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
I couldnt care less for the why. If you voted Trump, a third party candidate or not at all you are responsible for the coming fascism you waste of cells
Understanding why something is broken is a crucial prerequisite for fixing it. If you don't care why it didn't work, then you don't care about making it work - you only care about being angry.
But we kind already knew people being stupid was the reason. This doesn't seem to bring anything new to the table.
Just because you refuse to learn anything from this doesn't mean there is nothing to be learned. I, for one, have got one important actionable insight from these replies: they prioritize having a strong president more than having a president that aligns with their values.
Trump radiates strength. You may say it's fake strength, that it's just the aggressiveness of his narcissism, but it doesn't matter - he is perceived as strong, and that's his main weapon, his number one selling point. Look at his his announcements and listen to what his supporters say - the main focus is on depicting him as strong and his opponents as weak. Policies are an afterthought.
Republican voters wanting a strong Republican president is a no-brainer, but the thing that really surprised me is Democrat leaning voters (Democrat enough to vote for AOC, at least) preferring a strong Republican president because he's strong. I find it counterintuitive - if you're going to have to live under the opponent party's rule, shouldn't you prefer a weak president that would be less forceful when implementing these policies that you disagree with?
This insight does shine a new light on some well known points. For example - Biden and Harris received lots of fire for supporting Israel. This always seemed weird to me - wouldn't Trump, if elected, support Israel so much harder? But this new insight make it all make (twisted) sense. If - or, actually, now we can say "when" - Trump as a president will support Israel it will be an act of strength because it aligns with the Republican values he represents. When Biden did it, it was against Democratic values and therefore perceived as weakness - as surrendering to pressure.
Or, more importantly - I keep seeing (mainly here on Lemmy) claims that the Democratic party lost these elections because they did not go left enough. With this new insight, I think the problem is not that they didn't go left enough, but that they didn't go hard enough. It doesn't matter where on the political spectrum you are aiming to be - you should be as forceful and as assertive as possible when going there. This is something Obama had in spades. This is what the Democrats need if they want to win the next elections.
I sincerely hope that Democrats do care.
Like it or not, MAGA can currently take that attitude. They control the SC, both chambers of Congress, and the White House. If they decide to say, "Fsck it. We'll ignore the Demorcrats," they'll still have all the process in place to enact their agenda.
MAGA doesn't need to analyze what went wrong during the election. They got everything they wanted.
For at least the next 2 years, Democrats will be able to do nothing that Republicans don't approve of. The law says that they get to set the standards.
If Democrats want any chance of checking that power or reversing it at the next election, we are the ones who need to adapt.
There's an "ancient Chinese saying", "卧 薪 尝 胆". You don't do it because it's fun or because you obliged to, you do it so you can win next time.
Maybe if the democrats had given 50% of the populace something they considered worth turning up to vote for they wouldn't have stayed at home.
Getting out of bed, going down the street, standing in line, spending 3 minutes casting a ballot; is that a lot to ask of people to safeguard democracy?
Let's be more specific. That's what you need to do in order to protect the oligarchy. The United States is not a democracy; it is an oligarchy. The bottom 90% of the population has zero impact on how they are governed. It has been this way for decades.
This always happens to oligarchies. It happened in Rome, and now it's happened here. The Roman Senate was intransigent, fighting for generations against the most minor of reforms to help the common man. In the end, demagogues came to power promising to help the people by fiat. Of course, most of the time these emperors served only themselves, but even the few crumbs they threw to the people were more than the old oligarchy gave them.
voted
They most certainly did give people something worth turning to. And then stopped talking about it way too soon. Most people simply didil't know much if anything about Harri's campaign promises. The Dems shifted from talking about worker friendly policies to go after the handful of sane GOPers. And lost.
Ah the Highly intellectual argument that liberals use to win over voters... or is it?