So why did they win?
So why did they win?
The majority of Americans who voted, at least in the swing states, have voted for the republicans. Why? Do the republican policies reflect popular opinion? Or is it that their vibes are more aligned with the public? Or maybe people are worse off now than they were 4 years ago and are hoping to turn back time? As a non-american I don't quite get it. People must think their lives will materially improve under the republicans, but why?
You're viewing a single thread.
dems look like a party of over-educated weirdos who failed to message on the economy -- the Important Thing. losing 2nd and 3rd income quartiles, only 10 point margin for union families, trounced with first time voters and those who think the economy is Not So Good or Poor, and those who are Dissatisfied and Angry. lost latino men and those without any college. Few voted chiefly on foreign policy and those who did swung for Republicans (no one gives a fuck about Gaza, obviously). And abortion wasn't salient-- nearly half of those who though abortion should be legal in nearly all cases still voted GOP.
More upshots: Harris may have reduced the number of "double haters" but the remaining haters swung clearly to Trump. Vance salvaged his favorable/unfavorables and appears at par w/Walz. Those who decided late (within the last week) broke clearly to Trump (RIP squirrel).
And abortion wasn't salient
Of course it wasn't. The Democratic party has done precisely fuck all for the last two years on this. Anything positive that happened was the result of ballot initiatives but there was zero party led attempts to protect or reinstate abortion.
Vance salvaged his favorable/unfavorables and appears at par w/Walz
Chat is this real?! What the fuck? Walz seemed like a pleasant person - the only pleasant person of the 4.
I dunno about 'pleasant', the guy was very much status quo on Israel/Palestine
I do agree that he is the least terrible out of the 4, but that's like being the strongest person in a room full of toddlers
I apologize if this seemed like an endorsement of the guy. I'm still shocked that people would look at him and JD Vance and go "either one is fine"
Oh I wholly agree
Walz is kind of a jackass, but Vance is literally the worst parts of a 4chan neckbeard
the guy was very much status quo on Israel/Palestine
CHYNA BAD bullshit, too, with the claims that he was there during the tiny man rectangle massacre.
And then getting caught out on his lies during the debate and stumbling around like he'd just caught a haymaker to the head making it worse and worse.
He seems human enough that hte libs project the relationship they want with their fathers on time, would be the best I could phrase it.
Walz is mostly to blame for that by treating Vance like a normal person during their debate instead of hammering him over being a fucking weirdo
oh fuck, that's right. I totally missed the vice debate.
Turned out, people apparently can recognize that pleasantless for what it is, the thin powder upon the syphillis. Too bad both kind of syphilis have their supporters as syphilis but still.