Voting for Trump so things would be more affordable - how's that working out?
Or by "things" do they mean like, corporate mergers and senators...?
this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2025
1 points (100.0% liked)
Bluesky
1414 readers
2 users here now
People skeeting stuff.
Bluesky Social is a microblogging social platform being developed in conjunction with the decentralized AT Protocol. Previously invite-only, the flagship Beta app went public in February 2024. All are welcome!
founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
Trump promised lowered prices (lied as always) and Dems just said that the economy is doing great. Poor people tend to not have as much time or extra energy to spend on politics. It is a leopard eats face moment and I don’t entirely blame them…I just hope the wake-up call isn’t too late
The " best economy ever" gaslighting from the dems is almost certainly what lost them the election.
She stocks were great, but that's meaningless if you can't afford anything
USA had the best post-pandemic recovery compared to all other countries.
But then again, no one has ever accused USians of being aware of rest of the world. Feels over reals.
This may come to shock you but when people vote on the economic issues within their own country they don't reason "well I can't afford housing, but compared to Denmark housing inflation in the US has actually increased at a much slower rate so I guess it's fine". They simply stop with "I can't afford housing" because they vote for what they can change.
And so they voted for the guy responsible for the economic slowdown, again.
Feels over reals meets object impermanence.
I do agree with the object permanence issue. But your the only one putting "feels over reals". Like who votes based on comparative affordability to other nations. You vote based on your own situation.
I still blame the dems more though. One canidate is saying the economy is great, the other is saying that he will fix the economy. Many people were struggling to put food on the table their votes or lack thereof make sense.
Of course things just got worse, but you know you could at least try to campaign to the average person's concerns.
One canidate is saying the economy is great, the other is saying that he will fix the economy.
The other candidate was Donald Fucking Trump. Who already had a shitshow of a government. Rest of the world was willing to overlook 2016. But we can't overlook 2024.
At some point the voters (and the non-voters) must be held responsible too.
You don't have to convince me you must convince the voters. That's the whole point of this thread and the data makes it clear that to get people to show up and vote you have to demonstrate how you're going to govern in ways that improves their lives. Crazy concept i know.
Also how fucking crazy to suggest the "non-voters" should be help responsible for not voting. That's Trump levels of anti-democracy behavior. Best get those pesky 3rd party voters punished too, you thinking camps or a simple banishmment?
Ehh, I do think people not voting are also responsible (or well, given what I know about US voting only the ones that really had the choice). They actively said "I don't care if the racist shithead trying his best to emulate hitler will be president". If you choose not to vote in a democracy you're saying you're fine with any outcome.
I don't think the individual responsibilty there is huge by any means - I've also long held the opinion that the average person in nazi germany (and any similar country) only had a very small part of the blame if they simply did nothing, because people have all sorts of shit to deal with. But that doesn't absolve them of all responsibility either. And at least in sane countries, voting is such a tiny bit of effort that not doing so is hard to excuse (but again, from what I know that's not always the case in murica).
Sure bud. Have fun in the USA. No wonder it is fucked when even supposedly 'aware' people like you struggle with reading comprehension.
Ciao.
Should just make a Liberal Party. The Dems aren’t liberal anymore.
Lol, the Dems are hardcore neo-liberal. They exist to thwart any progressive candidates, while offering token opposition to the GOP.
The easiest way to know you're lying is to hear that you claim Democrats voted for trump lol
There are a lot of people that don't claim a party and simply vote based on the current economy leading up to an election. It's not smart but you know
Once again…
So you take for granted that all low income people are "Democrats"? Weird.
and it's hilarious since he didn't actually say what the dems are claiming he did
“Let’s roll out the boogeyman” moment
Because someone is electable in NYC doesn't mean they are electable state or nation wide.
That's not a defence of the DNC
Third way, go away!
In the past when the middle class votes was larger, the so-called third way was working. But now the middle class is shrinking and struggle as much as the working class, automation is gradually displacing workers, it's now time for more leftist policies. Centrist democrats and neoliberals insist on being time frozen in the 90s and 00s with their outdated policies, because they don't want to lose the patronage of oligarchs.
zooey zephyr has the same politics and was elected in montana.
aoc was drawing sold out crowds in utah.
a working class and pro labor message works anywhere
Very true. Most Americans don't know actually what socialism is, it's just a synonym for "bad." I don't think anyone that describes themselves as one is going to do well with most US electorates, even though the tenants of socialism line up pretty well with their actual beliefs.
The DNC is corrupt and sucks, but they're right to fear this association. If they embraced the socialist messaging today at the party level, they'd likely lose every election outside of the major metro areas and become even more irrelevant than they already are.
“Tenets” is the word you’re looking for, just fyi. Tenants are renters
Derp, thanks! Not sure if that was autocorrect or just me being a bad speller.
I think its super important to seperate completely from the DNC as they have poisoned the well with working people, and a socialist party needs to be completely seperate from bourgeois politcs period and make it a point to clarify that they are not a bourgeois or corporate party, no hollywood aristocrats just working american messaging. Right now is the time to trash the dnc entirely and as a sign of good faith we should prob even seek to charge and jail dnc party leaders like pelosi on insider trading etc.
That mentality is why trump is in office again. If they didn’t keep embracing the corrupt neoliberal “we stand for nothing” vision, they might be able to salvage the party.
Back the blue no matter what, unless… is a joke. The DNC needs to work for the people, not the other way around.
No argument there, but messaging is important to be effective. Most US voters are going to reflexively balk at the word "socialist" and will stop listening to anything else being said. It's unfortunate, but it's reality.
I think they'd actually agree with the tenants of socialism if they could get past the reflex though. For example, if "owning the means of production" were packaged as, "a fair share" they'd be more likely to listen. Silly, but you have to meet people where they are to be effective.
Mamdani talking about issues everyone but the rich would agree with is great, and I'm happy to see the upswell of support for it. I still think he'd lose in most other places in the US though, the word "socialist" just carries too much of a stigma outside the major metro areas.
That’s why the message of socialism needs to talked about and use the actual word socialism. Stop the limp messaging and be bold or continue to embrace lying to your base (both parties guilty).
The ruling class would prefer you to keep using “socialism” in quotes
That's a nice sentiment, but it would have to overcome 100+ years of indoctrination that socialism==bad on top of the avalanche of attacks from the powers that be. Those attacks are going to come regardless, so insisting on playing hard mode by using the word socialist isn't likely to result in good outcomes.
I'd rather see the tenants of socialism win by another name, frankly. The outcome is a lot more important than the word.
it would have to overcome 100+ years of indoctrinatio
It's really not that hard Fox News does it constantly. It's why everyone thinks Hillary is the devil.
None of that offers any direction or a path to change. It is limp messaging that say well maybe someone somehow can grow change in a system designed to squash dissenting ideas.
People need an actual positive direction to head. You’re just repeating the talking points that have not done anything for people and keep the conversation in a safe place for the political elites.
This is “thoughts & prayers” for socialism and its screams complacency
It's really not, and you can look at Trump as the perfect example. He came out and said all the awful shit that Nazis and Klan members believed but rebranded it as MAGA. Socialists could do the same thing, so easily. Just pick a new phrase/word and keep almost everything other tenant the same. Call it "Liberty Forever" and talk about how mandatory profit sharing "guarantees your right to work and access to a free market." It would be so fucking effective.
Messaging is important.
Messaging is important and “Liberty Forever” sounds like another Ponzi scheme instead of just cutting the bs and being honest. Distrust is a major issue and adding convoluted layers to messaging that isn’t helping. It’s like saying the economy is great while people can’t afford anything get pissed and disagree. Economy as defined has little to do with quality of life. Most people don’t understand economy != quality of life. See DNC 2024. Trying to smoke & mirror your message is dishonest and will ultimately fail.
Cut the layers of bullshit and be honest. It worked in the NYC primary and you’d have to be a fool (or disingenuous) to throw that data wayside
You're giving way too much credit to like, 60% of the country. A wide majority of voters do not respond logically, they respond emotionally. NYC is a tiny fraction of the voting population, and assuming that the messaging used there will work in most of the rest of the country is silly.
Gotta meet people where they are man, and purity doesn't sell as well as familiarity. Disregarding reality handicaps a movement.
It seems like you think that all of America is similar to NYC, during a mayoral race against a famously shitty incumbent. Otherwise, idk why you would post that image.
If you ran a candidate for the Democratic Socialist party in every mayoral race in America, I would bet hard cash that better than 90% of them would lose. They wouldn't lose because of their ideas or policies, they'd lose because they picked a party name that will terminate thought for >60% of the voting population.
Maybe after another 2 decades of slowly getting Democratic Socialists into office you could move that needle. In that time, the facists are going to burn all of this down, so I really don't see any** advantage in sticking with the name. We need these policies now and idc how we get them.
It seems like you think that all of America is ~~similar to NYC, during a mayoral race~~ against a famously shitty incumbent
It do be like that
That is true, but offering pragmatic solutions to address systemic problems is something that engages voters
That's true but the person delivering the message is just as important. Ms. Harris presented many pragmatic solution's but it didn't take because or her.
Our friend from NYC is young, attractive, and enthusiastic there is very little of that in Democratic party
Harris offered, “nothing was going to fundamentally change.”
That’s not a great comparison.
There was her small business stimulus, her first time home buyer...
We hear what we want and Gaza is still a thing
Small business stimulus and 1st time home buyers credits are not something that affect the majority of voters. That’s is much out of touch neolib policy bs
People don’t have money to start a biz or buy a house. And just building 3 mil homes is a drop in the bucket that doesn’t actually help.
the DNC is not your fucking friend
I have come to the conclusion that the entire system is wholly corrupt, top to bottom. There are decent folks in there, but they are VASTLY outnumbered. Yes, one party is worse, but when given the choice between shot or stabbed in the back, I kinda want to pick neither.
I still think this is disingenuous. It's not a choice between being shot or stabbed. It's a choice between being fined and getting gassed to death.
I'm not sure what, if anything, Dems are doing that counts as actually getting hurt. They're just very ineffective. At worst they're the useless bystander screaming instead of doing anything productive.
I was speaking in metaphor but in this climate I guess you can’t anymore.. you have a point one side is clearly worse, I’m not trying to make a “both are the same” argument. My argument is that neither will save us.
The dems have had a winning strategy for ages, they just fight harder against it, than they do their political opposition.
And that's how we ended up here. A bunch of mental laziness.
A lesson learned after what they did to Bernie...