Skip Navigation
AskUSA AskUSA @discuss.online
BadmanDan @lemmy.world

Is Racism & Bigotry still the biggest factor in Presidential Elections?

Just gonna keep this short and to the point.

We all know FDR only went so far with including black people in new deal programs to appease the southern coalition of Dems. He also denied entry for Jewish Refugees and deported many Mexicans during the Great Depression.

Once LBJ passed the Civil Rights Act, Dems essentially lost the South forever.

Nixon pulled federal funding from affordable public housing in black neighborhoods and it strengthened his base.

Reagan blamed the aids epidemic on gay people and was embraced by the country.

Obama had to run on being anti-gay marriage in 08, but ran on being pro-gay marriage in 2012 and lost some support.

Trump spent millions in anti-trans ads. And leaned into the trans panic.

I know social issues aren’t everything, but it seems like that’s the direction America has gone post Civil Rights.

25 comments

  • Friendly reminder that this is a hot political topic, which means everyone should be trying their best to assume good faith and approach the conversation with curiosity

  • Racism and bigotry are the main factor in motivating the conservative base.

    Promoting hope and progressive change would be the motivating factor for Dems, but they are also conservative and rug pull most candidates that try to push for progressive change. They let Obama slip through, and there are a few like AOC that don't get squashed, but the party leadership is all about appeasing the 'moderates' while trying and failing to peel away Republican voters.

    So racism and bigotry are the biggest factors because they are both used and effective in consistently winning elections.

    Edit: Obama didn't lose support for switching to gay marriage. He lost support because people blamed him for not overcoming Republican obstruction.

    • I know it's an unpopular opinion, but I think we oversubscribe conservative motivation as being racism and bigotry. I think it's a major part for SOME, but across the entire population of people who voted Republican it's AT LEAST not the primary motivating factor.

      It's a narrow but important distinction, that I think it's tone.

      If you look at the acceleration of wealth accumulation, especially since about 1970 where productivity and wages began to diverge, this has generated significant angst in a lot of people. Where in history you could have a car a house and two kids on a single income, now it's a complete fantasy. Look at how the Simpsons has aged, it's laughably inconceivable now, but it wasn't at the inception of the show.

      People have a lot of trouble coming to terms with specifically WHY this has happened, why the "good life" has slipped from our grasp. People are mad, sad... Generally anxious, frustrated... Things, in their mind, are NOT OK. And they're right.

      Republicans MEET that tone. Will their policies help at all? No. But they MEET THE TONE. It sounds, when they speak, that they FEEL the way the electorate FEELS.

      There is no substance.

      So, anyways, I think for most people who voted R, bigotry is something they're willing to accept if the promise is it will result in a better life, but I don't think it's what they crave.

      I think just writing it all off as bigotry and racism is convenient, but it's counter-productive. It's a thought terminating statement. It lends no opportunity for the Democratic party to self reflect on what Rs had that they didn't.

      They didn't have the protective-angry-dad energy that they crave. The substance of the platform is immaterial to people driven and attracted by emotion. I think MANY people would have voted for a democrat with a non-bigorty platform if they just brought protective-angry-dad vibes.

      • So, anyways, I think for most people who voted R, bigotry is something they’re willing to accept if the promise is it will result in a better life, but I don’t think it’s what they crave.

        I think just writing it all off as bigotry and racism is convenient, but it’s counter-productive.

        No, just no.

        Republicans blame immigrants and 'DEI hires' as the thing to blame for their voting block's economic woes. Their voters buy that shit up like an all you can eat buffet. They are not 'willing to accept' bigotry and racism, they are justifying their bigotry and racism by letting Republicans blame the people they already hate for their economic woes.

        Dems fail because they don't sell their wins and are wet noodles when opposing rising fascism, so people aren't motivated enough to overcome Republican voter suppression. They would absolutely support someone with angry dad vibes just like they supported Obama's solid messaging on hope and change.

      • we had amazing protective-angry-grandad gives vibes in '16 and '20 but that was too "radical" for the democratic powerbrokers and their mega donors .

        I have not seen one iota of change in the entrenched democratic party "stalwarts" yet. when the rubber met the road, they had one job to do and have now failed at it twice.

        edit to say: I agree with your reasoning here, but the current party makeup is apparently not up to the challenge.

        edit: word.

  • I am no expert, but I want to say "partially, yes" but with an asterisk.

    It would be much less of a factor if the presidential election was based on popular vote rather than electoral college. Without "swing states", candidates would have to appeal to the masses rather than pandering to a few demographics in the battleground states.

    That covers the presidential election, but Congress is another matter

    1. Rampant gerrymandering
    2. The House is currently capped at 435 members which limits representation of higher-populated states
    3. Every state gets two senators regardless of size, and once elected, it's really difficult to unseat an incumbent.

    There's also a lot of dark money in politics, but that's a whole other can of worms.

25 comments