424
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 84 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I kinda get what you mean, am I’m really weirded out by how obsessed the US is with ethnic groups, like “black vote”, “white vote” etc, because most countries don’t focus on race like that.

But data wise, Trump barely increased his vote share in white men over last election, but significantly increased in black men, so I think that’s why some data analysts are pointing it out as an interesting shift in the electorate. However to suggest it’s any ethnic group’s “fault” someone won is just stupid. And if you’re gonna do that, try gen-X white men living in the countryside.

[-] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago

That’s because most countries are far more ethnically homogenous than the US. The ones that aren’t show similar patterns. Look at India for example. Or Israel.

[-] TheOctonaut@mander.xyz 8 points 1 month ago

This is, of course, Ameri-centric horseshit. American voting is reported on as white, black, Latino and not-statisitcally-significant. Meanwhile they'll call other countries "ethnically homogenous" mostly because they don't know anything about any other countries or literally thousands of years of finding any reason to hate each other. Motherfucker I don't care if we're genetically identical I'll be dead and buried before I vote for a fucking Walloon/Protestant/Catholic/Silesian/Scouser/Galician/Lombard/Frisian (delete as appropriate). They haven't at any point all been thrown into a cage, deprived of their heritage and told "nah you're just black/mexican now". And it ignores that yes, global migration is global. Every colonial state has left people behind in its former colonies, and found themselves with former subjects as citizens too.

[-] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago

Wow, chill out! I was very careful to use the word more. I didn’t say other countries are ethnically homogenous in the absolute sense, just relative to the US. Take Japan for example. Yes, there are quite a lot of ethnic minorities in Japan (both indigenous and foreign) however well over 90% of the country identifies only as Japanese and nothing else. This is a very different picture from the US.

You can see a similar story many other countries but not all. India, for example, has many ethnic groups which are strongly distinguished by language, religion, and culture. It’s also the case that ethnicity plays a major role in the politics of India and that role has been increasing of late, not diminishing.

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

“I just got back from touring Ireland. It’s wild over there. It just goes to show that without blacks, Jews, or Mexicans, people will improvise!”

-Jimmie Walker

[-] FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Japan is a major exception to the general trend though. They are one of the only western democracies that barely accept any migrants.

And even then, Japan has a significant population of what used to be Korean Slaves during the war, to someone in the US, they might “look the same” but these people are heavily discriminated against, a lot of them are statless and refused citizenship because of their korean heritage, even if they lived in Japan for 80+ years.

And that’s ignoring the forced homogenisation in the late 19th and early 20th centuries during the Meijing Restoration. Where all the minor ethnic groups in Japan were forcibly “mixed in” and their culture was destroyed and replaced with the majority group’s culture to create an ethnostate.

[-] roguetrick@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Well you also have to take into account that Japan has elected a right wing government nearly consistently since the end of the war thanks to concerted government/American suppression of the left since the end of the war.

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 2 points 1 month ago

Meanwhile they'll call other countries "ethnically homogenous" mostly because they don't know anything about any other countries or literally thousands of years of finding any reason to hate each other.

It's a lot easier to not hate someone who looks just like you, speaks like you, believes in the same things as you, etc etc. You can put a lot of names to subgroups, but most Europeans are white atheists/Christians. If Europe wasn't ethnically homogeneous they wouldn't go this batshit insane over Middle Eastern immigration. Because that's not the reaction of people who are used to ethnic diversity; that's the reaction of people whose first time seeing someone speaking a non-European language outside of TV.

[-] undergroundoverground@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

As an outsider, my guess is to construct and and cultivate the idea that minorities vote in a block. I mean, no one literally needs to be told that non white people all vote for the same person or anything. However, it only has to work just enough to make just enough white people vote down racial lines.

load more comments (1 replies)

I'm all for not scapegoating any minority, since what's notable about the Black vote is roughly the same as for Latin American, younger demographics, and so on: it isn't that they are "to blame," it's that the support increased over 2016 or 2020.

So while it's a good reminder not to scapegoat, we definitely still need to talk and think about how different demographics (who will absolutely lose rights and opportunities under Trump) looked at Trump and decided to say, "more, please," if we're ever going to get out of this mess.

[-] Acrimonious@lemmy.world 28 points 1 month ago

There's that quote that said something along the lines of give poor white men someone to look down on and they'll empty their pockets for you. I think that's one of the reasons latino voters voted for Trump. There was a lot of misinformation demonizing Venezuelan immigrants in spanish and I think that led a lot of these morons to believe they were part of the "in" group and they would benefit.

[-] artzwiggles@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago

LBJ said it:

“If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you. - Lyndon B. Johnson”

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/9150190-if-you-can-convince-the-lowest-white-man-he-s-better

[-] j4p@lemm.ee 9 points 1 month ago

Had a similar thought and you put it very well! AP VoteCast data here is helpful on this point (caveat that final numbers are probably still not in yet)

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/interactive-how-key-groups-of-americans-voted-in-2024-according-to-ap-votecast

[-] NeilBru@lemmy.world 39 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Or maybe the DNC refuses to speak to, let alone execute an agenda regarding the needs of the working class, election after election. Of course they'd be trounced after effectively revealing themselves as controlled opposition.

My forlorn hope is a massive repudiation of the DNC establishment in the next round of primaries.

Armed revolution in the face of predator drones with hellfires and 5th generation multi-role fighter aircraft is a fool's errand for suicidal rubes.

[-] Wogi@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

"So V, quiet life or blaze of glory hm?"

[-] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago

1812 overture intensifies

Yes I know, wrong V. I don't care.

[-] NeilBru@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Yo prefiero vivir con paz si posible.

[-] Ridgetop18@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 month ago

Wouldn't we all, but needs must when the devil drives.

[-] Gladaed@feddit.org 17 points 1 month ago

Turnout was a much bigger problem than where the votes went. The Democrats lost not against the Republicans so much as against their voter base. Turnout tends to be the biggest predictor for who wins US elections as the Republicans tend to have more dedicated/consistent voters

[-] lennybird@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Funny that this is just more divisive rhetoric enabling right-wing talking points . It's almost like it's not a matter of minorities, but of socioeconomic class and education disparities leading to people across the board voting against their own interests because they don't know how to parse truth from bullshit.

The sooner black WORKERS, latino WORKERS, white WORKERS all rally under the same banner that points the finger at the rich who controls the vast majority of resources in not just this country but globally, we'll just keep fighting over increasingly fewer breadcrumbs.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] pjwestin@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

No one is blaming minorities for the rise of Trump, they're pointing out that since Trump expanded his margins across all demographics, Kamala Harris' failure can't be easily explained away by racism or misogyny, and there must be a deeper frustration among many of the groups that make up the Democrats' coalition like black and Latino Americans. Also, I rarely hear Democrats make this point; they seem to mainly blame wokeness.

Edit: OK, when I say "Democrats," I mean actual Democrats — people who are in leadership positions in the party. I am not talking about unhinged liberals that are reveling in Trump's anti-Gaza cabinet picks because they blame Muslims for their loss. Actual Democratic party members are much quieter about the collapse of the demographics that make up the Obama Coalition.

[-] orcrist@lemm.ee 12 points 1 month ago

I think you need to read the news more, then. We've seen so many articles focusing on the Hispanic vote, for example. Which is a fine thing to write about, but we should always keep in mind the horrendous numbers of openly racist white folk.

And if you haven't seen Democrats trying to blame people, where were you last month? How many posts did we see blaming third party voters? How many posts did we see accusing everyone complaining about genocide as Russian plants? Democrats and Democrat supporters were desperately looking to deflect attention from themselves, both then and now.

[-] pjwestin@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Thanks, I read the news plenty. I've seen pundits spend lots of time examining the Latino departure from the party. I've seen liberals blame everyone to their left. I've seen Democrats pivot towards blaming wokeness (specifically, the centrist Democratic delegates at the DNC), except for Nancy Pelosi, who directly blames Biden. They seem desperate not to acknowledge minority groups voting for Trump, since it would mean acknowledging the unraveling of the Obama Coalition.

[-] Womdat10@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 month ago

And what is "wokeness." "Wokeness" means to them the existence of queer people, women, and POC.

Also, I envy you for not seeing democrats blame minorities for the rise of Trump, I wish I could be so happily nieve.

[-] pjwestin@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Wokeness to them means, "progressive policy positions we believe will be a net loss with the electorate." This year, that will almost certainly mean abandoning trans people, since the bigoted, "she's for they/them," campaign Trump ran against Harris was very effective. It's similar to how the party was happy to capitalize off the energy of the 2020 BML protests, but once the phrase, "Defund the Police," started test poorly with the electorate, they began distancing themselves from the movement.

I haven't heard any Democrats blame minorities. I mean, sure, I've seen terminally online people say that Muslims and Latinos deserve what's about to happen, but the actual Democrats don't seem to want to even acknowledge the loss. They pretty much only have identity politics left for a platform; they've adopted conservative positions on fiscal policy, foreign policy, and border policy; all they can really do to differentiate themselves from Republicans is to not be openly hostile to minority groups. The fact that they are now losing these groups seems like something few of them want to acknowledge.

[-] Keeponstalin@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Only thing is, the Trump anti-trans ads weren't effective. Yet that hasn't stopped some establishment Democrats from blaming the loss on that issue and 'wokeness'. From the polling, the best rhetoric to have is to be pro-trans but not have it as a forefront issue. Advocating for universal programs like access to healthcare be a forefront issue and simply extending that right to trans people when needed is the most beneficial.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 3 points 1 month ago

Also, I rarely hear Democrats make this point; they seem to mainly blame wokeness.

Then you must not spend much time here. I've seen so many variants of "BuT GaZa" on Trump related news posts it's gotten seriously fucking annoying.

[-] pjwestin@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

When say Democrats, I mean party members — people who actually matter, not terminally online liberals. The actual party doesn't want to acknowledge that the Obama Coalition is falling apart.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] nightwatch_admin@feddit.nl 16 points 1 month ago

Well, anyone who voted for Trump is part of the reason Trump was voted, independent of skin colour. And I think voting for Trump is beyond stupid, even if you are a staunch conservative. Why is that racism?

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The moderate wing feels entitled to those votes.

And for whatever reason they keep doubling down on refusing to do voter outreach and listening to what Dem voters want. Current leadership will never back away from the strategy of:

What are ya gonna do, vote R?

Because it's obviously not working. As long as we allow the DNC to prioritize rewarding donor bundlers with leadership positions, it'll never change.

The only metric is bringing money in, so whoever pays the most gets to determine the party platform.

Which wouldn't suck so much if the DNC was the furthest right option. When that's how the furtherest left option acts, turnout will always be abysmal and even when we "win" we still lose and billionaires always win.

[-] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

Because of citizens united, money decides election wins. So how do we win without donors?

[-] Alwaysnownevernotme@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

They outspent and lost this time.

[-] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

That doesn’t mean we can win without donors. Republicans had foreign bots and billionaires buying votes.

load more comments (25 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] yesman@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

Every election cycle, the Democrats and media start to fret about the black vote. Will black women turn out? Will black men vote correctly? And this cycle culminated in the Obamas going on a "pull your pants up and vote" tour to boost turnout.

Now I'm not black, but I recognize double standards and condescension. I wouldn't want to be treated that way.

After the election, Latinos have been targeted by progressive rage and lashing out. I've seen people that I used to respect say that they deserve to be deported because of their vote.

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

What, they demanded incompetent racist fuckery. Order up! The fact that they brought down all women with them is, like, a bonus.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] nandeEbisu@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Whether or not people are literally blaming minorities, Democrats have acted as if they are owed the votes of minorities and the working class which meant they felt no incentive to actually try and appeal to them or do more than token gestures.

I'm not surprised they lost the minority vote. They've been asking for it for a while.

[-] Badeendje@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Instead the base should focus their anger on the democratic party itself. Give us something to fight for or keep losing

[-] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 8 points 1 month ago

Haven’t had a real primary since 2008. WTF is this anti democratic “superdelegate” bullshit?

The party leadership has been captured by big money donors.

[-] Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

53% of white women also voted for Trump in 2024. They also swung the vote in 2016.

But really, the DNC just fucked up, plain and simple. They're run by a quorum of dinosaurs all Group Thinking their soggy old brains to failure after failure.

[-] yngmnwntr@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago
[-] Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago

Oh look, disingenuous twisting of the discourse. Big fucking surprise.

[-] RIPandTERROR@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2024
424 points (88.0% liked)

Political Memes

5614 readers
1818 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS