Not American here. Reading your guys replies it almost feels like you are rejecting the existence of Trump supporters or invalidating their stance. Doesn’t this enforce their argument and created this situation in th first place?
> rejecting the existence of Trump supporters or invalidating their stance
I think the problem is that if you read what people say about why they voted for Trump, it becomes clear that an echo chamber is at least as salient to these voters as traditional Republican motivations.
I am unsurprised about the 2024 election and it's exactly what you'd imagine from a purely economic perspective.
The 2016 election, however, has been studied extensively, and it's clear that several aberrations (large contingent of Republican candidates, the first black president, Facebook, Comey) tipped things in a way that you wouldn't expect if voters are acting rationally.
So as someone who genuinely wishes to understand how people think about things, I don't know what's going on here. I can't tell what new lie will be pushed next week to distract us from the recently-disproven lie of last week. Were I outside all of this, I would have very little hope.
(edit: re sibling poster, Trump is not a representative of the median voter but instead a representative of the median electoral college elector. We can't have it both ways, rejecting the popular vote and then failing to acknowledge that our politics represent the electors and not the man on the street)
I’m not trying to convince anyone. I am happy to engage in a discussion if you are interested in anything beyond platitudes about what will and will not “work”.
I'm rejecting your claim that voters didn't act rationally relative to any other human.
No human is 100% rational, doesn't matter if you are Progressive or Conservative, you don't get to claim to be rational and others not (relatively speaking).
> I'm rejecting your claim that voters didn't act rationally relative to any other human.
Okay
> you don't get to claim to be rational and others not (relatively speaking).
Agreed. However, if someone presents a rubric to explain her actions, any person can assess that rubric and the actions for congruence. This is what I am doing.
> I think the problem is that if you read what people say about why they voted for Trump, it becomes clear that an echo chamber is at least as salient to these voters as traditional Republican motivations.
same can be said about people on the opposite side.
> the things that traditional Democrats supported in 1992 are largely the same things supported now.
No. See Bernie Sanders in 2015 talking about how America needs strong borders and illegal immigrants are used by big business to rip American workers off. See Obama’s speech on the same. See positions on trans identifying males in women’s sports. See open support for hiring based on sex and race. Many democrat positions from 20 years ago are now considered right wing.
Please find perspectives on each of those from 1992 (the OP mentions a handful of culture wars issues that I won’t reproduce).
You misinterpret my statement when you select hot-button issues of today that were not in the public discourse at that time- and almost none of the things you mention were in ANY public platform at that time.
My point is that the core political planks from then (healthcare for example, jobs for coal workers) are maintained in one political tradition and not another.
I don’t think the 1992 perspectives would have been different from the 2015 perspectives. Do you?
I live in a different western country but was old enough to watch the US news (Tom Brokaw) then. People did actually discuss these things. The consensus was: the border should exist. Tomboys were tomboys. Effeminate boys were effeminate boys. You can’t just have a policy of hiring someone based on their race because that’s silly and illegal.
> I live in a different western country but was old enough to watch the US news (Tom Brokaw) then. People did actually discuss these things. The consensus was: the border should exist. Tomboys were tomboys. Effeminate boys were effeminate boys. You can’t just have a policy of hiring someone based on their race because that’s silly and illegal.
I'm very curious about this if you're able to find records on this sort of thing.
From the top:
- I don't think the words we use on news these days were even allowed back then (rapists, Small Hands Rubio), so I don't think "these things" were discussed.
- "You can’t just have a policy of hiring someone based on their race because that’s silly and illegal." You said you're not American, so you may not understand that the current ethos of 'reverse racism' was not how this question was viewed in the 90's
- "the border should exist" This hasn't changed. I'm not sure why people are so ready to parrot this point, when Obama deported more people than any previous president, and Biden continued that. If anything, there has been a monotonic increase in this (but nevermind that many large businesses rely on undocumented labor)
- "Effeminate boys" I am sure that was never on the news in the 90s, and definitely not in a party platform. Gay people have always existed and it's a credit to our current era that we have finally started acknowledging that this isn't a 'wrong' way of living
First time I heard ‘small hands Rubio’ but yes totally agreed politics seems dirtier now.
Anyone with enough exposure to American culture to realise the reasons given for stopping anti black racism are now thrown out, and left wing activists are openly discriminating against Asians, Europeans and Jewish people.
“the border should exist” is now controversial. People think “defending migrants” (which I am) means defending illegal migration. There are suburban mom vigilantes taking on LEOs.
I am talking about sterilising and giving cosmetic surgery to effeminate boys and tomboy girls. We used to acknowledge they existed. Now we tell them their bodies are wrong. Which is not a credit to our current era.
All these positions are remarkably different from the 1990s. Asides from present day politicians having different views in older recordings, Bill Maher also talks about this very frequently.
I hate to bring up all the actions taken against American citizens and legal migrants.
> Bill Maher also talks about this very frequently.
I would not take his talking points to reflect Democratic Party orthodoxy. However, I would challenge you to compare his 1990s recordings to the more recent ones to see how things have changed.
> all the actions taken against American citizens and legal migrants.
Yes, for example this guy. He was indeed an american citizen, and anti-ICE activists framed it has him being kidnapped and driven around for two hours. The wider story is much more interesting: https://x.com/TriciaOhio/status/2013317071342317918
> I would not take his talking points to reflect Democratic Party orthodoxy.
Yes, agreed. That's the point. Bill Maher's views haven't changed much compared to 15 years ago, the Democratic Party's views have.
Also 'talking points' is a silly word for things people say. I write things, you write things. You don't have 'talking points' and I don't have 'talking points'.
This is perhaps true to an extent. But what is also true to an unprecedented extent for Americans is that this 'stance' is almost pure demagoguery. For many, there is no 'stance', their 'stance' is Trump, whether he hews close to a principle or completely contradicts it.
"median American voter" implies a distribution of views like a normal distribution, with a lot of people in the middle and a few people on extremes. If that is the distribution, then the median is representative of most people. I am not sure that is really a great way of thinking about American voters these days. It seems to me that American's views on many issues are tending to cluster around extremes, with fewer people in the middle. So I am not sure the median is as meaningful.
Median does not assume anything about the distribution which is precisely why I use it. Median allows for us to count max total of one category because the variances are so small. Hence why medians can actually demonstrate the underlying distribution instead of commingling amplitude like the mean.
In this case it’s “American Voter” as the category. This is what messes most people up, because they read “American Citizen” but I’m describing only the subset of citizens who successfully vote.
Using that number you’ll see what the demographics demonstrate: there are not as many progressive voters as there are “conservative” voters and only 2/3 of eligible voters even cared to vote.
If you zoom out even further and you evaluate which candidates run, then it really does not matter who is voting or not because ultimately who is on the ballot is dictated by a small group of party leaders, who in turn are dictated by whomever has the most money for ad spending.
The median American voter voted for Obama, and then Trump, and then Biden, and then Trump. They are angry about inflation, hate billionaires, don't want to start a war, and don't know who pays tariffs.
Basically, the median American voter does not have a coherent position. It's futile trying to build a narrative around them.
I mean I think that’s exactly my point this concept that there’s some kind of like ideal or coherent version of the American voting public it just doesn’t exist
Donald Trump is an irrational randomly reactive, incoherent person who doesn’t know what he wants other than to just be in charge and to do whatever he wants all the time
If that doesn’t describe the median American voter I don’t know what does
No, but they they were somewhat accurate representations of the median American voter (note here VOTER is the key) - less so than Trump, given what he’s been able to get away with.
> Trump is an accurate representation of the median American voter
On foreign policy? Probably not.
Like, Biden wasn’t an accurate representation of the median American voter on e.g. transgender kids in school sports. That wasn’t just right-wing delusion.
Because he’s telling Americans exactly how he’s going to oppress and punish them, doing it publicly with no remorse and a patina of lying, and people still supporting
It’s great to have non-US alternatives, but when non-US alternatives become extreme self-centered as EU tends to be(come), I start questioning if this a solution I’m willing to adopt.
Current direction “of protecting the children” will easily put a filter on what you will be allowed to see and find; censorship is just too easy to implement behind the closed doors
US solutions are incredibly self-centered. It's very visible to Europeans how American cultural norms completely dominate the digital public sphere. In 2025, this feels dangerous to many of us.
Examples of American cultural attitudes permeating social media platforms that have felt very odd in Europe: Firearms and violence (which is apparently allowed), and nudity (which is apparently always sexual).
The concerns about the current direction of EU regulation are valid and huge, I get that.
What's more surprising to me (also EU citizen) is how readily able we are to adopt US cultural norms to our own.
The most glaring and obvious example is the narrative surrounding race/gender relations. The EU has it's own racial issues but we get BLM riots too and we get chest thumping misandrists in Sweden.. the country that has done the most to promote gender equality of any nation on the planet.
BLM riots don't make sense in the UK for example, our race relations are much more nuanced, difficult, and probably put the Pakistani community in the most visibly disadvantaged position; but there's no space to talk about that as we're discussing George Floyd and police brutality (which, largely is not a UK issue at all).
I know for Americans this might come off as tone deaf because everything over there is so polarised it's like a battle to the death; but I think a major reason the right wing is growing in the EU is because of US cultural norms becoming prevalent (individualism over collectivism) and that naturally comes with some amount of xenophobia; as if you're living an individualistic mindset you naturally see resources as zero-sum.
The growth of right-wing movements thrive, ironically, by positioning themselves as a bulwark against what they frame as foreign cultural encroachment. It seems we're stuck trying to choose between a censored European world or an American one that doesn't fit us at all.
But if I have to choose, I choose the one that actually sort of fits.
Denmark have in the past few elections had a guy run on the promise of reinstating the Glass–Steagall Act. No word on how a Dane, in the Danish parliament would even be in a position of reintroducing a US law.
It's incredibly frustrating to see people around you adopt US mentality, problems and problem solving. This can be simple things like talking to the police, ignoring the fact that there's a huge difference in talking to a police officer in Gothenburg vs. Baltimore. Some times you even run into people protesting something that's not a problem, but US centric social media has lead them to believe it is. At the same time many are completely oblivious to local issues.
I also think it's worth mentioning that it apparently affects both sides of the political spectrum.
For example, a couple of years ago there were suddenly people protesting drag queens reading to children in Denmark, and it was so obviously an outrage they had imported directly from American social media. (Granted, these were fringe nutjobs and were quickly dismissed in public discourse, but nevertheless.)
Clearly, American social platforms are the vehicles to deliver this division, but I wouldn't dismiss the possibility that the message is being equally engineered and promoted by other powers as well (Russia and China as a bare minimum, from the top of recently documented elections interferences).
That's not to absolve Americans at all, but rather to reinforce the idea that the EU should reign over those platforms in the EU, and/or promote its own.
I can't talk about other countries, but in France it's clear that liberals (which in my books are right wing) try to emulate the US and capture more traditional movements/struggles.
Liberal 'feminists' borrowing the US word 'empowerment' to replace the word 'emancipation', and their new feminist dream is to be a CEO instead of finding a way to smoothen or remove hierarchical structures. Beauvoir is radically reinterpreted, and d'Eaubonne forgotten.
What's funny is that most movements on the right of liberals are becoming even more US coded (all beside one in the regular right, and all beside Monarchist and Bonapartists on the far right) , enough to forget even _very recent_ memories, because they want to transform my country into the US so much. Manifesting transformism shows while transformists were not a subject for almost a century (and Michou died less than a decade ago) is peak American (which isn't an issue if you're from the US to be clear). A more anecdotal example: my mother and aunts are catholic and go to every local church event, at least since their sister died. A lot of (mostly young) people converted recently and those neo-catholic act like Puritains, like they were in a TV show. Calling Yoga devil's work and other shit like that. The priests are trying to do something because apparently it became unbearable.
I'd agree with you with the point that the local right wing ideologies are repackaged old-school nationalism reinventing itself. The most radical right wing governments are in the former communist countries where the communism was just nationalism with socialist coating. Adopting US terminology is not always adopting US ideas as well.
> I'd agree with you with the point that the local right wing ideologies are repackaged old-school nationalism reinventing itself. The most radical right wing governments are in the former communist countries where the communism was just nationalism with socialist coating. Adopting US terminology is not always adopting US ideas as well.
Our local right-wingers want to shut down our equivalent to the education department because “they are too woke”. Meanwhile those same “nationalists” want to stop funding local culture in favor of importing US culture.
This is in Finland of all places. I’m tired of our local social media drones going crazy over US nonsense but our right-wing parties want more of it.
The global cultural influence of the US is really showing and it’s going to be a wild ride as the world shifts to reject it as that influence starts turning against us.
Woke ideology is a rebranding of social democracy and egalitarian humanism, and certainly not invented in US.
What is American is the endless need to slap a scary label on it, turn it into a culture war football, and export the outrage everywhere else. We’ve been talking about equality, workers' rights, and anti-discrimination in Europe for over a century without needing Fox News to tell us it's dangerous. Now suddenly our own politicians are parroting this imported panic as if it were homegrown wisdom.
With the Internet it takes just a few seconds of searching and reading to find that traditional Nordic / European social democracy is not the roots of modern "woke" ideology.
Especially when it comes to all the main doctrines of woke ideology concerning race and ethnicity, sexuality, immigration, labor and drug use.
> Woke ideology is a rebranding of social democracy and egalitarian humanism, and certainly not invented in US.
It has nothing in common with socialist ideas, this is why it was so eagerly embraced by big corpos and media - to divide those that need solidarity, to substitute representation in place of equality.
Identity politics, a key component of woke ideology, is not a rebranding of social democracy and egalitarian humanism.
The latter two used to be a common platforming of class equality. Woke ideology has turned common ground into a pitched battle against each other where the only winners are wealthy elites.
I don't think that's a strong enough argument. Most American tech products coming from large companies have excellent translations and localization, but this does not extend to content moderation policies or even socially responsible corporate behavior.
It’s great to have US offerings, but when US offerings become extreme self-centered as US offerings tend to be, I start questioning if this a solution I’m willing to adopt. Current direction “of protecting the oligarch‘s profits and feelings” will easily put a filter on what you will be allowed to see and find; censorship is just too easy to implement behind the closed doors
IMO this is exactly how it works without the Ai already. I have had a pleasure of renting a plentitude of cars all over the world, and would say that in 10-15% cases there will be reason to withhold or try to withdraw money for “various car damages”, “traffic violations”, “empty gas tank”, .. It doesn’t matter if this is pre-war Ukraine, spain, turkey, small company, large corp,.. Now they just have a tool for that.
Psa:
in most places they would try to scam you by removing a small piece of trim (under the rearview mirror, below bumper,..) and on your return claim it as a damage. That’s why you need to take a video and pics while taking the car. This trick saved me probably tens of thousands of dollars by now.
Well, I wouldn't entrust critical infrastructure to the private sector which.. blindly optimizes shareholder value and sells your data anywhere. Germany's train privatization also comes to mind,.. or US healthcare - worse service for more money.
We pay for utilities directly. Also, even it if it was funded from state budget(s), there are known and working controls to make publicly funded <> state controlled.
reply