I assumed the same, but I've seen in CNN's live coverage on election day (unfortunately I can't find it now) that in an exit poll (I don't remember where) only 2 of 5 Trump voters said they voted against Biden (and not for Trump), but 3 of 5 Biden voters said they voted against Trump (and not for Biden).
That's how it's been for at least decades. Democrats voted for Gore from hate of Bush. So this is a structural problem you're stuck with. Unless you come up with a stronger force than a pandemic with 100,000 fatalities.
Ranked choice elections, or something that gives seemingly fringe candidates a chance. Skip primaries for party candidate and use the extra time for more debates.
Yeah. It's all about getting us off our asses and into the voting booth.
I think this also explains why more partisan rhetoric wins. It gets more people mobilized, while not really hurting you with moderates. It only hurts you with people who think. Who're a tiny minority. (I'm not convinced I'm one of them.)
> most Americans will vote for anyone who wins "their" party's primary
I agree in principle, the majority of people will just vote party line. But there is no doubt that Trump supporters came out in force in 2020 far greater than 2016. I cannot for the life of me understand why so many people think Trump is an ideal choice for President, but I do continue to try and listen, maybe I will finally get hit with the clue bat. I've got Trump fans as friends, but they can never really articulate why I should agree with them other than 'democrats bad'. And that doesn't resonate with me, because I need something more than simple tribalism to guide my choice.
Trump got more votes this election. The "anyone but clinton" line is a falsehood. The real reason Trump won is because huge swaths of Americans feel disenfranchised because we no longer control the entire worlds economy like we did for the 30 years after ww2. They're entitled brats who feel they deserve more even thought they're already the wealthiest group of unskilled workers in the world. And the republicans realize that and are willing to lie and say they can bring that America back.
"Entitled brats" is a little harsh. What salary should an unskilled American be entitled to? (An Indian with the same skills might get a few dollars a day.) Do you live on that amount? Would you be happy about it to, if you had been born with worse genetics or a worse home environment?
You're right, it is too harsh. I'd feel the same way if I were them. It's very difficult to come to the realization that your life will be worse than that of your parents and grandparents(at least economically). It's unfortunate that they've fallen for republican bullshit because I think it's pretty clear that democrat policy is better for them in the long run, but democrats aren't willing to lie and they're very bad politicians compared to republicans.
This post is a great example of the attitude that led to exact to the Trump win.
The middle class in America paid for globalization in a way that the lower and upper classes have not. I spent enough time in other countries to truly appreciate that there are 1 billion less people in poverty because of globalization. But they are also very many angry people who will point out that globalization has not been great for them. The only politician who They felt they could turn to was Trump.
Globalization isn't a choice. It's a fact. I understand being angry that your job is gone, but no one can bring it back. All of the factories in the world being destroyed was extremely lucky for America, and it probably won't ever happen again. America will never manufacture the vast majority of goods for the whole world again because now other countries can manufacture much of their own stuff, let alone stuff for us. Democrats and republicans both know that, but only democrats admit it. Trump won by pretending he can change it. I do blame the democrats for their horrible messaging. It doesn't matter if your platform is better if you can't convince people.
The US did not have to allow China into the WTO, that was a choice. The US did not have to turn a blind eye to the fact its product get way less market access in China than Chinese products get in the US, that was a choice.
I can go on and on and on. While America could never return to the post WW2 position, there were ways to make the current position bearable which were not taken due to ideological and political reasons.
Starting trade wars would not be good for the us. It would just lead to more international dominance from China. At least we can be competitive in the services sector with current policy. Trade wars would just make us even less competitive. Moving away from a replaceable manufacturing economy to a high skill services economy is a good thing, and cutting off other countries would make the us worse off.
Trade wars are sometimes justified. Your suggested strategy does not only have bad political and human consequences - it's not stable strategically.
Eventually, China will use its huge manufacturing edge to create a military advantage - this is already starting to happen - and then it could bully all of East Asia to give its trade massive advantages, while absorbing Taiwan.
The US must rebalance before it is too late. Hopefully latest technological development might make this rebalance easier.
I agree. But it is also a political choice. Lets not forget, you may have the opportunity and move where the money is, but, if its in china, it will be a different world. So it is not really a fair game, where there is a world to conquer and everyone can start something.
And also not to forget, that the social systems, that we have built to make up/downs in the cruel nature more bearable, they have not been globalized. It is, when one looks at each country, still very local. If everything is more distributed and in different political zones, i think, they will fall apart, as the money went somewhere else, where production happens.
It's also an economic choice: the suits could have shared the economic benefits more (or politicians redistributed more), but in Capitalism excess 'created value' tends to go to the owners (Capital), and so we got a rise in the concentration of wealth over the last forty years.
And in a globalized world, if someone has built something, that is of use for many, a few will be even more richer than in today's term, by the nature of it. It is simply not comparable to some local baker, where only a few citizen will go to on a day.
The divide between the have and have not could be stronger, though, when you dont have, maybe that is still a lot more to what you have today (e.g. medical progress), it is just not as much as the ones at the top.
And then the cycle continuous, the divide will be used to form agendas, and so on.
I think what hinders us the most in installing a proper system for globalization, that all these areas have grown for centuries and it is definitly not easy to unify and agree on something. I hope, people have answers for that. I definitly do not want a system like communist china for that, i just "escaped" one myself, even though it probably has many advantages too. :-)
Globalization was a choice. It was a choice forced on part of the world as part of Pax Americana. If the USA had not done so, the world would be badly vastly different.
I don't think so. It's not like Trump or the republicans are even pretending to be focused on reducing income inequality. Remaining better than other groups is a priority for Trump voters. If they just wanted everyone to be better off they'd vote Democrat.
My point is that many of his 2016 votes were "anyone but Clinton." If he had a more appealing opponent, it wouldn't have been close.