Looking at the data in that link I have two thoughts. First, he is doing far better than he was in his 1st term at the start of October 2017 (roughly -8.0 in 2025 but -15.0 in 2017). Second, I'd be more interested in seeing a poll that asked people who did vote for him? "if you could vote again, would you change your vote?" I'm not so sure they would.
I always doubt you for being hyperbolic and then you end up being right on. I'd still like to believe that some thought it would be funny.
Sara Longwell has a lot of data that these people either wouldn’t vote, or would vote 3rd party, if they had the chance to do it over again. I think a lot of it is just trying to avoid taking responsibility. It was the democrats’ fault. Not theirs. To which I say, bullshit. But that isn’t likely to get these people to vote dem in the future.
There was an interesting bit in the John Favreau podcast which mentioned the factor of people who don't take much, (or any), interest in politics and how it largely passes them by unless they're directly impacted. One thing canvassing has taught me is the staggering lack of knowledge of some people. I've often thought that, with some people, the best we could hope for is them not voting because, if they did, they're just as likely to vote for some damn silly reason.
Thomas Zimmer has an excellent critique of Ezra Klein - but I thought I'd just post this closing of it There is a tone of despair in Ezra Klein’s voice – and that I share wholeheartedly. He is right to be dismayed at the state of the country, at what the continued mass support for Donald Trump says about America. “I have lines that I think should and should not be acceptable, but those lines clearly have no relationship to my country and its politics,” he told Coates. That is certainly true in the sense that there is indeed no consensus over where those lines are and who gets to draw them. There never was. It is true, therefore, that those who think Donald Trump should be beyond the pale cannot claim to be representing “the country” – but neither can the Trumpists. America is deeply divided over exactly that question. There has never been a consensus that the nation should exist as a pluralistic democracy. And right now, those who fundamentally reject that vision are in power. But the reaction to that reality should not be to abandon our democratic commitments in search for unity. https://steady.page/en/democracyamericana/posts/c5d02496-98ac-4eac-a1dd-b8109b3e26c5
The return of the Lavendar Scare seems on track after the events of this week, according to this article. This does seem inevitable now - they are absolutely working to eradicate gay people from public life; they want us back in the closet for now (not to exist will come later). But on a lighter note:
A number of pollsters who were sounding the alarm about hispanic voters for years are reporting the collapse of that coalition only 8 months in
Yeah, if the specter of a second Trump term wasn't enough to get them on board, it's the understatement of the year to say they're unreliable. The far left in this country has been drifting away from (and becoming hostile towards) the center left for at least a good decade, it seems. The left is as divided as ever between those who still think Free Palestine! is the most pressing, salient issue of the day and center left Obama Democrats. It's bizarre, everyone on the left hates Trump but then we've got all this dead weight who won't support our candidate (or they might, begrudgingly, even though the alternative is getting absolutely flattened by a project 2025 train), and here we are, doomed.
Nah, secession. I only half-joke. Trumpers want to eliminate "radical Left Dems" and whoever might fall under that umbrella. We EzraKlein their intentions at our own peril.
I was down there last night, all I saw were kids out enjoying a typical Saturday night, not a solitary protester in sight other than the guy who rode past me (on the sidewalk) on his little motor scooter with a Fvck Trump! sticker on the back. Gov. Gavin Newsom says Trump administration has deployed California National Guard troops to Oregon "This action appears to intentional to circumvent yesterday’s ruling by a federal judge. The facts haven’t changed. There is no need for military intervention in Oregon. There is no insurrection in Portland. No threat to national security. Oregon is our home, not a military target. Oregonians exercising their freedom of speech against unlawful actions by the Trump Administration should do so peacefully." - Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek Newsom says he'll sue to keep Trump from sending California National Guard to Portland - ABC News California Gov. Gavin Newsom said Sunday he'll sue the White House over its efforts to send 300 California National Guard members to Portland after a federal judge on Saturday blocked the president's attempt to federalize and deploy the Oregon National Guard there. In a statement, Newsom called the president's actions "a breathtaking abuse of the law and power." "The Trump Administration is unapologetically attacking the rule of law itself and putting into action their dangerous words -- ignoring court orders and treating judges, even those appointed by the President himself, as political opponents," Newsom said.
It's like I told Kazuma... You're White enough to survive this and young enough (mid 30s at best, if your posts are an indication)to outlive it. It's going to destroy itself, and you can tell your kids you were there to see it.
Yes, full of youth(ful exuberance), that’s me. Hope we all live long enough to see a miracle comeback by the Democrats because it’s going to take that.
The Democrats are indeed guilty of this, but their electorate also shares a part of the blame. Look, here is the ugly truth: in every society, there is a significant number of people who would actually harm their own friends and neighbours in order to please "the big brother" or gain something from it. That number is not small. How big it is? Well, we can use as a starting point the communist experience in Eastern Europe: in East Germany, when the archives opened, it was discovered that around 2 million people cooperated at least occasionally with STASI. That is 12% of the whole population. And they snitched on their relatives, neighbors, friends, coworkers, not on some people they had never heard about. Why on Earth do we assume that in the US the situation would be much different? Vance went on TV and literally asked Americans to rat out their countrymen if they said negative things about Kirk. And many Republicans answered with enthusiasm. Consequence: ACLU of Indiana Files Suit Against Ball State University President for Violating Former Employee’s First Amendment Rights | ACLU of Indiana. Someone expressed some criticism about Kirk on her private Facebook page, and one of her “friends” took a “screenshot of the post, highlighted portions of it, and created an image of the post alongside her employee listing in the Ball State University online staff directory”. This is literally STASI behavior. In addition to the snitches, there are also those who would not go that far themselves, but do not really give a shit if something like that happened to someone else and are perfectly willing to go along with a totalitarian regime as long as they are personally comfortable. In simple words, assholes and selfish ********s and I would estimate there typically are at least 25-30% of them in a society. So what happened in the United States? Republicans like to claim "US is a republic, not a democracy" to cover up their dictatorial tendencies. The problem is that the US has the worst of both options. That is what happened. The US is democratic enough to allow a minority of "deplorables" to take control of one of the two major parties and Republican enough to allow them to use that party to overwhelm the majority and gain political power. These people congregated into the Republican party, where they achieved first a plurality, then a majority and started to impose candidates in their own image. Due to first-past-the-post system, they can pretty much smother those who would prefer other options and, once they have their candidates in place, they basically drag along those who traditionally vote Republican or have some grievances against the Democrats (because first-past-the-post makes it almost impossible for alternative parties can form). So, coming back to the Democrat electorate, there is a large number of people who refuse to believe that the same friendly person you have a barbecue with can also rat you out to the secret police. The idea just does not compute for them and they still cling to the notion that "the American way is that you can abhor what someone else votes for but still respect them as a person". Schumer and Jeffries (and Biden/Garland during their term) are clearly unprepared to go scorched Earth. But how many Democrats are actually prepared to do the same and go scorched Earth in their personal relationships, for instance? There are a lot of persons for whom nothing short of their friends ratting them out to the MAGA police would disabuse them of notion of getting along with supporters of a MAGA autocracy. Have we forgotten the arguments we had in these forums with people who insisted Trump voters are actually nice guys? Is the democrat electorate actually prepared to be a dissident movement? Were they prepared to fall in line during Biden's term to back up drastic measures like expanding the SC or granting statehood to DC or Puerto Rico? How exactly would the Democrats lead the resistance to an authoritarian regime, when many of their supporters long to get along with their MAGA friends once more, like "in the good old days" and back off immediately once Republicans start accusing them of "demonizing conservatives"? It is not impossible, but it would require absolutely exceptional personalities, which, right now, do not exist. It is often said that politicians are a reflection of their voters. Republicans have Trump because that is who they are (at least a majority of them). Well, it could be that Democrats have Schumer and Jeffries because that is who they are as well.
Well I never did. I have no illusions about the number of such people that exist in any society, all over the world.
That was a rhetorical question (and more towards those who still think they can "respect" their friends who cheer or are at best indifferent when Hispanics are thrown in camps)
I don't dismiss everything you're saying, but it's way, way too complicated for what's been happening over the last several decades to get us to this point. Here's the basic dynamic: Over the last several decades, Republicans have proven themselves to be assholes. But assholes get shit done. During the same period, Democrats have proven themselves to be doormats. Doormats just get abused. That's the dichotomy: strong vs weak, active vs passive, potent vs impotent. In 2024, most people wanted a change. Trump was an asshole, but if you elected him, something would change. Meanwhile, the Democrats were wimps. If you elected them, they'd continue to be doormats. That's still the basic dynamic today. The Republicans are assholes. The Democrats are doormats. If you want to get something done because you don't like how things are, most will still prefer electing assholes to doormats.
The problem is that so is their electorate (at least the majority of it). Because "the shit they get done" is the sort that only an asshole would appreciate. And your post does not really conflicts with what I said. If the Democrats were doormats, were their electorate that much different? The leadership of the Democrat party has no stomach to lead an actual resistance campaign. Are the rank-and-file ready to be a part of it? What did the Democrat voters do to pressure for an expansion of the Supreme Court, for instance, four years ago? For instance, if Schumer and Jeffries were to call for a national strike now or a civil disobedience campaign, how many Democrat voters would join? The first step is to recognize at what stage of fascism we are. Are the democrats (and not just the leadership) capable of that and can they accept the personal consequences?