Friendly reminder that this is a hot political topic, which means everyone should be trying their best to assume good faith and approach the conversation with curiosity
this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2025
34 points (94.7% liked)
AskUSA
281 readers
295 users here now
About
Community for asking and answering any question related to the life, the people or anything related to the USA. Non-US people are welcome to provide their perspective! Please keep in mind:
- !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world - politics in our daily lives is inescapable, but please post overtly political things there rather than here
- !flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com - similarly things with the goal of overt agitation have their place, which is there rather than here
Rules
- Be nice or gtfo
- Discussions of overt political or agitation nature belong elsewhere
- Follow the rules of discuss.online
Sister communities
Related communities
- !asklemmy@lemmy.world
- !asklemmy@sh.itjust.works
- !nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
- !showerthoughts@lemmy.world
founded 1 month ago
MODERATORS
Should Kamala Harris have done more to attract the far left vote? Maybe.
But I can say with absolute certainty that she lost more votes than that simply for being a person of color with a vagina.
"far left" whatever. She didn't even try to appeal to the Democratic base.
overton window has been dragged so far rightward its not even visible anymore.
we are just staring at a blank wall.
And non-voters are what allows that to happen. When the only ones participating in any meaningful way are right of center, the Overton window is naturally going to shift to represent them.
Racism and bigotry are the main factor in motivating the conservative base.
Promoting hope and progressive change would be the motivating factor for Dems, but they are also conservative and rug pull most candidates that try to push for progressive change. They let Obama slip through, and there are a few like AOC that don't get squashed, but the party leadership is all about appeasing the 'moderates' while trying and failing to peel away Republican voters.
So racism and bigotry are the biggest factors because they are both used and effective in consistently winning elections.
Edit: Obama didn't lose support for switching to gay marriage. He lost support because people blamed him for not overcoming Republican obstruction.
I know it's an unpopular opinion, but I think we oversubscribe conservative motivation as being racism and bigotry. I think it's a major part for SOME, but across the entire population of people who voted Republican it's AT LEAST not the primary motivating factor.
It's a narrow but important distinction, that I think it's tone.
If you look at the acceleration of wealth accumulation, especially since about 1970 where productivity and wages began to diverge, this has generated significant angst in a lot of people. Where in history you could have a car a house and two kids on a single income, now it's a complete fantasy. Look at how the Simpsons has aged, it's laughably inconceivable now, but it wasn't at the inception of the show.
People have a lot of trouble coming to terms with specifically WHY this has happened, why the "good life" has slipped from our grasp. People are mad, sad... Generally anxious, frustrated... Things, in their mind, are NOT OK. And they're right.
Republicans MEET that tone. Will their policies help at all? No. But they MEET THE TONE. It sounds, when they speak, that they FEEL the way the electorate FEELS.
There is no substance.
So, anyways, I think for most people who voted R, bigotry is something they're willing to accept if the promise is it will result in a better life, but I don't think it's what they crave.
I think just writing it all off as bigotry and racism is convenient, but it's counter-productive. It's a thought terminating statement. It lends no opportunity for the Democratic party to self reflect on what Rs had that they didn't.
They didn't have the protective-angry-dad energy that they crave. The substance of the platform is immaterial to people driven and attracted by emotion. I think MANY people would have voted for a democrat with a non-bigorty platform if they just brought protective-angry-dad vibes.
So, anyways, I think for most people who voted R, bigotry is something they’re willing to accept if the promise is it will result in a better life, but I don’t think it’s what they crave.
I think just writing it all off as bigotry and racism is convenient, but it’s counter-productive.
No, just no.
Republicans blame immigrants and 'DEI hires' as the thing to blame for their voting block's economic woes. Their voters buy that shit up like an all you can eat buffet. They are not 'willing to accept' bigotry and racism, they are justifying their bigotry and racism by letting Republicans blame the people they already hate for their economic woes.
Dems fail because they don't sell their wins and are wet noodles when opposing rising fascism, so people aren't motivated enough to overcome Republican voter suppression. They would absolutely support someone with angry dad vibes just like they supported Obama's solid messaging on hope and change.
No, just no.
You are even saying it yourself:
They blame immigrants and DEI hires FOR THIER ECONOMIC WOES.
Their problem is at the end of your own statement.
Reputation leadership has offered up an easily digestible explanation. It's wrong, but it's an explanation.
If deportations weren't being offered as a solution to economic woes (the underlying problem), then for most people who voted R, they wouldn't care about them.
A desire for a solution to their woes are what they want. Bigotry isn't the goal of the voters, it's just a price they're willing to pay.
Strike this in contrast from Republican LEADERSHIP. Bigotry and racism IS their goal, because their goal is to maintain a culture war to avoid class war.
People who are not (or at least less) racist and bigoted wouldn't fall for Republican 'solutions' that involve deporting immigrants and blaming DEI. They want to believe that immigrants and DEI hires are to blame.
Yeah but they want to believe anything simple will fix their lives.
You can substitute any other simple answer. Trade deficits. A lying body of scientists. That a previous leader somehow betrayed them. It doesn't matter.
Because any substitution fits the bill, that's why I say it isn't about the bigotry. It's about whatever leadership sold them. It just happens to be the case that what was for sale was bigotry. For (most) voters, it's a means to an end, not the end in and of itself.
Don't get me wrong, hardcore bigots exist. Being able to recognize that it isn't useful to ignore that there are differences between those who'll (stupidly) accept bigotry as a solution to an actually existent issue (wealth loss) to those who see bigotry as a goal in and of itself. Recognizing the relative proportions between those two groups is valuable too.
You'll make bad decisions if you're operating with an overly simplified model. This applies to Republican voters grasping for an explanation they can comprehend, as well as to democratic voters trying to understand the reality of the political landscape.
Yeah but they want to believe anything simple will fix their lives.
You can substitute any other simple answer. Trade deficits. A lying body of scientists. That a previous leader somehow betrayed them. It doesn’t matter.
Do you think that Dem's solutions are more complicated?
"Lets spend money on improving infrastructure and accept people who are different" seems pretty simple to me. So did 'let people choose who they want to be' and 'maybe the country that prides itself on immigration should welcome immigrants'. In fact, opposing the thing we brag about seems more complicated to me without the racist justification making it clear that it is about racism, not immigration.
I actually do think the Dem answer is more complex because it doesn't actually provide an explanation to why things are bad. Why could a family in the 70s have a house, car, trips to Disney and 3 kids on a single income, but you can't do that now? Why?
They're burdened by some semblance of responsibility to tell the truth, but the truth is REALLY inconvenient for both parties: both have been complicit in a broad set of neoliberal policy that has led to a concentration of wealth.
Dems, not being able to stomach a bold faced lie, prefer to stay silent. Prefer to NOT reflect on the last 50 years and just say "we'll build more roads". You can shirk your share of responsibility by refusing to honestly review the past.
Was that the problem? Not enough roads and bridges? Is that why I can't afford eggs?
The Republican leadership, however, is completely unburdened by truth.
Why could a family in 1970 blah blah blah... "Because you're paying so much taxes now because immigrants are getting a fortune in welfare"
Yeah. It's WAY more simple. Because it's a lie. It answers the question. It's a fucking lie but it answers the question. The Dems literally don't provide any justification for the current state of affairs.
we had amazing protective-angry-grandad ~~gives~~ vibes in '16 and '20 but that was too "radical" for the democratic powerbrokers and their mega donors .
I have not seen one iota of change in the entrenched democratic party "stalwarts" yet. when the rubber met the road, they had one job to do and have now failed at it twice.
edit to say: I agree with your reasoning here, but the current party makeup is apparently not up to the challenge.
edit: word.
I completely agree.
I think this really serves to illustrate my one sub-point that just writing things off as "racism/bigotry" is detrimental to reforming the democratic party.
As long as people who vote Dem are content to just accept Racism and Bigotry as justification for their own political failures, there is no incentive from the Party to stray from nominating stus quo neo-libs. They still are running as if it's 1993.
I am no expert, but I want to say "partially, yes" but with an asterisk.
It would be much less of a factor if the presidential election was based on popular vote rather than electoral college. Without "swing states", candidates would have to appeal to the masses rather than pandering to a few demographics in the battleground states.
That covers the presidential election, but Congress is another matter
- Rampant gerrymandering
- The House is currently capped at 435 members which limits representation of higher-populated states
- Every state gets two senators regardless of size, and once elected, it's really difficult to unseat an incumbent.
There's also a lot of dark money in politics, but that's a whole other can of worms.
Honestly, this isn't even up for debate. Yes, objectively yes. Anyone who lives in a rural hellhole knows full well that bigotry drives these people more than literally anything else. They would happily suffer if it meant that the people they hate for no reason will suffer more.
My grandma hates Biden for daring to work with a black man, despite the fact that he spent most of his political career as a horrid racist and his pick was literally to appease her and people like her. She's the perfect example of the average Republican, they aren't good people.
Thanks for the insight. I honestly feel like that’s more common than a lot of leftist of MAGAS want to admit.
I'm more worried about lack of good education, lack of integrity in journalism, disinformation in social media.
Democracy depends on people understanding their world, and knowing what's going on around them. Right now, both are deteriorating