[ethbr1]

Exactly. That's one thing that disappointed me about the US Democratic party after the first Trump election -- a complete lack of curiosity into why people voted for him.

Maybe people were voting for him because they were dumb? Or they were lied to?

But neither of those change the importance of understanding what those people wanted.

You can't win elections without understanding what most people actually want.

[Capricorn2481]

I think maybe 1 in 20 people I know have any clue about government waste, but they all have a "feeling" it's happening and it's the worst it's ever been. It takes very little these days for people to catch these vibes, and even littler to associate it with Democrats who are for social security.

This despite the fact that Musk is mostly firing investigators who were seeing if his company's were a budget waste. I guess we just have to assume agencies that say "black" are bad and what we really need to spend money on is luxury EV vehicles that can play angry birds. Surely not a conflict of interest.

There is no arguing with people who don't know what they want. This is all propaganda fueled hysteria.

[WatchDog]

> Maybe people were voting for him because they were dumb? Or they were lied to?

I cant tell if this is intentional irony or poe’s law.

When democrats that are curious about why people vote for Trump, conclude that the voters are dumb or naive, it’s kind of an unintentional demonstration of the kind of thinking that turns people away from the Democratic Party.

[ethbr1]

My point was that if they conclude that Trump voters are dumb or naive (i.e. the most dismissive judgement), even that still doesn't remove the need for Democrats to understand what those same people want.

The smug "some people are dumb, so I'm going to ignore them instead of being curious" elitism has lost the Democratic party two recent elections.