My immediate reaction to it was to wonder how many of that 15% are registered voters (that demographic should virtually all be eligible to vote, right?), and how many consistently vote.
Because:
15% of the population would represent a multiple of that (>=2X??) of the electorate, and
For any in that demographic who were sick of voting, sick of politics, or weren’t registered when they first became eligible, Trump’s demagoguery had the potential to land on some mighty fertile ground (literally and figuratively)
I’ve long said that Trump’s political machinery is almost surely composed of evil, but smart people, awash in data and rich with analytical skills.
Figuring out who doesn’t vote, and then how to get them to vote for you – hopefully without alienating some of the usual suspects in the process – would have been my strategy.
And I think it’s been his.
But when my people showed me how many of that cohort were really what we disdainfully call the “deplorables,” and then my Stephen Miller and Laura Loomer types told me how best to go after those people, I think I would have stayed a private citizen in the real estate game.
But that’s me. I like to think I’m not a truly horrible human.
I’m not sure what your point is; black people only make up about 13.6% of the population as a whole, and vote in disproportionately lower numbers than whites, yet they’re a demographic that’s highly sought after.
15% is a large chunk of the electorate, especially if they can be motivated to vote.
On the contrary; they are constantly pandered to and deferred to by both parties. They simply ignore or reject everything the Democrats try to do for them, just as they ignore the Republicans sabotaging everything the Democrats do.
You can’t help a drowning man who has a gun and keeps shooting at everyone who tries to help them while shouting about being persecuted.
Or it might be possible that the side that regularly lies to them through the media outlets that comfort them are lied to about the other side ignoring them. It is not as if the media outlets they follow are going to let them know when the other side tries to connect with them, right?
From the Rural Electrification Act to the Recovery Act, Democrats have worked to foster economic development, increase scientific and energy innovation, and connect rural communities by closing the digital divide.
Thanks to increased funding through the Affordable Care Act, community health centers across the country have been able to substantially increase the number of patients they serve. The ACA also expanded telehealth options for rural patients and tripled the number of National Health Service Corps clinicians working in underserved and rural communities.
Democrats are committed to ensuring economic opportunity for family farmers, supporting rural economic development, and promoting rural America’s leadership in developing renewable energy — all with the goal of providing a sustainable economic environment for rural families.
The problem is that perception trumps reality, no pun intended. It doesn’t matter if Democrats push for policies that may benefit rural voters if they continue to have an image of being the party that mocks them as hillbillies or uneducated.
None of which they will ever hear of because of the media they frequent. Changing what they do or say for the lower middle class will do nothing for the Democrats and is a waste of time, and Republican know it. They need to reach them in the first place.
My ex-bestie that I quoted upthread is this guy. Well, middle-middle class, not upper. He had a hell of a time when it came to getting his student loans because his dad was an asshole and wouldn’t sign the FAFSA or something. I don’t think it took him too long to pay them off but also we graduated in 2000 from a state school, so our school was like 70% cheaper than it is today.
And I distinctly remember him going on a diatribe one time, years ago, about how investing is the greatest thing ever and if everyone would just invest $50/mo they would be millionaires, and anyone who didn’t is a dumb loser. This was after his first meeting with a financial advisor, after his wife got a hefty inheritance.
This guy is the person on the left-hand side of the aphorism of “[Trump is] a poor man’s idea of a wealthy man and a stupid man’s idea of a smart man.”
I could go on but I’m sure we all have stories of watching our loved ones fall into the Trump hole. It’s sad and frustrating.
I agree, but at least people on this board/thread should know that Democrats don’t ignore rural voters. My impression was that @DesertDog didn’t realize that.
Realize, yes, but I did specify “simple, 30-second sound bite,” the equivalent of the “Kamala Harris’ failed open borders policy,” stick the Pubs are beating her about the head and shoulders with.
Basically, all attempts to reach those folks is absolutely worthless if the same media is used, and all attempts to do something different to reach them is a joke perpetrated by the Right.
It seems to me that this is akin to saying that Neville Chamberlain comprehended the gravity of war, while Winston Churchill did not.
I’d say that for some of these other politicians, they actually DO comprehend the gravity of what is going on, and are fully aware of the consequences of what will happen next if Russia is allowed to roll over Ukraine.
From what I’ve read, I believe that Trump’s “plan” for peace involves the complete surrender of the entirety of Ukraine to Putin. Sounds very much like “Just let him have the Sudetenland, and then everything will be OK”
I’d say trump seemed rather war-shy when he was first elected. As befits a businessman / moron who knows exactly zero about history and exactly zero about international affairs or geopolitics.
Very quickly he warmed to the idea of using force to aggrandize himself. I believe that now he’d be one of the most imperialist militarily aggressive Presidents we’ve had in a long time … a very long time.
While meanwhile ceding Ukraine without a fight to his pal / kompromat-holder / klepto-dictator inspiration Putin.
Yeah, I think Trump realized that using the country’s military power as a sort of rhetorical tool was a good way to make himself look macho and tough.
One thing though, is that I’m never exactly sure what Trump says is North Korea-style bullshit meant for internal consumption by MAGA types, and what’s actual legitimate foreign policy. I have a feeling a lot of it is the former, but that’s part of the problem- we don’t know, and neither does the rest of the world.
That said, I think the uncertainty isn’t necessarily a bad thing in the long term, in that it’s forcing a lot of countries to look to their own defense instead of assuming Uncle Sam’s got it all handled. Which will ultimately be to our benefit because if we choose, we can decrease our military somewhat, and reap the economic benefits of doing so.
I think the full context is: Iran, if you assassinate me, we will [blow up your country].
It’s obviously over the top and not proportional or anything, but just so people know it would be in response to something Iran might do (and is trying to do).
To get to a different but somewhat related point, there is a lot of Trump supporters who take him seriously, but not literal. Here, they would translate the above to: Trump would take strong action against Iran, but not literally blow up the country. This “serious but not literal” can apply to all his rhetoric - or at least that’s how they justify it to themselves.
Not really. Trump has made it clear that we can’t be trusted in the slightest, which pretty much reduces our options to nothing but military ones since our diplomatic agreements and promises are worthless. And increases the instability of the world in general.
I don’t think most principled philosophical people agree ideologically with any major candidate for POTUS. Mostly, because they are always somewhere around center to center-right and some of them are personality cults with no real values or beliefs or some mish mash of mainstream center-right ideas combined with targeted appeals to certain demographics that go against all logic and sometimes self-interest.
So, I’m not one of these people, but the logic for many voters go something like this: No candidate is going to be substantively close to perfect or even consistent on the issues, and POTUS (supposedly) has limited powers. So, what powers can the POTUS really use and what will they do?
So while Trump does not believe in personal property rights, supports tariffs, and opposes the free movement of people and goods. Which would usually be a basic disqualifier for anyone who supports liberal economics. And he obviously has no real beliefs on social issues. There are people who believe the courts should be stacked a certain way and they love that Roe v. Wade was struck down. They don’t care how bad his economics policies are or how Un-American his appeal to fascists. They want a “conservative” court. Some harbor the delusions that he will pardon radical political prisoners.
Others see Trump (the ultimate big government corporatist insider) as an outsider and opponent of the “Deep State” and they just believe that our government is broken, they don’t believe in the idea of ‘good government’ and since you only have 2 choices they see him as the only candidate for chaos and “shaking things up.” We have millions of people who believe trolling on X/Twitter is like the ultimate “alpha” power move. They love “owning the libs” (even if the libs are moderate, and the "owners’ are guys with no consistent political beliefs).