4 ms·

Can't take this seriously when Trump barely got more votes this time around than he did last time. There has been no loss of young men. People are broadly feeli

Can't take this seriously when Trump barely got more votes this time around than he did last time. There has been no loss of young men. People are broadly feeling disenfranchised, and that's why the Democrats lost. If anything, this is a broad rebuke of liberalism without endorsement of the prevailing alternative.

krapp 2y ago
> If anything, this is a broad rebuke of liberalism without endorsement of the prevailing alternative. I think it was the opposite. If it were a "broad" rebuke of liberalism, Trump would have gotten far more votes than he did. It was if anything a rebuke by Democrats of Harris positioning to the right in order to cater to Conservative swing voters, and not being liberal enough. All she had to do was come out strongly against Israel's genocide in Gaza, but she literally said she agreed entirely with policy, and wanted to include Trump staffers in her cabinet. Except, of course, no one in the Trump camp was ever going to vote for her, so that effort was futile. All she accomplished was alienating her own base.
- bokoharambe 2y ago
  Trump is not the only/real alternative to liberalism even if he was the option that was given. That's why abstention won: no one wants the liberals, but no one sees Trump as different enough from them for him to earn their support.
  - onetokeoverthe 2y ago
    Maybe abstention won in a landslide and a record number did not vote. IE; +51%. We'll never know.
- raxxorraxor 2y ago
  I don't think the "genocide" story is very convincing. On the contrary, it would have signaled that the Democrats lost further ground to rather extremist elements. Also, the conflict came later and the polarization was already present. I think the problem is that this "base" is really seen as the base for Democrats and why quite a few people would never vote for what they stand for.
raxxorraxor 2y ago
Nah, not of liberalism. If anything it is a rejection of idpol, which leans authoritarian. There were bad ideas that weren't allowed to be criticized. I still remember the audience of the Daily Show getting signaled to be "outraged" at ideas like "I don't see color" several years ago around Trumps first term. You might find that naïve or not constructive in certain situations, but their strategy about it was just moronic. And for some it was enough to say, that these bad ideas need to die first before they can vote for liberals again. They had similar bad ideas around the topic of free speech as well. Their loudest voices were unpopular sound bites around how we need more social media authorities and surveillance. All in all their ideas were just bad but reflected the party line. And their popular base was convinced by them. These are just small puzzles that were so pronounced, that they made Trump almost a reasonable choice.

krapp 2y ago

> If anything, this is a broad rebuke of liberalism without endorsement of the prevailing alternative. I think it was the opposite. If it were a "broad" rebuke of liberalism, Trump would have gotten far more votes than he did. It was if anything a rebuke by Democrats of Harris positioning to the right in order to cater to Conservative swing voters, and not being liberal enough. All she had to do was come out strongly against Israel's genocide in Gaza, but she literally said she agreed entirely with policy, and wanted to include Trump staffers in her cabinet. Except, of course, no one in the Trump camp was ever going to vote for her, so that effort was futile. All she accomplished was alienating her own base.

bokoharambe 2y ago
Trump is not the only/real alternative to liberalism even if he was the option that was given. That's why abstention won: no one wants the liberals, but no one sees Trump as different enough from them for him to earn their support.
- onetokeoverthe 2y ago
  Maybe abstention won in a landslide and a record number did not vote. IE; +51%. We'll never know.
raxxorraxor 2y ago
I don't think the "genocide" story is very convincing. On the contrary, it would have signaled that the Democrats lost further ground to rather extremist elements. Also, the conflict came later and the polarization was already present. I think the problem is that this "base" is really seen as the base for Democrats and why quite a few people would never vote for what they stand for.

raxxorraxor 2y ago

Nah, not of liberalism. If anything it is a rejection of idpol, which leans authoritarian. There were bad ideas that weren't allowed to be criticized. I still remember the audience of the Daily Show getting signaled to be "outraged" at ideas like "I don't see color" several years ago around Trumps first term. You might find that naïve or not constructive in certain situations, but their strategy about it was just moronic. And for some it was enough to say, that these bad ideas need to die first before they can vote for liberals again. They had similar bad ideas around the topic of free speech as well. Their loudest voices were unpopular sound bites around how we need more social media authorities and surveillance. All in all their ideas were just bad but reflected the party line. And their popular base was convinced by them. These are just small puzzles that were so pronounced, that they made Trump almost a reasonable choice.