this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2025
211 points (99.5% liked)

politics

26717 readers
2882 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 45 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Zak@lemmy.world 59 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I think the common theme is dissatisfaction with the status quo.

Estimates are that 6-12% of Sanders primary voters voted for Trump in 2016. The specific ideology of the candidates was likely less important than the promise to dismantle the establishment.

[–] MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Not a you specific thing, but I hate when people cite these stats as though they're significant, but in reality they are pretty standard for the past decade at least. I know people mostly do it because the media highlights them without comparable information or context and it just sticks in people's heads. Plenty of people think things must be meaningful or significant just because there's a headline, but this is not a new phenomenon.

Data shows that in 2016, these [Obama] voters comprised roughly 13% of Trump voters. In 2012, this segment of voters made up 9% of total Obama voters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama%E2%80%93Trump_voters

I agree that one of the themes is dissatisfaction though.

[–] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago (2 children)

That still follows the logic though. Obama was seen as the disruption candidate in 08.

Yes, I agreed that it was a dissatisfaction thing, I was just commenting in the context of the whole thread where some are suggesting it's because people have left the Trump cult or that it's about charisma or whatever. This 1 in 10 figure is pretty standard now. I've made the argument previously that it really is more about ignorance than dissatisfaction, because truth be told I'm probably more dissatisfied than any of those crossover voters and I can actually list real specific reasons. You have to be really ignorant to think that this sort of crossover voting is good, regardless of if the person you're voting for seems like an outsider or not. But yes, long story short, disruption seems to be a big part of it.

[–] SolacefromSilence@fedia.io 1 points 1 day ago

There were Perot voters in the 90's, some had the same sentiment.

[–] fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 day ago

In times like these centrists are risky, not safe

[–] Jumbie@lemmy.zip 31 points 1 day ago (1 children)

One in 10 left a cult, study finds.

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago (8 children)

I still think lots of the "trump voters" were actually "man voters".

Trump beat Hillary. A woman.

Trump lost to Biden. A man.

Trump beat Kamala. A woman.

I'm still of the belief that 2024, Biden beats Trump.

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I’m still of the belief that 2024, Biden beats Trump.

I don't think so. In each case, there was significant dissatisfaction with the losing candidate prior to the election.

  • In 2016, it was because people saw the DNC as having subverted the democratic process to give the nomination to Clinton when Sanders might have won in a fair race.
  • In 2020, pick any of Trump's many faults, or the various impacts of the pandemic. He was terribly unpopular and would have lost to any mainstream candidate.
  • In 2024, it was mostly economic concerns, for which many blamed Biden. Harris positioned herself as a continuation of Biden when Biden was terribly unpopular.
[–] Cruxifux@feddit.nl 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Also Harris straight up refused to denounce a genocide. Not a popular stance for people who would usually be voting democrat.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

So logically they voted for an even more aggressive perpetuator?

[–] Cruxifux@feddit.nl 10 points 1 day ago

However you feel about it is irrelevant, it’s one of the reasons she lost.

[–] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

No, many didn't vote or they protest voted.

[–] AstaKask@lemmy.cafe 5 points 1 day ago

I think you are severely overestimating the average U.S voter here. Religious cultists will not vote for women. The U.S is full of religious cultists.

[–] BarbecueCowboy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Don't give them ideas, they will not hesitate to run Hunter Biden.

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Hunter vs Don Jr.

A matchup for the ages.

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

God, if only Stephen Colbert would still be hosting the Late Show in 2028. Imagine the Don Jr impressions!

A lot of people wonder what George Carlin's material today would be about. I already know what it would be about. Just listen to his old material, and have AI insert the name Trump into his old material about the republicans draining the country for personal gain. See, the thing is, his material isn't timeless. It's just that we as a society haven't fixed our shit, or fixed the core problems that gave him material. If anything we've amplified the problems. So if Carlin was complaining back then, I assume his modern day stance would be to take a pistol to the mouth. I can't imagine complaining about problems you can't fix, for 30+ years, and keep living to watch it get progressively worse over time.

[–] Kirp123@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago

Hillary won the popular vote.

[–] Gigasser@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

It's more some Trump voters only voted for Trump because he was seen as anti-establishment. So Mamdani being seen as anti-establishment=those type of Trump voters voting for him.

[–] Jumbie@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago

You’re not wrong. Sexism and racism are defining characteristics of this country’s voters.

[–] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

I see how you would think that. But, I think you're delusional about 2024. If Biden didn't decide to run again and there was a real primary, the democrats would have had a real chance. The problem was that both Hillary and Kamala were basically appointed as the candidates by the party.

[–] grue@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago

Your comment is the real sexism. And socialist erasure, for that matter.

Run an actual leftist woman and watch her cruise to victory. I fucking dare you!

[–] devolution@lemmy.world 29 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

So basically Bernie could have won if the DNC didn't sabotage it and those voters went Trump.

[–] flamiera@kbin.melroy.org 20 points 1 day ago (2 children)

God that was the most frustrating and infuriating campaigns to witness in real-time, falling apart.

Here we finally had a man, that was for the people, in what feels like several generations. And the DNC was actively trying to ruin his momentum, because they wanted Clinton so bad.

And a large number of people were brainwashed into demonizing everything Bernie was proposing. Like when they thought he was going to give everybody free internet, when what he really meant was giving us more opportunity of a free market of internet.

Then annoying activists from BLM were stealing podiums from him just to scream about a cause they were dismantling themselves because at that point they were becoming unhinged over everything.

It was just nauseating to have witnessed in everything that happened in 2016 that time. So of course he lost, of course Clinton got the nod and of course that bitch lost. Probably the only time I felt that the American people deserved Trump for all of that.

[–] Cruxifux@feddit.nl 4 points 1 day ago

I was watching that shit from Canada and MAN was that ever fucked to see.

[–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Like when they thought he was going to give everybody free internet, when what he really meant was giving us more opportunity of a free market of internet.

Same familiar rhetoric: "It's literally Socialism!!!"

[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

One of the big (and actually valid) concerns about socialism is "the government giveth, the government taketh away".

Socialism is a great goal but I think this year kinda taught us that we are much further away from realizing that goal than we thought we are, if a dude like trump can come in with the trifecta and rip it all to shreds overnight, like a bully to a 5th grade diorama.

[–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Sounds like you're just riffing off me mentioning socialism.

[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

Nah, capitalism is clearly broken, and I agree that socialism is the most appealing -ism.

But a key requirement to socialism is a strong and stable central government. And we...don't have that. Instead we have consolidated power in the executive and a judicial branch which is clearly bought and paid for.

We need to replace the roof before we think about putting in a pool.

We've outgrown our entire system of government...or managed to shape it into something that clearly does not match the will of the people.

We need to rewrite it with more fail-safes and circut-breakers for corruption. Social programs need to be uncuttable. Then, socialism has a fighting chance. It can be done, but not easily or willingly.

[–] Phegan@lemmy.world 22 points 1 day ago (2 children)

AOC talks a lot about how there is also a non-zero overlap between people who voted for her and trump in 2024.

I think a large part of it is that people are sick of the status quo. Trump, Mamdani and AOC all speak out against the status quo. The problem is trump is a lying, fascist, racist, pedo. It says though, the best way to peel voters from the right isn't to court Liz Cheney, it's to provide legitimate solutions to peoples problems and push back against the status quo.

[–] madcaesar@lemmy.world 11 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Trump tells you all your problems are caused by the browns and trans.

Democrats yell you, there are no problems.

People are idiots, but they are struggling idiots, and telling them everything is fine isn't a winning strategy.

It's simplified, but at its core, that's is the crux of the problem.

[–] cloudskater@pawb.social 1 points 19 hours ago

Democrats tell you, there are no problems.

Holy shit I actually hit my desk when I read this. I've been trying to put into words why "centrism" and "both sides" bullshit is just conservatism and why liberals stand for nothing. I have been trying for years now and then you come along and just: "Democrats tell you there are no problems" YES. That is what I've been trying to tell people for fucking years!! I'm not the problem for being concerned for the world, stop giving me that look when all I'm doing is pointing out that the problem exists and you should care about it as much as I do. Don't tell me I live in a fake reality because the things I want done are somehow impossible when we know what many of the world's issues are and how to solve them. It's power structures controlled by the rich that stand between us and a better world, and it's not my fault if you can't realize that! Son of a bitch, I need to calm tf down.

So thank you for that.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 5 points 22 hours ago

Yeah. Both Hillary and Kamala ran on maintaining the current system and lost.

[–] BarbecueCowboy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 1 day ago (2 children)

We get variations of this story pretty often.

We had some interesting discussions along the lines of people who backed both AOC and Trump about a year ago. AOC did a bit trying to engage them to understand the overlap better. The common theme then was that among right-leaning areas in the right-wing media bubble, Trump is seen as being strongly aligned with the working class and a lot of people voted for him because of his positions on the economy and cost of living.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

Trump is seen as being strongly aligned with the working class

This explanation is even more unfathomable than the thing it explains. I dont really understand how anyone can look at the (multi)billionaire Trump and think "he's on the side of the workers."

[–] mycodesucks@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

This.

The literal ONLY explanation I can think of is that the media kept parroting his bullshit about lowering prices while having absolutely ZERO ideas, and people who couldn't be bothered to look deeper than the headlines bought it.

10 years ago me thought better of people than that.

2025 me can't even pretend to be surprised.

[–] Cruxifux@feddit.nl 7 points 1 day ago

I don’t understand it either, but what he said convinced a lot of working class people that he was on their side. I don’t get HOW but that is somehow what happened.

[–] Goodeye8@piefed.social 3 points 1 day ago

The American politics are vibe politics. You can have no policies but as long as you say the thing people want to hear people will vote for you. I can absolutely see why some people thought a wealthy criminal who regularly screws people over would side with the working class. Because Trumps campaign did focus on working class issues. It doesn't matter that his "solution" to those problems was blame the immigrants and he had no real intention of helping the working class. Because for the average American the politics end at "I hear you". That's what the average American cares about, having their problems being acknowledged. Actually solving the problems is a problem for a different time.

That messaging in the right-wing propaganda sphere is just the continuation of the campaign, because somehow it works even when those people see the contradictions on a daily basis.

[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's almost like if you had good policy to support the working class, you'd get the votes. 😒

[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Don't even have to have good policy, just have to convince the plebs you have a concept of a policy.

[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 1 points 1 day ago

Which says a lot that most of these careerists can't even do that coherently.

[–] elgordino@fedia.io 12 points 1 day ago

Surprised it’s not higher really. Politically engaged folks like to think it’s all left vs right, socialism vs whatever the fuck you want to call Trunmpism.

At the end of the day a lot of voters vote for the person who tells them they’re going to make their lives better in a way they can believe.

I can totally see a vibes based Trump voter also voting Mamdani. They’re both charismatic guys selling a vision for the future.

Visions, which at the core, are the same ‘I’ll make your life better’. The details are starkly opposed but that’s not important for someone who just wants change and to believe it can happen.

[–] Suavevillain@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

You can win some of those people without tap dancing for them if you just do net positive things for society and have a pro working class agenda. They will respect you more if you actually stand for something at least.

[–] mazzilius_marsti@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

still rookie numbers imo, given how Trump messed up the country.