Post-mortem poll: for Republican or against Democrat?
In the UK, my opinion is that political parties tend to lose rather than win. We tolerate one lot until they get so shit that we (or at least swing voters) think "Oh I guess we better have the other lot now." This seems to be a kind of game-theory consequence of the first past the post system which tends to result in two parties. I'm wondering if people think it's similar in the US, in particular the 2024 election. I was going to say 'Trump or Harris' rather than 'Republican or Democrat', and I'm not sure if I chose the prominent choice that US citizens perceived. To make the results more interesting, it would be useful to know the political leaning of the person voting (Republican voters being the more interesting category), but I don't want to ask people that. (Apologies for starting a separate thread, I just wanted to do a poll. Feel free to delete.)
Comments (43)
I think most Trump voters just don't take any of his faults seriously. If seasoned military officers warned that he's a danger to democracy, people ignored it. This is why it was unfortunate that the media exaggerated the small things for the sake of increasing readership. It all became a wall of anti-Trumpism in which significant facts got lost. It all fed into his persona as the victimized underdog.
At my workplace somebody changed the computer backgrounds to a fierce eagle in front of the flag. That's Trump. He seems fierce and proud in a way that Harris does not. I'm guessing some people voted for that. She's coastal. He's central, if you know what I mean.
Trump won on promises. More people are for various reasons dissatisfied with the way things are and where they think they are going and believe Trump will change things for the better. Policy specifics are in short supply. People will find that tariffs are not the magic bullet. When prices increase as a result Trump will place the blame elsewhere.
Exactly!
Quoting frank
While Americans think their own government is the problem and as they hate their "elites", they go all in with populism. If the DNC would be populist, the democratic voters would fall for it just like all the Trump supporters.
I cannot emphasize enough this delusional idea that the biggest evil against the common American is the US government. I really had to listen myself with my own ears in the House of Representatives on Capitol Hill a Republican representative (who I had no idea who was) gave a speech to the empty hall about how a big threat the FBI was to the United States. (This actually happened during the last Trump adminstration in 2019).
I can understand that citizens feel like that their politicians are inept and the government officials can be annoying and bureaucratic, but the intense antipathy towards one's own government is truly exceptional. So exceptional, that it really makes populism an election winner.
This I think has more relevance than is being gave credit for. Not saying it's fundamentally sound or logical, but during a time where there are at least three "hot" international conflicts (soldiers and civilians actively killing or being killed), with several brewing on the back burner, people tend to find more confidence in a boisterous male persona when it comes to their safety and national defense and well-being. Again, not saying it's right, it's just how people largely tend to think, consciously or otherwise. Arguably rooted in biology, which affects the mind more than many care to acknowledge or hold ability to recognize.
If the right told you the only reason you voted for Harris was because you didn't like Trump and because all you wanted was a woman, how might you respond? I think you'd say you voted Democrat because you are Democrat.
A Trump vote was anti-woke, pro police, pro immigration control, pro reduced taxes, pro reduced regulation, pro Israel, pro life, pro drilling for oil, among other things.
Believe it or not, over 50% of the population voted Republican because they are Republican.
Nah. It has to be [insert ad hominem here].
But it's worth remembering that not everyone votes. Historically speaking, voter turnout was high, but less than 2020.
Not policy in the strict sense. More like meta-policy. Specifically the idea that the institutions are corrupt, society is falling apart and thus some kind of radical change is necessary.
But there's no specific policy for how this change is supposed to look. Hence the vote was more anti-democrat, in the sense that it was against the existing political and media elite.
Do you think that's because they don't believe he's as much of a scumbag as the corrupt dems and justice system make him out to be? Or is it because they they don't think his crimes and conduct are particularly relevant - they want someone who will do the right things, not be nice to everyone. Your post suggests perhaps both?
Yes, that's how it seems to me. And promises are policy, even if they are not credible or detailed.
Quoting Hanover
These statements are very interesting, as they suggest that allegiance is to party not policy or personality. I hadn't considered party loyalty (like football team support) as a main cause of voting behaviour, which is dumb of me probably. Party loyalty is perhaps less of a thing in the UK.
@ssu As for DNC populism, what would that look like? I associate populism with right-wing politics typically, but I suppose you could have a left-wing version that encourages victimhood and dependency, blaming employers for everything, blaming ownership of capital for all ills. The trouble is that just doesn't seem like it would be popular!
Oh you're absoutely right about that. I'm asking in the wrong place!
Quoting Hanover
That's really interesting, thank you. Actually I don't think I would. It really never occurs to me to vote according to party loyalty (but I am a UK citizen so that may be why - it might be more tribal in the US). If I were a US citizen, I would have voted tactically for the dems. I don't like the dems on policy grounds, and they are just as pro establishment as Trump and the Republican Party. But the Republicans are even worse. What I would like (in the UK and if I were a US citizen, in the US) is a proportional representation system that means I can vote for a green party, but neither the dems or republicans are going to propose that kind of radical voting reform.
But that's policy, not identity. But then you go on to say people voted because of their identity as republicans. It could be both of course, but you seem to be inconsistent as to which you consider more causal.
Some people think he was subject to politically motivated attacks, some people think he's a scumbag, but that's in keeping their values. Some people just genuinely like his smug, insulting, uncouth persona.
Yes. We're in weird times. I haven't quite put the puzzle pieces together to understand what it means. I've considered the possibility that there's been a lot more lead in the drinking water than anyone realized.
I think you read where I said that people vote Republican because they are Republican to suggest it's just a matter of party identity. There may be some of that, but that's not really what I meant. I meant they are Republican because they believe in Republican ideology.
Just like the reason Christians (for example) go to church. They go because they're Christian, meaning they believe in Christianity, not just because it's their team.
I get how you read what I said as you did, but it's not what I meant.
Left-wing populism exists.
Best example of that in your continent was Hugo Chavez and the politics of Venezuela. It starts from basically dehumanizing your opponents and claim how super powerful these evil people of the elite are. Leftist populism would forget the woke humbug and DEI and simply focus on the working man, the real honest people that "make the true America". It's quite similar to the Trumpist rhetoric (no surprise there), but the politics is of course leftist. And that leftist rhetoric makes Republicans howl.
And that the real purpose: to make Republicans outrage. Outraging your opponent is the key to get the angry people enthusiastic about your cause. Populism nurtures hatred. It's about changing the Overton window in politics.
What has happened is that with the "New Left" thinking so much that all the woke nonsense is important, they've simply forgotten their own base, the workers and the less educated people. That's why the real divide in US policy goes by education. Well educated people still think they can get a good job and the system works for them. But if a blue-collar worker in the rust-belt, the whole system seems to have forgotten you totally. That's the people Trump went for an got.
1) Harris was a crap candidate.
2) Republicans have a more effective propaganda machine.
Thats all this was.
Thanks, no doubt you are right. But what is the upshot of that in terms of the poll?
Thanks for explaining. I think I've only ever really heard right-wing populist rhetoric. (I'm in the UK not S. America).
Quoting ssu
I too perceive a divide on lines of education. However I didn't see it in terms of jobs, I see it in terms of complexity. Non populist discourse tends to be complex and somewhat difficult, and recommends policies that entail change and uncertainty. Well educated people are likely to be more sympathetic to such messaging. Is that just me being a liberal elitist wanker? For the record, I'm not well off and have a low income!
Quoting ssu
Are those people right? If so, how susceptible do you think they would be to more leftist populist rhetoric?
What does that mean? I don't think we have an equivalent in the UK. Presumably you can be a registered republican and still vote dem if you want? Is it like club membership, you pay an annual subscription and get a free sticker, badge and a scarf?
EDIT: Apparently in the UK only about 1.5% of the electorate were members of a political party.
Interestingly this would serve as an argument that Trump is one of the most transformational presidents in recent history.
Yes. In a lot of states you have to be registered with a party to vote in that party's presidential primary. Probably most of the people who chose Trump as the Republican nominee were registered Republicans, so around 30% of eligible voters nominated him.
One assumes registered voters vote their party and they're amazingly close to the same numbers. That means presidential elections come down to independent "swing" voters. A few states known as "purple" states are balanced enough that it doesn't take many votes to push the state one way or the other.
When Biden was elected, it was super close. This time Trump won pretty comfortably. This surprised a lot of us because Harris seemed to be doing pretty well.
Cancer is transformative, but not in a good way.
Apparently he's going to let Elon Musk fix it. This should be interesting.
Be afraid.
Well that's what big pharma says. But they just want to sell you their expensive chemotherapy...
On a more serious note, I do think it's interesting that Trump, a person who so far as I can tell has zero principles and very limited interests beyond his immediate gratification, has ended up at the front of such a change.
During his first term I had assumed the party was going to grudgingly tow the line to get what they could out of his presidency, then dump him when he lost reelection. After J6 I was certain he was finished for about a week, until the dominoes started falling.
Yet here we are, with a GOP that in large parts remade itself in Trumps image. And it somehow worked, too. Is there some deep wisdom in this? It feels like there should be, but that's probably just looking for images in the clouds.
I've said a number of times, and many others also, Trump is a demagogue. See the Wiki entry on same:
Those unhindered by facts start with a tremendous advantage if they succeed in persuading the mob to believe them.
Be afraid? This was a photoshopped joke post on Twitter/X captioned, "Let that sink in." Musk was a [left-leaning independent] just three years ago. Now he has been demonized for political reasons, and many have been taken in by the propaganda.
The first time Musk voted Republican was 2022. (Business Insider) He opposed Trump in 2016 and in 2022. He has given political donations to both sides.
Sure. He just doesn't seem like a particularly good one. His speeches may stoke hatred and fears, but they're also meandering and sloppy.
Putin has the military machismo and an air of quiet danger. Hitler had his ideological zeal and his harangues.
Trump just seems to bring so little to the table. Maybe that's his strength, because it makes him seem genuine? Plenty of strongmen seem to have started out as relative nobodys. Putin was considered mostly a blank page when he was made Yeltsin's heir apparent.
Or am I falling for part of the con by buying the appearance of an unfocused, bumbling fool?
Quoting Leontiskos
Demonised? Hardly. He's deliberately turned himself into a Trump style caricature, picking fights with foreign governments on Twitter, spreading bizarre claims and just generally sounding off on everything and nothing.
He's not being demonised, he's playing the "make the libs mad" strategy at maximum intensity.
He's been doing that for a long time. Why has everything changed all of the sudden?
Quoting Echarmion
He's a devastatingly effective demagogue. After all, he's gone from orchestrating a plot to overthrow Presidential succession, to being re-elected, in four years.
I know. Have you ever listened to Musk himself? There is lots of video interview footage available online. I think he recently did a long interview with Joe Rogan. It's worth taking advantage of an age where we can get it from the horse's mouth, and we don't have to take CNN's word for everything. Musk is eclectic, and has always been. I don't think he has changed much over the years.
I was an admirer until he took over Twitter. I'm still in awe of Space X and its reversible rockets. But he's since said and done a lot of things which have very much undermined that admiration. I'm listening to and reading a great deal of informational content, but I don't plan to add his to my list.
...So that's about 13 hours of unedited Elon Musk over the span of six years, on Rogan's podcast alone. Obviously you're not going to watch all of that, but it's not hard to compare Elon before and after his Twitter acquisition in 2022. It's not hard to get a very clear picture of who Musk is if one wants to do so.
In the US it's difficult to say as it's been a very long time since the US has seen genuinely leftist parties being popular.
The big transformation that has happened both in the UK, USA and in Europe is that the leftist parties (social democrats, labour etc) have been losing their voters to populist movement. This basically shows that they haven't answered to a segment of their voters. For example in the UK you had your own populist movement (Brexit) which was taken up with both a populist party (UKIP) and a wing of the conservative party. In his election win years ago the Brexiteer Boris Johnson admitted that he had gotten traditional labour votes, which just showed this drift. But then the conservatives and Boris fumbled it up and these voters went back to Labour.
Quoting frank
"Weird times" is an indicator that there is a genuine possibility of things getting really worse. I remember a letter written by my great grandfather to his brother in 1916. He had been walking with the local priest and discussed the political situation. The priest couldn't simply understand what collective insanity had taken over people in 1905 where my great grandfather had responded that those times could indeed come back. In two years Finland was in bloody a civil war.
For the educated and informed people the observation of "insanity taking over people" is an alarm bell, the canary in the coal mine dying. That means many people don't think the traditional politics (of the moderates) isn't working and drastic changes are needed.