| ▲ | cowlevel 2 hours ago |
| Why stop there? Why did voters vote the way they did? |
|
| ▲ | Zigurd 43 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| Nobody was shooting cruise missiles at the Yandex data centers. Seriously if you want to deny influence campaigns affecting US elections using a broad spectrum of influence ops, you also have to believe that advertising and PR doesn't work. It's also not just happening to US elections, perhaps not even primarily to US elections. Brexit, AfD, Orban, etc. were all boosted with a strategic goal in mind. |
|
| ▲ | CalRobert 43 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Tbf trump has lost the popular vote more than he has won it. Voters picked Al Gore too… (and it seems likely that Florida was stolen) |
|
| ▲ | WarmWash 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Populism is historically both popular and destructive. |
| |
| ▲ | breakyerself an hour ago | parent [-] | | I'd argue FDR was a populist. It just depends on what kind of populism and to what end. | | |
| ▲ | cucumber3732842 35 minutes ago | parent [-] | | You don't get modern discontent and populism (and the current president) without the expansive (at the expense of congress and the states) executive branch. You don't get the expansive executive branch without 1930s populists and FDR. Obviously there's a lot more nuance and detail to it (the blame Nixon deserves being of specific note IMO) but the argument is there. So I'd argue that both the means are bad and the end |
|
|
|
| ▲ | Buttons840 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Because people were (and still are) struggling and wanted something to change. Trump was the change candidate. Harris straight up said she wouldn't change anything. The election was a rejection of stability. At least, that's how people in the middle, who decide election results, saw things. We rolled the dice and lost. But things still aren't working very well in society, so we'll roll the dice again. |
| |
| ▲ | Firaxus an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Those are my conclusions as well, though I want to note anyone who paid attention to her campaign rather than getting it second hand or third off of vibes would not have made the claim that she “straight up said she wouldn’t have changed anything”. A lot of voters in the middle aren’t taking the time to understand why things seem to keep not changing (somewhat understandably so, but also unfortunately given the need for an engaged electorate in a healthy democracy). Both parties are being sticks in the mud, but one in particular is doing a lot more to keep change from happening than the other. In the usa we have an overemphasis on the president, but we’ve slow walked ourselves into a dysfunctional congress that just can’t do anything. The point of democracy is to let the best ideas win, and part of that is being able to try those ideas out, and respond when they don’t work. Having a senate with two votes per state regardless of population, that are only replaced a third at a time, with an archaic but also recent rule that effectively requires 60/100 vote to pass almost anything meaningful, is just a recipe for failure. End the filibuster as it is today. If you want a filibuster, force people to talk for it the way it worked for the first ~150 years of our country at least. | | |
| ▲ | cucumber3732842 32 minutes ago | parent [-] | | We should go back to indirect election of senators. Something needs to represent the will of the states as distinct entities. Having some slimy Mitt Romney types doing math about various state industries and interests when wording bills and trading votes would be a huge improvement over the equally slimy jerks we have now scheming up ways to serve their donors (who's interests correlate with the voters even less than the state's despite that bar being low to begin with) while leveraging abortion this guns that wedge issues to get re-elected despite screwing their voters. The distribution of senators to states would also matter less if they weren't direct elected and therefore as beholden to party platforms and funding systems and whatnot. | | |
| ▲ | triceratops 23 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > Something needs to represent the will of the states as distinct entities Why? And why is indirect selection of senators better for that? Won't it just hand power to backroom operators at the state level, instead of the people of the state? | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | jordanb an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | This basically. Change election after change election but nothing changes except the country keeps getting worse and more corrupt. You can see the same thing playing out in Brazil |
|
|
| ▲ | watwut 13 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They hoped the vote will hurt liberals, blue states, trans people and others they hate and dont consider real. But not themselves. They spend years listening to hate and learning to wish to destroy, so they voted for candidate consistent with that. And some simply found Trumpian corruption and abuse to be manly and cool. |
|
| ▲ | Geeek 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | barney54 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Because Joe Biden was too old and shouldn’t have started to run for President again and because Kamala Harris was a bad candidate? Or do you mean something else? You can complain about Trump, but the people had a choice. | | |
| ▲ | Geeek 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Trump is both of the above, too old and a bad candidate - as you can see from the current state of our country. |
| |
| ▲ | felixgallo 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You don't have to assume they're stupid, it's just that they're entirely surrounded by a bubble of increasingly protofascist craziness framed as reasonable opinion. Turn on Fox News sometime, or open Twitter. | | |
| ▲ | Geeek 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | If you allow yourself to live in such a bubble and don't seek alt knowledge, you're stupid. |
|
|
