Trump will win again

Matty said:
Keep in mind, Trump was a Democrat and donated to them until relatively recently.

Bernie Sanders recently commented that the Democrats USED to be the party for workers, implying that the parties have switched.

It seems like the Republicans used to be the party of the wealthy and businessmen. Now it looks a lot more populist, albeit on the more capitalistic end of the spectrum (job creation seems preferred over unionist interests).
Click to expand...
I agree that there has certainly been a shift. The strange part is that even with these radical shifts, by both parties, voting members have remained committed to a party even as it does things that are fundamentally opposed to their core values historically. This calls into question the core values of voters - are they committed to their values or are they committed to winning for the sake of resource allocation. I suspect the answer is a bit of both but the proportion of their commitment is of the utmost importance if we are to improve the state of the nation.

There is no doubt in my mind that corporate special interest has completely overrun both parties with the blue party receiving the largest benefit in recent years. I don’t expect this trend to alter course and I suspect these special interest to continue doing everything possible to achieve their objectives. The primary objective of public corporations is to continually increase profits for stockholders - this has been true even when it violates their responsibility to serving the best interests of the people.
 
TomasM said:
The strange part is that even with these radical shifts, by both parties, voting members have remained committed to a party even as it does things that are fundamentally opposed to their core values historically.
Click to expand...
Evidence suggests otherwise.


Cheers,
Ian
 
aeon said:
Evidence suggests otherwise.


Cheers,
Ian
Click to expand...

"When I started talking about the struggles of young men three or four years ago..."
lmao be me, talking about this twenty years ago.
249633c240803019c32d067fb83eae7e.jpg
 
aeon said:
Evidence suggests otherwise.


Cheers,
Ian
Click to expand...
When I think of historical values by parties, I don’t typically think of people under the age of 30. I say this because I believe these younger groups are still developing their perspectives and opinions. The prefrontal cortex doesn’t even fully develop until 25 so that leaves a small segment and window for this group to formulate who and what they are as people.

When I say historically, I mean people that are older and have context with respect to each party.

Yes, this smaller group (young men) played a significant role in the outcome of this election but we still have states that are mostly committed to party lines.

If a party has fundamentally changed and its members are still committed it draws into question the reasons for that commitment. That young men changed doesn’t surprise me it’s that we didn’t see more parity in older groups based on their values. I would expect to see this in both parties but we appear to be stuck in the swing-state model with quite limited variance. I suspect there was some in this election but not as much as I would have analytically expected.
 
TomasM said:
When I think of historical values by parties, I don’t typically think of people under the age of 30. I say this because I believe these younger groups are still developing their perspectives and opinions. The prefrontal cortex doesn’t even fully develop until 25 so that leaves a small segment and window for this group to formulate who and what they are as people.

When I say historically, I mean people that are older and have context with respect to each party.

Yes, this smaller group (young men) played a significant role in the outcome of this election but we still have states that are mostly committed to party lines.

If a party has fundamentally changed and its members are still committed it draws into question the reasons for that commitment. That young men changed doesn’t surprise me it’s that we didn’t see more parity in older groups based on their values. I would expect to see this in both parties but we appear to be stuck in the swing-state model with quite limited variance. I suspect there was some in this election but not as much as I would have analytically expected.
Click to expand...
If I am understanding you, I think you missed the key point of the video.

The biggest shift was amongst (roughly) Gen-X women.

Cheers,
Ian
 
aeon said:
The biggest shift was amongst (roughly) Gen-X women.
Click to expand...

Tired of their basement dwelling, porn addicted children, no doubt
 
aeon said:
If I am understanding you, I think you missed the key point of the video.

The biggest shift was amongst (roughly) Gen-X women.

Cheers,
Ian
Click to expand...
The video was predominantly about young men and I get that GenX women played a role in the outcome, though it wasn’t likely related to overall party values and was more aligned with specific attributes in this election.

What I was attempting to address was the value(s) shift as it relates to party change. This extends beyond just one election. I was speaking to the comment by Matty on how we’ve seen a change of values and position by both parties yet very little overall adjustment by party members. People are remaining loyal to parties rather than the core values that define them.

The video was interesting and gave insight but it wasn’t really related to what I was saying.
 
When considering a product, on say, Amazon, the number and nature of the reviews reveals the perceptual truth of the product as the number increases. Once you filter shills, bots, and noise, that is.

Elections are similar. Opinions are manifold, with each and every possessing their own view of what the situation is. The n-sample of a voting block brings some real degree of clarity as to what a cohort values and sees as the biggest problem. Of course, you need to look at the demographic data with discernment, prudence, and critical thinking skills.

What is becoming ever more clear is that what was and is important was something the Democratic tent refused to address, much less acknowledge. Furthermore, entrenched thinking in this way means substantive change will be very difficult in the years to come. This recalibration could very well prove to be at the least generational.

Cheers,
Ian
 
Like I said before, the parties themselves are just cults.
They only care about power.
Drumpf keeps winning because elections are just a popularity contest when it comes down to it.
Party lines are an illusion, people mostly all care about the same things but just have different understandings and communication styles.
All that matters to winning is visibility and entertainment value. People are very dumb.
I hardly saw Harris doing anything these past couple months.
She/her camp assumed people were already motivated but humans are also very lazy.
Meanwhile Drumpf is out there being an absolute clown like always.
People will always vote for the big dumb clown.
 
This is what I believe is happening. The US politics positioned itself in the 90's as global (NAFTA) while also deregulating the financial sector as it pertains to consumer and investment banking. This sent both manufacturing and service related sectors overseas and caused a serious problem for people in the US with respect to housing investments (housing bubble and now an even bigger problem).

Now that we are moving away from China and there is pressure on manufacturing domestically there will be a needed commitment to those most heavily involved (the Midwest). Like Matty said, Democrats have historically been different and have shifted towards big money in the financial and big tech sectors whereas historically they have been committed to the working class. This is a big shift, yet now that manufacturing is becoming increasingly important, the Midwest is speaking up about how it feels when it comes to commitment by politicians and the financial sectors. I believe this is the reason why the democrats lost those key swing states in the Midwest. People are starting to see commitment to other countries (Ukraine war, Israel war, China conflict, Big finance moving to emerging markets), and the benefit is to greed rather than the citizens of the country. When we see certain politicians getting rich from what appears to be insider trading while people are getting locked down and have their homes taken (Covid and corporate investment) a backlash with respect to values starts to become a talking point.

Who each party values has changed, yet the overall voting remains predominantly aligned by state. In this election, I believe the working man spoke loudly about how he feels valued and that's why the swing states (especially the Midwest) switched their colors.

I don't see how the democrats can change and fix this without completely redefining who and how they are now. Either they change and embrace the working class, which will be tough since the conservatives have already aligned under that umbrella, or they can continue embracing big tech and finance, which is shrinking with respect to direct employment and overall trust by those outside of core blue states.
 
TomasM said:
I believe the working man spoke loudly about how he feels valued and that's why the swing states (especially the Midwest) switched their colors.
Click to expand...

The "working man" also became the working woman, and I think this is an entirely fair and accurate point

TomasM said:
I don't see how the democrats can change and fix this without completely redefining who and how they are now
Click to expand...

They will change in response to how the republican party changed.
I wish I could say it'd be for the better, but reactionary moves tend to always be toxic in some way.
Politics is caught in a bit of a death spiral in the US as well as other nations, time will tell if/how the cycle will be broken.
Probably mass genocides etc.
 
Will the Democrats listen?

 
Wyote said:
The "working man" also became the working woman, and I think this is an entirely fair and accurate point
Click to expand...

I said, "working man" because men seem to be more involved in manufacturing than women but I don't live in the Midwest so I could be wrong on the proportions. Still, if women are heavily engaged either directly or through members of their families the same ideas apply.
 
Oh for sure, I was being a bit cheeky because you know the whole narrative for the past decade plus has been about placing women in jobs traditionally dominated by men. Women are now more educated than men.
It has become a reality in many ways, and also a single person income is no longer viable for survival.
 
aeon said:
Will the Democrats listen?
Click to expand...

No rofl.
They may eventually accidentally stumble upon some random person that serves as a lightning rod though.
Hmm doesn't that sound familiar 🤔
 
“To create loving men, we must love males. Loving maleness is different from praising and rewarding males for living up to sexist-defined notions of male identity.”

– bell hooks, The Will to Change

-------

Neoliberalism either forgot that, never learned it, or vehemently disagrees with it.

Cheers,
Ian
 
Love you too @aeon
At least part of the time, when you're not being a supremely fabulous unicorn.
I just love you in a different kind of way then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top