What did Democrats do wrong?

[d4m10n]

So the uninformed under-educated gullibles are now controlling the direction of the nation.

If only there were some sort of anti-gullible movement dedicated to informing the under-educated before they are taken advantage of by charlatans.

 

[johnny karate]

Yes, because we can safely assume the faithful and the undecideds were exposed to exactly the same news sources and political advertising. Nothing remotely tribalist about this "they not like us" approach to the electorate.

You have two choices for the swing voters who went for Trump: Either they were paying attention to what he said and voted for him or they weren’t paying attention to what he said and voted for him. Neither option says anything very good about them.

 

[johnny karate]

If only there were some sort of anti-gullible movement dedicated to informing the under-educated before they are taken advantage of by charlatans.

If only there was some kind of organization to get horses to drink once you’ve led them to the water.

 

[mumblethrax]

If only there were some sort of anti-gullible movement dedicated to informing the under-educated before they are taken advantage of by charlatans.

Probably not the movement you want if you're worried about coming off as superior. Calling religious people delusional? Loathesome epithets like "woo woo"? Confidently declaring yourself to be a "bright"?

 

[Thermal]

So the uninformed under-educated gullibles are now controlling the direction of the nation.

Perhaps we should introduce like a test to make sure everyone is good enough to vote? What could go wrong there?

 

[Donal]

To be clear, you're saying that none of the 76 million Trump voters "can be reasoned with" now or ever?

Seems pretty defeatist but okay. I hope none of the 2026 candidates have you on staff.

was it Mark Twain who said, "you can't reason someone out of a place they didn't reason themselves into?"

It's like alcoholism or any addiction. You can't save them. If anything, getting tied up with them only drags you down. You can only be there for them when they are ready to turn it around.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm reaching the conclusion that some people find it easier to fight imaginary problems than real ones. There are a lot of real, serious problems in the world, and in life in general. It must feel safer, easier to just make up an imaginary conflict, flesh it out with juicy, salacious, ludicrously wild improbable stories, then spend all your time and energy prattling about that. Wages have stagnated --or sunk-- while costs have risen on everything...but the economy is hard. Solutions aren't evident, even understanding the problems isn't simple. But evil involuntary sex-changing plots, magical pedophile gangs, brain-chemical harvesters, Cylons, and semi-omnipotent fallen angels wanting to steal your soul by tempting you with alcoholic liquors and dancing...well, those are easy to figure out the problem and pick a side, and interesting enough in details to make great stories.

A lot of the ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up stuff happening with gender transitions is quite real, it's not a conspiracy theory. You can argue that it's not very important compared to other issues, but I think you're making a mistake to dismiss concerns about it so trivially. The thing is, a lot of times we interpret things as being indicators of more than just the thing itself. For example, if someone doesn't look you in the eyes when talking to you but keeps looking away, we interpret that as meaning something about their trustworthiness. Sometimes we're wrong, there may be other issues at play, but as a rule of thumb, that's a useful indicator. People aren't wrong to take stuff like that into account, even when the act itself of looking someone in they eye doesn't really matter.

And a lot of voters take the trans issue as an indicator. It's an issue where the activists are in denial about what reality is, and are running roughshod over very legitimate concerns about the harm they are doing. You can claim that very few people are affected by the issue, but so what? If a politician is siding with activists engaged in such a fundamental denial of reality on this issue, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that they're willing to deny reality on more important stuff as well. So you don't have to think the issue is important in and of itself to care about it. It's perfectly logical to interpret it as an indicator of broader propensities.

 

[Donal]

Desegregating schools was an indicator too, once upon a time.

 

[johnny karate]

A lot of the ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up stuff happening with gender transitions is quite real, it's not a conspiracy theory. You can argue that it's not very important compared to other issues, but I think you're making a mistake to dismiss concerns about it so trivially. The thing is, a lot of times we interpret things as being indicators of more than just the thing itself. For example, if someone doesn't look you in the eyes when talking to you but keeps looking away, we interpret that as meaning something about their trustworthiness. Sometimes we're wrong, there may be other issues at play, but as a rule of thumb, that's a useful indicator. People aren't wrong to take stuff like that into account, even when the act itself of looking someone in they eye doesn't really matter.

And a lot of voters take the trans issue as an indicator. It's an issue where the activists are in denial about what reality is, and are running roughshod over very legitimate concerns about the harm they are doing. You can claim that very few people are affected by the issue, but so what? If a politician is siding with activists engaged in such a fundamental denial of reality on this issue, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that they're willing to deny reality on more important stuff as well. So you don't have to think the issue is important in and of itself to care about it. It's perfectly logical to interpret it as an indicator of broader propensities.

The idea that the people who just voted to put an anti-vaxxer in charge of public health are the champions of reality remains laughably stupid.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Desegregating schools was an indicator too, once upon a time.

Ah, but how did segregationists stand on trans? That's the only issue that matters, ever!

 

[Darat]

Desegregating schools was an indicator too, once upon a time.

And not allowing two people of the same sex to marry each other.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ah, but how did segregationists stand on trans? That's the only issue that matters, ever!

That's quite the goalpost move from claiming that people cared about an issue that doesn't matter to claiming that people didn't care about any other issue.

 

[Ziggurat]

Desegregating schools was an indicator too, once upon a time.

OK. What's your point? Do you have one?

 

[Donal]

People don't care about the issue.

 

[Donal]

OK. What's your point? Do you have one?

You continue to defend the wrong side of history

 

[TragicMonkey]

That's quite the goalpost move from claiming that people cared about an issue that doesn't matter to claiming that people didn't care about any other issue.

You're the one who said "It's perfectly logical to interpret it as an indicator of broader propensities" and turned it into a bellwether for all possible issues. It's your "indicator". You said it.

 

[Ziggurat]

You continue to defend the wrong side of history

Are you under the impression that I defended school segregation?

You are correct that ending school segregation was an indicator, though. You can reasonably conclude that a politician who stopped school segregation would act to end other forms of segregation. That's a reasonable inference.

As for the wrong side of history, what makes you think that denying that there are innate biological differences between men and women is the right side?

 

[Ziggurat]

You're the one who said "It's perfectly logical to interpret it as an indicator of broader propensities" and turned it into a bellwether for all possible issues. It's your "indicator". You said it.

All possible issues? No, I never said that. I suggested other issues, but I never said all possible issues. But even more importantly, it's an indicator. That doesn't mean it's the only indicator, or even the biggest indicator on any given issue.

You're really stretching here.

 

[TragicMonkey]

All possible issues? No, I never said that. I suggested other issues, but I never said all possible issues. But even more importantly, it's an indicator. That doesn't mean it's the only indicator, or even the biggest indicator on any given issue.

You're really stretching here.

Does that mean you disagree with the hypothesis that Harris lost because of her alleged perceived support for trans people?

 

[Ziggurat]

Does that mean you disagree with the hypothesis that Harris lost because of her alleged perceived support for trans people?

If the hypothesis is that this is the singular factor responsible for her loss and that she would have won had she taken a different position, yes, I disagree with that hypothesis.

If the hypothesis is that her position on this issue cost her votes, and she could have gotten more votes (though perhaps still not enough to win) had she taken a different position, then I agree with that hypothesis.

Neither is quite what we were discussing, though, which was more about the reasonableness of even considering the issue when deciding who to vote for.