If both sides spouts vitriol then you pick the side that doesn't pour it on you, that is the problem described by "one side is 1% less bad than the other". If you want voters then try to welcome them instead of blame them for all the problems, goes for both sides.
Sure, but then shouldn't the universal vitriol cancel itself out somehow? Democracts have been on the receiving end of a lot of name-calling too. This doesn't feel like a good enough explanation. It feels much more like the Democrats ignored (or were perceived to have ignored) a lot of substantive issues for a large section of the population.
> Sure, but then shouldn't the universal vitriol cancel itself out somehow?
It does, both sides got about the same amount of votes as you can see.
> It feels much more like the Democrats ignored (or were perceived to have ignored) a lot of substantive issues for a large section of the population.
I don't think so, it doesn't matter how much you try to do for people if you also namecall them at the same time, they will assume you aren't on their side even if your policies are better for them. Vitriol ensures the vote becomes tribal instead of rationally inspecting both sides and picking the better option.
I realised through hearing through channel 5 and average Americans that they don't really get it. They don't want to think, they want an easy solution to complex problems and anyone coming with a pre made thing is seen as the Messiah. The other part don't care because they saw a lot of screaming and failed to grasp what was so bad about Trump. If he was so bad why was he still nominee? If he was so bad why wasn't he arrested? If he was so bad... You get the picture...
This can be seen as the democrats also not understanding the average person and this is where Bernie was actually hitting good points, his message was consistent and he was never demonising Trump on his name but explaining what they could do better by explaining policies in a way that people understood what they would get from them or lose if they didn't get implemented...
Of course the issue is a bit more complex, but they exacerbated the people that were unseen instead of helping the healing and some actors of course were way too happy to fan the flames.
This is a very bad day that is marking the beginning of a very bad period for everyone...
That is assuming half the country are Democrats and the other half Republicans. But the most important voting block considers themselves to be neither one nor the other, and then it becomes strategy to spit fire at your opponent.
And I don't know about other people, but I consider any rhetoric against a political party to be directed against their politicians, not against their voters - unless explicitly stated.
This is the Red Wave that was promised in 2020 and 2022 but failed to materialize.
Why didn't Harris and the Democrats pull it off? Well, they could start by not playing identity politics or calling Americans deplorables, Nazis, and garbage. Godwin's Law was in full swing for them.
I'm Japanese-American, demographically I should be a bleeding heart Democrat, but truthfully I can't stand their constant victimizing and divisive rhetoric and is why I voted for Trump and the Republicans in 2016, 2020, and 2024.
I call it practical, on point, gruff, and charismatic.
Practical and on point because Trump talks about things that the common American actually gives a shit about in a way that the common American can understand and relate to. This also has a side effect of uniting people under a common cause despite outward appearances.
Gruff because that style of speech appeals to most Americans who don't like being sophisticated, or worse: Being politically correct. Remember that being politically incorrect was one of the reasons Trump won in 2016, and it's still one of the reasons he won again today.
Charismatic because, well, I think everyone has to at least admit that the man draws people in despite any and all odds.
So when he calls the other side names and makes threats, he is practical and gruff.
His practical message was incoherent; it was more of an erring of grievances, conspiracy theories, and wild policy ideas that he seemed to have come up with while speaking.
I can't argue with the fact that it appealed to people, but you can't say it wasn't divisive because it was practical and gruff. Those two things don't rule out divisiveness.
BTW, I voted Republican in every election until Trump, and the reason why I didn't vote for him was due to how divisive he was.
I think you just happen to agree with his side of the divide.
I recall a vox pop in the Washington Post that included a woman who was voting for Trump because she thought he'd be better than Harris at standing up to Putin. Trump seems to attract a combination of low information voters and voters who are reluctant to give their real reasons for voting for him. Either way, don't expect the given reason to make a lot of sense.
He doesn't have a reason to hide why he was voting for him, so I'll chalk it up to the low information voters who vote on vibes.
In low-information voters' defense, it's been amazing to me as a non-American how Trump's literal dementia was not in the front pages of the media every single day. The complicity of the news media in normalizing a senile candidate should't go unnoticed.
I watched that now infamous three hour marathon podcast he did with Joe Rogan. That kind of performance is not something a demented man can do, full stop. To say nothing of his utterly crazy rally schedule, I legitimately don't know where he gets his energy.
Hate him if you want, that's your right and I will respect that. But Trump is terrifyingly sharp, especially for a man his age.
>The complicity of the news media in normalizing a senile candidate should't go unnoticed.
The media dumped Biden right quick after his old age couldn't be hidden anymore. That debate he had was straight up elder abuse by the media.
> I legitimately don't know where he gets his energy.
Drugs. Incoherent hour-long rants are the product of stimulants, the kind that give you the sort of terrible judgement that no one would ever want out of a presidential candidate.
That three hour long podcast was a very coherent conversation, and it was quite enlightening in what Trump actually means when he says he has "good relationships" with people like Putin and Kim Jong Un.
Specifically in regards to the impact of that on the election, neither Biden nor Harris can talk their way out of a 1st grade reading class due to his age and her inability to orate respectively.
Communicating clearly and with conviction is among the most basic of required skills as a leader of a country, and neither could do even that much.
Rogan pressed him on a number of topics and trump simply couldn't answer. He had no solutions, he had no ideas. He was empty-headed, and it really showed.
I can't stand their constant divisive rhetoric and is why I voted for Trump and the Republicans in 2016, 2020, and 2024.
I'd be curious what your gut reaction was to the comedian that Trump's team hired to open at his rally at Madison Square Garden, just this past week, who referred to Puerto Rico as "a floating island of garbage" (starts at about 0:16):
Unfortunately, Puerto Rico is in a pretty bad spot[1] and while I agree the joke is crude I also think it's a fair criticism of the island's state. Note that the criticism is directed at the island and not the people thereof, that would be firing too close to home.
Also interestingly, Puerto Rican and Latino votes for Trump actually increased[2] fueled primarily by economic and governance concerns. That joke ultimately didn't seem to have a negative impact, if any. Contrast Biden calling Americans garbage, which simply added more fuel to the furor behind Trump and Republicans.
As for the hypothetical question: If someone joked Japan is a floating island of garbage and there is actual basis for that criticism, I would take that as a cue to man up and make myself and my homeland great again so I can look at the joker in the eye with results.
Hmm -- if someone threw that comment at my direction, I'd just assume they were a complete idiot, and not worth a further second of my time. I certainly wouldn't take it as a cue that I need to "man up", or that I should vote for whatever party they were shilling for.
The difference is whether the criticism is warranted. Puerto Rico is undeniably not in a good spot and the joke was taking a shot at that.
If someone makes a baseless joke then they aren't worth the time of day, I agree with that.
To expand on the hypothetical question: Japan has a literal garbage island (it's an artificial island used as a landfill). We call it Dream Island (Yume no Shima) because of the irony.
.png){kind=link}