Summary

Despite his conservative platform, Donald Trump made unexpected gains among Gen Z voters. Exit polls showed a shift, with young men favoring Trump by 2 points, a reversal from Bidenโ€™s previous lead.

Gen Zโ€™s support for Trump may have been underestimated, as an Axios poll found nearly half of Gen Z voters lied about their vote, with young men more likely to support Trump quietly.

Trump connected with young men through appearances on popular podcasts and endorsements from social media influencers.

Disillusionment with the economy and frustration with the Democratic Partyโ€™s approach to working-class issues also drove some Gen Z voters to seek change, with Trump capitalizing on these sentiments.

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context

I wonder why that is? The dems where marketing right at them?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

More like nagging at them.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

While ignoring their concerns and blaming them for it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Multiple reasons, but it starts with terrible education. They donโ€™t know how to verify information at best, and at worst donโ€™t want to, they believe they win when they piss off someone they donโ€™t like. This means the information they get on current topics is generally something pushed by someone either paying an algorithm to target them or by things like AstroTurfing.

Thereโ€™s a lot of value for the hegemony class in getting people to not care about the climate, endless war, genocide, and human rights in general.

And then you have the out of touch authoritarian liberals/neoliberals that control the liberal side of the mainstream media.

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

There is a sizable group of young men who not only feel like the Democrats (and people on the left, in general) have not only ignored the issues they face, but view them as being inherently bad in some way. The alt-right spaces have been very successful at translating discussions of privilege into a message that everyone but the GOP believes young men, especially young, white men, are doing just fine and are greedy for demanding any sort of help or attention, as well as inherently being oppressors of the marginalized groups that have featured so prominently in contemporary discourse, with no way of redeeming themselves short of complete and total submission to these groups. Basically, painting white guilt on steroids as the only acceptable option for these young men to the Democrats, but with the caveat that nothing they do will ever absolve them of the crime of being born with a penis.

This is obviously nonsense, but itโ€™s quite attractive to these people to hear someone say that they acknowledge their problems, those problems are real, and whatโ€™s more, those problems are not their fault. The absence of acknowledgement or inclusion of these problems in the Democratic talking points lends it some credibility, and thereโ€™s a robust media apparatus in place, with folks like Joe Rogan or Jordan Peterson, that allow them to form some sense of community and identity, while also moving them further on the way to being full-blown MAGA supporters.

Itโ€™s the same sort of strategic failure that the Dems encountered with working class people more broadly; they dismissed their concerns, told them everything was actually fine, when many acutely feel the struggle of existence, and didnโ€™t offer a platform that got them excited and feeling like their economic concerns were being addressed. Then add in policy proposals that specifically target groups like black men, and many of them begin to view the entire field of politics as a zero-sum game, which one side is looking to rig against them.

Of course, this is a misguided take, at best, but itโ€™s amplified by podcast bros and alt-right youtubers, and the way the DNC strategists takes the votes of these groups for granted lends further credence to the notion, in their eyes. The DNC desperately needs to come up with some countermeasures for the alt-right media bubble and stop assuming they can count on any votes as safe, especially if they donโ€™t have heavy messaging targeting the demographics in question.

permalink
report
parent
reply

I really donโ€™t see how Joe Rogan or Jordan Peterson are an issue. Literally all Jordan Peterson has said that you should take responsibility for your life and do better, that Joe Rogan sits down and has conversations with people taking a neutral perspective.

Harris had every opportunity to go on Joe Rogan, and she didnโ€™t, which I think is possibly one of the main reasons that she lost the election. People are sick of corporatised media, bullshit. They want to hear people have actual conversations about real shit. That is something that the new wave media has become extraordinarily good at. And the left wing just canโ€™t play that game because theyโ€™re too insincere and corporatised to have anything more than a 5 second sand bite.

I wouldnโ€™t call it an alt right media bubble. I just think itโ€™s individuals exercising their free speech, which has landed us in a situation where the traditional media, which is bought and paid for by big business, can no longer compete.

Trump didnโ€™t win the election. The Democrats lost. And the data backs this entirely.

permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points

Peterson has said way more bullshit and its all on YouTube.

Rogan supposedly being neutral with everyone is problematic since it puts crazy people on equal footing with experts, and it causes confusion for people who may not know better. As an extreme example, being neutral means you should spend the time and effort to hear out a flat earther as much as an astronomer. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but not everyone is entitled to a platform to spew bullshit.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

As @TheAgeOfSuperboredom@lemmy.ca already pointed out, Roganโ€™s โ€œIโ€™m just promoting free-speech and practicing neutralityโ€ platforms people who are wholly uninformed with equal standing as experts in a given field. For an example of how this is irresponsible, and yes, the average American really is too stupid to be trusted with distinguishing a square turd from a brownie, look at the rise of anti-vaccine sentiment and COVID denialism coming out of Joe โ€œJust asking questionsโ€ over the years.

I wouldnโ€™t call it an alt right media bubble. I just think itโ€™s individuals exercising their free speech, which has landed us in a situation where the traditional media, which is bought and paid for by big business, can no longer compete.

It most certainly is an alt-right media bubble when those who get sucked into it refuse to even consider any evidence that doesnโ€™t come directly from Joe Rogan, Fox, OANN or whatever other goofballs they watch. If you think these people and organizations are above the influence of big business, Iโ€™ve got several bridges to sell you.

This also isnโ€™t strictly a matter of them not trusting news from other sources that donโ€™t align with their own biases, but denying objective facts from experts in the field, all because Joe smoked DMT once, and what the experts say doesnโ€™t feel right to him. See Rogan et al. as they promoted baseless COVID conspiracy theories while also disregarding any medical advice from public health experts, or the growing consensus amongst medical professionals and epidemiologists as we came to understand things better after a couple of years.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

The way I see it is, the youth were super excited about changing the shitty situation that faced them, and the prospect of having Berny Sanders as president, who also wants to change that situation, and they had that ripped away from them, so they were radicalised, they spend 4 years with a senile old man, who did nothings to change the staus quo, and so they voted naively for the candidate who proposed change.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Sounds like a fair assessment to me. You couldnt have bernie so u settled for trump lol.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the siteโ€™s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. Itโ€™s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). Itโ€™s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to โ€œMom! Heโ€™s bugging me!โ€ and โ€œIโ€™m not touching you!โ€ Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Thatโ€™s all the rules!

Civic Links

โ€ข Register To Vote

โ€ข Citizenship Resource Center

โ€ข Congressional Awards Program

โ€ข Federal Government Agencies

โ€ข Library of Congress Legislative Resources

โ€ข The White House

โ€ข U.S. House of Representatives

โ€ข U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

โ€ข News

โ€ข World News

โ€ข Business News

โ€ข Political Discussion

โ€ข Ask Politics

โ€ข Military News

โ€ข Global Politics

โ€ข Moderate Politics

โ€ข Progressive Politics

โ€ข UK Politics

โ€ข Canadian Politics

โ€ข Australian Politics

โ€ข New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 11K

    Monthly active users

  • 17K

    Posts

  • 480K

    Comments