Hacker News Reader

Comment by gwbas1c | Hacker News Reader

Sadly, the way people vote is more complicated than you might believe. Trump is the symptom of malfunctioning system that doesn't give people good options in the ballot box.

View on HN

I'll say something controversial: Clinton and Harris were both better options than the guy who started his campaign mocking a reporter's disability. If voters had any sense it should've ended right there.

The rationalizing, the "corrupt DNC" arguments and everything else is a cop-out.

Here's a real controversial opinion: If Clinton had won, the eventual backlash would be much greater and have elected a far more odious figure than Trump. America is lucky that Trump is kind of a bumbling oaf that channeled populist rage.

Maybe the backlash would've been in Congress, through the election of more extreme figures on the right and left.

That kind of normalises Trump, which is totally the wrong thing to do. You should not accept this as fact, nor should you tolerate this current regime. Doing so without protest is the biggest problem you have. Your defeatism is a self fulfilling prophecy.

> You should not accept this as fact, nor should you tolerate this current regime.

Should folks who disagree with you politically tolerate the Obama or Biden regimes then? Or are the only regimes that should be tolerated ones that agree with you politically?

> Or are the only regimes that should be tolerated ones that agree with you politically?

Politics aside, following the law is a bare minimum. Obama, Biden, even Bush (mostly, other than Iraq) did that.

Simplified:

——

GP: “You’re lucky you’re dealing with an incompetent bully. Imagine a competent bully.”

Me: “You should not accept bullying at all.”

You: “what about…”

——

People like you are a huge part of the problem.

Elect competence.

Disagree. Trump has done way more damage than Clinton ever could have. The backlash would’ve been similar to post Obama cuz the racists are also the sexists.

Yes, you are correct, everyone who doesn't like your preferred political candidates is racist and sexist.

That explains how he got almost half the votes on election night, but it does not explain the 1/3 that still to this day support him 100%. There is a pretty substantial underlying problem in play and Trump is the symptom, but the problem is deeper than a malfunctioning political system.

It is almost unheard of in the US for an elected politician to poll lower than 30%, it seems to be a floor. This is for both parties, and all sorts of terrible behavior.

> almost unheard of in the US for an elected politician to poll lower than 30%, it seems to be a floor

Alan Keyes apparently set the floor at 27%, which is not far below 30%

> Obama vs. Alan Keyes. ... Keyes was plainly, obviously, completely crazy. But 27% of the population of Illinois voted for him. They put party identification, personal prejudice, whatever ahead of rational judgement.

https://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2005/10/lunch-discussions-145-...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_Senate_elec...

And lizardman's Constant is 4% https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Lizardman%27s_Constant

To drive that home, Alan Keyes got to 27% by

- running against a charismatic Obama

- being a last minute insert when Jack Ryan was caught in a sex scandal (who was already fighting an uphill battle with sharing a last name with the corrupt former governor)

- being a carpetbagger (he didn't live in Illinois at any point until running for senate)

- running as a hard-line social conservative in a state where the GOP is torn between appealing to suburban Chicago fiscal conservatives and downstate Illinois social conservatives

And also being a person of colour, which is tough in the "hard-line social conservative" lane, where that is often a negative with those voters. Against another person of colour, who could pick up the other voters for whom it is a positive.

And the crazy.

That explains how he got the votes on election night in 2016. A vote for Grump in 2016 was completely understandable. But he should have plainly been a one term president, after his abjectly terrible handling of Covid (for starters, we needed leadership rather than dividership). But unfortunately in our upside-down world, Covid actually handed Grump a big excuse for why his first term was such an exercise in failure. And if there is one thing Grump is good at, it's weaseling responsibility onto others - a quality that his followers greatly admire as it soothes their own consciences as well.

> if there is one thing Grump is good at, it's weaseling responsibility onto others

That is true, I struggle to think of a single time he has taken responsibility for anything. But it works, his supporters actually believe that he is infallible and just can't get competent help. Or it's the deep state. Or something.

As an outsider is see i culture that is based on winning. Not on cooperation. That extends to politics. Were i live we are used to many parties and they must work together to form a working political system. This working together is pervasive throughout the society. This also means that individual idiots are kept in check.

yes! we need ranked choice voting everywhere!

Are you saying there was a worse option than Trump?

Really?

Because unless the alternative option was a diminutive Austrian with a dodgy 'tache, I find that rather hard to believe.

The reality is America voted for Trump (TWICE!) because they wanted him. The rest of the world knows this, and is now acting accordingly.

EDIT: Downvotes coming from the brainwashed MAGA crowd!

I disagree not because "brainwashed MAGA crowd" but because people saying "it can't be worse" are almost always wrong. Unless you're starving in the ruins of your house in one of the world's war zones, in which case you're likely focussed on survival, not saying that.

Pick any of the leader's third-rate third-tier henchmen or failsons for example of a worse option. Don't dismiss it out of hand.

People in the UK voted for Brexit because "well it can't be worse, can it?" They were suckers.

I don't disagree with the "The reality is" line.

>> People in the UK voted for Brexit because "well it can't be worse, can it?" They were suckers.

I don't think that's true it all. They were promised that it would be better and sold pretty obvious lies. Same applies to Trump. Unfortunately the intelligence of the average voter is now at the bottom of the barrel and I wouldn't expect that to improve soon. Just look at the support people like Andrew Tate get among young people.

> don't think that's true it all.

It's not true of them all, but it definitely is true of at least some of them.

I know this because I heard it said in those words in a vox pops interview shortly before the Brexit vote.

> Pick any of the leader's third-rate third-tier henchmen or failsons for example of a worse option

But none of them were on the presidential ballot in 2016, 2020, or 2024.*

*Under one of the two parties that has any chance of actually winning.

Sure, but wait for 2028.

I am not sure why you are being downvoted, because IMHO you are correct.

If Trump was an isolated incident, sure, but he is not. In Europe the far-right and far-left parties are rising in many countries and the traditional parties are crumbling.

I think there is a serious lack of trust in the institutions and in the politicians that is spreading around the world at a quick pace and many people are just fed up with the status-quo that has been in place since the fall of the USSR.

People want change, not small marginal tinkering on the edges, they want to see that things move decisively in one way or the other and they are not afraid to flip the table and see what happens.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com