Trump

[DeskJockey]

It was something like a third for, a third against, a third didn't bother. It wasn't a historic mandate, a landslide or any such thing.

[Sundayjumper]

The "didn't bother" demographic need to take their share of the blame in this. They might not have actively voted for him but they looked at the situation and didn't think it was worth voting against it. They allowed it.

[ZedLeg]

Maybe if the dems hadn’t alienated everyone left of centre they might have done a bit better.

Like I fully understand someone not wanting to vote for the lesser evil when the lesser evil is still arming a genocide and marginalising minorities.

[DeskJockey]

The "didn't bother" demographic need to take their share of the blame in this. They might not have actively voted for him but they looked at the situation and didn't think it was worth voting against it. They allowed it.

100%

As for choosing the lesser of two evils, I have no sympathy with the abstainers. I get that they might not like the policies of either, but it was a clear choice between maintaining and working to improve on the status quo, or scorched earth. It is an election, not a marriage. Hold your nose and vote for the least worst option, because you can be sure the opposite side will be rallying everybody they can muster, and try to discredit anyone that stands against them.

[Sundayjumper]

Maybe if the dems hadn’t alienated everyone left of centre they might have done a bit better.

Like I fully understand someone not wanting to vote for the lesser evil when the lesser evil is still arming a genocide and marginalising minorities.

That's just cutting off your nose to spite your face. Not voting for the lesser evil means you get the greater evil. It was patently obvious what would happen. No sympathy.

Deskjockey is correct.

[ZedLeg]

Meh, people voting or not voting according to their views is fine imo.

It’s up to the parties to appeal to the people not the other way round. The dems ran a shit campaign.

[duncs500]

It was something like a third for, a third against, a third didn't bother. It wasn't a historic mandate, a landslide or any such thing.

I'm not sure I implied as such, although perhaps I should have stated the 49% of voters who voted democrat.

Anyway, agree with you and SJ. With what was at stake in this particular election, not voting on point of principle would be a pretty silly thing to do.

[duncs500]

Maybe if the dems hadn’t alienated everyone left of centre they might have done a bit better.

I thought the dems were "the radical left"!

[ZedLeg]

It wouldn’t be such a problem if it wasn’t a two party system tbh

[ZedLeg]

Maybe if the dems hadn’t alienated everyone left of centre they might have done a bit better.

I thought the dems were "the radical left"!

Only in America, they overton window for the US starts at about where the tories are and keeps moving right from there.

[Mito Man]

But the damage wrought will still take decades to repair, as has been said before.

Assuming it's nothing globally catastrophic, the US having some economic challenges and becoming a little less central to the global economy may not be such a bad thing. At the moment so many nations are reliant on them that they get given a free pass on unacceptable policy, and of course we have the whole "USA is the GREATEST!!!11!!" stuff.

I find this a terrifying thought. The USA has its ups and downs but a less central USA would mean a more central China and I think at that point the quality of life for everyone in the world will suffer.

[DeskJockey]

Meh, people voting or not voting according to their views is fine imo.

It’s up to the parties to appeal to the people not the other way round. The dems ran a shit campaign.

Why is it fine? Abstentions don't count. So apart from some post election analysis that shows that many didn't bother, it changes nothing, achieves nothing.

I agree with you on the Democratic campaign, but that's still no excuse for voters to just shrug and decide not to bother.

The parties need to appeal to people, but people also need to look beyond the adverts and soundbites, and vote for that which aligns best with their views. Fanciful dreaming, I know.

[ZedLeg]

I think saying they shrugged and didn’t bother isn’t fair.

The people who were making a point on principle were very vocal in telling the dems why they weren’t voting for them. Surely it’s up to the dems to react to that.

Like, voting for a shit choice because they’re marginally less shit is a race to the bottom.

[ZedLeg]

Also it’s not like the dems weren’t doing the same shit, they were just more quiet. ICE didn’t go on hiatus for the last 4 years.

[Jobbo]

The "didn't bother" demographic need to take their share of the blame in this. They might not have actively voted for him but they looked at the situation and didn't think it was worth voting against it. They allowed it.

Compare that to the Brexit referendum or the 2024 general election over here. The people who didn't vote would have massively skewed the results if they had bothered to do so. You can't blame people for not voting; if they want nothing to do with the whole political circus then that's their prerogative. It's up to the parties to secure votes actively, not passively because they're less bad than the alternative.

[DeskJockey]

I think saying they shrugged and didn’t bother isn’t fair.

The people who were making a point on principle were very vocal in telling the dems why they weren’t voting for them. Surely it’s up to the dems to react to that.

Like, voting for a shit choice because they’re marginally less shit is a race to the bottom.

I agree, but whether you shout loudly or not, abstaining means your vote doesn't count. It is up to the parties to react, but that still doesn't, IMO, absolve voters for not partaking.

Things would likely be different if there were more than two likely contenders, but there isn't and that's the reality they must accept.

[ZedLeg]

I think telling people they have to vote for someone is undemocratic tbh.

I wouldn’t want compulsory voting like Australia has.

[duncs500]

Like, voting for a shit choice because they’re marginally less shit is a race to the bottom.

Most of the time, you do have that shit or less shit conundrum, and in this country there is generally not a particularly huge gulf between contenders. So protesting by not voting, or general apathy are a bit more understandable.

However I think the choice here was shit or Trump, it's a much larger gulf you see...

[ZedLeg]

It’s not really though, they’re largely doing the same things. The difference is that Trump does it in a much more crass manner.

Like, what’s the worst thing Trump’s done so far. The ICE raids? Saying that they should level Gaza? Rolling back rights for trans people?

All stuff that the dems said they would do or refused to rule out.

[ZedLeg]

Remember row v wade rollback happened while the other team were in.

The Supreme court is a bigger problem than the president tbh and the gop sewed that up last time.