By all accounts Trump picked the guy he thought would best appeal to young men. Initially Vance was easily the most disliked VP nominee ever.

Your double standard is obvious. By your own standard, Harris' debate performance against Trump and Pence demonstrated she was qualified.

Kamala Harris seen as winner in post-debate CNN poll | CNN Politics

Trump is like a racist and misogynist variant of Stone Cold Steve Austin. Other people that have these beliefs can relate to him.

I was writing too quickly to be nuanced, but I meant "likeable in the traditional sense". It's like when people say he doesn't have charisma, but he absolutely does. Just because his charisma doesn't work on "you", doesn't mean he doesn't have it.


I had been looking for the right word, and "relatable" nails it, I think, for the reasons both you & RM lay out.

When he started out, people described Trump as a guy who was happy to say things that a large chunk of America was told they were not allowed to say. Or, alternatively, he's a walking, talking ID for a large chunk of America. Of course they're going to like that. That's populism. It works.

Kari Lake might actually win. The margin has narrowed significantly.

For whatever it's worth, on Wednesday at my daughter's high school, the male athletes--both black and white, but mostly black--were crowing, high-fiving one another, and telling any and everyone who'd listen that they would never, ever, ever vote for a woman, women shouldn't be able to vote, etc. etc. etc. It's a small demo, of course, but because of reclassing, a significant percentage of male upperclassmen high school athletes here were eligible to vote. (Many of the better basketball players in particular around here are playing at least part of their senior season at age 19.) Based on what my daughter reported--in a county that Harris won 60-38--it seemed like the young bro Andrew-Tate-influenced male vote went HEAVILY to Trump. I've seen "under 30" splits, but now I'd be quite curious to see the under 23ish (i.e. high school and college) male breakdown. Another anecdote: the former youth pastor at our church here was a YoungLife guy, working on the ground directly with a ton of adolescent males like I did, for 15-20 years. (He was part-time with YL and part-time with our church for his last few years officially with YL.) He told me in heavy lament 5ish years ago that he was losing the attention/involvement of males both in his outreach work with YL and in his youth group, mainly to porn, video games, and Andrew Tate. Yes, he specifically mentioned Tate right there with porn and gaming.

Still got that dad shotgun ready? (If that'll even do it these days?)

I'll tell ya, a big part of me was relieved when I heard the Younger Child wasn't interested in guys.

Looks like Garland is going to have to boot up that laptop and fire off another sternly worded letter.

I think a lot of the problems with young men are self-inflicted. I see a lot of guys not willing to work for anything and with no goal either short or long term. They don't have much of any ability to overcome obstacles.

So they put the blame on others and do little to change their circumstances.

You reach adulthood and realize you'll be paying off your student loans for the next 30 years, buying a home is nearly impossible, it's difficult to support a family with depressed wages, and the climate is hitting a point of no return that they'll have to deal with the consequences of. Meanwhile the people who gutted everything for themselves the past 40 years are calling you lazy.

I don't really know what to make of Tate and others. Teenagers are often drawn to that "edgy" kind of content. I think a lot of us grew up with shock jocks, vulgar comedians, and anti-establishment figures. It's kind of a prime demographic for that. I feel like most people will just grow out of it but who knows?

Feels like a generation that was largely abandoned and ignored and they'll turn their attention to anyone that acts like they care.

Obviously super stoked to see Americans shine in the election. I know the majority here are struggling with the result but you know what? It will be alright. The two-party system is alive and well.

Really good and damning interview.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/08/u...interview.html

The guys who care about climate change aren't voting Trump. Only 40% of college aged men are in college. Most young men aren't worried about student loans.

Tate's a sex trafficker and rapist, so fuck that guy.

The obvious irony is, I can't imagine all that Andrew Tate rhetoric is making them more attractive to the girls.

It will be alright indeed. Between funny people who have told some they are going back to plantations. Kids taunting girls in school "your body, my choice" and this:


Totally alright.

I'm so fucking tired of people saying Dems need to be more accommodating to Trump while also allowing Trumpers to mock anyone they please.

Yeah man, I know, it sucks to lose, I get it, trust me. But nobody’s here to lose forever, which is my point, you’ll have your day again. You’ll be fine.

Who, outside of the wind-up right-wing punditry, is saying this?

My opinion of Nancy Pelosi just went down a lot, and it was already low to begin with

No, I said Trump picked the best person and it showed in the VP debate as evidence.

Harris’ performance was good in her debate, but it was not indicative of her being qualified. She was qualified on the basis of being a woman. Do you disagree that if she were a man, she wouldn’t be VP?

Biden really is a piece of shit. Losing by 400 electoral points in their internal polling after the debate.

“Joe Biden’s decision to run for president again was a catastrophic mistake.” - @JonFavs
Listen to more Pod Save America wherever you get your podcasts. pic.twitter.com/nhtO9hs4aA

— Pod Save America (@PodSaveAmerica) November 8, 2024

MAGA, pundits, some anonymous Dems.

Personally I think it's time for Dems to let MAGA get what they voted for. Rural voters on a GOP budget will feel a lot of pain, and Dems shouldn't ride to the rescue of farmers and rural schools/hospitals, etc. At least not before 2028 when they can offer a platform in response to Trumpism.

As they say, scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds.

My team lost so kids should go hungry to collectively punish people who may or may not have even voted for Trump. Just sociopathic shit.

MAGA, including apparently you, should get what they voted for.

But keep up the fight for things like farm subsidies and private school vouchers.

No. Do you think Vance would have been selected if he were a woman?

I think you can understand the coping mechanism at play here. And besides, it's only happening when liberals are powerless to do anything about it anyway, so it's not like it's talk of actually doing it. It's a (very extremely) grudging acceptance.

I think there's a pretty big difference between what I'm saying and what you are. Losing, and being threats to your life, bodily freedom, and visions of slavery dancing in some peoples heads isn't really on the same playing field. Just keep minimizing all that because you don't feel like it's 'real' then. I'll be fine. I'm a middle class, straight, white guy. I'm not likely to get raped, and forced to carry a baby, or die during a miscarriage. I'll be just fine.

bullshit. The side that was trying to get a platform of support and protection for marginalized people, including farm subsidies, and the general social network lost. That side is no longer in power. The side that won WILL do things differently. If the side that takes power succeeds, it will be what the people voted for. The people have a right to get what they voted for, right? Keep up that moral crusade though. Maybe you can call out some ethnic cleansing here in the states before too long. Maybe you can blame that on the Dems too?

Trump announced one of the first thing he is going to do is sign an executive order ending birthright citizenship. Yes, he means retroactively. How does that "just illegals" sound now?

I mean like you said, kind of tough to sell the "we're here to protect marginalized communities" when you're actively ethnically cleansing a group of people halfway around the world. Comes across like hypocrites who don't actually believe what they say. Like how quickly you shift to "I hope the kids starve" after losing.

Maybe you lost because people saw through that facade.

When even Bill fucking Kristol is telling you that you're too right wing.

Lmao I missed this, they had BILL KRISTOL telling her to pivot to left populism and they kept handing Liz Cheney the mic! https://t.co/duuRTDWj3Y pic.twitter.com/cXmIGSAVDF

— ça ira glass (@PercyYaBysshe) November 8, 2024

I can't see that holding up in even this court

Not at all. Many demographics voted heavily for policies that will hurt them badly and will benefit a bunch of us, who voted against those policies immensely. I am so happy for them that they're going to get what they voted for. Why can't you be happy for them as well?

I don't think people should be collectively punished for what 23% of the population voted for.

Well the good news is there will be plenty of jobs available in agriculture and food service for Mom and Dad to pick up a second gig to help pay the ballooning grocery bills due to tariffs. Even better news if you can teach Jr. to use a hammer they can pick up a roofing gig. they don't need no schooling.

Well, go and change the electoral system, then.

Keep up those useless arguments. Please tell me more things I supported that cost the democrats the election! I didn't remember saying anything about hoping kids starve, but since you said it, surely I must have. Glad you found a way to get your favorite catch phrase in there though too. Good job.

I mean if you go far enough back none of us white folks are citizens.

I too would be upset and lash out if I spent the past year being wrong and had to watch the party I unconditionally support eat shit in historic fashion.

Ending it would instantly move him into the top 3-5 Presidents in U.S. history. And give him a shot at the GOAT conversation.

With all due respect, I'm amazed at how low your standards are and how simple your requirements are.

Balance the budget? Fix the debt? Decrease unemployment and homelessness? Make a dent in the mass extinction crisis? Stop the wildfires?

Nah, just reverse that post-Civil War amendment and instantly become one of the best Presidents of all-time.

And for what? Literally nothing, just to punish people you will never know, in a way that will benefit your life not at all.

Really wild, but that just goes to show how different folks' priorities are, I guess.

My ancestors have been here longer than the USA has been a country, and I know they never filed any immigration papers, so the whole thing is bewildering. Within the tide of history, where the only constant is migration, and this continent has been steadily gaining population from the rest of the world since time immemorial, who really cares?

To be fair, top 3-5 is a relatively low bar afaic.

Recency bias plays a role too I imagine. The past 100 years ain't exactly been stellar.

I'd rather live in the US now than 100 years ago. If because only because of prohibition

Almost nobody would actually take 100 years ago over today if you really gave them a choice and they fully understood it. The differences in available technology, in convenience, in medical advances ... I'd be dead already if I lived 100 years ago and so would many others.

People get rose-colored glasses and don't fully apprehend how much progress has been made in how many areas, and what 'going back to a simpler time' or whatever would really involve giving up.

The GOP absolutely wants to roll the clock back to when white men had all the power. They want to bring back things like no fault divorce, rolling back Roe, attacks on education, etc..

It amazes me any woman or person of color could vote for them.

The horrific attacks are already starting with that text message about plantations and people like Nick Fuentes screaming "your body my choice"

We are in for a dark period

In complete seriousness, was it not clear that I was talking about presidencies of the past hundred years?

I mean, it's not like there wasn't context aplenty there.

Or at least I thought there was.

As the saying goes, we understand what we want to understand. :popcorn: