Stupid people wanted to claim that Harris was “the same as” Trump.

What we have here are voters who thought Trump would be better than Harris, not the same. I can understand, even if it’s technically wrong, when people feel that genocide is genocide. And they see what is happening there as an extension to them (which any psychotherapist who’s dealt with someone of an ethnic group which is in war can attest to).

Most of these people are in their own echo chambers

Although this is most probably a factor, I believe this to be too simple an explanation. So about the media landscape: Yes. Especially the so-called ‘new media’ is seldomly truly independent but often biased in that they peddle this false narrative that Trump is a peace candidate. Also notable is that ‘alternative media’ is largely seen as independent from billionaires and power, while legacy media is an arm of the establishment. So the narrative of ‘us vs. them’ works even better and since the biggest names lean more right or are outright Republican propaganda channels, this could translate into more people who already resent the status quo falling for them. And thanks to the engagement-optimizing algorithms they fall into these echo-chambers. Sidenote: I’m not de-legitimizing alternative outlets, but want to stress the importance of scrutinizing how they finance themselves. We just had a case of one right-wing propaganda channel being exposed as being financed by a Russian oligarch for years. (I forgot the name)

One could also point to the rhetoric and behavior of the two candidates towards the pro-Palestinian population in the last few weeks and months before the election. One side didn’t let Palestinian voices be heard and even actively and preemptively removed an elected Democrat from one of their own events, because he happened to be Palestinian American. Outside the DNC the protestors were met with disdain and ridicule by DNC delegates. And the other side came to speak lie to them about what he’s gonna do and that he takes them seriously. People are gonna see this.

Or generally when Harris said that she wanted the ‘most lethal military in the world’, while the other side talked about ending wars ‘within the first 24 hours’. Outrageous but a stark contrast.

Or the simple sentiment that with the Dems in power genocide is happening, so I’ll roll the dice. The same anti-establishment sentiment that led to Trump in 2016 in the first place (economic in nature in 2016).

Talking about anti-establishment sentiment: I know of only one exception to this. But after COVID, there’s only one incumbent party in the democratic world, that came out of elections still in power. And that’s Mexico. If you know any others, please feel free to enlighten me.

The list is not extensive by any means and is just me spit-balling. If we want to understand what happened the answers are going to be much more complex.

Now that is just plain stupid. One can make a moral argument for not wanting to vote for genocide, since the situation is similar, but not the same(!), as the famous Trolley Problem. But actively voting for the other pro-genocide option because you believed him to be a peace candidate? … This is something that needs honest analysis and reflection. Both by these voters as well as by the Democratic Party. How the hell could Trump with his abysmal record be perceived as the peace candidate by so many? I do expect though, that all the involved parties will learn the wrong lessons from this.

With all the blame, shaming and hate towards Muslim, Arab, African and Latino Americans we should also not forget: The only ethnic demographic from which Trump got a majority is: White voters.

Look, I get what you are saying and even agree to a certain degree. Yet, the premise here is that one of both parties is opposed to genocide, which is false. For the affected voter group, who are getting shamed for making the crime of crimes their litmus test, both people are trying to make more holes albeit of different sizes.

So, what would you do? I would probably throw both of them over board ;)

I’m familiar with First-Past-The-Post voting and the spoiler effect. I’m also familiar with choosing to vote for whom you’d prefer to fight when elected. We are dealing with the crimes of crimes here and I can absolutely understand anyone whose family is affected to not want to take an active role in their killing. Especially since the campaign has not signaled to that voter block, that they are seen or heard. The best example is denying a Palestinian-American a shortened and cleared speech at the DNC. It could have been only a ceremonial thing, less weight than lip-service, but they opted for exclusion instead, i.e. the opposite.

My main point though: How can this party not be clearly ahead of that menace to democracy and its institutions? This one voter block should not be the deciding thing. Overlooking the agency of the Democratic Party in this and putting full blame on the people rubs me very anti-democratic. Implying them to be immature and other forms of voter shaming is not making a good case either.

I did say that I live in a democracy with more parties, not that it does not include elections where there is the “first past the post” principle, so I’m familiar with the spoiler effect.

Trump is worse on genocide Although that might be true in some sense, please try to understand the people affected here. If your family is the one affected, it doesn’t get more dead, than dead. I’m not saying, I would vote the same way, but I can understand not wanting to actively vote for killing your family.

I get the logic you put forth. Yet as someone who lives in a more diverse democracy (although it has been getting dangerously more polarized in the recent decades), I’m always baffled by this presumption that a candidate deserves someone’s vote by default.

In this case, let’s say there aren’t any other parties on the ballot other than the Democrats and Republicans. In Michigan specifically you have a voter group, that says that they cannot vote for genocide especially if it is against their own families or people that look like them. And both parties are either promising the continuation thereof or have been engaged in it and have been excluding anything related to addressing it, or people representing that voter group, from their campaign. So the presumption, that if there wasn’t a Green Party to vote for that they would be coming out to vote for the Democrats is imho just flawed. They might just as likely stay home.

What I find even more baffling is that this party can’t seem to clearly outperform the even more clearly dangerous candidate to democracy. The Arabic or Muslim population in Michigan should not be this decisive for the outcome, if the Democrats were able to actually persuade voters to turn out by delivering an attractive policy plan, thereby earning the votes, instead of just arrogantly thinking, they’re entitled to them.

Many reasons. One major factor imho is the belief or illusion to be living in a meritocracy. Which would mean, that someone who’s rich has to have earned it and therefore criticism must stem from envy or jealousy. The same belief fuels the ideology of thinking of poor people to just be lazy leeches on society.

Never have I ever watched/read anything relating to Lord of the Rings.