!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
Now that we have final numbers. It appears that Harris had all the white & black support she needed for an EC victory. But Trump outright flipping Latino men and making huge gains with Latino women seems to have made all the difference.
What do you think?
First image is 2024, second is 2020.
Kamala lost because the policies of the Democrats suck for working class people. And the Democrats are in general corrupt as fuck. It's as simple as that. Just as in Russia, if the system is super corrupt, better make it explicit by making corruption THE system. USA has been an oligarchy for quite some time. Trump 2.0 just made it explicit.
Ever cosider that there's a reason why the latinos moved to the right?
Decades of under-education could only lead to shit. But even for a cynical asshole.like me, your country electing the best friend of the most notorious pedo, after he tried to overtake the previous election is quite something.
The culture war means more than that.
Democrats failed to solve people's issues. That's just it.
But Americans are in for a hard awakening if they think that in general Latin American population is progressive or left leaning. And that democrats have their guaranteed vote.
Each person is different, of course. And the average doesn't change any person individual values.
But on average Latin American countries tend to have overwhelming conservative cultures when compared with USA/Europe.
This doesn't negate any Latin American person who is progressive, of course. Just talking about averages and the reality that was shown by the polls.
In general Democrats, and any left leaning party, think that because they defend immigrants, immigrants will support them by default. This has been shown far from the truth. If someone have conservative values they will probably vote for a conservative party. That's just it. One person won't become progressive (as in stopping being sexist or transphobic) just because they moved from one country to another. An immigrant is a whole person with their own sets of values, both before and after they migrate, and won't be reduced to "being an immigrant" when voting, specially once they are legally settled in a place and their residence won't be at risk, they will just vote for their values. If they have conservative values they'll vote conservative if they have progressive values they'll vote progressive.
Many legal immigrants get pissed if you conflate them with illegal immigrants. They try very hard distance themselves from those people. Couple that with pervasive machismo and Catholic ignorance and this is what you get.
Actually beautiful comment. Thank you.
I don't think you can answer that question from those numbers. They are percentages. The difference they make depends a lot on the total population in each group.
Kamala Harris lost cause she's female. And didn't ~~lie~~ promise (that much) to voters. And had the richest 0.5% of US voters against her. This is cause the oldest wannabe-democracy of the world lost his state long ago.
Kamala lost because the Dems didn't show up. Again. Look at the number of votes for 2020 vs 2024. All those "undecided" and "obstainers" that didn't just stay home. They didn't bother doing a mail in.
Second highest voter turnout in the US. A difference of only 2,624,285 as per University of Florida estimates so far (the number is likely to go down).
This excuse is getting old.
One, you are assuming people who did not vote would vote dems.
Two, you are pushing blame to the voters who did not show up (and based on the lack of choice it is wild so many showed up)
Three, by pushing that blame on to voters you are almost asking for this to happen again. (By letting the dems keep being crap, pissing off voters, and getting people angry at their neighbours helps the republicans)
First, an explanation isn't an excuse. It's a reason. It doesn't make it okay, it doesn't place or shift blame, it just correctly points something out.
In this case, Trump broadly received the same number of votes as he did 4 years ago, while the Democrats got millions fewer.
There's no assumption there, it's just an observation.
It's not pushing or assigning blame. Maybe they didn't vote because they were lazy. Maybe they didn't vote because they didn't like Harris. Maybe they didn't vote because they didn't like the process by which she became the nominee. Maybe they didn't vote because they've lost faith in the entire system.
Regardless of reason, and regardless of how any observer decides to interpret it or assign blame, the facts speak for themselves.
Yes, we are comparing the numbers to the highest voter turn out (which was last election). Biden was able to move 6-7 million more people to vote than Kamala, whereas Trump got about the same as he got in 2020.
Voters have to take some responsibility here. Trump's base are all being con'd because they are ignorant on how most of the world works beyond their own backyard. Its possible that this is partly true for the 6-7 million people who didn't vote this election cycle.
The issue isn't so much that they didn't vote for Kamala, but rather they did not have the ability to recognize Trump as the con that he is. Me being of average intelligence feels like this should have been easy to decipher.
Biden was able to move 6-7 million more people to vote than Kamala, whereas Trump got about the same as he got in 2020.
Trump got more votes then Kamala, that is how elections work. There was not 6-7 million people not voting (2.6 million delta from 2020), but more people showed up for the orange man and this blaming non-voters is just lame.
It's really unclear, to me, what these tables are even saying. What's each column?
These are national statistics. They bear no direct relation to the outcome.
They do, because no state exists in a vacuum.
43 states and one district didn't matter this time.
Only seven states mattered.
They all affect each other even when the electoral count make them seemingly unimportant.
I don't see how.
Because whatever happens on the national level affects what happens on the state level.
I think you have it backwards. The national statistics are a result of what happens on the state level in aggregate.
The Dems would have won if they ran a campaign relevant to the struggling and apprehensive. They didn't. They lost.
White people voting for the right is the problem. Like how can we go on here and blame Latinos for shifting when such a high percentage of white people voted for him? Especially when you factor in the population size and not just % left or right.
I am ashamed of my peers.
Yeah, only around 2-3% of the white voters switching Dem would make up for the extra Latinos voting for Trump. On the other hand, blaming the voter instead of candidate is missing the point.
Whole thread full of people blaming an entire race and sex whether that's Latinos, Latino men, Whites, or White men. You ask a stupid question and you get stupid answers.
Since Trump’s number one message was about immigration, it makes me wonder how Latinos took that message. A bystanding white person might think that US Latinos should be appalled at the way Trump painted Mexican immigrants as criminals.
But then again, maybe Mexican immigrants who’ve been in the US a while look down on those recently arriving, or don’t want more of them to compete with. After all if you are a Mexican immigrant, you probably compete with other Mexican immigrants for work on some level.
So there again we have the failure of identity politics. It’s about simple “me” economics, not “we” identity.
Of course immigrants don't automatically want more immigration for many reasons. They get more competition on the labor market and the large inflow of new immigrants increases the risk of them being a target of xenophobic policies as well. From a materialistic and egoistic viewpoint it's quite irrational to be pro immigration if you're an immigrant who has already arrived and is doig fine.
I live in the Rio Grande Valley. The prevailing sentiment I've heard from people regarding trump-supporting Latino relatives was that they seem to be of the opinion that trump is only going to go after the undocumented. There's also a fuckton of anger at the word "Latinx."
Mind you, this is anecdote based on my personal observations living in the area, and I make no claims beyond that.
Couple this with the Democratic Party moving to the right on immigration. Now the people who once had common cause with Democrats and would begrudgingly vote for them in spite of their misgivings regarding abortion and trans people had no reason to stick with the party and either voted trump or stayed home.
It also doesn't help that we lost our NPR affiliate a few years back. The valley is really spread out and a lot of people get their news from terrestrial radio on their work commute. Now the only non-music programming is trumpist grievance screaming.
As a Latin American, the Latinx word just invokes unyielding rage into us, and marks everyone who uses it as a forever enemy
You have no say in our identity, even less with made up champagne collectivist class guilt shit
Like so. I didn't even say I used the word, just that it was hated.