You're viewing a single thread.
So wait, the poor and the hopeless, looking for some kind of help, voted unanimously for TRUMP, and those happy with their current conditions and wanting no change voted for Harris.
maybe youre just completely unfamiliar with the word "conservative". those red states dont want change. they want to conserve their regressive stance.
I think it's pretty clear that the current Republican party is fundamentally different than the one of 15 years ago. Whether they consider themselves conservative or not, they are the party that is promising change from the status quo.
The parties have clearly changed roles with respect to manual laborers. The blue wall doesn't exist anymore because of this. What it all means, I have no idea, but we need to update our mental model of the two parties. Their demographic have fundamentally changed.
They are just lieing to the uneducated gullible masses they created. I suppose you can phrase it as "promising change from the status quo", but it isn't exactly accurate.
I have to disagree, It is 100% accurate. The change will not make non-billionaire lives any better, but there is definitely change from the status quo. There are huge shifts with the cabinet appointments already away from qualified "Washington Insiders" to unqualified "Trump Loyalists". That is a huge change from the status quo. Even during the first Trump admin he appointed mostly qualified career politicians. This is different, as promised. It won't be better...
You think a rich nepo baby wants to help working class Americans instead of himself and his rich friends? LOL
I don't, but a large chunk of america does. I think that speaks a lot to the democrats messaging.
The world's richest man is helping a billionaire get elected and that's not one of your main points to voters? No but Harris can't attack billionaires because that'll anger all the ones on her side.
Republican education speaks to Democrat messaging...ok.
Conservative =/= Status quo
Conservative = Regressive
Oklahoma has voted for Republican presidential candidates all but once since 1952 (in 1964), with the Democratic candidate having failed to pick up a single county in the state in all elections since 2004
History. What you obviously weren't taught.
You must be from Oklahoma.
The maps were identical in 2020 (following a republican administration):
And 2008 (following a republican administration):
Once you get back to pre-social media era internet, you begin to see Oklahoma have shades of blue.
Perhaps we could collaborate on this.
Now that I have pulled Oklahoma’s electoral results going back to 1988, now you can pull Oklahoma’s education results going back over the same period of time and we can see if there is, in fact, a correlation between the quality of education (overall education rankings) and how the state votes in presidential elections.
I suspect that it was not purely the quality of education which influenced the “red shift”. I would bet that the lower-quality of education made the influence of social media more effective for those targeting the less educated to adopt a conservative political position.
Just share your findings here and we can work together.
I see the ones under republican state leadership, clamoring for change, yet in reality voting for the same assholes that govern them into the ground? Not sure how you’re not seeing that, though I imagine it’s willful
theres a reason education goes out the windows in red states.. otherwise they might understand theyre voting against their own best interests.
its a priority to keep them stupid to stay red
it is. racism and hate go a long ways.
this might just be the dumbest thing i've ever read
The states that consistently vote Republican are also consistently amongst the worst states for quality of life. There's a correlation there.
They also consistently take more money from the federal government than they provide.
Way to tell on yourself about your lack of education.
You know, folks are giving you a lot of unnecessary shit for this comment. And I get that when viewed with sufficient context and cultural awareness of American politics, the meme clearly implies at least a correlation between voting blue and an improved quality of life. (edit: which mind you I do believe exists, at least in so far as it compares to voting red)
But I also saw it and thought, "this meme could easily be interpreted by MAGA cultists to justify their vote for Trump". They would of course be wrong, but with the isolated set of data provided by the meme, it really doesn't only imply what it thinks it implies.
TBF, being wrong is kinda their whole thing.
It's necessary.
If their comment wasn't smartass idiotic, maybe not.
I dunno, I have a hard time being mad at Inigo Montoya.
He was at least handsome and with a purpose in life.
I think we are interpreting this correlation in two different ways.
The demon buer sees it as:
bad living standards → vote republican
(because in this election the selling point of the republicans was the economy(/+immigration (because they also partly blame immigrants for the economic problems)), while for the democrats it was the the "protection of democracy" (which isn't really the biggest concern of someone struggling to pay their bills (or also not desired if that democracy got them to where they are now)))
others are seeing it as
vote republican → bad living standards
(because if republicans are no good, and if a state has been consistently voting republican in the last years of the state's local elections, then the state also won't be no good)
(the arrow means "causes")
(not directly directed at anyone, besides everyone who reads this post: ) Just because there's a correlation, we can't say in which direction the causation goes, if there is one.
The ignorant and gullible voted for trump. Just like past time, nothing in their lives will improve and the US will be less secure and worse off.
