They voted for him because 15+ years of government + federal reserve policy has led to massive bubbles in all US capital assets while impoverishing a wide swath of the population. The people who voted for Trump are those who've "lost" in the giant crypto+stock Ponzi scheme.
The reason people on the winning side of this have such a hard time seeing it is that, en masse, they've turned away from any semblance of traditional valuation measures for capital assets. I assume they've done this because it's too emotionally uncomfortable to consider the notion that their entire wealth isn't because they're geniuses but because of deranged government policy.
I personally think it's a culture war thing that caused this. And it is probably going to get worse.
>US Senator Lummis reaffirms Bitcoin will be become a national reserve asset following Trump's victory
That's what a lot of Trump voters believe about people who don't like him. He used to generally have good public opinion (prior to his ascendance in 2015). A lot of people believe that his bad press is primarily due to intentional smear campaigns and lawfare by the powers that be.
In that sense, for many people, a vote for Trump is like apes in /r/stonks buying and holding GME. It's less about what they want in a positive sense, and more about what they don't want: namely extreme leftism and the current ruling class in Washington, the media, billionaires, and everyone else who attended the WEF in Davos -- all the folks who care nothing for the average Joe.
He may not fix it, they may not even expect him to be able to, but voting for him is a way to have a voice. At least he really upsets all those powerful people! And he did get some stuff conservatives liked done in his first term.
To give one specific example, private equity firms have been buying out small local businesses on a massive scale (like veterinary clinics), jacking up the prices, paying the workers less, and giving customers a worse experience.
That's not the sort of thing they perceive Trump to be doing with his riches and power. In fact, I don't see any way Trump is messing with the macroeconomy in his own business practices (do you know of any?).
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/aa383026-ac12-4d39-b6ee-075c2a248...
[2] https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dozens-of-lawsuits-accuse-t...
That's not like Bill Gates buying up 275000 acres of farmland. That's not like World Economic Forum people in Davos scheming to eliminate ownership from common people across the world.
There's such a wide gulf between Trump and these sorts of people.
Besides, the examples you gave would come across as something a legacy media smear campaign dug up and misrepresented.
Just that whatever he did as a businessman, it didn't threaten or negatively affect the entire US economy.
And I say this as someone who did this exact thing in 2016.
They like Trump because he appears anti-establishment and they fear/dislike the establishment. They don't feel the establishment in place is good for them. They truly, truly struggle with finances. Many are in the military and on food stamps. Some are farmers who can't make farming work anymore. They fear immigrants because they might take jobs or bring crime (and drugs). They fear they cannot protect themselves so the want access to guns.
One common thread was the stimulus checks. They really liked the stimulus checks.
Another thing is pining for the good ol' days. Lot of that, too. No issues like pronouns muddying things up.
Generally, not racist, not sexist, but some are, just like any rando person.
Seemed to me just like regular folk who are scared and can't make ends meet like they used to, well, a long time ago. The grocery store prices that are annoying to me are truly a decision point for them.
Then when you take three steps back, and look at it objectively, it's often of their own doing. A lot, I mean a lot, of disparagement of education, even of K-12, so the means to get better employment is more of a struggle. A whole lot of drug and alcohol abuse on top of it. They are the only people I know who smoke. Lot of broken relationships and marriages. Family chaos. The image of solid salt of the earth isn't what my Trumper acquaintances (friends?) are experiencing. They are pretty desperate and really wish there was some way to get back on top of things.
So, in desperation they vote for a person that promises to make it better. And really they don't care about much else. If you want to win elections, do the chicken in every pot line.
This is all anecdotal of course, but I went to the effort, this was seven people, all of whom I'm on good terms with and converse with on a regular basis. And they were respectful of my position - that you need both conservatives (to keep what's good of the old ways) and progressives (to find new ways that are better) in the political arena to make it work. That's not a popular position, though.
I think a huge part of it is also that they feel seen by someone, finally. Trump did a great job of making these people feel like the spotlight was finally on them, and honestly it’s true.
There are of course more than one reason why people voted for him, but there's literally tons of comments in this very thread explaining why with no nonsense and under no uncertain terms.
Ironically, a lot of those comments get flagged and are no longer visible.
And before you jump to the extreme of “but they don’t want me to EXIST!”, that’s not the point. The point is that we temper each other, partially by negotiating, and partially by simply making the “other side” more used to our ideas.
That just happens with repeated exposure. If something is scary, but generally not bad, people can get used to it, but only if they’re exposed to it regularly. You get used to public speaking after the ten thousandth time instead, because you’ve likely already confronted every fear you had in real life by now.
Ironically, this is extremely easy to fix. Politicians can simply get along in public. We’ve got studies showing that political extremism can die almost overnight when the opposing politicians simply explain that they do respect their opponent.
As for the people here explaining themselves clearly - that’s because dang has done a good job of fostering a community of high quality commenters. You won’t find this kind of discourse anywhere else, and it’s the main reason I treasure this site.
Absolutely.
> As for the people here explaining themselves clearly - that’s because dang has done a good job of fostering a community of high quality commenters.
Hard disagree. The level of political discussion on HN is barely a step above r/politics. This is a forum for 110 IQ codecels who think minor domain expertise means they are smarter than everyone else in all aspects.
The contempt for ordinary people in this very thread is nauseating.
Yes. We educate the population for good reason. People _should_ understand that a tariff is a tax imposed on consumers, and if done with reasonable intent it is to prop up a key industry despite the distortionary effects with a particular goal in mind, such as national security, improvement of the populace, etc.
"Bringing back manufacturing" is not a coherent goal, it just sounds like one, because as soon as the tariffs are removed the US is back to offshoring again OR the purchasing power of the dollar is so low that it doesn't matter.
"Establishing manufacturing in key industries" is a completely reasonable goal -- which Biden did (solar, among others).
So once again, the Trump policy set is not actually good policy.
people _should_ understand that a president getting shot at live on television is not a hoax.
Do you really think farming plebs for political gain on social media is going to break for democrats? Really? That feels a bit out of touch to me.
I am not seeing how this tangent is connected to the rest of the conversation. Can you please explain why you thought it related to discussions regarding interviews of random individuals on the street?
> Do you really think farming plebs for political gain on social media is going to break for democrats? Really? That feels a bit out of touch to me.
Are you saying I'm farming plebs for political gain on social media for the democrats? That's weird. I've no association to any political party nor do I care for their political gain. I think political parties are unfortunate and strongly prefer ranked choice voting explicitly to weaken their grip. That said, I do analysis for policy and strategy, so perhaps I should have been more explicit in my recommendation that actual outcomes-focused policy is better for people than vibes-focused word salads (which Trump often espouses as well as most Republicans and Democrats as they attempt to make soundbites) regardless of political affiliation. Please forgive my clear lack of clarity.
A video of a random Trump supporter misunderstanding tarrifs is not a steelman argument against Trump supporters.
In the same way coastal liberals denying the assassination attempt and calling it a hoax is not a steelman argument against liberalism.
Both sides do this but theres a particular brand of "dumb out of touch liberals" that is pervasive on social media.
By way of background and disclosure, I got a PhD in economics at a point in life. This just means I've spent a bit of time thinking about tariffs and impact more than the average person. I understand the "theory" of tariffs and their impact, and the data has mostly supported the stylized facts that people point to for why they aren't good policy.
It's definitely true that tariffs aren't the first thing people think of in the morning (me included), and I consider it reasonable to say it is unfair to most people to expect, without some prompting first, a solid understanding that tariffs are a distortionary tax that the end buyer pays for. Higher tax means higher price. What concerns me is when I see people choosing to willfully ignore even a basic definition of something because of who said it, regardless of political affiliation. I strongly believe we can't operate on different facts, and should work to reduce jargon that confuse understanding.
> a particular brand of "dumb out of touch liberals" that is pervasive on social media.
I agree. I think this is an area where there is a lot of "both sides do this". Elitism is never a unifying attitude, nor are shibboleths generally.
> In the same way coastal liberals denying the assassination attempt and calling it a hoax is not a steelman argument against liberalism.
Yep. What chaos that event was. There are details both sides ignore that I call out only to acknowledge them, not agree with -- the shooter having strong affiliation with one party and weak affiliation with the other, the acknowledgement or ignoring of Trump's prior behavior and actions to influence opinion drawing from his entertainment background in WWE/The Apprentice -- but most of the speculation is crass and downplays the fact that someone tried to shoot a candidate for president. Speculate all you want about conspiracies on either side, it's not something that draws people together nor promotes liberalism.
If nothing else, surely we can empathize with being frustrated for ages and finally feeling seen.
Do they know Trump doesn't see them either - that he just wants their vote and their tax money?
They want cheaper gas prices first and foremost, and I guarantee that'll happen to some extent. Trump will expand drilling in the US, or reduce sales of our exports and divert them to the US, or something to that effect. The price of gas is a huge concern.
They don't want to hear any more about these culture movements they view as ridiculous, or for schools to teach their kids how to feel about $currentSocialMovement, especially when it goes directly against legitimately-held religious beliefs - "I can raise my kids how I want, thanks"-type attitude. This is the kindling for more parental rights political campaigns, which often includes the right to send your kid to whichever school you want.
They don't want to send money to Ukraine. Some know it's a lot of equipment, but it still costs money to send that, and there's an opportunity cost. It sucks what's happening over there, but they worry about being able to afford gas to get to work. They don't really care about what's going on half a world away.
etc. etc.
Plus, the media in general has been pretty aggressive towards Trump. Deserved or not, there's at least an air of truth to it. It's easy to dismiss a lot of concerns from the media. The Hunter Biden laptop thing (I haven't followed this at all) apparently is a big deal and seems to have massively fueled this idea.
I'm not going to reiterate their entire stance, because it probably varies from region to region anyways. Please don't shoot the messenger, I'm not going to argue their points, I'm simply summarizing what I've heard.
Do they know Trump doesn't see them either - that he just wants their vote and their tax money!
I for one cannot. As a libertarian, I've long empathized with the concerns. I share many of the concerns. I've often tried to discuss how I was working to create solutions to their concerns of centralized control in the technology sphere, or that there are actually ways to prevent "GPS satellites tracking their phones" and not just resigned angst. None of it mattered. Because I wasn't just repeating their not-even-wrong talking points, I was othered and ignored regardless.
There is a severe lack of analysis going on in that red tribe, which is why they keep voting for politicians that superficially play to their egos while actually making their situation worse and worse. Trump is nothing new for them - he's from the same vein of looting elites they'll follow until they finally realize they've been had. The main difference is the degree to which Trump openly shits on American institutions and values, and it's a true tragedy for western civilization that four years was not enough for them to see it this time.
To me this seems a pretty clear case of inflation=“punish the incumbent” and also Biden spread out the pain of covid recovery instead of making red states bear the burden. Kamala promised more of the same, including lots of investment into rural and red areas that aren’t gonna vote for her anyway. Result? 10-15 million blue voters stayed home this cycle. Trump turned out his entire base.
Just pontificating…
I've seen these conversations happen thousands of times in political communities online, before you know it, the person trying to understand starts getting angry at some point, and both people are calling each other names. Very few people truly want to understand the other side. If you want to understand the other side, the first step is to listen, and not say anything (don't try to defend your viewpoint, this isn't part of your goal, and it will derail it), ask questions, and agree to disagree politely.
(to a C programmer) "Why are you using C?"
"Because it's memory-safe."
"But it's not memory-safe."
"Yes it is. Your program will just segfault rather than getting hacked."
"No it won't... see these examples of C programs getting hacked without segfaulting."
"You're using it wrong. See look, if you write with spaces instead of tabs, your program is memory-safe."
Do you remember "MongoDB is web scale"? Would you not get angry when trying to find good reasons to use MongoDB? That's what it's like talking to the average Trump supporter, except it's about the removal of human rights instead of just which database you should use.
Hell, I'm not even from America and I saw it comming from a mile away. Calling half of their country "nazis" and "fascist" was the worst campaign move I have ever seen in my life.
> "lib woketards"
but i agree with you that alienating more than half of the country was a move so stupid that only the establishment democrats could pull it off.
Which is why people voted Trump and why I called them "lib woketards", because I don't care about being popular or winning anyone's approval, but presidential candidates do, which is why it's so stupid how dems alienated a large part of their voter base like that and still thought they could win.
Very disappointing to be honest.
It's clear from the message what the grandparent post opinion is, there's no need for understanding the right, the conclusion is there already and it's that the right wing voters are:
> uneducated and poor
This narrative about the right voters has been there since at least the nineties, only for the left to wonder why dialogue dried up.
Then the left drops the ball on big ticket issues, and people move more and more to the right, while fringe right positions become normalized.
Oh well, if it weren't for those pesky uneducated voters!
When I ask folks why those things don't matter, I either get "what about So-and-so," or "I don't believe that," or they just blow off the question without an answer. I even went to the Ask a Conservative sub on Reddit and asked why people think millions of noncitizens are voting in elections, and I got yelled at, called naive, and told that some local municipalities allow non-citizen votes in local elections so therefore they can vote federally too.
That said, I'd LOVE to know why none of the things Trump says or does dissuades his voters. Truly, because I really do not understand. I don't want to argue, or to try to convince you you're wrong, I would love to know why those things don't matter and you think Trump is a force for good.
Have you considered the possibility his supporters know something you don't? A lot of what you mentioned is either debunked or is fraught with misinformation
I'm dead serious and 100% sincere: Please show me the evidence. I REALLY want to see it. I don't believe people, I believe data. I don't even believe MYSELF without data.
I live in Georgia, I heard the tape with Trump and Raffensperger, but if you have evidence that call is somehow not true, please share it.
I heard Trump say he has "a concept of a plan" on Healthcare 8 years after he told me he already had a plan. If he's got an ACA replacement, I'd love to see it. I don't understand why it has to be repealed before it can be replaced, usually we just pass new laws that supersede the old one, but whatever, I'll look at whatever you have.
I don't think you can provide evidence that he doesn't complain about everything he doesn't like, every rally comes with a list of grievances. But again, if you have evidence, I'll look at it with an open mind.
And even if you don't have evidence for those things, show me what evidence you DO have, I'll be happy to examine it. I even looked at the stuff Mike Lindell released. I'll always look at evidence, but I just can't do the whole "do your own research" thing any more.
> Have you considered the possibility his supporters know something you don't?
They literally considered that, it's a main point of the post you're replying to, they got answers that lacked actual details or hinged on hyperbole.
> A lot of what you mentioned is either debunked or is fraught with misinformation
See what I mean? "A lot" meaning what number of things? Either debunked or is fraught with misinformation? What does that even mean? Which things? Jan 6 is "debunked" or "fraught with misinformation" or both? Trump didn't release his health care plan, Trump called GA to find votes, Trump constantly complained about rigged elections. Those are sincere and unarguable facts. What are you speaking about in rebuttal?
I appreciate that someone actually read my post. I'm not happy to say that's the usual reply I get from Trumpers, just an angry "you're wrong" and no discussion. I'm out of ideas on how to get them to engage in a conversation. I hate arguing. I really, really just want to understand their point of view but I just get yelled at.
And I'm NOT trying to denigrate anyone with that statement, it just feels like there's so much anger between Americans that it's hard to get someone to believe I'm sincere when I don't agree with them. It seems to immediately cause them to shut down and go into anger mode rather than just explaining to me why they feel I'm wrong.
He's got them convinced that people who disagree can't be trusted, and it fucking *hurts*.
Why do you believe this?
By contrast when Biden calls me garbage, I'm pretty sure he means it.
He's not, though. A lot of Trump voters were shocked when he really tried to repeal the ACA. Marketplace did a piece on it, visiting Erie county PA after the repeal efforts. You shouldn't assume he's BSing, as he's tried to do just about everything he said he would. I can't imagine voting for someone and thinking, "Oh, he'll never do the things he says he will."
I found it helpful to go directly to commentators on the right for deeper analysis. The average Trump voter generally has a hard time articulating specific reasons. Same is true on the left. Not to say they don't have valid reasons for their votes, but it's difficult for most people to remove the emotion online and clearly articulate substantive reasons.
This really requires a much longer essay. I found it helpful to set aside the impulse to immediately say "yes, but Trump did the same thing but worse." For the sake of brevity, the below focuses on the Democrat's mistakes which I believe were the ultimate root issue.
The summary of my analysis so far:
Trump rose to political fame in 2008 off the ridiculous "birther" claims against Obama. The left saw his success and has been trying (and failing) to beat him at this new media race to the bottom game. The Democratic party has strayed way too far from the center over the past few years. Kamala was the most progressive (far left) Democrat candidate in the history of the US. She ran a short campaign with many critical mistakes.
Because Kamala never clearly articulated her plan for the country, this left a lot of undecided Americans feeling like she was being controlled by the Democrat leaders and potentially hiding plans for overly unpopular (by majority) progressive policies. Specifically the plan to tax unrealized capital gains. She also made many of the same mistakes of Hillary Clinton's campaign assuming white women and black males would vote for her because of identity politics instead of winning them over on her policies. The right and center voters are extremely tired of being talked down to and lumped into identity politics.
In the end, Trump's campaign did a better job swinging back to the center while Harris's campaign left a lot of open questions on the table. This is a well documented mistake in American election political history. It almost always costs the win in a close election. Perception is everything. An ultimately the critical mass votes on policies and plans (whether real or perceived) vs character.
Why did Trump supporters ignore his atrocious behavior? They didn't, at least not completely. Mostly, the left's insane tactics of trying to equate Trump to Hitler using out of context sound bites backfired. There was a tremendous amount of social media activity on the right countering every one of these attacks using the source material from Trump's speeches. It made the left and mainstream media untrustworthy. All Trump had to do was pull back from using the same tactics (which the right uses just as much as the left) a couple months ahead of the election. This allowed the left to dig their own grave with undecided voters. Notice Trump stopped (or substantially reduced) using nicknames and personal attacks on Kamala many weeks ago.
Given that the right and most of the center lost all trust in mainstream media, it made it easier for people to rationalize. "Yes, Trump is morally bankrupt, but we had 4 pretty good years under his previous presidency. So I'll vote on the issues and not character."
And issues for most Americans always comes back to economy and taxes.
The short of it: Democrats lost the election more than Trump won.
Here are some videos that dive deeper into the analysis.
Piers Morgan - see Cenk Uygur's (Democrat) critique of the left. He's been highly critical of the way Democrats are playing politics for many years.
https://youtu.be/mIDLJnKesQM?si=tQu_H_JMqSLFVTNb&t=263
Konstatin Kisin - 10 reasons Trump won - simplified explanation for non-US citizens.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlFTLhei7J8
Winston Marshal - ignore the "libtard" and gloating; Winston has been ruthlessly attacked by the left for years and this video is not his normal tone; pay attention to the examples of where the left used Trump soundbites out of context to try to paint him as the next Hitler
https://youtu.be/d254zOhdEA8?si=F9WQV0f1xGlZEkqw&t=85
Kevin O'leary on Fox News - talks about why small business owners voted for Trump due to fears Kamala would tax unrealized capital gains
Where it breaks down for me is when you move into the plan for fixing those problems. You can't just reduce the funding of government institutions and assume there's some motive to re-optimize for efficiency. That might work to some degree in the business world where there's a profit motive, but on the public side of things the people that are abusing the system for personal gain aren't going to optimize to provide services more efficiently. They're more likely to optimize for more personal gain as the expectation of failing institutions becomes normalized.
Eventually, I think you end up with government services and institutions that are even less efficient per dollar spent because the solution for trying to improve them doesn't seem to have any plans for accountability. So I think people are voting to effectively de-fund government services and institutions with the misguided promise of reduced tax burden and increased efficiency, but what they're going to get is equal spending, less services, and more people benefiting personally from the shift in policy, especially if services start using more private sector vendors.
For example, some of our education funding in Canada has been cut massively due to the perception of waste, which is true to a point when you look at administrative bloat, but the cuts always impact the front-line people providing services and miss the administrative layer where the waste is occurring. That makes the ratio of waste even higher and people are left wondering why nothing works.
I might be wrong, but I think all you're going to do with a broad mandate to "gut everything" is to create an opportunity for self-interested parties to usurp government funding for personal gain when the goal should be to increase accountability and efficiency.
Loosely related, a massive problem we have in Canada is that front-line workers have been completely eliminated from the decision making process. Everyone I know can look at things done in their workplace and identify mistakes and inefficiencies that are the result of administration that lacks real world experience. For example, they built a prison in the city where I live where they put (sewer) drains inside the cells. Every single prison guard that you'd ask would tell you that's a mistake because the prisoners can plug them and flood the cells. That's the result of arrogant administration thinking they know everything.
My last point is also part of the reason I think people voted for Trump. I wouldn't because I don't think his solutions are going to improve anything, but a lot of people believe the system is broken because they personally see mismanagement on a daily basis and it's done by the people getting paid the most.
So I get why the messaging is appealing, but I don't understand why people think some of the proposed solutions are going to work. Maybe someone can explain to me how having Musk "do what he did at Twitter" to public institutions is going to provide better services to the public.
I really couldn't find much reason. So many Trump supports were just interested in "salt mining" from Harris supporters. The few issues I could find were
- he'll fix inflation/the economy (he absolutely won't)
- he'll mass deport immigrants (not a sympathetic reasoning for me. Also mass deportations are expensive; see the above point)
- Racist remarks about Harris (that's not even worth talking about)
- "This is a response to identity politics" (to put it in the least racist/Sexist/transphobic way).
- Oddly enough, nothing on Gun control. Maybe I didn't look hard enough.
So there's maybe 2 legitimate reaosns (no matter how misguided I feel about them) and a lot of hate. And then dismissals of any worries from opponents. It was honestly tiring how many "but Trump doesn't support Project 2025" I've heard.
The most legitmate dismissals of Harris came from "she wasn't voted in". Which yes, I actually do agree with and did not support at all. But we're well past the point where general elections are "pick the least bad candidate". Some issues about Israel, but I'm not going to pretend that wasn't always a bipartisan issue up top and that both sides in government are walking on eggshells about that issue.
-----
So yeah, my experience trying to find some truth below the ocean of feelings came down to "There's nothing inspiring about trump except that he didn't fuck up like Harris". There's no platform, just chaos and hate.
Maybe there are some smart conservatives offline that have actual legitimate points, but I don't have access to that and I suspect many of their arguments are simply economical (they want tax cuts for them and will vote that way. Selfish, but a very honest and reasonable point in an individualistic society).
I'd love to hear otherwise, but I'm not convinced HN will be much different from the dozen other platforms I checked. It seems to be all "vibes". vibes in weird ways and very dangerous ways.
Dems almost exclusively Lord over academia as something so valuable that the people that do jobs that keep the lights on, water running, and the floors steady are tired of hearing how much knowledge they lack. They say this in the same breath as they accuse republicans of keeping the sacred university knowledge from trades workers
That's one article that seemed a good summary, but there are a half dozen different things that could be cited as ways Biden has supported unions.
I can state the Infrastructure bill and the CHIPS act from the last 2 years giving more job opportunities.
In that sense, you have to have some pretence about why you disagree. You mentioned it was something along the lines of people thinking about a 'mighty dollar', but that seems conflationary.
Saying it's a nonsensical vote in a two party race is a bit off.
In other words: culture wars.
https://ohss.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2024-06/2024_0418_o...
If Trump follows through on his promises, the US will be in bad shape.
Might be a good learning experience for the Red states.
One huge issue in the US politics is that the Red states are largely insulated from the consequences of their decisions by the Federal budget transfers. Nearly all deep Red states are net receivers of the Federal funds, especially when Medicare/SS are taken into account.
All that culture war nonsense, CHIPS act, and so on do not make any tangible difference for a voter in Alabama. All these amount to peanuts compared with the overall Federal spending.
Trump is poised to seriously change this.
There's been plenty of opportunities to learn, facts don't matter apparently.
Nothing since that time has really affected the Red states fiscally.
Couldn't a Trump administration rework the distribution of funds so that states that voted for him got even more money, and states that didn't got none?
Hitler got entrenched in power because his economic policies _worked_ in 1930-s. They were broadly Keynesian: state spending to stimulate infrastructure (for the military) and manufacturing (also mostly military). This led to economic growth that people really felt in their wallets: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Economic_development...
And so it resulted in a huge upswing in Nazi support, enabling Hitler to stay in power. People really _loved_ him.
This doesn't work all that well backwards. If peoples' lives keep getting materially worse, it's hard to keep blaming it on "the others".
Ultimately, I think Trump won because a lot of key independent voters cast votes against the Democrats. It's a referendum on the way Democrats have been running campaigns for the past 20 years. See 2016 Democrat Primaries [1] where Hillary Clinton's campaign pulled some shady deals to get Bernie Sanders out of the race. Hopefully, we'll get a legitimate 3rd party one of these days to properly give a referendum on both leading parties. Doubtful, but one still has to dream.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_Party_presiden...
While there is still more nuance to it than that, there is still truth. In the UK, one of Rupert Murdoch’s papers The Sun likes to boast about their political influence on voters. “It’s The Sun what won it.” This is a bare faced statement that The Sun basically decides on their candidate of choice and voters go with that.
So it is when you depend on a so-called free press to give you the facts in nice, bite-sized form.
Edit: In fact, some say she lost the election because of her performance directly in front of the news media on TV and whatnot.
There was also the difficulty for her campaign that she was not voted for in a primary, just picked.
I've no idea whether this was from the ownership class pulling strings to cut any real objective criticism of ZIRP corporate welfare, democrats uninterested in economics being blind to the fact that inflation actually has concrete causes, or from the writers having their brains steeped in things like racism-everywhere orthodoxy and thinking that referencing those narratives makes for a neutral objective article. But regardless of why, with friends like those...
[1] https://apnews.com/article/cheney-gonzales-harris-endorsemen...
As for the left and Democrats, the shift is equally noticeable in public perception. But instead of the sentiment being "oorah let's go to war for American glory" it's instead being heavily influenced by emotional appeals. This was most evident in Democrats support of the Russia / Ukraine war on social media. Once the leaders of the Democrat party, including President Biden, saw the overwhelming public support, they implemented policies that ultimately led to the expansion of the war. Refer to Anthony Bilken's visit to Kyiv during early peace talks. And again, I'm not making a claim as to who's right or wrong. Just trying to provide some context on how public perception is being leveraged and manipulated on both sides.
So long as the war in the middle east or Ukraine does not involve US soldiers on the ground, Trump can finance or equip one of the side - for the average voter in the US, there is no "war".
Maybe the the young men in the US were more concerned about the war in Russia escalating to a conflict that would involve US soldiers on the ground.
We know how Trump will behave with Putin (he will offer half of Ukraine on a plate in exchange for pinky promises.)
We can suspect that Trump will not move a finger when those promises are broken and the Baltics are invaded.
What is still a mystery is how Trump will deal with Iran - here, there is no clear policy that will please both Israël and Russia, so someone will have to give.
It's one thing to speculate that this is what would have happened, call it one's "gut feeling" or "character read" or even "reasoned speculation", and leave it go at that.
But to be "absolutely certain" about a pure hypothetical like this (concerning a war that dumb and irrational for Putin to start, in any case) seems, well -- quite strange.
It's also unlikely, given that one of the key drivers for Putin's decision to launch the full-scale invasion was likely (not proven of course, but by any analysis it does seem highly likely) Trump's isolation stance in Afghanistan, and blatant backstabbing of the local Afghan government. This surely emboldened Putin, convincing him that a new era of disdain for interventionism had take hold on the US side -- and that he could most likely go in and have his way with Ukraine, with no significant consequences of any kind.
And Israel invades Gaza every year, under every president. It's just that in 2023, someone decided they had the propaganda power to make it seem like a new thing and that it was Biden's fault.
Did Biden "start" the Israel-Hamas war? Or even do anything to conceivably precipitate it?
Since the answer is "no" -- why does this count as a war "started under Biden"?
That's mainly because Trump is a Russian asset and it's in Putin's best interests to manipulate the US to yield and capitulate to his demands to betray allies. So under the bullshit excuse of being isolationist and pro-peace, you'll see Trump ultimately ensure Ukraine ceases to exist, NATO is dismantled, and war ravages through eastern and western Europe.
Trump likes to win. I have a feeling he wants to "win" over Putin. The man is shallow, it isn't rocket science.
Isn’t it possible that the educated elite are incorrectly perceiving what is in the interests of the “uneducated and poor”?
Perhaps it’s possible they have a different utility function and set of preferences than the elites perceive?
It’s aways funny when the left who claim to “save democracy” go from 0-60 in a split second toward totalitarianism when they have decided the masses simply aren’t educated enough and don’t know what they need.
As a final point, since this is HN, would you mind sharing some examples of what Trump has done or policies he has that are “against their own interests”?
Didn't fill existing positions for monitoring pandemic diseases arising in China that were put in place by Bush then strengthened by Obama, allowing for a slower response to what would become covid[1].
Huge corporate tax cuts that lead to stock buy backs, which enriched the wealthy while doing little to nothing below (buying stocks back and raising stock value generally does not help the average/low income individual beyond maybe their 401k).[2]
[1]https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/06/how-whi...
[2] For just the tax information later, there are plenty of articles about stock buybacks at that time if you don't trust the org. https://itep.org/one-legacy-of-the-trump-tax-law-big-tax-bre...
https://www.kansascityfed.org/research/economic-bulletin/ris...
https://www.cbpp.org/research/immigrants-contribute-greatly-...
https://www.bushcenter.org/catalyst/north-american-century/b...
I am not saying I endorse either thing, just answering your "not possible" claim. Most things are possible, few things are not.
Lowering taxes especially payroll and corporate and overtime taxes has a massive benefit to them. Lower income tax rates are actually very high once it’s understood that any tax or regulatory cost that is a head tax is a tax on them - “employer taxes” is a fairy tale economically, all taxes are on the employees if they aren’t paid if you are fired, if they are still paid then they are on investors/shareholders/capital and those are also negative for growth and employment.
Ending forever wars will allow shifting of budget priorities. A reduction of just 10-15% of defense and intelligence budgets and cutting funding to Israel and Ukraine can pay for childcare for every child in the US easily.
The list goes on …
Better question is what policies did Harris propose that help the uneducated and poor?
If that was really the case how come you just elected the very same guy who killed the border deal?
> Ending forever wars will allow shifting of budget priorities. A reduction of just 10-15% of defense and intelligence budgets and cutting funding to Israel and Ukraine can pay for childcare for every child in the US easily.
There is no "funding to Israel and Ukraine". For Ukraine there's transfer of outdated weapon systems reaching the end of life and already obsolete, which in turn is creating jobs in the US to restock and replenish the US's arsenal. If anything, you're seeing money go into the US defense industry which ends up being the US's take on welfare and social security program with all the pork programs.
Whoever fooled you into believing people are handing over cash to Ukraine, fooled you very well.
You should inform yourself about the bipartisan border bill that Trump killed at the last moment. The "amnesty" thing only exists as a propaganda talking point. The bill tightened up requirements for asylum and imposed automatic deportation rules.
There isn't. Go read the bill.
Hell, the bill was co-authored by republicans, and even approved by some republicans after Trump told them to sit.
Who falls for this bullshit talking point?
In any event, I'm not saying I agree with trump that the bill should have been squashed. It just had a lot of provisions and exceptions that one could take umbrage with, if read impartially, which right now probably is a bit too tricky for half the country.
I didn't vote for the guy, I don't like the guy. I find it to be a fascinating mental exercise to hold two opposing ideas in my head without accepting or denying either. I think someone smart said that once, long time ago.
Emotion clouds judgement.
It can also pay for unicorns and rainbows, what makes you believe "paying for childcare" has ever been a part of Trump/Republican agenda?
We don't need to cut foreign military aid to fund childcare in the US. Reforming entitlements would get us there with more leeway and without ripping the rug out from under our allies.
Lowering taxes is a good thing, and that's about the only area you would find me in agreement upon.
I'll give a policy example against the average person's interests -- his 20% tarrifs across the board will cause approximately 20% inflation and a trade war that will ruin our export markets just like it did the first time. Trump brags about giving billions to farmers because he had to after his policies decimated their markets.
Regarding tariffs this is a complex issue and he has said repeatedly that it’s a negotiation tool. The records reflects that in he expanded US overseas market access with heavy handed negotiations. Most countries are much more protectionist than the US.
Industrial farming with massive soybean exports to China, who can’t even produce 50% of the calories their population needs domestically, is again a very complicated topic.
China is not in good shape and Trump’s first term was a clear inflection point in their trajectory.
So you believe it had nothing to do with a global pandemic and propping up their real estate markets until they popped?
The US president has limited authority to unilaterally implement tariffs. He would have to claim national security concerns or retaliation to unfair trade practices from other countries. Trump previously imposed tariffs on China due to (well documenented) unfair trade practices. Biden then extended the China tariffs. But Trump would be legally challenged and most certainly lose if he claimed unfair trade practices by every country on earth.
Here's a good video explaining the problems with tariffs. They have lots of unpredictable long term outcomes and are hard to remove once implemented. Apparently there's still a chicken and truck tax on trade between US and Europe that dates back to WWII.
And you claim the democrats didn't push class divide by basically deriding and ignoring a huge part of the American population that supports Trump or might vote for him? Note that he made massive gains with latinos and even with the frican American community. That says a lot about who felt which party was ignoring them and pushing its own sort of class divide with rhetoric that didn0t take many of the things these people really give a damn about into account.
Pray tell too, what exactly are the specific interests you think they voted against? And how were the democrats addressing them?
After such a high popular vote in his favor, saying in effect that he won only because those who voted for him are a bunch of ignorant fools is exactly the sort of foolish tendency that made his opponents lose.
I think it's really that simple in a lot of cases. There are of course many other layers and nuances, but I think trying to dig into the specific policies, rhetoric, and character of each candidate can miss the forest for the trees.
I could be wrong but I don't think 72 million people went out and voted for Trump because they carefully compared both candidates and decided that they preferred Trump on all of the key issues, or because they like or approve of Trump as a person, character, or candidate.
In fact his approval and favorability polling is still below 50%.
People held their nose or stuck their head in the sand on the parts of him they find unfavorable, and pressed the button for "change things" because they don't like how things are currently going, real or perceived.
Just like they did in 2020 when they felt like things weren't going well and voted to switch things up.
People who follow politics a lot more know that "let's try the other guy" comes along with a lot of other baggage and issues and policy, but that's a lot to think about and try to parse through in a world full of people yelling opinions, and I think a lot of people just look past them.
Maybe it won't be a snakes ate my face moment. Trump is hardly an unknown. People voted for 2016-2020. That's what they want. No snark needed
Almost every single Harris ad I saw was about how groceries and housing was too expensive. Two of the 3 pillars of her campaign were about price-gouging on staple goods and increasing access to home purchase. How was the issue not acknowledged?
As someone who leans quite left (and voted 3rd party in a deep-blue state), I can completely understand why many traditional Democratic voters didn't turn out (and why many Republicans despise the Democrats enough to presumably vote against their interests as you pose).
The largest issue for me is that I cannot support genocide. The "I'm speaking" (to protesters) was repulsive. The culture of "if you don't get on board it's your fault if democracy dies" attitude of the Democratic party was just as fascist sounding to my ears as anything they claimed the Republicans have in store for the future. I personally can't fathom how any person that aligns with my view of the world would basically take the stance of "genocide doesn't matter, toe the line". For me personally, two parties that aggressively support continue apartheid conditions and genocide are both against my interest so profoundly that where they differ on issues is irrelevant.
Furthermore the Democratic party has increasingly come to represent a very anti-democratic institution. Biden was promised us as a one-term president to get things patched over while new leadership was established. Then the fact that he was clearly increasingly incompetent was hidden until it was embarrassingly too late. But oddly, it was not too late for a primary, where Democrats could choose a candidate, but we didn't get that. And yet, when mentioning any issues with the mass murder of children you are told to "shut up and get in line".
Finally, Biden didn't deliver on any of the meaningful promises he made. Nothing happened to improve abortion issues while he was president, his track record on climate was just as meaningless and awful as any Republican, children still sat in US detention centers separated from their parents, corporate interests still take precedence over the rights of workers just as much as with any Republican.
While I am nervous about another Trump term, I fail to see how the world was so much brighter under Biden. The Democrats have become the party of "shut up and do as we say because we know better" with no objective improvements in the issues I care about when they are in office, which is impossible for me to get behind.
The idea that one particular party is owed my alliance no matter what atrocities they support is fundamentally authoritarian which in-itself is a principle I do not abide by.
Given your logic, all is permissible so long as we have one party we can point to and say "they're worse". Which is what leads to as situations where both parties continually move away from the interest of the people. I have far more respect for people who deny there is a genocide, as opposed to those that see it and actively choose to ignore it.
Also what is "would be"? Harris and Biden have been presiding over and supporting the current genocide. I have a hard time imagining it being truly worse during a Trump administration. At the very least mainstream Democrats can allow themselves to oppose genocide now that it no longer interferes with the aims of their party.
It continues to boggle my mind that liberal Democratic will endorse and support genocide without a moment's hesitation or reflection.
Trump's encouragement to 'let Israel finish the job' seems worse.
In a way it's like a significant number of Americans feel the same way. The people who elected Trump, then Biden, then Trump again.