The vast majority of Americans allowed Trump to become president by either voting for him or failing to show up at the ballot box.
Out of all forms of governance, those that live under a democracy have the least credibility when claiming that their government does not represent them.
It should be known that the takeaway from this is not just that Trump cannot be trusted. That was already known. Many nations, including America’s allies, are learning that America’s voting base can no longer be trusted. The lesson here is that we’re always going to be 4 years away from attempts at global destabilization if we continue to allow America to be the world’s preeminent super power.
Which is why nearly every nation is putting together a plan to divest in the US. America, as a whole, is no longer a reliable partner.
Even if MAGA and its ideology dies with this presidency, America is going to be spending the next few decades winning the world’s trust back. China will likely take its place in the meantime.
is not voting despite being eligible an endorsement of the winner?
Context is king. For some places, sure, like in Japan the voter turnout is always around 40% and is typically seen as endorsement for the Japanese Liberal party that de facto rules the country for 70 years. But in the US, it is more nuanced than that. It could mean Americans who abstained don’t like either candidates, or felt that federal policies won’t affect their states and thus “Trump-proofed”. Or for the staunchly Republican states, they feel that voting for presidential elections won’t affect anything.
If Democrats really want to win the next presidential election, the party really needs to change and excite voters.
You can endorse the winner and not vote, or even the opposite, or vote for the winner. Whether or not you vote doesn’t take away your opinion on the results. It’s not really an issue that needs debating.
The research is out there on who non-voters are, why they don’t/can’t vote and what political opinions they have. Critics like OP and others in this thread just choose to ignore that and go with the narrative in their head.
This is a case where the outcome trumps process or rationale.
Regardless of whatever personal reason someone may have for not voting in the election, their lack of participation has allowed Trump to take power, leading to the global instability we see today.
They have therefore cosigned America’s role in leading the world into this period of uncertainty.
Which is why America’s standing in the world is about to diminish and the concept of the ‘Western world’ is growing increasingly fragile.
Non voters bear some responsibility for this, regardless of their personal views.
Which is why many outside the US put non voters and Trump voters in the same bucket. Both evil and apathy towards evil have the ability to do incredible harm, especially when paired.
At face value and objectively it’s wrong.
Most Americans did not vote for Trump.
Here’s how it works:
*US Population, adult over 18: ~250 million.
*Of that population, ~244 million are eligible to vote.
*Of eligible voters, only 63.9% voted.
*Of the 63.9%, less than half, 49.8%, went to Trump. To re-emphasize that point, Trump did not get more than 50%.
*Harris got 48.3%
*The ~1% difference voted third party.
The math is pretty basic. 63.9% of 250 million is 159.7 million voting, 49.8% of that voting for trump is 79.5 million.
So out of 250 million, ~32% actually voted for trump. The rest is the issue with the electoral college, but we’re talking people, not the EC.
But wait, that’s just voters. What about people?
Pew shows 49% Democrats, 48% Republican, 3% other, so 52% are not Republican.
So by no metric are a majority conservative or Republican.
Maybe “Most Americans support Trump” is wrong, but “most Americans do not oppose Trump” isn’t.
This is the accurate assessment.
The vast majority of Americans allowed Trump to become president by either voting for him or failing to show up at the ballot box.
Out of all forms of governance, those that live under a democracy have the least credibility when claiming that their government does not represent them.
It should be known that the takeaway from this is not just that Trump cannot be trusted. That was already known. Many nations, including America’s allies, are learning that America’s voting base can no longer be trusted. The lesson here is that we’re always going to be 4 years away from attempts at global destabilization if we continue to allow America to be the world’s preeminent super power.
Which is why nearly every nation is putting together a plan to divest in the US. America, as a whole, is no longer a reliable partner.
Even if MAGA and its ideology dies with this presidency, America is going to be spending the next few decades winning the world’s trust back. China will likely take its place in the meantime.
The main point of contention between the 2 comments is: is not voting despite being eligible an endorsement of the winner?
Context is king. For some places, sure, like in Japan the voter turnout is always around 40% and is typically seen as endorsement for the Japanese Liberal party that de facto rules the country for 70 years. But in the US, it is more nuanced than that. It could mean Americans who abstained don’t like either candidates, or felt that federal policies won’t affect their states and thus “Trump-proofed”. Or for the staunchly Republican states, they feel that voting for presidential elections won’t affect anything.
If Democrats really want to win the next presidential election, the party really needs to change and excite voters.
You can endorse the winner and not vote, or even the opposite, or vote for the winner. Whether or not you vote doesn’t take away your opinion on the results. It’s not really an issue that needs debating.
The research is out there on who non-voters are, why they don’t/can’t vote and what political opinions they have. Critics like OP and others in this thread just choose to ignore that and go with the narrative in their head.
This is a case where the outcome trumps process or rationale.
Regardless of whatever personal reason someone may have for not voting in the election, their lack of participation has allowed Trump to take power, leading to the global instability we see today.
They have therefore cosigned America’s role in leading the world into this period of uncertainty.
Which is why America’s standing in the world is about to diminish and the concept of the ‘Western world’ is growing increasingly fragile.
Non voters bear some responsibility for this, regardless of their personal views.
Which is why many outside the US put non voters and Trump voters in the same bucket. Both evil and apathy towards evil have the ability to do incredible harm, especially when paired.
A non-vote is supporting both sides equally so you can count them in the vote for the winner
That’s some logic all right.