Well, I think there IS a point in terms of 'understanding your enemy' and his motivations. But I also think there's a difference between someone who HAS voted for trump, (either this time or last), and someone who describes himself as a 'Trump supporter'. Sometimes people can surprise you and realise their mistake, albeit a bit bloody late of course. But I'd suggest such people are probably not going to go into detail why they voted for him which the people in that thread have, presumably. As you suggest, it's probably in the area of the 'Trump-curious' we'd have more success
The 20 percent is the younger generation influenced by social media and such. I am part of a weekky lunch group with retired black community leaders, former college professors, business guys, politicians and etc. They voted Harris but one admitted his son and friends voted for Trump. He doesn't think his son understands economics, the kid is 20 or so and his son and group of his friends voted Trump. He said even prisoners, he does prison missionary work, felt that Trump was being persecuted like them. But in a family setting the elders yell at him berate him and remind him that Trump and his people would string us all up with no problem. "So you go and be an uncle Tom and vote for that fool but don't come crying to me when it all goes wrong or the racists want to kill you." That is usually how the elders advise, then they share the time white people did something stupid.
That sounds like a great thing to be able to participate in on a weekly basis. If he feels big and bad enough to vote Trump and then attend Black family gatherings, he's a baaaad man for real.
Maybe that message is losing some power and resonance. 10% jump in 4 years is significant. That's with a Black woman running and Obama imploring Black America to vote for her. "A Gallup poll in 2023 showed the proportion of Black adults in the US who consider themselves Democrats had decreased from 77 percent in 2020 to 66 percent. Harris appears to have won 80 percent of the Black vote, according to an exit poll by The Associated Press. But that’s a drop of 10 percentage points compared with 2020 when the current president, Joe Biden, won nine of 10 Black votes." https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024...ck-voters-shifted-towards-trump#ixzz8tgj55Qwz Georgia was critical for Biden in 2020, but this year, that small improvement Trump made with Black voters (1% gain) seems to have made a difference. That extra 1% of Black votes for Harris would've put her over the top there. Wisconsin saw a 13% jump in Black votes for Trump! Hopefully Democrats can win back some of these votes.
The "financial Republicans" as I call them all need to understand that Republicanism has shifted a LOT since the 60s and 70s.
When you think about a 20 year old and that generation they're really understanding things from the most visceral level. Can I afford to pay my bills and then still have my hobbies and vices. If yes then the economy is going great but if it's harder to do those things then the economy is going bad. So then, if you add to that people in your ear that oh we would have more money to spend if we weren't sending it to Ukraine or giving resources away to illegals that are criminals, that makes sense to them because to them they think well if that money was given to me instead of them, my life would be better. You know and I know that that money will just be spent on something else but they don't grasp that because again they don't understand economics and it doesn't benefit the right and it's media apparatus to teach him that.
There's something priceless about going up to a guy who's 6'3, weighed over 250 pounds, playing one of the most demanding positions in football, and calling his brother, who he is close with, a gay slur. A guy who went up against the likes of Ndamukong Suh and Aaron Donald. Lot of people don't appreciate how big or fast these guys are. Suh's an inch taller than me. I've met him. He looked like he could lift me with a pinky. Nor do people appreciate consequences.
I have them all on ignore. But it's kind'a flattering that Russia is even sending trolls to BigSoccer!
I think that's common for most people... that they react to how they feel personally and are unable to see the bigger picture. As to whether a 20 y/o is able to understand economics and specifically political economy... let's be honest, most people don't understand that stuff and that's part of the problem.
I think this comes back to the idea of giving people something to vote for because if you keep going back to them and expecting them to turn out for you, at some point they'll let you down unless you give them something significant. Despite what I've said in this thread, I DO think that what the dems, (and the UK labour party), did for the poor was substantial in many areas. What happened with the public option was emblematic of what I'm talking about... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_health_insurance_option There were various takes on this... https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/02/why-obama-dropped-the-public-option/346546/ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/aug/17/healthcare-obama-public-option-reform https://www.commonwealthfund.org/pu...public-option-woo-lieberman-and-liberals-howl A significant part of what happened there, (where Obama said he would pass a public option before election and then backed off it afterwards), revolve around the question of WHY he, and the other democratic politicians who supported it, didn't try and force democrats who DIDN'T support it, to vote for it. To be clear, I'm not saying they'd have been successful. I'm asking why more effort wasn't made. IOW why they didn't fight, like the republicans would have done, for that cause because the most aggressive attack would have involved attacking on the right of the party of corruption in taking money from the healthcare insurance industry and the problem with that was, they were all taking money from it as well. Or, at least, many ordinary people who are inclined to vote democrat could be excused for thinking that's why they didn't go after them. I think this is the problem. When you want an attack dog to protect your interests, the left often offers up a kitten who's afraid of his own shadow. We look weak and vacillating. Too often we look ineffective.
I thought every town or city had these youth gangs looking for a fight? Not that it was very hard to avoid them, most of the time. Like our HS parties always had like groups of 6-8 guys from one other specific school turn up 100% looking for a fight. Didn't mean we all went to those parties fearing fisticuffs.
apparently the US didn’t have this? I agree you could usually steer clear of it but by the way of example me and my friends alway felt way safer in london that in our home town where getting jumped in the street was always a thing.
your posts tend to overlook that the president has little power over senators in red states who have very different electoral incentives. sure donor interests are in play but Congress isn’t like westminster where the government can just whip its bills through using party discipline.
Those who think the Dems should simply become more connected with the working man need to listen to Longwell's focus group with voters (sanity warrning). Pure insanity. I self ID with JV Last's lament that the American voter is by and large deeply unserious. In his view, the only way to connect with enough of these people, will likely be that the dems get their own populist demagogue to trick them Longwell is more optimistic - that if Dems could find an outsider, perhaps a bit like Obama, who can talk directly with voters, that would work, but the person can't be some technocrat like Kamala (and also they need to probably not be a black woman). Jamelle Bouie and Miller also had an interesting discussion that trump is a perfect avatar for Republicans bizarre coalition of reactionary white people and plutocrats because his image is of a libertine, business guy who shakes things up, and he has surrounded himself with more of these sorts of people like Musk, RFK jr etc. None of this is reality based, but you can see how the "product branding" works for low info voters who consume basically 0 political content.
You Europeans are so violent! Seriously though, try that in the US and somebody’s eventually gonna get shot. Not that I’m in favor of our gun culture, but it does change the calculus of starting shit with people.
Mostly if we are talking HS aged tomfoolery, it broke along school lines. It wasn't at all civilized, including shockingly banal sexism. Like a different misogynistic nickname for the girls, depending on what school they went to. I went to a Catholic HS, most of those are known as "colleges" here and the other school goons referred to the girls at our place as "College Kutten". Literally translated, College Cunts. One regular occurrence would be a group of such knuckleheads showing up at one of our parties and shouting "Where are the College Cunts at!", which was how a lot of those fights began. Like I said, all not very civilized and definitely all very very dumb.
I did have some high school friends in the early ‘90’s who got jumped by a bunch of guys near campus. Totally random thing, didn’t even know them. And then a few years later when my brother was in high school there were battles between the mostly white jocks and the “Asian gangs” (recent Chinese immigrants who took on the affectations of gang culture like baggy pants etc). That had more to do with the cultural shift taking place due to that immigration.