2024 Presidential Election -- new thread for the final week

[bundabergdevil]

I'm sure those "left behind" young men will love this

https://www.wired.com/story/trump-election-4b-movement-tiktok-x-reddit/

For all this abandonment they feel, I have no sympathy. Nobody forced them to stay home and play video games and watch youtube influencers all day long. There is no group with more built in advantages than a young white man, despite what Ben Shapiro or Andrew Tate wants to tell them. They don't want to earn anything, they just want it given to them, they expect to have a girlfriend gifted to them and can't understand why nobody likes them. They spew hateful crap all day to anyone they see as a threat. Yet the fact remains, nothing has actually been taken away from. There are no laws that especially impact them over other groups, no rights have been removed, yet they have the most imagined grievances of anyone. And still nothing is going to improve for them.

I also don’t hear too much about parental responsibility. That used to be a favorite talking point for conservatives about minorities complaining about opportunity.

 

[jipops]

This. And several other recent previous posts (the Fast Company article) re/ the young male demographic in this country. Why are they struggling emotionally? Why are they falling behind educationally? Why are they unhappy? There is nothing, NOTHING in our society that is stacked against young white men. They still have every advantage imaginable, but they have been convinced otherwise.

An election reflection:
I got it wrong, bigtime. I was in the Harris landslide camp. I reasoned that more women typically vote. With a female candidate, Roe v Wade on the line, and Trump's misogyny, I thought that female advantage would only increase. From the bubble I am in, I figured young white men would not vote heavily. I see the immigration and trans issues as fake crisis.

And while I can appreciate the economic struggles being a primary motivator, knowing we are factually doing better than the rest of the world post Covid, I figured Harris would win.

I was wrong...bigly!

I see where you're coming from here yet I don't think this is entirely true. It is a statistical fact that young boys' learning aptitude on average struggles when compared to young girls. Again, this is on average. Obviously this isn't across the board for every boy. But in that sense boys are, in general, looking at a different starting line than girls. And I think that may go a long way to explaining why college enrollment has more women than men overall. And that then bleeds into men struggling to provide - which they have grown up to see that they are supposed to do - and therefore feel like their manhood is being taken away from them.

 

[wiscodevil]

It is a statistical fact that young boys' learning aptitude on average struggles when compared to young girls.

Yeah, a poor word choice by me with "society". I don't disagree the "struggle" is real. But why? What causes that? I see it as a totally self-inflicted cultural shift.

 

[jipops]

Yea my girls are about the same age, and I can say that *I* am extremely disappointed with the current state of their dating pool. But I also don’t know how to filter my “imma kill you if you touch my daughter” bias from that.

My impression is that guys that age today are way more awful than we were at the age, and I say that knowing that we were, in fact, horrible. At the same time no one wants to be Grandpa Simpson yelling at a cloud.

Ok, now that really gives me some stress - knowing what guys my age were like as young men.

This reminds me of a profound comment I saw somewhere else this week. "If you want proof that sexuality is not a choice, consider the fact that women still like men."

 

[CDu]

According to Nate Cohn (the NYT elections guru), it looks like final turnout is going to be pretty close to what we saw in 2020. Like 157 million. Right now we are at like 145 million, but there is a TON of mail ballots left in the West to count. It won't change the top-line results of course, just the overall count and perhaps some of the distributions. Harris is expected to gain ground, as most of these votes are coming from California. She'll cut into the national margin, Cohn projects somewhere down to a 1.5-2% split. Trump will end up with more votes than he got in 2020, Harris with a lot fewer.

It looks like there was less turnout in the Dem-heavy areas - places like Philly, for example - and more in GOP-heavy areas. It's also appearing to be evident that there were a decent chunk of voters who only voted for president (and did so for Trump), as the vote counts between Harris and her Senator counterparts in almost every state are very close, but Trump is consistently doing better than his Senate counterparts by state. That, combined with the seismic shift in vote within the Hispanic communities, appears to be the difference at the presidential level.

 

[jipops]

Yeah, a poor word choice by me with "society". I don't disagree the "struggle" is real. But why? What causes that? I see it as a totally self-inflicted cultural shift.

I don't know. As I said before I'm not equipped at all to explain all the why's. I do believe it is a whole collection of events and shifts.

What I do know is that this is something that conservative media has pounced on and used the power of resentment and scapegoating. And it worked. Young men were willing and in some cases excited to vote for a known rapist solely for the reason that he projects patriarchal power and strength. This alone gives them a belief that his presence will provide the manhood they have been looking for.

 

[peteandpete]

I think readiness to begin school is an important and neglected issue here. Studies have shown that girls tend to be ready to start their education sooner than boys and that boys might benefit from academic/emotional red shirting, in other words, starting school a year later. I mean Texas does it for football purposes. Why shouldn't we do it for emotional maturity and academic success? Ironically, the schools often resist this; however, it worked well for our boys.

 

[SouthernDukie]

I think a lot of these post-mortems placing blame on not appealing to this group or that group are writers, academics, etc. looking to earn a paycheck. Are there things Harris could have done better? Heck yeah. But the "she should have focused on this group, or appointed this person, or gone to this place" generally seems to be a stretch at this point.

I am going to push back on this, especially with Scott Galloway. What he's stating isn't post-mortem at all. He's been speaking about this issue for years now. He warned (on Smerconish) months ago that the Dems would regret not reaching out to young men as a group. And he was right! No ifs, ands, or buts about that.

Look, if the Dems just want to blame the electorate for not voting for their candidate, fine. They'll likely keep losing. They should have mopped the floor with Trump, but they didn't. And while I've personally made it clear there were MANY reasons for the Trump victory, one of them is definitely that young men (of all colors) didn't vote for Harris. It's an issue the entire country needs to discuss, not just the Dems.

 

[PackMan97]

Yeah, a poor word choice by me with "society". I don't disagree the "struggle" is real. But why? What causes that? I see it as a totally self-inflicted cultural shift.

The problems start when they enroll in school. Johnny just knows he cant' read as well as others, or can't sit still like the teacher wants and keeps getting in trouble. The problems our boys face start way before they become men. The things y'all are talking about with young adults (or even teenagers) are just the symptoms, not the problem.

I'm happy to take the discussion to DM.

 

[Indoor66]

All, let’s stay away from policy arguments and demonizing those who voted differently than one may prefer, please. Democracy gives everyone an equal vote, for better and worse.

Thanks.

Ahh, the last sentence bugaboo about killing the message. You might have done better to leave it off to make your point with objectivity.

 

[jipops]

I am going to push back on this, especially with Scott Galloway. What he's stating isn't post-mortem at all. He's been speaking about this issue for years now. He warned (on Smerconish) months ago that the Dems would regret not reaching out to young men as a group. And he was right! No ifs, ands, or buts about that.

Look, if the Dems just want to blame the electorate for not voting for their candidate, fine. They'll likely keep losing. They should have mopped the floor with Trump, but they didn't. And while I've personally made it clear there were MANY reasons for the Trump victory, one of them is definitely that young men (of all colors) didn't vote for Harris. It's an issue the entire country needs to discuss, not just the Dems.

Polls show that Black men still voted for Harris at very similar levels to Biden in 2020. But for the other demographics, yeah huge swing to Trump.

 

[SouthernDukie]

The questions are these: (1) Did most such voters worry most about issues such as inflation, regulation, and illegal immigration? (2) Did most such voters dislike Trump’s ugliness, pettiness, threats to take revenge on Democrats and Never Trumpers? (3) Would you expect any/a few/many such voters to be upset if Trump “weaponizes” the Justice Department? That is, as people who, we are told, do not identify with MAGA radicalism, do they think Trump probably did some illegal/unconstitutional things, but that’s old news; but also, on the other hand, they do not want him wasting time using the Justice Department to get revenge, because they want him to solve problems and make their lives better? (4) Do they want him to focus on what they see Harris as not focusing on — making their lives better — and definitely do not want him focusing on his own persoanl grievances? (5) Or will non-MAGA, reluctant Trump voters, just like MAGA folks, take the view that, well, Biden used the Justice Department to “persecute Trump,” so, unfortunately, it’s ok if Trump does the same to his “enemies list”?

My answer to all 5 questions is "Some, Yes. Some, No."

I live, work and worship with a number of these people. The MAGA movement itself -the true believers - are not the entire 50% that voted for Trump this time around. Many don't buy all the nonsense, and find his language and attitude deplorable. BUT - they are conservatives when it comes to policy and longed for a better economy and for the border to be fixed. They are just trying to survive economically. I'd say this is especially true with the Latino vote. Some were afraid a Harris presidency would harm them more economically.

Forget all the economists that said otherwise about the Trump policies being worse. These folk either don't hear that stuff, or they just don't believe the economists. It's not that they love Trump. They just say to themselves, "I had more money in my pocket with Trump than I did with Biden. And Harris is part of the Biden team, so I'm sticking with Trump." It's just that simple for many of them.

Bottom line: Not everyone that voted for Trump is a racist. Or a misogynist. Or a fascist. Some are. No doubt. But that broad-brush approach to 50% of the electorate isn't accurate.

 

[SouthernDukie]

The rude awakening over the next few years will be the rise of the American oligarchs at the expense of the American people. It will be the rise of the new age of the robber barons with the benefit of algorithmic media telling the people it’s OK, you might me then one day.

I definitely agree with this. The oligarchs rise to political power is beyond obvious. It's a serious issue, imho.

 

[tendev]

I’d like to use this observation as a jumping-off point that will lead me to ask several questions of posters here who voted for Trump. I intend to ask it as non-obnoxiously as I can. Bear with me, if you can.

Background first: Long ago, on what must have been the 2016 election thread, I revealed that I was (and still am) registered “unaffiliated.” On either that thread or the 2020 thread, possibly both, I stated that I’ve voted in both Republican and Democratic primaries. In a moment of, possibly, TMI, I stated that in the 2016 Republican primary, I voted for John Kasich.

More background: An intermittent paricipant in the 2016, 2020, and 2024 election threads, I have mostly sought to distinguish Trump and MAGAism from American conservatism. I have regularly used the term “actual conservatives,” to differentiate between the longstanding conservative writers whom I read and MAGA’s faux-conservatism.

I think I can recall that several posters, from a variety of political perspectives and also personal/family/friends experience, have insisted that nowhere near all Trump voters identify as MAGA; and, indeed, that a whole lot of people who have voted for Trump absolutely resent being lumped in with MAGA folks.

So, to Trump supporters on this thread, active posters and lurkers alike (but which question Harris voters can of course chime in on, too): Would you be willing help the conversation along by sort of “thinking aloud” about those people who, despite disliking Trump and finding his views more extreme, voted for him anyway?

The questions are these: (1) Did most such voters worry most about issues such as inflation, regulation, and illegal immigration? (2) Did most such voters dislike Trump’s ugliness, pettiness, threats to take revenge on Democrats and Never Trumpers? (3) Would you expect any/a few/many such voters to be upset if Trump “weaponizes” the Justice Department? That is, as people who, we are told, do not identify with MAGA radicalism, do they think Trump probably did some illegal/unconstitutional things, but that’s old news; but also, on the other hand, they do not want him wasting time using the Justice Department to get revenge, because they want him to solve problems and make their lives better? (4) Do they want him to focus on what they see Harris as not focusing on — making their lives better — and definitely do not want him focusing on his own persoanl grievances? (5) Or will non-MAGA, reluctant Trump voters, just like MAGA folks, take the view that, well, Biden used the Justice Department to “persecute Trump,” so, unfortunately, it’s ok if Trump does the same to his “enemies list”?

Thanks for trying to advance the discussion. I don't know the numbers exactly, but I really think we are in political camps for the most part, like we are fans of our teams. Its personal and starts early in life. When you believe in something all your life you are not apt to change that belief because the leader of your camp is morally bankrupt. You will rationalize and defend the person who best represents your worldview, notwithstanding his or her personal failures, because if you do not, you have to abandon your worldviews. Bill Clinton is the best example of that I can give on the Democratic side but, trust me, I am not comparing Bill Clinton to Donald Trump. There is no comparison in my mind, but what Clinton did in office was reprehensible and would have gotten him fired if he were a CEO of any major company. That said, I am pretty sure - nay certain - I would have voted for Bill Clinton against Geoge Bush if he could have run for a third term. And it was probably a mistake for Al Gore not to have used Clinton. He is still on the stump today as we saw this year. I venture to guess that that 85% of voters are like that. They are not movable. Things like inflation are really irrelevant to people in these groups. They will use inflation as the reason for voting for Trump, but they are going to vote for him anyway. Trump knows this. It does not matter what he says or does, he will get their support. And many will say they do not like him, and they really don't. Then there is the group of people who flow with the wind and can vote either way for a vast array of reasons that I do not understand. Finally, there are 80 million eligible adults who are not registered to vote. They don't believe that it matters.

 

[jipops]

I definitely agree with this. The oligarchs rise to political power is beyond obvious. It's a serious issue, imho.

Citizens United sure was helpful huh?

 

[PackMan97]

Citizens United sure was helpful huh?

I would argue that SpeechNow was more impactful, but some reason never gets the attention that Citizens United does...I guess that's because the Supremes declined to hear the case and let the Appeals Court ruling stand. /shrug

 

[OldPhiKap]

Ahh, the last sentence bugaboo about killing the message. You might have done better to leave it off to make your point with objectivity.

I think it is objective because both sides do it. Didn't someone just spend the last four years refusing to admit that he lost?

And of course the ever-popular "Don't blame me, I voted for ______" signs and bumper stickers that partisans of both sides use when they lose.

But apologies if you or anyone else read it otherwise. Not my intent. Many Democrats are doing it now, in the same way that many Republicans did four years ago. The same way many Democrats did eight years ago, and the way many Republicans did twelve years ago. May the circle be unbroken.

 

[PackMan97]

And of course the ever-popular "Don't blame me, I voted for ______" signs and bumper stickers that partisans of both sides use when they lose.

"Don't blame me, I didn't vote!" are my favorite.

 

[robed deity]

Thanks for trying to advance the discussion. I don't know the numbers exactly, but I really think we are in political camps for the most part, like we are fans of our teams. Its personal and starts early in life. When you believe in something all your life you are not apt to change that belief because the leader of your camp is morally bankrupt. You will rationalize and defend the person who best represents your worldview, notwithstanding his or her personal failures, because if you do not, you have to abandon your worldviews. Bill Clinton is the best example of that I can give on the Democratic side but, trust me, I am not comparing Bill Clinton to Donald Trump. There is no comparison in my mind, but what Clinton did in office was reprehensible and would have gotten him fired if he were a CEO of any major company. That said, I am pretty sure - nay certain - I would have voted for Bill Clinton against Geoge Bush if he could have run for a third term. And it was probably a mistake for Al Gore not to have used Clinton. He is still on the stump today as we saw this year. I venture to guess that that 85% of voters are like that. They are not movable. Things like inflation are really irrelevant to people in these groups. They will use inflation as the reason for voting for Trump, but they are going to vote for him anyway. Trump knows this. It does not matter what he says or does, he will get their support. And many will say they do not like him, and they really don't. Then there is the group of people who flow with the wind and can vote either way for a vast array of reasons that I do not understand. Finally, there are 80 million eligible adults who are not registered to vote. They don't believe that it matters.

I agree with this, and it has always been frustrating and frankly upsetting to me that there is apparently a large portion of people in this country that can't look past some policy issues (many that don't even really effect them) and see that having a morally bankrupt person with a history of anti-democratic behavior isn't more of a danger.

 

[jipops]

All, let’s stay away from policy arguments and demonizing those who voted differently than one may prefer, please. Democracy gives everyone an equal vote, for better and worse.

Thanks.

"No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."

Winston Churchill