them is seen by the latter as a rite of passage to be accepted into US society. The Irish used to be in a similar position like the people from South America today. Now they are seen as white but before WWI they weren't seen as white by the WASPs. And it's totally normal for some of the second or third generation immigrants to become racist against new immigrants. Rite of passage. | | |
| ▲ | overfeed 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > The Irish used to be in a similar position like the people from South America today To your earlier point: Boston racism is now legendary (see Celtics fans) | |
| ▲ | JoshTriplett 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's zero-sum thinking, "the pie isn't big enough and can't get bigger and I'm afraid, so I'm going to hurt other people so that I don't get hurt". | | |
| ▲ | emsign 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes. And they still remember where they are coming from and they fear that they might again lose their piece of the pie to the groups that are considered more "American", so they feel the need to prove their place in society by cheering the leader who is preaching that the pie is getting smaller and that someone has to leave the table. This fear is handed down over generations and for some families or communities it transforms into hatred. This mechanism is very often played by amoral populists because it works so well. Many of the most disgusting and radical Democracy hating people in Trumps inner circle are Catholics by the way. Go figure. |
|
| |
| ▲ | starkparker 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Notable and recent: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clym85ev64lo > When one-time Democrat Sam Negron headed to the polls to cast a ballot for Donald Trump in 2024, he did so with one thing on his mind above all - the economy. > "I didn't like paying $7 for eggs," said Negron, a Pennsylvania state constable in the majority-Latino city of Allentown. "But basically it was all his talking points… making the US a strong country again." ... > One poll, from Pew, suggested that 93% of Latinos who cast their votes for Trump rated the economy as their primary issue, with violent crime and immigration trailing far behind. > Data from the new CBS poll shows that a significant majority of Latinos - 61% - disapprove of Trump's handling of the economy, while 69% disapprove of his handling of inflation. The vast majority said they judge the performance of the US economy through prices. | | |
| ▲ | pbhjpbhj 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > When one-time Democrat Sam Negron headed to the polls to cast a ballot for Donald Trump in 2024 Did he just wake up from a coma? |
| |
| ▲ | Ylpertnodi 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The dems are just as corrupt, just wiith a nicer smile.
Eu citizen, here - all politicians are bent.
Anecdata: Anyone who votes for a politician should stfu, stop complaining and live with it. Why should i suffer alone?
Disenfranchised? Not me - idgaf. I just hope the eu gets its act together and actually does something, but it will be difficult; language alone, being one of them, and "my pie", another. |
|
| |
| ▲ | FpUser 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >"They believe the current system is fundamentally unfair to them" Well it fucking is. But thinking that current king can fix it is a lunacy | | |
| ▲ | nxm 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | What was the alternative? More of the previous administration? | | |
| ▲ | emsign 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | People should have spoken up in town hall meetings and protest on the streets years ago. Now it's a bit too late, but better late than never. Americans rather sit on the couch, watch TV or be absorbed by their smartphone than to go out to their representatives and demand accountability. Instead they "shit" on every institution and person who seems to fight for justice and liberty. You get what you deserve guys. You can't vote with your wallet. You have to try to get to those people in power IN PERSON and pressure them. That's the only thing they understand. You know what the most effective instrument of power is? Distance. The rich and powerful distance themselves physically from the people, so the demands, worries, accusations, questions etc can't reach them. | |
| ▲ | FpUser 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Well the one now is definitely worse. Not that I like the one before. Something better is needed | |
| ▲ | unbalancedevh 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The reality in 2024 was that yes, the alternative was more of the previous administration. Maybe that was never a way to whatever ideal solution or policies might be possible in the future. But the only possible benefit of the current administration is that people's eyes get opened to the lunacy that's possible, resulting in a sort of mini-revolution that enacts changes that prevent the collusion and grift that are happening now. The Trump administration doesn't have any real government improvements in mind. They're only play is to destabilize the current status of whatever's in their sights, blame Democrats or whoever else is convenient for the mess, and profit from the confusion. Example: The Republican party has always had financial conservatism as a main goal. When was the last time the national debt or deficit improved under Republican leadership? Another, healthcare: For all of the complaining that Republicans have done about Obamacare, why haven't they replaced it with something better yet since they've had full control of the government? They've shown that they don't actually care about good government. What we got in the current administration wasn't any kind of secret before the 2024 election. People voted for it anyway because they're susceptible to the kinds of misinformation they were being fed. Trump's latest comments on his lack of commitment to peace, the cost of housing, and the well-being of the general population (just to name a few) make it clear that he doesn't consider them important; and Republican's fealty to him show the same of them. |
|
| |
| ▲ | lotsofpulp 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I prefer to live by the adage of actions speak louder than words. I’m capable of lying to present a facade, and I have to assume others are too. | | |
| ▲ | xienze 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | lotsofpulp 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Voting for a traitorous convicted felon is why I can't stand federal level Republican voters. What is the point in changing the messaging when racism and sexism are at the root of the problem? For the record, I abhor my non federal level Democrat leaders, and vote Republican on the state and local level (because they are less crazy than the Democrats at this level). | | |
| ▲ | bigstrat2003 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > What is the point in changing the messaging when racism and sexism are at the root of the problem? Because it is in fact the messaging which is the problem, not racism or sexism. Why on God's green earth would you expect people to vote for a political class that openly hates them, as indeed posters here are kindly demonstrating? I can tell you from personal experience that there are a great many Trump voters who aren't racist or sexist in any way. They are friendly and helpful to all whom they encounter in life. But they believed (rightly or wrongly) that Trump would best represent their interests, so they voted for him. Excoriating them as Bad People (TM) is only going to convince them that they were right to vote for Trump, because they can observe that Trump's opposition hates them. If your goal is to reduce support for Trump (or at this point his successor, since he can't be president again), then your #1 priority should be to work on messaging. It is the messaging of the Democrats that pushed so many people into Trump's arms, and unless that is changed it will do so again. Painting with the broad brush of "they're just racist" is not only intellectually lazy and untrue, it is actively harmful to the Trump opposition's cause. | | |
| ▲ | rootusrootus 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Because it is in fact the messaging which is the problem, not racism or sexism Yes, of course, the reason Republican voters embrace the concept of deplorable is because the Dems are mean to them. That totally makes them noble and not in fact deplorable. > It is the messaging of the Democrats that pushed so many people into Trump's arms He got less than 50% of the vote, if the Dems are pushing so many people to Trump they are doing a crappy job of it. Though I do agree that the Dems suck on messaging, it is not because they villainize Republican voters. It's because they don't focus their efforts on bread-and-button progressive priorities like labor and healthcare. They blew their wad on trans rights, which just isn't a great strategy to move a lot of voters to the polls. | | |
| ▲ | irishcoffee 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Yes, of course, the reason Republican voters embrace the concept of deplorable is because the Dems are mean to them. That totally makes them noble and not in fact deplorable. I don't think anyone ever embraces being called deplorable, that seems like a strange take. If anything, being called deplorable would just make someone dislike the name-caller. Don't take my word for it, this is behavior exhibited by children and adults every day. Or are you twisting up a reference where HRC called the right "a basket of deplorables" ? | | |
| ▲ | rootusrootus 3 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I've got a number of right wing acquaintances, they 100% call themselves deplorable. And yes, in response to Hillary's use of the term. Even though she didn't call everyone on the right a deplorable, this did not stop them from running with it. And they do embrace it. To the point where they say 'dirka dirka' when the topic of our Indian managers comes up (never mind that the original movie reference was about Arabs, but whatever), and making comments about women in positions of authority at the company. That's in addition to the comments about trans people. Hard to say whether that attitude came first or second. And while I can definitely appreciate that nobody wants to be looked down on, there is no requirement that you respond to that by doing that which you are accused of. |
|
| |
| ▲ | irishcoffee 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If the messaging doesn't change there is a ~50% chance JDV wins next, and the joke will be on the whole world. It is absolutely in the best interest of the entire _world_ for the left to figure out the messaging. There was a time right after the election [0] where messaging was being talked about, and it seems that effort tailed off as people got more emotional and angry, which I suppose isn't surprising. [0] https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/22/democrats-woke-lang... |
| |
| ▲ | yakshaving_jgt 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > What is the point in changing the messaging when racism and sexism are at the root of the problem? If your position is that racism and sexism are the root of the problem — which I am not contesting — how wise do you think it was for the Democrats to try running with a black woman? | | | |
| ▲ | Nextgrid 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Voting for a traitorous convicted felon The Epstein revelations show that pretty much everyone that could make it to the ballot list has skeletons in their closet. The only difference is that some of them manage to hide it better than others. | | |
| ▲ | lotsofpulp 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I doubt that, but in reality, Harris was on the ballot, and was squeaky clean relative to her opposition. And there's levels of skeletons, but calling up a governor and asking them to find votes and baselessly casting doubts on elections and endorsing and freeing people who attacked the US government is not on the same level of everyone else's skeletons. |
|
| |
| ▲ | emsign 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The Republican party is openly racist. More than it has ever been in the last 40 years! And you are claiming otherwise. You are actively looking the other way if you dismiss this. It's not normal and why should the Democrats copy the Republicans? So they lose the liberal voters who aren't okay with bigotry and revenge politics? Because no matter what the Democrats say, the MAGA Republicans will always beat them at that, and people will still vote for the OG racists anyway. Your argument is coming up everytime when right-wing populists gain votes, and it's always a fatal trap. Merz in Germany claimed to beat the AfD (who is loved by Bannon and Musk and was loved by Epstein btw, all "wonderful" people), and it failed he barely made it to become chancellor. It also failed in the 90s during the first wave of racism in Germany after re-unification. |
|
|
|
|