undefined

points

[-]

> I feel like every voter was aware of what happened on Jan 6th and still voted for him with some level of knowledge about that.

What a particular voter was “aware of” regarding Jan 6th and the events that caused it very much depended on where that person got their news. For example, one prominent network was found in court depositions to have knowingly reported complete BS about what Jan 6 was all about: “During pre-trial discovery, Fox News' internal communications were released, indicating that prominent hosts and top executives were aware the network was reporting false statements but continued doing so to retain viewers for financial reasons.”

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Voting_Systems_v._Fox....

by Quarrelsome3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

That his vice president confirmed the result still should tell these people everything they needed to know. That at the very least the story peddled by sources like Fox was dubious and they should seek to corroborate that source with others. NPR is a reasonable source that all Americans know about, so I don't think its a reasonable excuse.

by tmoertel2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Do you believe that there is a large share of people who get their news from Fox News and also trust NPR? And vice versa?

More than ever before, people now live in news silos where they get only the news that engages their prior beliefs. And people who are in the Fox News silo have been told, repeatedly, that NPR is fake news from “far-left lunatic” Democrats. Do you remember all the air time Fox News gave to people arguing for the defunding of NPR? How much do you think a Fox News viewer is likely to trust NPR?

Think about it. If you are like the vast majority of people, almost everything you know about what is happening in the world, especially about the highest levels of government, is something you have been told from a source you trust. You are not a part of government policy decisions. You do not speak to people who are primary sources in those decisions. You know only what has been reported to you by third parties. Now imagine that you are getting those reports only from third parties that tell you something that is not true. How would you know that you are being misled?

by rootusrootus4 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

I agree. People had already experienced one round of Trump before, and had every opportunity to see what he was planning for this term. There is no reasonable conclusion other than that they indeed wanted exactly what we got.

by angry_octet4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

The US has very low voter turnout. Winning is mainly getting your voters to turn up, but usually apathy wins. Of course the media plays a huge part in this, but voter suppression is the US is fine art.

Personally I feel that non voters effectively voted for Trump, and they should own that as much as die hard MAGA types.

by bdangubic3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> The US has very low voter turnout

Don't disagree with you in principle but 2024 saw a very, very, very large turnout for US standards - the biggest one... Kamala's 75m+ votes basically are good enough (by very wide margin) to win any previous election (slimmer margin in 2020 than others but you get my point...)

by rootusrootus3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> the biggest one

2020 had about 4 million more votes cast.

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/voter-turnou...

by bdangubic55 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

thanks for the correction, I keep forgetting just how awful 2016-2020 years were that 81 million people came out to vote for a senile grandpa (exactly the point I was making, you need strong against case much more than anything else)

by SV_BubbleTime24 minutes ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Weird, and why didn’t those people show up to vote for Kamala? How did Biden get more votes than Obama, but Trump won the popular vote four years later?

by angry_octet2 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Both sides got more voters out, but it's still a low proportion of eligible voters.

Lots of people don't vote in mid terms, that's what Trump is aiming for.

by bdangubic3 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Running against a President (especially one that is not on the ballot) is much easier than people think, all you have to do is pitch that while I may be terrible, your alternative is much, much, much worse which is exactly what the Trump campaign was all about.

It worked because a lot of people bought that story (and many continue to buy it evidenced by DJT's approval ratings among the GOP voters). The whole campaign basically had no platform other than your cookie-cutter "migrant crime", "economy bad" ...

by rootusrootus2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

It worked because as bad as the GOP platform was, the dems' strategy was just awful, and their tactical decision making was abysmal.

  * focus on abortion, which is an important issue ... mostly to evangelicals
  * focus on threats to democracy, which sounded shrill and got blown off
  * no real message on the economy, which was widely perceived as floundering under Biden, and was very important to a lot of swing voters

On top of that, Trump's approval ratings on the economy were pretty good when he left office. People remembered that and thought he'd do better.

Then of course there's the whole "hey, let's not tell the senile old man that he basically promised to be a one-hit-wonder, and wait until the last moment to switch to his running mate instead".

In a way, it's impressive that the dems didn't lose by larger margins. Trump wasn't that popular, the dems were just that incompetent. I hope they pull their head out of their ass for 2028. But I'm not counting on it.