has anyone explained to the Trump Latino voters that they actually ARE getting what they voted for? they voted for poor migrants and asylum seekers from countries they look down their noses at to be rounded up and deported - even though Trump promised to deport 10's of millions of immigrants which would have to include THEM!? the Latino voters also voted for Trump because they are anti-women's rights and anti-trans rights -- and both of these marginalized groups are be oppressed. i never did understand how they (of all people) thought that voting to oppress other marginalized groups would be protected of them and their marginalized status. is anyone going to explain to them that if the rest of us are not free - they won't be either?
I cried I was so happy and sorry to read this. People are getting it. I just can't see how, if we are able to have a fair and accurate election in 2026 - and I believe we will - Republicans will survive with a majority in the House. Trump has made it impossible for there to be any daylight between what he's done and what Congressional Republicans have done, so even though he's not on the ballot, people will be de facto voting for or against him. And I believe they will vote against him and his criminality, his insanity, his extremism, his hate, his incompetence. We will vote against all of it, the tide will begin to turn, and we will embark on the long, uphill climb to repair and renew this republic.
Sarah, have you ever done any focus groups to find out where Latinos were getting their political information? Journalist Maria Hinojosa reported that Latinos were specifically targeted for disinfo the last election cycle. Would be interested to hear from another journalist what Latinos report their news sources are. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98N3CiLeDsQ
I want to know more about WHY they wouldn't choose Kamala in a re-run. Is it the association with "woke" stuff like pronouns? Her being a woman? What, exactly? Because they'd be very happy with many of her policies; they seem to just not like the package that would deliver them.
This is what I want to know to. I expect most of them would have some variation of, "I don't know, I just don't *like* her" for their reason. Which could be either unrealized misogyny, racism, or both?
Other people I have asked said that they wouldn't vote Democrat, ever, even if they didn't want to vote Trump or Trump-like for two reasons: "Democrats are more dangerous than Republicans" or "They're all the same anyway".
The "more dangerous" smacked of propaganda and nuture bias to me; no one I asked could qualify it except with Fox talking points or general conspiracy.
"They're all the same anyway" are the people who don't vote, don't follow politics, and generally aren't impacted by administration changes or laws. They're insulated in their utter mediocrity: middle class white suburban folk who have *their* American Dream, which is good enough for them.
When will people realize that we are faced every four years with a binary choice? Staying home or voting 3rd party is a way to hand the election to the wrong person.because it cuts into the votes of the person you are not 100% happy with. I wish it were otherwise but wishing doesn't make it so. Were Latino voters paying attention to what Trump said? Didn't he promise mass deportation? Were they listening? What did they think that meant? Maybe it was the whole anti-trans thing that scared people away from voting for Harris...not impossible IMO.
That thinking is what *makes* it a binary choice, though, it really is a Catch-22.
"I won't vote third party even though I like their platform more because I like the Republican platform *less*" then turns into "Third party candidates never win" which then is "the only parties that matter are Republican or Democrat" which is then predicated by the first. It's an ouroboros, both cause and result.
The only reason we're trapped in a two party system is because we put ourselves here. In fact, we were *specifically* warned against it as early as George Washington, but it's easiest to have a majority when it's an argument of 48% vs 52% rather than 36% vs 31% vs 33%. 36% doesn't feel like a majority.
So perhaps it was always meant to turn out this way? Either way, I have no idea how to fix it now.
The way to fix it is to pass a law requiring ranked choice voting. But good luck getting that passed!
Edited to add: "it's easiest to have a majority when it's an argument of 48% vs 52% rather than 36% vs 31% vs 33%. 36% doesn't feel like a majority."
The real problem is that in example 2 the 36% is likely to be the one that is most ideologically opposed to what the voters who voted for the other two parties wanted, and we've seen enough third-party runs that most voters have figured it out. The most successful third-party run was Teddy Roosevelt's. He actually came in second. The problem is that he and Taft ended up splitting the votes of the voters who most favored their (relatively similar) positions, which led to Woodrow Wilson winning the election. The other third-party runs for the rest of the 20th and 21st Centuries have generally ended with the third party candidate coming in third, but pulling enough votes away from one of the two big parties to put the other major party into power (Clinton won in part because H. Ross. Perot pulled voters away from George H.W. Bush, to name just one example).
Is ranked choice voting exactly what is sounds like? So-and-so is my first choice, then second, then third? Can you enumerate how that would help? Genuinely, I've never come across the idea of ranked choice voting before.
And my point with the second example was to say that some voters would vote 3rd party *because* it's what they most closely agreed with, but some people *won't* - even if they most agree third party - because of what you stated. The reason they won't is because they feel it's worthless and know it detracts from "not losing" to the platform they like least. But if people weren't scared of that, what would the difference be? Anything? Nothing?
Edit: grammar and spelling on some autocorrect nonsense.
Ranked choice voting methods (and there are several different systems) basically work by an iterated process of elimination. The voter ranks the candidates on his ballot from first choice to last choice (and can skip a candidate he feels doesn't deserve a vote). So in round 1 all the votes are tallied, and the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. The ballots are re-examined, and the vote of each voter who put that eliminated candidate as #1 now is reassigned to the candidate they ranked as #2. The the votes are recounted, and again, the candidate who comes in last is eliminated, and those votes go to those voters' respective next choice. Lather, rinse, and repeat until only two candidates are left; the final vote count determined who wins.
The beauty of ranked choice voting is that it makes it safe to vote for a third party candidate without throwing your vote away. If you rank the Green candidate #1, some other candidates, as #2, #3, and #4, and you also rank the Democratic candidate last, the worst case scenario is that your vote ends up going to the Democratic candidate. But the best case scenario is that enough other voters decided to break step and the Green candidate actually wins. it ends the whole "MUST vote for the lesser evil!" trap that knowledgeable voters are currently trapped in.
I am sincerely happy that these people are now opposed Trump as President. It doesn't surprise me. Given long enough, even the bulk of the most narrow-minded, simplistically ignorant voters can eventually come to see that liberal democracy beats fascism. It's too bad that it is too late to matter, for the country's fate was sealed with November's election.
Trump told them what he was gonna do, but they ignored it because groceries cost too much. Now groceries still cost too much, and ICE is rounding people up. If this helps the Dems retake the House in '26 great. But I have zero sympathy for these people.
As a country, voters across all strata have just assumed that a collective goodwill and humanity in America - what they’ve known all their lives here - would buffer whatever cruelties the bully had in mind.
That was always wishful thinking, and again, I ran into this everywhere, all demographics, Rs, Is, and Ds.
Now many of them know. And where we go from here, I have no clue.
Reminds me of the prodigal son returning. Feed them and welcome them back. Democrats better learn how to reach more of them-any voter 2nd guessing Trump.(Going to have to focus on the prize & overlook their past trump delusions)
To those fretting about whether these people would vote for Kamela:
A large percentage of this country is fundamentally misogynistic. In their gut, women are unfit for public office. Some go as far as being certain that women are incapable of wielding any power outside the home. Most cannot admit their bias or bigotry, even to themselves, but the patterns of their actions give them away.
While there are some people like this in every possible cross-section of society, some belief systems produce them more easily and maintain them in their beliefs better than others. To be brutally honest, what religious breakdown do these seven comprise?
Catholic, I'd bet, just like the misogynists on SCOTUS.
Here's a different thought. Kamala Harris in 2024 had the same problem that Hillary Clinton had in 2016. No, ignore the fact that each is a woman.
Both campaign teams allowed the far right wing to define their candidacies for them. From Crooked Hillary to Cackles Kamala. The Dem strategists had no answers.
That's definitely part of it. But the most visceral reactions are to the sex and, in Harris' case, to the skin color. What you described is manufactured, no question.
"Leopards Eating Faces voter gets face ripped off by leopards, can't speak now but demands in writing that qualified facial reconstruction surgeon with spotless record appear more trustworthy"
Go big. Long term commitment to 3 constitutional amendments: 1) money out of politics - end Citizens United, etc. 2) restrain the executive and clarify no one is above the law, 3) term limits in the judiciary and legislative branches
has anyone explained to the Trump Latino voters that they actually ARE getting what they voted for? they voted for poor migrants and asylum seekers from countries they look down their noses at to be rounded up and deported - even though Trump promised to deport 10's of millions of immigrants which would have to include THEM!? the Latino voters also voted for Trump because they are anti-women's rights and anti-trans rights -- and both of these marginalized groups are be oppressed. i never did understand how they (of all people) thought that voting to oppress other marginalized groups would be protected of them and their marginalized status. is anyone going to explain to them that if the rest of us are not free - they won't be either?
I cried I was so happy and sorry to read this. People are getting it. I just can't see how, if we are able to have a fair and accurate election in 2026 - and I believe we will - Republicans will survive with a majority in the House. Trump has made it impossible for there to be any daylight between what he's done and what Congressional Republicans have done, so even though he's not on the ballot, people will be de facto voting for or against him. And I believe they will vote against him and his criminality, his insanity, his extremism, his hate, his incompetence. We will vote against all of it, the tide will begin to turn, and we will embark on the long, uphill climb to repair and renew this republic.
Won't matter. If the polls show him losing there will not be another election.
Sarah, have you ever done any focus groups to find out where Latinos were getting their political information? Journalist Maria Hinojosa reported that Latinos were specifically targeted for disinfo the last election cycle. Would be interested to hear from another journalist what Latinos report their news sources are. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98N3CiLeDsQ
Insert Ruy Teixeira joke here.
Nelson Muntz "haw-haw" gif would be appropriate if this wasn't, you know, destroying America.
I want to know more about WHY they wouldn't choose Kamala in a re-run. Is it the association with "woke" stuff like pronouns? Her being a woman? What, exactly? Because they'd be very happy with many of her policies; they seem to just not like the package that would deliver them.
This is what I want to know to. I expect most of them would have some variation of, "I don't know, I just don't *like* her" for their reason. Which could be either unrealized misogyny, racism, or both?
Other people I have asked said that they wouldn't vote Democrat, ever, even if they didn't want to vote Trump or Trump-like for two reasons: "Democrats are more dangerous than Republicans" or "They're all the same anyway".
The "more dangerous" smacked of propaganda and nuture bias to me; no one I asked could qualify it except with Fox talking points or general conspiracy.
"They're all the same anyway" are the people who don't vote, don't follow politics, and generally aren't impacted by administration changes or laws. They're insulated in their utter mediocrity: middle class white suburban folk who have *their* American Dream, which is good enough for them.
When will people realize that we are faced every four years with a binary choice? Staying home or voting 3rd party is a way to hand the election to the wrong person.because it cuts into the votes of the person you are not 100% happy with. I wish it were otherwise but wishing doesn't make it so. Were Latino voters paying attention to what Trump said? Didn't he promise mass deportation? Were they listening? What did they think that meant? Maybe it was the whole anti-trans thing that scared people away from voting for Harris...not impossible IMO.
That thinking is what *makes* it a binary choice, though, it really is a Catch-22.
"I won't vote third party even though I like their platform more because I like the Republican platform *less*" then turns into "Third party candidates never win" which then is "the only parties that matter are Republican or Democrat" which is then predicated by the first. It's an ouroboros, both cause and result.
The only reason we're trapped in a two party system is because we put ourselves here. In fact, we were *specifically* warned against it as early as George Washington, but it's easiest to have a majority when it's an argument of 48% vs 52% rather than 36% vs 31% vs 33%. 36% doesn't feel like a majority.
So perhaps it was always meant to turn out this way? Either way, I have no idea how to fix it now.
The way to fix it is to pass a law requiring ranked choice voting. But good luck getting that passed!
Edited to add: "it's easiest to have a majority when it's an argument of 48% vs 52% rather than 36% vs 31% vs 33%. 36% doesn't feel like a majority."
The real problem is that in example 2 the 36% is likely to be the one that is most ideologically opposed to what the voters who voted for the other two parties wanted, and we've seen enough third-party runs that most voters have figured it out. The most successful third-party run was Teddy Roosevelt's. He actually came in second. The problem is that he and Taft ended up splitting the votes of the voters who most favored their (relatively similar) positions, which led to Woodrow Wilson winning the election. The other third-party runs for the rest of the 20th and 21st Centuries have generally ended with the third party candidate coming in third, but pulling enough votes away from one of the two big parties to put the other major party into power (Clinton won in part because H. Ross. Perot pulled voters away from George H.W. Bush, to name just one example).
We REALLY need ranked choice voting!
Is ranked choice voting exactly what is sounds like? So-and-so is my first choice, then second, then third? Can you enumerate how that would help? Genuinely, I've never come across the idea of ranked choice voting before.
And my point with the second example was to say that some voters would vote 3rd party *because* it's what they most closely agreed with, but some people *won't* - even if they most agree third party - because of what you stated. The reason they won't is because they feel it's worthless and know it detracts from "not losing" to the platform they like least. But if people weren't scared of that, what would the difference be? Anything? Nothing?
Edit: grammar and spelling on some autocorrect nonsense.
Ranked choice voting methods (and there are several different systems) basically work by an iterated process of elimination. The voter ranks the candidates on his ballot from first choice to last choice (and can skip a candidate he feels doesn't deserve a vote). So in round 1 all the votes are tallied, and the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. The ballots are re-examined, and the vote of each voter who put that eliminated candidate as #1 now is reassigned to the candidate they ranked as #2. The the votes are recounted, and again, the candidate who comes in last is eliminated, and those votes go to those voters' respective next choice. Lather, rinse, and repeat until only two candidates are left; the final vote count determined who wins.
The beauty of ranked choice voting is that it makes it safe to vote for a third party candidate without throwing your vote away. If you rank the Green candidate #1, some other candidates, as #2, #3, and #4, and you also rank the Democratic candidate last, the worst case scenario is that your vote ends up going to the Democratic candidate. But the best case scenario is that enough other voters decided to break step and the Green candidate actually wins. it ends the whole "MUST vote for the lesser evil!" trap that knowledgeable voters are currently trapped in.
I am sincerely happy that these people are now opposed Trump as President. It doesn't surprise me. Given long enough, even the bulk of the most narrow-minded, simplistically ignorant voters can eventually come to see that liberal democracy beats fascism. It's too bad that it is too late to matter, for the country's fate was sealed with November's election.
Trump told them what he was gonna do, but they ignored it because groceries cost too much. Now groceries still cost too much, and ICE is rounding people up. If this helps the Dems retake the House in '26 great. But I have zero sympathy for these people.
As a country, voters across all strata have just assumed that a collective goodwill and humanity in America - what they’ve known all their lives here - would buffer whatever cruelties the bully had in mind.
That was always wishful thinking, and again, I ran into this everywhere, all demographics, Rs, Is, and Ds.
Now many of them know. And where we go from here, I have no clue.
Reminds me of the prodigal son returning. Feed them and welcome them back. Democrats better learn how to reach more of them-any voter 2nd guessing Trump.(Going to have to focus on the prize & overlook their past trump delusions)
To those fretting about whether these people would vote for Kamela:
A large percentage of this country is fundamentally misogynistic. In their gut, women are unfit for public office. Some go as far as being certain that women are incapable of wielding any power outside the home. Most cannot admit their bias or bigotry, even to themselves, but the patterns of their actions give them away.
While there are some people like this in every possible cross-section of society, some belief systems produce them more easily and maintain them in their beliefs better than others. To be brutally honest, what religious breakdown do these seven comprise?
Catholic, I'd bet, just like the misogynists on SCOTUS.
Here's a different thought. Kamala Harris in 2024 had the same problem that Hillary Clinton had in 2016. No, ignore the fact that each is a woman.
Both campaign teams allowed the far right wing to define their candidacies for them. From Crooked Hillary to Cackles Kamala. The Dem strategists had no answers.
That's definitely part of it. But the most visceral reactions are to the sex and, in Harris' case, to the skin color. What you described is manufactured, no question.
"Leopards Eating Faces voter gets face ripped off by leopards, can't speak now but demands in writing that qualified facial reconstruction surgeon with spotless record appear more trustworthy"
Does Trump really care if he's losing Latino support at this point? In 2024 he clearly said "vote for me and you'll never have to vote again."
Go big. Long term commitment to 3 constitutional amendments: 1) money out of politics - end Citizens United, etc. 2) restrain the executive and clarify no one is above the law, 3) term limits in the judiciary and legislative branches