3 ms·

If both sides spouts vitriol then you pick the side that doesn't pour it on you, that is the problem described by "one side is 1% less bad than the other". If y

If both sides spouts vitriol then you pick the side that doesn't pour it on you, that is the problem described by "one side is 1% less bad than the other". If you want voters then try to welcome them instead of blame them for all the problems, goes for both sides.

frereubu 2y ago
Sure, but then shouldn't the universal vitriol cancel itself out somehow? Democracts have been on the receiving end of a lot of name-calling too. This doesn't feel like a good enough explanation. It feels much more like the Democrats ignored (or were perceived to have ignored) a lot of substantive issues for a large section of the population.
- Jensson 2y ago
  > Sure, but then shouldn't the universal vitriol cancel itself out somehow? It does, both sides got about the same amount of votes as you can see. > It feels much more like the Democrats ignored (or were perceived to have ignored) a lot of substantive issues for a large section of the population. I don't think so, it doesn't matter how much you try to do for people if you also namecall them at the same time, they will assume you aren't on their side even if your policies are better for them. Vitriol ensures the vote becomes tribal instead of rationally inspecting both sides and picking the better option.
- Wololooo 2y ago
  I realised through hearing through channel 5 and average Americans that they don't really get it. They don't want to think, they want an easy solution to complex problems and anyone coming with a pre made thing is seen as the Messiah. The other part don't care because they saw a lot of screaming and failed to grasp what was so bad about Trump. If he was so bad why was he still nominee? If he was so bad why wasn't he arrested? If he was so bad... You get the picture... This can be seen as the democrats also not understanding the average person and this is where Bernie was actually hitting good points, his message was consistent and he was never demonising Trump on his name but explaining what they could do better by explaining policies in a way that people understood what they would get from them or lose if they didn't get implemented... Of course the issue is a bit more complex, but they exacerbated the people that were unseen instead of helping the healing and some actors of course were way too happy to fan the flames. This is a very bad day that is marking the beginning of a very bad period for everyone...
Dalewyn 2y ago
I think Trump and the Republicans did actually succeed in welcoming in a truly diverse base of new and former voters: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/11/06/us/politics/presidential-election-2024-red-shift.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/11/06/us/politics/p... This is the Red Wave that was promised in 2020 and 2022 but failed to materialize. Why didn't Harris and the Democrats pull it off? Well, they could start by not playing identity politics or calling Americans deplorables, Nazis, and garbage. Godwin's Law was in full swing for them. I'm Japanese-American, demographically I should be a bleeding heart Democrat, but truthfully I can't stand their constant victimizing and divisive rhetoric and is why I voted for Trump and the Republicans in 2016, 2020, and 2024.
- cglace 2y ago
  As someone who pays attention to politics exceptionally closely, I wonder what you would call Trump's rhetoric if not divisive.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    I call it practical, on point, gruff, and charismatic. Practical and on point because Trump talks about things that the common American actually gives a shit about in a way that the common American can understand and relate to. This also has a side effect of uniting people under a common cause despite outward appearances. Gruff because that style of speech appeals to most Americans who don't like being sophisticated, or worse: Being politically correct. Remember that being politically incorrect was one of the reasons Trump won in 2016, and it's still one of the reasons he won again today. Charismatic because, well, I think everyone has to at least admit that the man draws people in despite any and all odds.
    - cglace 2y ago
      So when he calls the other side names and makes threats, he is practical and gruff. His practical message was incoherent; it was more of an erring of grievances, conspiracy theories, and wild policy ideas that he seemed to have come up with while speaking. I can't argue with the fact that it appealed to people, but you can't say it wasn't divisive because it was practical and gruff. Those two things don't rule out divisiveness. BTW, I voted Republican in every election until Trump, and the reason why I didn't vote for him was due to how divisive he was. I think you just happen to agree with his side of the divide.
carlosjobim 2y ago
That is assuming half the country are Democrats and the other half Republicans. But the most important voting block considers themselves to be neither one nor the other, and then it becomes strategy to spit fire at your opponent. And I don't know about other people, but I consider any rhetoric against a political party to be directed against their politicians, not against their voters - unless explicitly stated.
fastball 2y ago
Well the Trump camp was mostly blaming illegal immigrants in this cycle, and illegal immigrants can't vote, so seems like that strategy works ok.

frereubu 2y ago

Sure, but then shouldn't the universal vitriol cancel itself out somehow? Democracts have been on the receiving end of a lot of name-calling too. This doesn't feel like a good enough explanation. It feels much more like the Democrats ignored (or were perceived to have ignored) a lot of substantive issues for a large section of the population.

Jensson 2y ago
> Sure, but then shouldn't the universal vitriol cancel itself out somehow? It does, both sides got about the same amount of votes as you can see. > It feels much more like the Democrats ignored (or were perceived to have ignored) a lot of substantive issues for a large section of the population. I don't think so, it doesn't matter how much you try to do for people if you also namecall them at the same time, they will assume you aren't on their side even if your policies are better for them. Vitriol ensures the vote becomes tribal instead of rationally inspecting both sides and picking the better option.
Wololooo 2y ago
I realised through hearing through channel 5 and average Americans that they don't really get it. They don't want to think, they want an easy solution to complex problems and anyone coming with a pre made thing is seen as the Messiah. The other part don't care because they saw a lot of screaming and failed to grasp what was so bad about Trump. If he was so bad why was he still nominee? If he was so bad why wasn't he arrested? If he was so bad... You get the picture... This can be seen as the democrats also not understanding the average person and this is where Bernie was actually hitting good points, his message was consistent and he was never demonising Trump on his name but explaining what they could do better by explaining policies in a way that people understood what they would get from them or lose if they didn't get implemented... Of course the issue is a bit more complex, but they exacerbated the people that were unseen instead of helping the healing and some actors of course were way too happy to fan the flames. This is a very bad day that is marking the beginning of a very bad period for everyone...

Dalewyn 2y ago

I think Trump and the Republicans did actually succeed in welcoming in a truly diverse base of new and former voters: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/11/06/us/politics/presidential-election-2024-red-shift.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/11/06/us/politics/p... This is the Red Wave that was promised in 2020 and 2022 but failed to materialize. Why didn't Harris and the Democrats pull it off? Well, they could start by not playing identity politics or calling Americans deplorables, Nazis, and garbage. Godwin's Law was in full swing for them. I'm Japanese-American, demographically I should be a bleeding heart Democrat, but truthfully I can't stand their constant victimizing and divisive rhetoric and is why I voted for Trump and the Republicans in 2016, 2020, and 2024.

cglace 2y ago
As someone who pays attention to politics exceptionally closely, I wonder what you would call Trump's rhetoric if not divisive.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  I call it practical, on point, gruff, and charismatic. Practical and on point because Trump talks about things that the common American actually gives a shit about in a way that the common American can understand and relate to. This also has a side effect of uniting people under a common cause despite outward appearances. Gruff because that style of speech appeals to most Americans who don't like being sophisticated, or worse: Being politically correct. Remember that being politically incorrect was one of the reasons Trump won in 2016, and it's still one of the reasons he won again today. Charismatic because, well, I think everyone has to at least admit that the man draws people in despite any and all odds.
  - cglace 2y ago
    So when he calls the other side names and makes threats, he is practical and gruff. His practical message was incoherent; it was more of an erring of grievances, conspiracy theories, and wild policy ideas that he seemed to have come up with while speaking. I can't argue with the fact that it appealed to people, but you can't say it wasn't divisive because it was practical and gruff. Those two things don't rule out divisiveness. BTW, I voted Republican in every election until Trump, and the reason why I didn't vote for him was due to how divisive he was. I think you just happen to agree with his side of the divide.

carlosjobim 2y ago

That is assuming half the country are Democrats and the other half Republicans. But the most important voting block considers themselves to be neither one nor the other, and then it becomes strategy to spit fire at your opponent. And I don't know about other people, but I consider any rhetoric against a political party to be directed against their politicians, not against their voters - unless explicitly stated.

fastball 2y ago

Well the Trump camp was mostly blaming illegal immigrants in this cycle, and illegal immigrants can't vote, so seems like that strategy works ok.