[tremendoussss]

I am exactly who you are talking about, I live in a very purple city in the midwest. I grew up in a town of 3000 people, my family was Amish 4 generations ago. I'm also a 90s kid and grew up on south park. Turned into a redneck hippy.

It's a complete social poison pill in the city to have voted a certain way. Have had the same look of "how could you be that dumb" from people ranging from strippers to lawyers.

All I want is love and belonging, not sure how to feel love when I've heard the word "barbarian" to describe certain types of people. Not sure how to feel love when men's loneliness and suicide problems aren't being prioritized

Yeah, the hurt turns into anger sometimes, but yes, I need them too. For me to exist, my opposite has to exist, and I should love us both.

[jimkleiber]

I appreciate you sharing this story. I'm from the suburbs of Detroit and while I voted for Kamala, I have a lot of friends and family who either openly voted for Trump or who I imagine secretly did. And while it can be so hard for me to not call them stupid (I tend to default to insulting people's intelligence sometimes because I feel so confident in mine), I try really hard to see how they're really just struggling/suffering.

And it can hurt me so much when I see people in my life attack people very hard for voting for Trump. The ones in my life who voted for him sometimes seem to be the ones who are craving the most social connection, the most interaction, and don't get it. They seem to want to engage with people and sometimes the best way to engage is to say something controversial. Like the kid who can't get the mom's attention and so starts hitting her in the leg.

People on the right are not a basket of deplorables, they're human beings who want love and attention, often from those who they fear think they're better than them. Often from those they admire the most, who keep ignoring them and running away from them.

So thank you for sharing this and helping me see this even more deeply and lovingly.

[intended]

but does this approach gain votes?

People have despaired of making common cause, because bipartisanship IS punished within the republican party, and by FOX.

I can apprecaite my fellow man, but I must also answer the question posed by the success of their tactics. I know that during the Bush era, the republicans would be AGHAST at someone like him. Someone who openly doubted McCain?? Good gravy, that would have been something to see.

But reality has drifted, and political success has dependend more and more on extremism and animosity. They can dispute the existence of evolution, and succeed in making it an issue!

Today, all that seems to matter is poltical efficiency. People have voted for Trump even KNOWING that he is going to be terrible, but because he is better for their goals.

I can feel for everyone, but as the right likes to say - who gives a frig about your feelings?

What matters is winning.

Make emapthy win. Make bipartisanship work again, then you have a chance. But why should the republicans ever do that? Their approach has given them everything they have ever desired.

[scarab92]

Gaining voters from the right shouldn't be the Democrats primary focus.

Their primary focus should be retaining voters, by broadening the range of opinions which are acceptable within the party.

They are a decade down a purity spiral, which has resulted in the range of acceptable opinions within the party shrinking considerably, and the shunning of many individuals unnecessarily, who either stop voting altogether or find company on the right.

I gave the example above of how the republican party is able to accomodate a significant number of both pro-life and pro-choice members. The Democrats will similarly need to learn to expand their umbrella as well. Perhaps not with abortion rights, but maybe by shedding some of their zero-sum economic thinking, or race-centric thinking.

If they can fix this, they will grow, because their biggest source of new members is young adults becoming eligible to vote, not people they pull away from the right. The Democrats just need to stop churning so many people away.

[xp84]

> Perhaps not with abortion rights, but maybe by shedding some of their zero-sum economic thinking, or race-centric thinking.

I think this is the big one here. Race and gender, this seems to be the only thing Dems can even talk about. I just saw videos from the recent DNC winter meeting. Watch for just 75 seconds starting here: https://youtu.be/1pHvkq4ehkE?t=93

I guess this apparently plays well among the tiny base that the DNC still has, but when most independents and moderates look at this nonsense, this party is a caricature of itself.

And my point isn't that they need to pull the far right into their tent somehow. But rather that most people including the average first-time voters, are much more moderate than the current DNC has positioned itself now, and it seems like Dems mostly just want to shock them rather than win their hearts.

[roenxi]

> I know that during the Bush era, the republicans would be AGHAST at someone like him.

The Bush era has been the worst disaster for the right wing this century in both the US and potentially globally. He was a warmonger, an economic vandal and an unprincipled man at the helm of a state that flubbed any chance at setting up for meaningful long term success in favour of the patriot act and slaughtering goat herders in the middle east. Under his eye the Republicans exiled the right from cultural relevance for around a decade. The party around him were cut from the same cloth.

There is a reason the modern Republican party went with Trump rather than another person who looked like Bush. The entire Trump story has been the Republicans - without too much recrimination - attempting to purge the remains of the Bush era because they were a gross embarrassment whos legacy has been little short of a disaster. If the US Democrats had undertaken the same purge instead of embracing the leadership of the same era then they wouldn't have tried to run Biden then Kamala.

[intended]

This is what is annoying - you saw a noun, and talked about that noun. Not about the conversation we were having which is about standards of decency expected from the Dems in speech.

And how those standards don’t matter on the right.

Bush was an idiot, does stating that satisfy you ? Would that allow you the peace to reconnect with the point ? (Also yeah. Warmongers suck. Surprisingly something everyone agrees on. The anti war position is the OG leftie position, so it’s great to see it on the right.)

[roenxi]

Maybe make your point more directly next time. It seems that point was winning is the only thing that matters and that is driving change in the Republicans.

That isn't what is happening; if they were focused on winning at all costs they wouldn't ever nominate Trump. The man has some of the most dedicated enemies out there short of those found in a multi-generational religious war and he doesn't poll especially well. The female half of the population tend to be a bit lukewarm towards him and that doesn't help win elections either since there are a lot of them.

The Republicans are engaged in an ideological reform to clear out specifically the people who were active in the Bush years. That happens to be a broader election winner too.

[intended]

Trump is a repudiation of every Repub value out there. He is non Christian, he is not the person of small government. He found time to insult McCain.

All that matters is that Trump wins elections. This isn’t even a secret, this is literally what many Trump voters have said.

And since when do Repubs care 1 whit about enemies?

Finally - you are free to believe what you like. If this makes you feel better, so be it. I have no desire to take it from you.

[tomrod]

You see the same desperation when a religion starts faltering/drying up. Loads of good folks start to break away. Those that remain tend to be beneficiaries from the system, or are sociopaths who don't know how to adapt, or are gullible folks who don't know how to discern lying, or are andbusy folks for whom inertia is less painful than change.

I see that in politics in a lot of ways. I'm still figuring out my concept model for it, but the experience of religious exit is showing similarities.