[watwut]

Nah. You cant explain fascism just by them being desperate economically. That is not how it works. They did not had to have Trump to be representant of the republican party again. If they were bothered by economics, they would pick someone else even if they wanted to change parties.

They wanted to cause harm for reasons unrelated to economics.

[khazhoux]

You see an electorate that wanted to cause harm. I see an electorate that thought anything is better than a black woman in charge. :-\

[roenxi]

It rings a bit hollow when the single most popular president in recent history was Obama. If the US can cope with him what is the problem with women supposed to be? Harris was an unusually weak candidate; the primary system is supposed to shake people like that out and the Democrats were left in a disadvantageous place after bypassing it.

One of the reasons Trump is getting all these historic wins is because the US Democrats refuse point blank to do some introspection and ask if their policy positions are effective. Name-calling and shaming tactics turned out to not be good enough to stop Trump, so there is an interesting question of who they could stop and under what circumstances they could be politically successful.

[Red_Comet_88]

Indeed. If the DNC had allowed Bernie Sanders to run against Trump, Sanders would very likely have beaten him and Trump would have remained a reality TV star. Instead, they pushed Clinton on Democrats just like they pushed Harris this cycle. The corruption within the DNC is very much to blame for Trump.

I refuse to accept the childish assertion that the majority of American voters are card carrying members of a radical political system that was defeated last century. This is just an emotional response to a reality that one does not want to accept.

[watwut]

Obama was black man president that broke republican minds. They really got more extreme, refused to cooperate in any way so center "work across the aisle" politics became impossible.

And then they voted for Trump. Ta-Nehisi comment with name "trum is first white president" makes the point better then I would do.

[tzs]

> It rings a bit hollow when the single most popular president in recent history was Obama

Does it? It was when Obama got elected that Republicans started freaking out. Take a look at the 2008 Republican party platform [1]. On energy they talk about wanting an energy supply that is diverse, reliable, and cleaner.

They say "In the long run, American production should move to zero-emission sources, and our nation's fossil fuel resources are the bridge to that emissions-free future". They wanted more domestic oil to reduce foreign dependance, more nuclear (specifically calling out that it is zero-carbon. They also said

> Alternate power sources must enter the mainstream. The technology behind solar energy has improved significantly in recent years, and the commercial development of wind power promises major benefits both in costs and in environmental protection. Republicans support these and other alternative energy sources, including geothermal and hydropower, and anticipate technological developments that will increase their economic viability. We therefore advocate a long-term energy tax credit equally applicable to all renewable power sources.

> Republicans support measures to modernize the nation's electricity grid to provide American consumers and businesses with more affordable, reliable power. We will work to unleash innovation so entrepreneurs can develop technologies for a more advanced and robust United States transmission system that meets our growing energy demands

Read that to a Republican today without telling them where it is from and they will probably guess it was from Biden.

They also pushed conservation:

> Conservation does not mean deprivation; it means efficiency and achieving more with less. Most Americans today endeavor to conserve fossil fuels, whether in their cars or in their home heating, but we can do better. We can construct better and smarter buildings, use smarter thermostats and transmission grids, increase recycling, and make energy-efficient consumer purchases. Wireless communications, for example, can increase telecommuting options and cut back on business travel. The Republican goal is to ensure that Americans have more conservation options that will enable them to make the best choices for their families.

Here's what they said about cars:

> We must continue to develop alternative fuels, such as biofuels, especially cellulosic ethanol, and hasten their technological advances to next-generation production. As America develops energy technology for the 21st century, policy makers must consider the burden that rising food prices and energy costs create for the poor and developing nations around the world. Because alternative fuels are useless if vehicles cannot use them, we must move quickly to flexible fuel vehicles; we cannot expect necessary investments in alternative fuels if this flexibility does not become standard. We must also produce more vehicles that operate on electricity and natural gas, both to reduce demand for oil and to cut CO2 emissions.

> Given that fully 97 percent of our current transportation vehicles rely on oil, we will aggressively support technological advances to reduce our petroleum dependence. For example, lightweight composites could halve the weight and double the gas mileage of cars and trucks, and together with flex-fuel and electric vehicles, could usher in a renaissance in the American auto industry.

They had a big section on environmental protection which leads of with saying how the aforementioned energy policies will put the US in a good position to address climate change. They go on to spend 7 paragraphs explain a market and technology approach to addressing this.

Compare to the 2012 platform [2] and the 2016 platform [3].

[1] https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2008-republican-pa...

[2] https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2012-republican-pa...

[3] https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2016-republican-pa...

[asdfasvea]

Whats race got to do with it? Trumps 2-0 against women regardless of race.

[computerthings]

Who is "they"? And yes, you can absolutely explain it with desperation, and arrogance and in-fighting on behalf of the non-fascists.

The issues on the minds of American issues were mostly things like housing, healthcare; economics. Trump at least pretended to be also angry and willing to do something about it, while saying the Democrats were lukewarm would be flattering them.

What is the point of saying "people wanted this"? To legitimize not fighting it? I don't even care what I wanted yesterday, what do I care what someone else wanted last November?

[watwut]

No they weren't. There was huge focus on trans and immigration and vaccinationa. Economic is distant third.

They have continuing quest to make abortions as illegal as possible, the quest for male supremacy, the climate denial ... This was not hold your nose for economics. This was I don't care about economics, I hate others too much.

> What is the point of saying "people wanted this"? To legitimize not fighting it?

I am sick of excessive benefits of the doubt constantly given to the conservatives and their voters. Of sympathetic portraits of poor then while people they harm never get that. Of them lying, knowingly throwing false accusations and then centrists or left being blamed for not being nice to then.

Yes it should be fought. But it is not true that republican voters were victims of something when eventually Musks actions harm some of them. They wanted to cause harm and will cause more harm to people not like them.

[computerthings]

> There was huge focus on trans and immigration and vaccinationa. Economic is distant third.

I'm just not seeing that, e.g.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/651719/economy-important-issue-...