Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
Yes, it's a gender issue, not an economic one, at least that's what the voters said.
Wait, they didn't.
If it was an economic issue, why did they vote for the person who has an explicit plan to enact inflation driving tariffs?
Because it's an economic issue, and the people who voted for Trump are just really, really stupid.
None of them know how tariffs work. I'm about to break from my parents over this asshole.
Feel like there are a lot of people that literally just vote "hopefully something different will be better" with zero regard for what the candidates are apart from which of their parties has the current administration. This is of course really dumb, especially considering what Trump said he wants to do, but the base logic of "this isn't working for me" is understandable at least. Dems running candidates that represent more of the same again...
Because the economy has not been working for the common person for a long time, and given a choice between "all is well" and "let's blow ourselves up", the second tends to get more turnout.
I'd add that the fact that the democrat candidate was a woman probably lost her a lot of votes. Which is quite sad nowadays, but I'm sure it was a factor.
Or maybe she wasn't a good candidate to begin with. She wasn't even nominated, so we don't know how a true, democratically elected, candidate would have performed.
I'm going to say something that I fear will not go over well, but I think it would be said. The left has some culpability here. Not in who they chose, but in how they approach the problem.
One of the things that draws me to the left is that people are all supposed to be people. No one is beyond redemption, and much of the worst aspects of people are due to changeable circumstances and not some genetic defect.
Criminals probably do crime because of their circumstances so if we can improve those circumstances we can help rehabilitate them. Addicts who are treated with dignity and compassion are more likely to be able to get their lives together. We shouldn't paint over people with broad brush strokes, like assuming all Muslims are terrorists just because a few have done terrible things while claiming it is in the name of Islam.
But the left has a blind spot for men. The problem is solely with them, and they are garbage beyond redemption. They clearly are acting only out of hate, and not a result of their circumstances, so people seem to think. "It's not my job to educate you" became a trope in a society where educating others is literally the only way to make change.
I submit that these people can be changed and can be rehabilitated if they are shown a better way. If their problems are listened to, rather than dismissed. If their circumstances are improved, rather than belittled. There are valid concerns, valid reasons for them to be upset, but they are handwaved away: "Well feminism cares about that too (even if you don't see it)" or "The privileged feel like equality is oppression."
Anyway, I don't expect anyone will learn anything from this result. The left will say, "Man, misogyny just won't let a woman be President" while ignoring how few people actually even voted. The left will say, "Men are to blame" without ever questioning beyond "I guess they're just spiteful." And if we get another election, we'll have a Democratic candidate who moves right on everything except these problems.
The problem is solely with them, and they are garbage beyond redemption
I don't know what spaces you hang out in, but that's never been the case anywhere I've been. I see more people complaining about this behavior than I've ever seen the behavior itself.
From the article...
These are the men swimming in the electoral pool. It’s not too late for it to be drained.
The article is cautious at first, pointing at facts and figures. At times, it almost seems to care. But when it comes to the final arguments, it is just: We gotta get rid of these men. Not even a viable solution, much less a sensible one.
It's everywhere. It's not hard to find, but it's not always overt. Usually, it is dismissive: "Well that's not what we're talking about right now." "Well feminism would fix those problems too." Or the person gets lumped in with Nazis, or misogynists, or whatever when what they've said doesn't really support that.
The article is not saying the problem is solely with them, and they are garbage beyond redemption.
So your argument is "it doesn't literally say that to the letter, so you're wrong?" At best it suggests that this relatively wide swath of the population shouldn't vote. What's your interpretation?
Calling out the problem is not saying they are irredeemable.
In one post I read, a user commented that he’s happy with women having fewer rights and left “barefoot and pregnant” by authoritarian, Republican policies, because he wants a cadre of “slave girls” serving him. Outside of the virtual locker room, there are men who have reportedly been red-pilled into anti-feminist mass killings and murdering their own spouses.
These are the men swimming in the electoral pool. It’s not too late for it to be drained.
Like, yes, these people absolutely do need to be flushed. Nowhere does that mean they are permanently branded Bad Forever, you're just making that up.
There are like two of those people, not enough to be the driving factor behind Kamala losing.
We're not talking about why Kamala lost, we're talking about why you think the left is blaming all men when articles like this are very specific about the kinds of men that are the problem.
Ok, but how many or what percentage of men like this need to exist for it to be a talking point? If it's not generalized to a significant percentage, then it's not a valid point to bring up in the first place.
If it’s not generalized to a significant percentage, then it’s not a valid point to bring up in the first place.
That's just not true, like it or not, the manosphere has an impact beyond their population. Sorry you get triggered when people talk meanly about incels, but I assure you most people are aware that they don't represent all men, despite how you feel about it.
And yet these people want to blame it for the election loss. I think "the manosphere" has more impact on them as an easy scapegoat then it does on general voters in effecting elections.
Yup and exit polls shows that women didn't want women's rights.
Voted for Kamala, knew she was probably the worst choice the Dems could have picked to try to win the election. For people who don’t understand why, this video is still relevant.
Whereas I would say there is a huge amount of young men not confident in their own sexuality.
Why do some people automatically associate misogyny with homosexuality? Misogyny is about hating women rather than being sexually attracted to men.
I mentioned neither. The fact remains that young men broke for Trump, and Trump had anti-trans advertisements aimed right at them.