[somenameforme]

What does this mean? The majority of people, regardless of 'group', are facing similar issues. I think this sort of rhetoric, alongside the endless hyperbole, is a big part of why the Democrat party is facing substantial difficulties.

I also think this claim is falsifiable by the homogeneity of party views. The stereotype of a Republican is pro-gun, anti-abortion, yeehaw. In reality? Only 24% of Republicans completely oppose abortion [1] and only 27% think gun laws should be less strict. [2] The party has become extremely heterogeneous. By contrast, stereotypes on Democrat views are somewhat more accurate with 86% thinking gun laws should be more strict, and 56% supporting abortion at any time, for any reason.

Were the Republican party supporting some specific 'group', you would expect to see a general homogeneity of views. And were the Democrat party supporting a large number of otherwise relatively independent 'groups', you would expect to see a general heterogeneity of views. Instead, we see something much closer to the exact opposite.

[1] - https://news.gallup.com/poll/246278/abortion-trends-party.as...

[2] - https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/24/key-facts...

[kenjackson]

This is consistent with my take. Most positions don’t matter. They’re side issues. The only thing that truly matters in party politics is identity. And the group that Republicans support the most are straight white males. That’s the in-group. All the other issues you mention are just side quests.

[somenameforme]

I applaud you having the dignity to define 'group' instead of weaseling around it. But the issue you immediately run into is that it's not like non-white individuals are homogenous, yet the Democratic party's polling on most issues is. In any case, society isn't buying this stuff.

For instance the most recent election was decided by the economy. People that thought the economy was excellent/good voted for Harris by a margin of about 92%. Those who thought it was mediocre/poor voted for Trump by a margin of 70%. [1] And it turned out that way more people thought the economy was bad than those that thought it was good.

This led to the best result ever for a Republican for both blacks and hispanics, with Trump outright winning Hispanic males. All the while the Democrat party flailed about with this identity stuff that not only do people mostly not care about, but that also pushes away folks like me that are liberal but vehemently against political correctness, identity politics, etc.

[1] - https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/exit-polls

[lotsofpulp]

I don’t buy that. People might like to claim it was the economy, but it’s about making themselves feel like they’re not being passed up on the socioeconomic ladder, especially by a black woman.

It’s better for their won ego to vote to keep a white man at the top, even if he committed treason, than to see someone they perceive as below them go past them. For many, it even works to keep their same group down, because it can feel like a personal failure to not achieve more (such as women who would rather vote for a man).

This is one of the truest quotes there is, and it can be generalized to all people, not just white men:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lbj-convince-the-lowest-wh...

[somenameforme]

Think about the implications of your argument. Trump didn't win because of some tremendous upsurge in voters - his increase in votes was no more than proportional to the increase in eligible voters. He won because some odd 6 million+ mystery voters that voted for Biden, didn't vote for Harris. And that's more like 10 million if we assume that the DNC baseline turnout was proportional to the increase in eligible voters.

[lotsofpulp]

I classify not voting as a vote for the winning candidate.

Dems lost twice with a highly qualified woman candidate, against a highly unqualified man candidate.

[somenameforme]

"Qualified" for political office means, essentially by definition, the ability to garner votes. Clinton is one of the most unlikeable people imaginable who is almost certainly also a literal sociopath. [1] Harris started out by being the VP in a Presidency that, at its 'peak' was literally the most unpopular Presidency of all time, or at least since approval ratings began being tracked. And she has a habits such as cackling when caught lying, struggling to avoid becoming completely and literally incoherent in any conversation that last more than a few moments, and so on.

Obama? Coherent, intelligent, charismatic, and not only won by 10million+ votes, but also received more votes than any President at that point to date. I'm not fond of the guy (even if I voted for him, once) yet his speeches still literally give me goose bumps. He has an amazing rhetorical ability, which is the money shot in politics. By contrast, if he had the same traits/skillset as Harris or Clinton, he would have also been stomped and you would have been here arguing that people didn't vote for him because he was black.

People, in general, just don't really care about identity. Run particularly bad candidates and you're going to lose. Run particularly bad candidates while repeatedly claiming the sky is falling, and you're going to lose and imperil your ability to succeed in the future.

[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlz3-OzcExI

[kenjackson]

I'm also against identity politics in theory, but it's the one thing that binds everything together neatly. In fact, your example is evidence of my point. Who are these people that think the economy is good versus those who think its bad? Why does it cut more strongly across racial lines than it does against economic lines? It's because it's not really about the economy. The economy is simply a proxy to vote against -- it's a dog whistle. Just like Haitians eating dogs, or kids becoming cats at school, gun control, and even abortion.

What the Republicans are good at, and how they've convinced you that they're the right choice is they openly attack certain positions they feel they have strength in and know that Dems need to defend. Like trans people. Dems know that sticking up for trans is a losing proposition, but they also know that this is what they do -- they stand for those who are most oppressed. Gay marriage 20 years ago was the same thing.

And what Republicans do with a relatively loud dog whistle is indirectly attack identity. Go and look at relatively mainstream conservative forums and search for the term "DEI hire" or "DEI admit". The actual qualifications don't matter. They aren't requesting nuance, it's simply "black = DEI hire" and "white male = merit hire". Look Trump's cabinet. Conservatives say not a peep about their qualifications and routinely disparage others. Another example is crime. I'm sure you've seen the online memes about "well, well, well" or "13/50". It's a way to disparage black people in the context of crime. The fact that this stuff floods social media can only be attributed to widespread empathy for this position or bots.

And you're right that Dems do flail about identity, because they are actually trying to address the elephant in the room. But they need to do better to make it focused more on the subtext. Rather than advocate for LGBTQ rights, fight for universal parental leave rights.

Trumps legacy will have very little to do with the economy except for a failed attempt at mass scale tariffs (which honestly aren't nearly as good nor bad as people narrate -- but its just narrative). It will be around identity issues. It will be his attacks on removing identity from history, his attacks on higher education, his disenfranchising minority voters, his deporting of immigrants (legal and illegal), attacks on birthright citizenship. Plus some non-identity issues, which mostly relate to his power: war in Ukraine and prosecutions of enemies.

So make no mistake that while Republicans don't flail about identity (because they're much better at being on message), it is absolutely that tie that binds. It is the foundation. Everything else about small government, states rights, etc... all those principles fall apart. Identity is the one thing that withstands scrutiny. We both prefer it weren't so, but it is.

[somenameforme]

Try to read your post with the mindset of somebody who does not already share your worldview. Claiming things like people stating they were voting on the economy was some sort of dog whistle is something that might pass muster on Bluesky, but sounds a bit off kilter if you're not just preaching to the choir.

And extrapolating your online bubble to real life is unwise. For instance poll the majority of people, Democrat or Republican, on DEI and the most common answer you'd get is 'What's DEI?' When told what it stands for, most would take the meaning literally and generally support it. When they see how it plays out in practice, opposition would grow. You can see this here [1] where in 2023 only 16% of workers felt DEI was a bad thing.

[1] - https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/11/19/views-of-...

[kenjackson]

The economy simply doesn't change anyone's vote. See [1] for example. Despite Utah Republicans feeling less optimistic due to Trump economically, they still support him. Why? Because they never actually voted on the economy.

There's no actual indicator that people actually vote on the economy. When it's bad you vote for your party, and when its good you do too. In part because when its bad its the other guy's fault. When its good, your team did it. There's no actual substance to economic data that will change voting.

Regarding "my online bubble" -- it's not mine. Give me any major news story regarding a black person and crime and I can give you a link of comments in 30s. You pick the story. I'm not going to 4chan. This is just reddit, TikTok, YouTube, Insta.

On DEI, I'm similar to the people polled. I think in spirit its a good idea, but poorly implemented. But the fact that I think doesn't mean I look down on every black person hired. This is like people conflating BLM the organization with BLM the sentiment. I'm sure you've seen the interviews of people about "CRT" -- they immediately say they're opposed to it. When asked why they say, "I'm not really sure what it is, I just know I don't like it".

[1] https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2025/08/14/trumps-elect...

[somenameforme]

An example that 'some indicator in some situation does not change some people's vote', does not generalize to 'indicator never changes anybody's vote in any situation'. People said they were voting based on the economy, and it drove votes that also ran directly contrary to this identity stuff. For instance, Trump won Hispanic males by 10 point margin.

The point about online bubbles is that what you read online isn't representative sample of what people in the real world are like. People who post online are a vocal minority that disproportionately often hold fringe views that typically become even more fringe over time due to the radicalizing effect of the echo chambers that most prefer to post in.