Economic concerns and growing disenchantment with both parties is draining support for Trump among Gen Z young men, a key bloc of support during the 2024 election

Economic concerns and growing disenchantment with both parties is draining support for Trump among Gen Z young men, a key bloc of support during the 2024 election

Male Gen Z voters are breaking with Donald Trump and the Republican party at large, recent polls show, less than a year after this same cohort defied convention and made a surprise shift right, helping Trump win the 2024 election.

Taken with wider polling suggesting Democrats will lead in the midterms, the findings on young men spell serious trouble for the Republican Party in 2026.

Younger Gen Z men, those born between 2002 and 2007, may be even more anti-Trump, according to October research from YouGov and the Young Men’s Research Project, a potential sign that their time living through the social upheavals of the Covid pandemic and not being political aware during the first Trump administration may be shaping their experience.

  • bunchberry@lemmy.world
    43·
    1 day ago

    This is the chance to vote for, among many, that closest resembles your own choices.

    If you run for the Racism Party™ as a person who has an anti-racist position, do you think you will be nominated? Maybe in an incredibly fringe case, but most of the time you will not be. And then what do you do when you’re not nominated?

    The “vote blue no matter who” isn’t dogma, its usually pragmatic advice.

    It’s literally a dogma by definition. Saying that you would do something as a matter of principle under all possible conditions without ever considering a different strategy is a dogma.

    Your “advice” is based on extremely fringe. Sure, in a country of hundreds of millions, it may happen a couple times. But what about all the rest of the times it does not? You pretend it is a “victory” that one leftist gets into a position of power where they can hardly do anything at all because they are surrounded by extreme right-wingers, then you try to sheepherd everyone in to backing the extreme right wingers that are the very same people blocking them from getting anything done.

    If your position was just “you should vote for leftists if they are in the primaries, then vote for them as Democrats if they win their primaries,” I wouldn’t have an issue with that. But that’s not your position. It’s “you should vote for Democrats no matter what.” Even if they’re a genocidal fascist far-right freak who is going to do everything in their power to block an edge case like Mamdani from every making any positive change, we should apparently still support that.

    After the primary however, nearly any Democratic candidate would be preferable to a GOP one to most Democratic voters.

    Most should be strung upside down like Mussolini.

    Third parties in the USA have historically fielded pretty weak candidates.

    Okay then field strong candidates.

    If third party candidates want to be seriously considered, then I would recommend they start with smaller office positions to actually build a party that demonstrates is can govern.

    Would you actually vote for them if they did or just shame people for not voting blue no matter who?

    • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      21·
      22 hours ago

      If you run for the Racism Party™ as a person who has an anti-racist position, do you think you will be nominated? Maybe in an incredibly fringe case, but most of the time you will not be.

      Well, I’m not sure why I’d even be running for a nomination to your “Racism Party™”, but I would be pretty unsurprised when I didn’t win.

      And then what do you do when you’re not nominated?

      I don’t understand why you’d have me running in that party in the first place so I don’t know what answer you’re fishing for here.

      It’s literally a dogma by definition. Saying that you would do something as a matter of principle under all possible conditions without ever considering a different strategy is a dogma.

      Why did you skip over the part where I showed consideration of how weak and bad the third party candidates are and the other strategy of not voting at all before arriving at the blue candidate?

      It’s “you should vote for Democrats no matter what.” Even if they’re a genocidal fascist far-right freak who is going to do everything in their power to block an edge case like Mamdani from every making any positive change, we should apparently still support that.

      Now you’re just straight up strawmanning.

      Would you actually vote for them if they did or just shame people for not voting blue no matter who?

      I actually have voted third party, and it got us the 2nd Iraq war. You’re welcome. So you can see when I advocate against weak third party votes, its because I don’t want a repeat of arguably the USAs first 21st century geopolitical catastrophe and millions of lives lost needlessly in Iraq.

      Third parties in the USA have historically fielded pretty weak candidates.

      Okay then field strong candidates.

      Oh shit! So easy! Why didn’t I think of that?!

      When I read your first post here, I saw your line of thought was pretty thin, but there might be something of substance there. I can see what I thought was substance in your post was a mirage. It was a mistake to waste my time engaging with you.

      Have a nice day.

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        1·
        21 hours ago

        I actually have voted third party, and it got us the 2nd Iraq war.

        no. al gore won that election. voting for the so-called third party had no bearing on the outcome.

      • bunchberry@lemmy.world
        11·
        18 hours ago

        Well, I’m not sure why I’d even be running for a nomination to your “Racism Party™”, but I would be pretty unsurprised when I didn’t win.

        You’re the one advocating to run for genocidal far-right jingoist party.

        I don’t understand why you’d have me running in that party in the first place so I don’t know what answer you’re fishing for here.

        You’re intentionally avoiding the point because you know I am right at this point.

        Now you’re just straight up strawmanning.

        You: “vote blue no matter who.”

        Me: “You’re saying we should vote blue no matter.”

        You: “STRAW MAN STRAW MAN”

        When I read your first post here, I saw your line of thought was pretty thin, but there might be something of substance there. I can see what I thought was substance in your post was a mirage. It was a mistake to waste my time engaging with you.

        This is just copium. You have conceded my entire argument. You cannot uphold the position that we should mindlessly “vote blue no matter who,” so you intentionally avoid the point because you know mindlessly voting for genocidal fascists is not a tenable position.

        There is no point of discussing further as you have already conceded my argument but have too big of an ego to admit it.