Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
As a latino man, I can tell you all of these economic reasons are just as bullshit as when white men say it's their reason for voting for him.
The reason is Machismo. They view Trump as a strong man who does whatever he wants and gets away with it and there are PLENTY of latino men who are very much in favor of this.
The reason is Machismo.
You can just say misogyny.
No? It's a specific attitude among the latino community that extends beyond just misogyny
I'm Latino too, and I agree. Misogyny is a big part, but machismo also covers a specific cultural, historical and toxic attitude between Hispanic men too.
I agree, in Latino culture they perfer voting for conservative strongment like Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo.
Lol. Latino countries elect women as presidents all the time. The US NEVER votes for women, even when they're running against a disgusting rapist. Looking at the statistics it's always white people stopping women from being elected. But it's the Latino minority who are misogynist?
Wild reach! That's some massive prejudice you've got under the hood there.
Insecurity in their own sexuality can lead to both these things.
Why did Mexico get a woman president? Or Argentina? Or Brazil? Or Nicaragua, or Panama? Chile, Costa Rica and Honduras...? I'm not in saying macho doesn't exist in Latinos, but I'm struggling to understand how these countries could do it...
American culture magnifies it.
Pickup trucks have evolved from work vehicles into powerful status symbols in American culture. While 75% of truck owners rarely or never use them for towing, they purchase these vehicles as symbols of success, masculinity, and lifestyle choice. In urban and suburban areas, professionals spend $70,000+ on trucks as alternatives to luxury cars, particularly in Southern states where they represent wealth and power. The trend continues growing, with trucks now accounting for 20% of U.S. vehicle sales. Despite minimal towing usage, truck owners display the highest vehicle loyalty rate, with nearly 80% choosing another truck when replacing their current one.
Meanwhile China is slowly working towards global dominance in the EV space which we all know is the future.
The American empire is in that stage of decay where the men are actively lying to themselves about their greatness. The whole manosphere (which originated in the US) is based on that premise.
As they feel themselves sliding further and further into the periphery of relevance, they'll elect increasingly fascist leaders to try and reassert their dominance, only to be swindled by those they put into power.
It's all downhill from here.
Maybe the ones that would have stopped it there left their country and came to america?
I'm sorry, I can't stop posting this. If "Did Not Vote" was a candidate, it would have gotten the most electoral votes and won in a landslide:
We can do literally anything: protect the environment, enshrine the rights of women and minorities, hold billionaires and giant corporations accountable, make housing affordable for all, make minimum wage a living wage, etc. The moment we as a country overcome our apathy/despair in enough numbers to make these possible, I'll blame people who voted for "the other guy". Until then, we deserve this...
This is true of almost every election (except maybe one or two). Nobody wins every time.
Sure, but one of the choices usually isn't a full embrace of fascism.
I'm actually kind of surprised there were states that had a plurality for a party.
Tbf, the only votes which matter are in the battle ground states. Electoral college induces the sense of apathy and despair in many instances.
Is it just me or does a lot of this post election coverage seem to seek to divide us further? 🧐
This article is delivered with the intended response from those who didn't want Trump being "man, fucking Latino Men, this is their fault."
It's been weird. Talking about specific groups of people and how they supported trump in surprising numbers. I don't understand the purpose beyond divisiveness.
Whether it's divisive or not really depends on your perspective and reasoning.
"What voters did we fail to capture, and why?" is a very valuable question to be asking. "Who can we blame?" is not. This article would help answer both of these.
What voters did we fail to capture, and why
The problem with this framing is that it excludes certain answers. If you approach the problem as "voters have good faith issues that we can address" you pre-exclude those issues being bigoted, unreasonable, or naive. If the correct answer to "why Latino men moved toward Trump" is because Harris was a woman, then you'll be forever blind to that fact while you focus on trivial justifications like pocketbook issues.
"Harris was a woman" is a conclusion designed to shut down criticism and doom us to failure in a state that is uniquely incapable of electing women. Many of the Latino men who supposedly just won't vote for women come from countries who have elected female leaders without issue. "It's not our fault, misogyny exists" is the answer if you don't want to consider any of the other ways in which Harris and the Democrats have failed, and has no solution other than just adopting misogyny ourselves.
This article is delivered with the intended response from those who didn’t want Trump being “man, fucking Latino Men, this is their fault.” It’s been weird. Talking about specific groups of people and how they supported trump in surprising numbers.
The entire article is 84 sentences. There are only 4 sentences that talk about the election, Biden, or Trump.
I don’t understand the purpose beyond divisiveness.
I'm not seeing divisiveness in the article. I'm seeing a perspective I don't have because I'm not Hispanic. I'm interested in knowing the experiences of others, what challenges they face, what they value, and goals they want to accomplish. This article does quite a bit of those things. These are my fellow Americans and my neighbors. We share society and built it together. We rise together and fall together.
Is it just me or does a lot of this post election coverage seem to seek to divide us further? 🧐
I think you should do some personal examination as to why you see an entire article talking about the needs and wants of a specific group of people with less than 5% of that article mentioning politics/election, and you came away saying this is an article about election divisiveness.
Just like with Reddit: it’s about the headline, not the article content. Same article, different headline? It would be a big stretch to argue it is trying to divide us.
If the data is legitimate, the intelligent conclusion is "how is this group not getting their needs met, such that they choose trump?" "How can this group be understood, such that they can better thier lives without putting others in danger?"
It's Facebook-brained to conclude "fucking Latino men..."
The issue is that these concerns are almost entirely driven by propaganda instead of reality. It is definitely a phenomenon worth digging into IMO.
We all voted for Trump in shocking numbers. Everyone to the online left, including myself, was apparently wrong about everything this election.
Well except one thing: it came down to the economy. I keep forgetting nothing else matters.
Except that the economy is objectively good, and as soon as a Republican is in office all of these people will mysteriously start saying how good the economy is, as if by magic. The entire narrative is bullshit and is an impossible trap Republicans lay for Democrats every election.
Economy is good under Clinton? Elect Bush!
Economy is good under Obama? Elect Trump!
Economy is good under Biden? Elect Trump!
Did you know that in 2008, exit polls showed that 60% of Republicans said that the economy was good? This is the issue. Republicans just strategically lie and unless the economy is literally crashing around us, "the middle" absorbs that narrative by osmosis.
What are Democrats supposed to do? Bidenomics was objectively good. 2M new full time jobs vs 2019. 10% inflation adjusted wage growth. Strong stock market, productive legislation, fought for the student loan promise... And people apparently want them to come out and just disavow all this because Republicans and the media lie about it?
2008? The year of the housing crash? Going to go with no, mate. It was not great. A lot of people hurting, myself included.
Biden did have a good economy. By all accounts he handled the inflation masterfully. Better than most other nations. Doesn't matter because prices skyrocketed and people felt it was handled poorly. All that matters is what they make folks believe.
Republicans just strategically lie and unless the economy is literally crashing around us, "the middle" absorbs that narrative by osmosis.
Exactly this.
Dear readers, for better understanding please read the word "economy" as the phrase "mega yacht money"
I don't think so. I mean I agree with your point that economy normally means rich people, but I think mega yacht money did well under Biden. It's the common people who felt the economy was garbage and voted for a changing of the guard.
Thats one of the things I think was most lost on the Biden/Harris team, even my friends who “did well” on paper under Biden, it was usually unrealized gains while the costs wouldn’t tamper down. What good is a 401k doubling if you can’t sell it, or worse had to sell off with penalties, if all your costs are up and due dates are today. Another, is how home values may have went up, but for most people that just meant things like taxes and insurance went up which is just like a loss if they didn’t own multiple homes.
The problem with this though is that it's often a perception-based thing. The economy can be as good for working people or even better under Democrats and you'll continually get this drumbeat of "yes but per-capita GDP isn't a good measure" and "401ks don't pay the rent" but as soon as a Republican gets into office pundits forget all of this nuance about the "real economy" vs Wall Street and start saying "sure he's doing x y and z bad things, but how's your 401k, bro?".
In reality, the media (including pundits like Joe Rogan and other brocasters) absolutely affects people's perception of the economy, and continues to perpetuate the "GOP = good for economy" and "Democrats = bad for business" narratives every election cycle. This perception is unmovable even in the face of actual data saying the opposite because the American electorate is full of stupid and loves it a simple, easy to digest narrative.
I'd encourage people to continue beating the drum about how the stock market isn't the economy through Trump's term.
I hate when people downplay the economy or employment as trivial or at least not very important. It is important, and for many it is rational to consider it the most important. At an individual level in America, employment means food, shelter, healthcare. It even means companionship... People who can't afford to date, have a harder time finding love.
At a high level, even if we implemented universal healthcare and fixed our other problems, the health of the economy would STILL dictate our access to food, shelter, and healthcare. A government with no funds cannot sustain programs.
Talking about specific groups of people and how they supported trump in surprising numbers. I don’t understand the purpose beyond divisiveness.
Since Obama, the political press spends almost all of their time focusing on how different demographics vote. Democratic campaign people bought this idea that "demographics are destiny" and I remember pundit morons even saying things like it might not be possible for a Republican to ever win again given shifting demographics in the country after 2012.
I don't think people in America necessarily vote this way. Democratic campaigns have too much of a focus group, pseudoscientific approach to electioneering. What's somewhat amusing about it -- or would be if the stakes weren't as high as they are -- is that it is bigoted to think of "demographics" as always voting on the basis of their identities.
Yup, it's generally half baked science. Now, I will concede that age and education represent something, but all groups are at best proxies for what's happening to people. But racial groups have always been pretty bad proxies, especially pan-asian and Latino.
Division is where the money is.
Distraction
they were conned. whatever they're hoping for, they ain't see any of it for at least four years.
How is it a con? Trump has no class. That's exactly what these "hold my beer" voters want and it's what they get. That don't care if he grifts as long as the "elite" are annoyed. But they will ultimately hurt from his policies, so that's when the gymnastics start.
They already got what they were hoping for: owning the libs.
Misogynists and racists are always easily conned, because they're rubes
