So because conservatives are insulted too much in the pit, they pick up their stakes and go over to… twitter?
FTR though, the OP was not the, “First reply”. The OP was a continuation of a conversation in another thread that I didn’t want hijacked further. Also, my insult was not gratuitous: it was part of an argument:
As for SSgt.Melton, most of his participation on this board has been in this thread, which would be really strange for a newbie if he wasn’t a sock. Which he is. Sarg: might I recommend you redirect your talents and imagination, such as they are, to more constructive activities such as scam-baiting?
He didn’t say Trump cares about the poor. As I understand it, he was saying Trump was more popular with many such voters than Harris/Biden were. And if the Ds want to win, they need to find a way to become more popular.
Also remember that Trump always does about 3% better in elections than he does on polls. A lot of his voters are not just racist pieces of shit, but huge fucking pussies who won’t admit they vote for him. Also, I think that we’re still talking about the importance of elections in America adorable.
Looks adorable yes. Sure, I expect setbacks, but I will follow what the evidence shows, a good number of the ones that voted for Trump are not amused, particularly when most expected that the economy would improve, Trump and the Republicans have hubris bigger than Napoleon.
Well, we agree that the grapes now are sour. It does not change right away, but I have seen how history goes, it will not go well for the Republicans that pretend that their fake morals and crazy way to handle the economy will lead to success. (Like when they pushed prohibition and tariffs then)
He alluded to it.
Maybe I’m mistaken or I’ve just heard way too many MAGAS say common man, the regular folks, less educated.
Six-pack Joes. He doesn’t even consider woman, at all.
The Roper stats say that Trump did better than Harris with income less than $100,000. Harris did better than Trump in higher income, actually. This is the reverse of historical trends. Carter and Mondale, 1980/84, still did better with the poor despite getting trounced overall.
Potential confounding factors there: Carter and Mondale were both white men. Are we sure that the reason that fewer low-income voters chose the Democratic candidate this time around is solely because the Democrats as a party are “less popular” with low-income voters?
Obama and Hillary both comfortably won the lowest income group.
Biden, a white man, also won the lowest income group (<$50K) although perhaps tellingly he did a bit better with $50-$100K. And as always lost $100K> to Trump.
Harris reversed demographics completely. Harris’ worst performing income group was $50-$100K, which she lost. Then the poors, <$50K, which she also lost. Best was $100K>, WHICH SHE WON. I doubt that even FDR won the richest income group. Poor votes Dem, rich votes Rep, it’s likely the oldest thing about the two parties. And it absolutely flipped.
Harris got killed on the economy, and immigration. Hillary won on economy, lost on immigration though it wasn’t the blowout that Harris had. Economy and immigration were not categories in the 2020 Roper poll.
Other thing is Liberal/Conservative. If you want to say we are a center right country, sure. Because the Conservative group is ALWAYS bigger. Every single time. You can’t trade vote for vote. And yes, by those labels right now it’s more polarized than ever. Over 90% liberal for Harris, over 90% conservative for Trump. These are the highest splits since this poll began in 1980. Harris won moderates by 18 points, but it obviously wasn’t enough.
Why did Harris lose the lower income people? Probably inflation. I don’t think it was stupidity or racism personally, though that’s what many people here and elsewhere think. And conservatives outnumber liberals, so that’s something Dems need to take into account, polarizing everything isn’t necessarily to the advantage of the Dems.
There are liberal denominations which abominate what you are describing. They are struggling to defend themselves against non-Christians who believe the narrative that the only face of Christianity is the cruel racist one that gets all the press. I would put most of the mainstream non-evangelical churches in that category although some, like the UCC and Episcopalians, are much more liberal than the general populace.
Given that in 2024, incumbents lost in elections all over the world due to inflation, I believe that is safe to say.
It does vary a bit but generally yes. Polarization does hurt the left. What helps the Democrats is that Republicans have more extremists in leadership, which alienates that crucial middle.
Depending on the year that polls are done, the number of people who identify as moderate or conservative tend to be fairly close, while liberals are usually around 10% behind. But it fluctuates. Whatever side is able to sway more moderates will tend to win, and the extremism of conservatives tends to work against them in elections, as they work to cater to their larger base. That’s why elections are as close as they are despite the disparity in size between how Americans identify politically.
It seems to me that Christians don’t mind it too much. They’re the ones who let it happen and keep letting it happen. If they truly outnumber the “fake” ones, they should have no problem exerting their will.
