Not the same electorates. 2024 voters have been subjected to 8 years of Trump and Trump's supporters misogyny and racism. It's been normalized in a way it hadn't been before, at least among the voting population.
Not the same electorates. 2024 voters have been subjected to 8 years of Trump and Trump's supporters misogyny and racism. It's been normalized in a way it hadn't been before, at least among the voting population.
1. The electorates of 2012, 2016, and 2024 are exactly the same?
2. There is no effect from 9 years of Trumpism on the tone of our politics?
3. There were a lot of low-information voters who voted this time who didn't vote in other elections and may have motivations that differed from earlier electorates?
his previous post as interpreted by me(perhaps I misunderstood); is that racism and misogyny is the reason for Trump winning; I contend pocketbook issues always are the most important and that folks who were racist or misogynist voted for Trump in all 3 elections (including his landslide loss)didn't change the outcome in 2024 one bit
The entire thread is about how there was a disconnect between the facts about the economy (including the decline in inflation) and the vibes voters, especially low-propensity voters, felt about it. Racism and misogyny exist, and some amount of voters (doesn't have to be a lot, since margins were small) probably felt that a white man who cosplays as wealthy is more likely to manage the economy to their liking. What I was focusing on was not so much the hard-core Trump voters who voted for him all 3 times, but the voters who came out just to vote for him, this time, especially those who left the rest of the ballot blank.
and that's the nonsense part; those voters didn't change the outcome because of misogyny and racism; they changed the outcome because of 'perceived' inflation (or maybe I just am not understanding your point?); your latest post does explain more of your views
The only way we can get to your understanding of the election is a) assume there is no way voters were swayed by racism or sexism, or 2) assume that if any were, they didn't constitute enough of a factor to make a difference in a small margin election. The first supposition is ridiculous, and the second is clearly untrue to anyone who can see through racially coded language ("Trump understands people like me").
you have a reading comprehension problem apparently; you don't get to frame my post to suit your so-called arguments; I didn't post anything close to what you claim; needless to say, I think you are wrong about almost every single point; CheersЁЯН╗
I think the second assumption sums up your position pretty well, frankly. I think it's wrong, but I think it gets at your point ("those voters didn't change the outcome because of misogyny and racism"="if any were [sexist and/or racist], they didn't constitute enough of a factor to make a difference in a small margin election").
The idea that the only thing that motivated people was the price of eggs is woefully naive, and even the notion that people's ideas about who was best suited to bring down the price of eggs was not shrouded, for some, in sexism and racism is incorrect.
Not the same electorates. 2024 voters have been subjected to 8 years of Trump and Trump's supporters misogyny and racism. It's been normalized in a way it hadn't been before, at least among the voting population.
Nonsense
What part is "nonsense"?
1. The electorates of 2012, 2016, and 2024 are exactly the same?
2. There is no effect from 9 years of Trumpism on the tone of our politics?
3. There were a lot of low-information voters who voted this time who didn't vote in other elections and may have motivations that differed from earlier electorates?
simple; your entire post
Why do you think he's wrong?
his previous post as interpreted by me(perhaps I misunderstood); is that racism and misogyny is the reason for Trump winning; I contend pocketbook issues always are the most important and that folks who were racist or misogynist voted for Trump in all 3 elections (including his landslide loss)didn't change the outcome in 2024 one bit
The entire thread is about how there was a disconnect between the facts about the economy (including the decline in inflation) and the vibes voters, especially low-propensity voters, felt about it. Racism and misogyny exist, and some amount of voters (doesn't have to be a lot, since margins were small) probably felt that a white man who cosplays as wealthy is more likely to manage the economy to their liking. What I was focusing on was not so much the hard-core Trump voters who voted for him all 3 times, but the voters who came out just to vote for him, this time, especially those who left the rest of the ballot blank.
and that's the nonsense part; those voters didn't change the outcome because of misogyny and racism; they changed the outcome because of 'perceived' inflation (or maybe I just am not understanding your point?); your latest post does explain more of your views
The only way we can get to your understanding of the election is a) assume there is no way voters were swayed by racism or sexism, or 2) assume that if any were, they didn't constitute enough of a factor to make a difference in a small margin election. The first supposition is ridiculous, and the second is clearly untrue to anyone who can see through racially coded language ("Trump understands people like me").
you have a reading comprehension problem apparently; you don't get to frame my post to suit your so-called arguments; I didn't post anything close to what you claim; needless to say, I think you are wrong about almost every single point; CheersЁЯН╗
I think the second assumption sums up your position pretty well, frankly. I think it's wrong, but I think it gets at your point ("those voters didn't change the outcome because of misogyny and racism"="if any were [sexist and/or racist], they didn't constitute enough of a factor to make a difference in a small margin election").
The idea that the only thing that motivated people was the price of eggs is woefully naive, and even the notion that people's ideas about who was best suited to bring down the price of eggs was not shrouded, for some, in sexism and racism is incorrect.