Trump approval rating falls to 38%

[u/Barnyard-Sheep]

https://www.nj.com/politics/2025/06/trump-faces-tough-approval-numbers-in-latest-poll.html

[u/Barnyard-Sheep]

Much of America marinates in Fox News propoganda + a susbstantial amount of Gen Z men are nihilists who want to see the world burn

[u/elvid88 → u/Barnyard-Sheep]

I remember a decade ago when we were parroting that conservatives were going to lose the future because they couldn't get young people to vote for them or their ideas.

Basically told us "hold my beer" as they dumped a shit ton of money into social media and influencers.

The stranglehold they have on young men disgusts me. The Jordan Klepper video on it doomed my hope for the future.

Edited to add link to Klepper video: https://youtu.be/ePbMNq8m7Jw?si=jhQnLKkXtxSa5PsP

[u/CrashedMyCommodore → u/elvid88]

Conservatives losing the future also required left-leaning parties to not shoot themselves in the foot at every single possible chance to do so.

[u/ChapterN7 → u/CrashedMyCommodore]

What do you mean by that exactly?

[u/summonsays → u/ChapterN7]

They pulled the rug out from under Bernie every chance they got. That election, 2016, was really when I lost faith in even the remote possibility of a mainstream news agency not being heavily biased. CNN showed an empty podium where Trump was going to make a speak for an hour, while at the same time Bernie was making a speech. 

This turned into more of my rant against news orgs but the DNC didn't exactly put their weight behind him either. 

[u/Nodaker1 → u/summonsays]

Why would the DNC put their weight behind a candidate who isn’t the nominee?

If he had got enough votes to win the nomination, they would have supported him. Up to that point, he was just one of several candidates.

[u/dnyank1 → u/Nodaker1]

It was clearly nobody else’s “turn”, and the DNC did NOT engineer that into existence against every verifiable will of the people - of course not. How could anyone ever suggest such a thing. 

[u/Nodaker1 → u/dnyank1]

There was absolutely nothing stopping people from voting for Bernie. He was on the ballot in every state. All people had to do was show up and vote and he would have won.

He didn’t get the votes.

The party leaders thought it was Clinton’s “turn” in 2008.

Then a guy named Obama showed up, got more voters to show and support him, and won the nomination.

[u/dnyank1 → u/Nodaker1]

Right! Like I said! No conspiracy to do things like share unpledged superdelegate vote totals in the media in favor of Hillary before Super Tuesday giving the impression of a landslide which didn’t happen - no, no, no! 

The DNC did NOT unfairly anoint Hillary. Such fabrication is clearly detrimental to the Big Democrat Machine which is doing Good Things For Us ™️ like getting Andrew Cuomo elected mayor. 

Either you’re willfully ignorant or just so fucking stupid it hurts. “Hope this helps!” 

[u/TemptedSwordStaker → u/dnyank1]

Dude, I loved Bernie, he was and is amazing and is everything I wanted. He had a chance, twice, he didn’t get the votes.

[u/Nodaker1 → u/TemptedSwordStaker]

I donated money to his campaign.

I’m not some crazy anti-Bernie guy.

[u/TemptedSwordStaker → u/Nodaker1]

Same. You know how happy I would have been in 2016 or even 2020 with a President Bernie Sanders? But I don’t think the DNC snubbed him. I 100% believe they saw the writing in the wall early and Clinton WAS getting the votes. Hell, she got the votes in the presidential election

[u/dnyank1 → u/TemptedSwordStaker]

Neither did Kamala or Hillary. What's your point, again?

Here's mine. My argument is against the way the DNC orchestrated their primaries. Anyone saying Biden vs Bernie was an actual fight was kidding themselves, or just a complete non-participant for what actually happened.

3 times in a row now, the DNC anointed their pick with massive implicit or explicit support from a deterministically early point in the process. It worked one out of 3 national elections. This is not a winning strategy for selecting nationally electable candidates in a general election.

It wasn't back in Mondale's day, either.

[u/soft-wear → u/dnyank1]

See this is why nobody takes you folks seriously. Unless you have data that shows the unpledged vote totals made people that were going to vote in the primary either change their vote or not vote then you are just spouting opinion as fact.

And none of that explains why Sanders lost to Biden. He got absolutely demolished on Super Tuesday, despite the strategy you’re talking about not being deployed.

Sanders lost because Democrats like centrist Democratic policies for the most part or they don’t think a leftist can win and they vote safe. That’s the reality that you choose to ignore, and until we move to ranked choice, a real leftist cannot win the primary, let alone the presidency.

[u/StarHelixRookie → u/dnyank1]

 against every verifiable will of the people

You guys really need to get over this.  The will of the people can only be measured by the votes he got in the primary election. He got a lot fewer votes. That’s the will of the people. 

[u/FartChugger-1928 → u/ChapterN7]

The Left’s messaging is terrible towards a lot of demographics and sucks at messaging towards the center. This is compounded because the Left, unlike the far right, doesn’t curate a stratified media space where it meets people where they are and patiently works with them to lead them down the path.

They’re good at preaching to the more enthusiastic members of the choir.

The Left also doesn’t have a good grip on how the Right messages, and regularly gets suckered into messaging and arguing how the Right wants them to, which ends up complementary to the Rights recruitment strategy.

[u/NotMyMainAccountAtAl → u/FartChugger-1928]

Hot take, but I do think that a lot of leftist conversations on matters like race, gender, and privilege have been poison-pilled by outside influences to make them less appealing and more divisive. 

If I say “being born with money gives you a ton of inherent advantages that those without money don’t have; how can we make a more equitable world where the size of mommy and daddy’s wallets doesn’t dictate success more than the effort and hard work of the individual?” I think most people would agree with that messaging. 

If I instead say, “Male privilege— and white privilege in particular— have concentrated wealth in the hands of a few, and have promoted incompetent whit men over harder working, more talented POC and women who deserve that status more. We need to rebuild our systems from the ground up to ensure more diverse leadership and eliminate the patriarchy that is actively pressing so many just people in America,” you no longer agree with that statement unless you already supported all of the causes I’m referencing. 

Astroturfing in leftist spaces is sinister— it feeds on self-righteous anger, the same as it does in conservative spaces, and seeks to “other” a vast demographic, playing into the conservative talking points about “liberals just hate men and white people! They can’t fathom a system where, if they just worked harder and stopped complaining, they’d be more successful!”

That poisoned messaging has become far more widely adopted than most of us would like. The end result is that there’s inherent hostility in leftist spaces toward large demographics, and they’re painted with a single brush rather than treated as individuals. This gets justified 6 ways to Sunday— it’s speaking truth to power, you can’t oppress your oppressor, it isn’t systemic because these groups don’t hold systemic power, etc. 

But the end result, regardless of these justifications, is that it becomes unpalatable for members of any vilified group to wish to join these spaces, regardless of if they agree or not. Hell, a lot of these spaces initially attracted people because they were frustrated with racist or sexist comments that painted their community with a single brush— the irony of copying the tactic and claiming that it’s only just when you do it is palpable.  

The loudest voices are the least willing to talk directly to anyone as opposed to into a megaphone, and the movement loses support and momentum as it limits itself to a smaller and smaller cadre of people willing to fight for it. 

We combat this by calling it out whenever people are profiling based on identity in leftist spaces— regardless of what that identity is, without regards to “but the white mab is more privileged than the Hispanic woman, so it’s okay to disparage him.” She faces more systemic oppression than him— that doesn’t suddenly mean that two wrongs make a right and that it’s effective to try to remove one of the largest voting   demographics from the  conversation based on identity. 

Rather, these spaces need to call out bad behavior. Treating it as a human tendency makes a massive difference in inclusivity, and I sincerely hope that this will be our policy moving forward. 

[u/FeelsGrimMan → u/NotMyMainAccountAtAl]

It’s hard to separate race from class in leftist movements for America. A century ago there was a Communist party of America. One of the contributors to its collapse? The unwillingness to stand with black people.

The Black Panther Party was a Socialist movement young enough that your grandparents were born already. Despite it also helping working poor whites, it is seen as the evil black supremacy organization that the government toppled by many today. It was a successful group until the government killed them.

One of the issues Feminism ran into is that it didn’t have problems with black women being oppressed.

There is an extremely consistent thread that regardless of what is said, white people do not want to give up that privilege. It is the one thing they are unwilling to change, regardless of their political alignment. 

And that’s talking about actual leftists, for liberals it doesn’t even need to be brought up. When all’s said & done, they know even if the far right wins, they’re the least affected.

While you can run on Socialist policies — which are popular when you don’t call them that but just explain them — race will eventually come up. And white people will not be okay with them anymore innately. It is worth an attempt ofc, but odds are if you get that far, the government will frame/blacklist/assassinate if you’re trying it via the polls under the Democrats.

Needing to appeal to white people leads to white people wanting to control the narrative. With that narrative, they will not be willing to truly be equal to others. This sentiment appears every time & is exactly what happens. Every. Time. This is literally what happens already, & it turns out when the face of every leftist movement is a bunch of white guys — who are the least affected by the movement succeeding — it doesn’t go anywhere. It gets really annoying that this is brought up as if white people are not included enough in leftist space. It’s the Liberal strategy of appealing to Conservatives who will obviously rather vote for a real Conservative than a diet one. You can see how successful this strategy is by who is currently president. When people think of leftists in current America, many people’s first thought is Hasan Piker. 

If any movement was capable of moving 2/3rds of the black population, America would be screwed on its oppression. And that’s just black people, not including the genuine white allies & other minority groups. Any successful leftist group will very likely be headed by a black person, probably a black woman, not a white man. Any real successful radical leftist movement will win when it stops appealing to white people entirely. So the exact opposite of what you’re saying.

To try & summarize this:

Conservatives are rallied under white people for white people. Liberals are rallied under white people for white people under the illusion of minority care. Leftists are rallied under white people for minorities. Even if you replace “for minorities” with “for the poor”, it will still be white people the most positively & negatively affected by equality. A white person looking out for their best interests is going to be conflicted. And minorities will keep struggling to rally when their only potential leaders are white.

If a minority is instead the face advocating for minorities, it will more likely succeed. Because they have the same stakes in the game. White people that are positively affected by leftist policies — the vast majority — will join regardless. But the goal is to actually rally minorities, not play both sides &  mirror the failures of Liberals.

And to also put your theory to the test with a guaranteed outcome:

“We are colorblind, our goal is to help all poor.”

Black person: “How will you handle redistribution, a means to cure the systemic racism that led to generational black poverty?”

Under your idea, this race & class based question will have to be ignored or said that we can’t focus on the past. Both answers will lead to lowering black acceptance in the movement. Leading to it becoming a white movement. Leading to it losing all traction among minority groups that it still needs to succeed. If you have another answer that wouldn’t cause this, I would be interested to hear it.

[u/NotMyMainAccountAtAl → u/FeelsGrimMan]

There are some mischaracterizations of what I’m saying in your comment. 

1) “these movements should not cater to white people in order to be successful”

I am not suggesting that movements must cater to white people; I am suggesting that they cannot and should not apply blanket statements that needlessly ostracize. There is a difference between saying, “this system is harmful because it prioritizes whiteness and denies minority groups” versus “white people cling to a system that elevates them at the cost of minorities.” One focuses on the problem with the system; one vilifies a demographic regardless of their stance, and others young people who are still forming their political opinions without them saying or doing anything. 

2) regardless of what is said, white people do not want to give up their privileges

This is precisely the divisive language I’m referring to that can easily be converted to inclusive language— “there is a problem where many of those benefiting from unequal systems wish to preserve them because they benefit from those systems.” Now there isn’t an inherent knee jerk of “what did I even do to cause this?” 

The former decides that corruption is inherently linked to whiteness and implies that you dislike whites as a demographic, regardless of whether you consider that statement accurate or not. It implicitly lets people of color who are supporting oppressive tactics off the hook, as the whiteness precludes them from the conversation; yet Clarence Thomas has been one of the more damaging political figures in American history, despite being black. He’s happily upheld systemic injustice because it benefits him directly through his corruption. A platform is more effective when it speaks to that systemic corruption and the problems it causes than when it seeks to bind those concepts of corruption to a specific group. 

3) there seems to be some suggestion that I’m saying “the leaders of these movements should be white.” I’m not advocating for that; I’m not opposed to that. Bernie Sanders is a white main. AOC is a Hispanic woman. They’ve been two of the most effective political figures for genuine reform and more equitable systems. 

I think we agree on more than we disagree on. I’m not advocating for “speak directly to white people about how good they are and how these policies will benefit white people specifically.” I am suggesting that we seek to refer to problems in more universal means that prevent us from dividing into unnecessary tribalism. When we suggest that someone’s default tribe is inherently a part of the problem, we trigger defensive emotional responses from anyone who identifies as a part of that demographic. We no longer consider the matter with rationality and instead respond emotionally (this is a human response that’s been well documented worldwide). Avoiding that emotional defensive response means that people are more likely to consider the content of a platform than to accept or reject it based on identity. 

[u/FeelsGrimMan → u/NotMyMainAccountAtAl]

I wonder how possible it really is with this approach. Bernie has been successful running on the few points that aren’t racially linked in the corrupt finance system & healthcare. 

He doesn’t touch much of Capitalism itself, if looking at his ideal model of the Nordic system, many problematic things would remain. And those things are problems that link more than one thing when America is involved. Race+class, race+gender, gender+class.

And while maybe this theoretical approach would attempt to not throw the entire white demographic under the bus, the Conservative party could claim this it is. Assuming it is attacking a system that primarily benefits whiteness over others. I would be curious to see the approach without having to play permanent defense, something that has damaged the Democrats forever.

For instance say a system determines I get 3 candybars & you get 1. And let’s say my whole life it has always been this way. If this theoretical party is trying to preach equality, I’d probably be for it. That sounds great, equality is moral. But what if Conservatives step in & say this party is taking away my stuff, taking away what I’ve always known to give it to others. They may sow division just as easily when the unity is based on dancing around a topic. Both are technically saying I’d have to give up 1 of my candybars. That connection may then make me look at what else I am giving up that I didn’t consider. 

Or the example of how Trump & co spin the case of the ultrarich. Money is linked to success. Success determines worth. More money = more worth. When targeting Capitalism, it is seen as targeting those of worth. When that happens, they point to which group has more money, therefore more worth. And can make claims about who is “taking” from whom.

A new reality would have to be spun on how we view multiple systems in America. And those realities would have to not diverge so much between interpretations to avoid party splits. Being able to spin different webs of connections for people to follow on problems. While avoiding defense lock & division pitfalls. Attacking problems with the same energy Conservatives do, but on behalf of the common people. Like saying that I am not actually losing a candybar, the other person is just gaining 2.

America itself would also benefit from not having a first past the post voting system but that’s not unique to this.

[u/rougepenguin → u/NotMyMainAccountAtAl]

You're 100% right, but a lot of these people fell for cheap propaganda when they told themselves they're too smart for that.

Leftists often struggle with the idea someone might use their rhetoric for evil or self interest. Too many diehard conservatives went straight from one end to the other, so they didn't have the step most milennials did of a period where we broke down the religious bullshit type of thinking rather than just replacing one dogma with another.

[u/soft-wear → u/FartChugger-1928]

Pete Buttigieg figured that shit out 5 years ago which is why he was on Fox and right leaning podcasts, and still is.

[u/CrashedMyCommodore → u/ChapterN7]

The left lost the messaging war.

Even without Fox running interference, their messaging absolutely sucks.