Aaaaand those parents of those Gen Z kids probably said what they said because when they were kids, their parents told them to follow their dreams and do whatever they wanted to do, so they believed them and they went to art school and didn't work hard, then they got to the recession and lost their job (or never got it in the first place) because their degree was irrelevant for almost any job out there, and then they had to compete and improve in order to get a decent job to make ends meet as they tried their best to raise their little Gen Z kid.

Could the Democrats do more? Sure. But they're still recovering from the fever that took the party over with Clinton in '92.

If that's true, Jesus H. Christ, Democratic party, just get out of the way and let someone else fight fascism. If you're "still recovering" 32 goddamn years later, you're not recovering. That's just a permanent part of the party identity. And the people are clearly not wild about what you've become if you lose to Donald Fucking Trump two out of three times.

So just quit.

Shut the party down and let something else take its place, because whatever happened in 92 is chronic and terminal, and you're bringing the rest of the country down with you.

I think the American middle got taken by surprise at their own apathy in '16. Then in '20 they were motivated by fear. This week, they showed that they've simply lost faith in the Democratic party, plain and simple. That they're tired of what they've been getting from the party and they'll accept a horrible person over perpetuating the arrogance and inaction of the Democrats.

And while I can't say I was too fed up to support Harris, now that Tuesday is behind us, as much as I despise Trump, I have to admit that the Democrats got exactly what they deserved at the ballot box: the same lukewarm apathy they've shown the American people the past 12 years.

Maybe they'll finally get the message and put together a cohesive, intelligent, inspiring platform and message for the midterms, but if history is anything to go by, I'm guessing that this time in 2 years, they're thrilled as fuck to take back the House (with too slim a majority to do much beyond hold up legislation), with progressives gaining slightly more seats than now, and the party as a whole will still have the same lack of focus, direction, and message...

...and I would bet money that this time in 2026 they still don't have anything close to an idea of a possible presidential nominee that gets people excited.

Agreed 100%.

If they did this, they would easily carry states with high populations of blue collar and union laborers. Stop paying lip service and actually do it.

States that have had major manufacturing centers in the late 20th century like the Rust Belt.

Like...Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

The Democratic party is just paying the price for ignoring blue collar middle class voters since the late 80s. They took those votes for granted, and they lost them over time. Just like after blue collar folks they then took the votes of minorities for granted...and now they're losing those.

All they need to do is ask what they've done for these people lately...like in the past few decades. And when they came really answer that in any terms other than what they prevented the other guys from doing, they shouldn't have to wonder why enthusiasm for their party's candidates is at an all time low.

Literally ZERO people I know personally have actually liked and actively, enthusiastically supported any democratic presidential nominee since Obama. That's twelve fucking years and zero candidates that got people excited and inspired. Most of my friends voted for these candidates, but nobody liked them.

Honestly, if it weren't for the opposition being so unbearably awful, I'd almost be happy to see the Democratic party handed loss after loss until and unless they learn their lesson and stop taking their base for granted.

There's also plenty of room in there for less malicious situations as well (not that the malicious ones you speak of aren't happening...they are...but there's other cases as well).

I think a lot of the problems arise based on differing expectations, and ideas about what a "conversation" entails.

Too often, it seems like a conversation means "let me voice my grievances, assign blame, and explain my ideas about why it's like that and what should be done...and didn't you dare to disagree with me or question anything or point out flaws in my logic, because this is my space!"

And hey, you're free to do that...but that ain't a conversation. Conversation means you don't get to dictate the terms completely to everyone else.

I feel like those who do this do know, deep down, that they don't want a conversation at all... but "everyone shut up, let me say my thing, then agree with me" tends to draw in a smaller audience. You might be right, you might be wrong, but, "Listen to me and don't say anything I don't like." isn't a conversation.

Telling a person wandering through the desert "I also get thirsty" maybe deflects from the issue at hand.

Or... That may be a show of support, in sharing of a common burden, a message of, "You are not alone in this struggle."

Rather than always seeing it as a negative, maybe allow for the possibility that it's coming from a different place.

Honestly, I feel like this whole sentiment of, "Don't attempt to bring any context into a conversation. Only stick strictly to what one person has decided to talk about." is not only counterproductive in that moment, but also in the medium and long term has a marked effect in shutting down future conversations about difficult and uncomfortable topics.

I mean, how many times does a person get into a conversation that starts with, "Can we talk about X?" or "Let's have an open, honest discussion about Y?"...only to add something to that conversation and be told, "No, you're wrong for bringing that up. We're only talking about X and why it's the worst thing ever."... before they get to the point where the next time someone says, "Can we talk about Z?" they just say, "No, sorry. Not interested."?

For me, while I get where the post is coming from, a lot of the narrative seems to revolve around the dynamic of:

"We need to have an open dialog about XYZ. Let's have a conversation."

"Okay, then here's ABC for context, as a comparison to XYZ."

"Actually I'm here to talk about XYZ, not ABC. And you're the problem for not strictly limiting this open conversation to the specific scope I want to consider."

Like... you can either ask for open discussion or you can say, "Everybody shut up and listen to what I have to say, and unless you're opening your mouth to completely agree with me in every way, don't bother because I'm not here for anything other than letting you all know what I think."

I'm not saying that the points are wrong or bad, just that it's a bad look to start out with talking about an interest in having a dialogue, then as soon as there's any expansion of the scope of discussion, suddenly being unhappy that there's thoughts different from where it started out, and playing the victim or worse, blaming whoever took the invitation for an open dialogue at face value and engaged in good faith.

Agreed.

Ultimately, polls are simply unable to account for the demographic of "doesn't participate in advance polling", and Anthony they attempt to do to account for that glaring weakness is guesswork.

Right?

"Nobody wants to work anymore!"

Like no shit man.

News Flash: nobody has wanted to work ever. They work because the compensation lets them live the lives they want outside of work. If nobody wants to work for you, it's because you either aren't willing to compensate them enough to do that, or your job makes them so miserable that it's not worth it for them to trade away that much happiness for the compensation.

Or both. In lots of cases it's both.

My biggest resume gap was a 6 month gap. I was laid off (technically "my position was eliminated") and immediately started looking, but opportunities were slim.

I knew the gap may not look good, even if I was searching the whole time, so I enrolled in a few classes at the local community college when the new semester began.

As it happened, a few weeks after my layoff, my grandfather fell ill as well and it turned out to be a relief for the whole family that I was able to pull the overnight shifts caring for him at my grandparents' home in the last month and a half of his life.

Though my stretch of unemployment lasted long after he passed, the few times I've been asked about this gap in an interview, my response has usually been "I was caring for my dying grandfather" with no elaboration.

At that point, the majority of interviews who asked either let it go and move on or express sympathy and continue. The one interview I've been in where that wasn't enough and they tried to get into specifics, I wrote off that position mentally in that moment and it was just going through the motions until I could get out of there. I figured any place that would pry for details in that situation to see if they felt it was justified was the type of place that would feel justified prying into my private life if I were employed there.

Because Trump, as weirdly as he may go about it, has made his way through life on his (inherited fortune from his from his crook of a father and) force of personality.

He gets people to do what he wants them to do by projecting an image, a brand, through the way he acts and speaks. Look at The Apprentice. He's playing this role that says (without saying out loud), "Look at me. I'm a straight shooting, no nonsense business leader and my personality and business sense have brought me success, money, fame, luxury, and power. You want that too? You want to be like me? Then do what I say."

Not saying it's authentic or that it should work, but Trump's entire existence is based on this tactic. He's constantly projecting an image, and it's that projection of that image that gets him his way. His force of personality is just as, if not more central to his power as his money (make no mistake, the money is necessary too).

This, in contrast with Musk, who's typically cultivated his following based on ideas and drive. He gets people to go along with him because he's seen as a modern day Edison (and to be fair, the comparison, in some ways, is apt... especially the less flattering ones), a groundbreaker, rules breaker...a visionary.

Simply put, among the people who follow these guys, people follow Musk for what he says (in terms of his big ideas), people follow Trump for the way he acts (in terms of the image he projects). It takes a strong set of blinders to ignore Musk's sharing of his worse ideas and Trump's less than impressive antics, but their respective cults have had plenty of practice in those mental gymnastics.

Thus you're left with the mind boggling (to the rest of us) situation where Musk's followers don't care how he acts, because they are laser focused on his ideas, while Trump supporters couldn't care less about the crazy or incoherent stuff he says, so long as he keeps projecting that macho, confident persona.

So that's how Musk gets away with being "Trump, but more childish": he's not depending on the personality like Trump, so he can act that way without turning his supporters off, because they don't care about that in the first place.

Musk's entire angle is "it's okay to be a humongous asshole if you achieve your goals.

Trump's is, "It's okay to be a humongous asshole, as long as you can sell it as arrogance bred from success."

I mean...the moment any large corporation figures out a way to replace human workers that need things like bathroom breaks (and basic human rights, and paychecks) and do the same work with robots and AI... literally the next moment, they'll have the AI start generating layoff notices.

It's just less flashy when it happens that way because there's no need for that AI to look like a beautiful young person.

I mean...those are all valid questions.

Any or all of which could've been asked.