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.
Gen Z want a radical. Far left or far right doesn’t seem to matter. I can’t blame them for that. Most of them will still say they supported Bernie - at least the podcasters they worship do. There is room for them on the left. Dems have to start by leaving the centrist DNC bullshit behind.
they don’t want radical. they want jobs and a stabilized cost of living. they want to feel like they have a future.
trump focused on economic issues, and got their votes. if the next democrats can push forward economic reforms that improve the economy… they will get the votes. Kamala absolutely refused to run on any agenda of economic reform and endorse Biden’s inflation economy.
Fair days wage for a fair days work IS radical in a world where 8 people hold 50% of the world’s wealth
what is a fair wage? 100K a year for bagging groceries? 50K?
That really depends on how much things cost, whether you have a social safety net, etc.
How about: is it more than 1% of what the CEO makes?
the problem with ‘fair wage’ is ‘what things cost’ is subjective measure.
i know people who make half what i make who have more than enough, and people who make 3x what I mean who feel they are struggling because they don’t own a 3 million dollar house.
the objective facts of economics don’t have much weight when it comes to people subjective perception of their ‘needs’. and human psychology tends to adapt to whatever baseline is available. this is why the CEO making 150million doesn’t think they are wealthy, and will tell you how they are underpaid. it’s also established relative to your social peers.
I never felt that I was ‘poor’ my entire life until I went to college and was informed I was poor, because objectively, I was. But since I grew up in a town in the bottom half of the economic ladder I was never exposed to the concept of wealth.
This was always true. I want someone who works for the working man and woman. I don’t care if we become socialist, stay in capitalism, what the fuck ever other choice: we as people need to feel taken care of. Any system that ignores its people is doomed.
Just as important is explaining to people why some choices need to be made that we may not agree with. Raising the gas tax? I’m ok with it, because I already know it’s how we pay for our roads. But what about my less aware neighbor? If they simply see the rate jump, and don’t know why, it leaves the door wide open for a conspiracy schmuck to step in with a ragebait explanation.
Yeah, but you’re being reasonable. Most human beings aren’t reasonable. They are not thoughtful or pragmatic. Only a small percentage of people are well-mannered and educated enough to even understand the basics of macroeconomics and public policy that often drives it.
They are driven by raw emotion that is often entirely disproportionate to the thing it’s responding to. Like your example of someone flying into a rage over a minor tax increase. And now in 2025+, these people think they are all geniuses due to a steady diet of social media that constantly reinforces their ignorant and rage. And they block and assault anyone who dares try to dispute their rage and ignorance.
I was in thread about credit ratings yesterday and all the smart factually accurate commentary was down-voted, and all the ragebaiting ignorance conspiracy nonsense was heavily upvoted.
Sure, but at least reminding people of why at the time leadership announces a change removes a lot of ambiguity.
Definitely doesn’t solve the problem by itself, but it’s not much work to include… Presuming the law/change in question was written with a real reason in mind.
Wish the system could ignore us when it comes to the bipartisan war on drugs.
I think GenZ might just be stupid if they thought Trump had a more economic reform agenda than Harris. But yeah blame Harris for that too.
trump ran on economic issues. they weren’t stupid. they listened to what he said. they just didn’t think he was lying.
‘no tax on tips’ was resonated with a lot of young service workers. he kept hammering home how he’d stop inflation, etc.
Fair enough. You are right that “ran on” and actual policy are two different things. Pretty clear that Harris fumbled her economic messaging when it comes to what GenZ were wanting to hear I guess.
Yes, sadly a lot of folks can’t grasp that distinction and get really upset about it.
What was really interest to me was listening to post polling interviews with voters on election day. They were very consistent in why they voted for Trump. Young and old alike.
It find the whole thing just… sad because it’s so obvious but the democrats can’t seem to figure it out. Obama and Clinton won on the same issues, economics. H Clinton’s campaign was equally economically tone-deaf as Kamala. So was Kerry in '04.
I think it’s a terrible idea to run a sitting vice president as the candidate for the next election.
Since people often want change, they will ask “what will you do different?” And the VP will have to respond “Nothing” otherwise people will ask “Well, why aren’t you doing that now?”
It will be interesting to see how Vance responds to these questions if they decide to run him to take over for Trump.
I think most people want a radical.
The current system isn’t working for the majority of normal people.
They’ll vote for change every time, and never get it.
US mentality is weird. Most countries we understand that a “party” stands for certain principles, and so if you don’t like the party, you vote for a different one. It makes no sense to demand that the party change to accommodate the voter, that’s not the role of a party. The role of a party is to try and change the minds of the population to support the principles of the party. A party exists to convince the masses to accommodate them, not for the masses to accommodate the party.
But Americans always vote for the same parties and always insist that the parties should violate their principles that they are very explicit about and openly declare all the time in order to accommodate the people. When the party inevitably does not do this but instead tries to explore new strategies to win over the population while adhering to their principles, Americans act surprised that the party isn’t bending to their will, but then vote for the same party again anyways.
I see this all throughout bizarre American commentary, where American leftists like Hasan will constantly call the Democrat party “stupid” for not abandoning their principles and running on an entirely different platform. But this, again, misses the whole point of a party. They are not “stupid.” They have a set of principles and want those principles to win, and it defeats the whole purpose of the party of they entirely abandoned their principles.
I mean, let’s say you live in a very racist country but have an anti-racist party, and then the anti-racist party decides to become racist to win the election. Did you really “win”? At the end of the day, the racist party still won, because you would have abandoned your principles to win, so it defeats the whole point of “winning.”
Democrats have a set of principles and want those principles to win, so naturally, as rational actors, they will not run candidates who oppose those principles while also try to push out people who infiltrate the party with ideas that oppose their principles. In any normal country, this is no problem because people understand that it just means you need to vote for a different party with different principles.
What’s even weirder is the Americans who delude themselves into believing the Democrats hold principles they literally do not. They are very open about being a neoliberal nationalist party, but I have encountered weird Americans who tell me things like Democrats all support universal healthcare / “Medicare for All” and they will argue until the cow’s come home that this is true and all evidence to the contrary is Russian propaganda.
Even here on Lemmy, criticizing Democrats by pointing out how they are right-wing can get you downvotes from weirdo Americans who are convinced they are a truly left-wing party. There is a huge delusion among Americans that Democrats are all secret far-left socialists who are just so incompetent that they constantly fumble the ball and mess up getting their policies across and so that’s why they never achieve the working class utopia. If you point out that there is no evidence that the overwhelming majority of Democrats even want these left-wing policies in the first place and they openly say they want the opposite, they will get very defensive and upset with you.
Liberals inventing their own political spectrum so they can pretend they arent right wingers.
You’re apply logic and rules from completely different nation’s systems and calling the US’s version “weird” because it doesn’t match how other countries do it?
Perhaps in your country it isn’t, but in the US, it is. During the convention of the party, the party chooses its “planks” for its platform. These are chosen within the party itself, and they absolutely change. You can see the 2024 Democratic party platform here if you want to. Here’s the 2020 version.. As you can see there are some large differences. The GOP used to do this same process before it was consumed by the cult of trump.
In your system perhaps. Not in the US system. It doesn’t make the US system “wrong”. Does it have shortcomings? Absolutely, all systems do. Are these various shortcomings equal to each other? That’s subjective. I personally would like more aspects of European-style politcal parties, but not everything that I see with parties there. We, as humanity, have yet to find the objectively “best” system.
I’m losing faith in your arguments because you’re painting a picture that all members of a party share the same beliefs. Again, maybe that’s an ideal from your own country’s party system, but it isn’t in the USA. I would be surprised even in your own party if you have universal agreement on all policy positions.
There are individual Democrats that support Medicare for All. Here’s one example:
Hilary Clinton, as First Lady at the time, lead the creation of the Clinton Healthcare plan of 1993. This was absolutely a universal national healthcare plan:
“The task force was created in January 1993, but its own processes were somewhat controversial and drew litigation. Its goal was to come up with a comprehensive plan to provide universal health care for all Americans, which was to be a cornerstone of the administration’s first-term agenda.”
Does this mean that every Democrat believes in universal healthcare? Of course not. But to claim that none do, as you are, is equally untrue.
You’re going to have to be more specific with an example post, because most of the downvoted posts I see close to this are “both sides are the same!” garbage. Also, I don’t believe many believe the US Democratic Party is “truly left-wing” as would be defined in, lets say, Europe.
Because y’all demand people support the entire party. “Vote blue no matter who.” Canada does not have ranked-choice voting. They don’t even do that proportional voting thing where they hand out seats based on proportion of who votes for what party. There is a third party because people just vote for that third party.
The US doesn’t have a system that prevents this, it’s just a myth used to prop up the Democrats. If you do like a very specific Democrat, that doesn’t negate voting for a third party in places where the Democrat is awful. There is nothing built-in the USA’s system that would prevent it from getting seats to a third-party, and Canada is proof of that. It’s just a myth perpetuated to rally people into “voting blue no matter who” even when the Democrat clearly does not represent your values.
You’re conveniently ignoring the entire primary voting process. During the primary you vote for the specific candidate among all running for the position in the party. Policy positions, experience, temperament do vary between the candidates. This is the chance to vote for, among many, that closest resembles your own choices. After the primary however, nearly any Democratic candidate would be preferable to a GOP one to most Democratic voters. So if your own preferred primary candidate doesn’t win the ticket to the general election, it is highly probable that the one that did win would be a closer fit than the GOP candidate. The “vote blue no matter who” isn’t dogma, its usually pragmatic advice. I doubt many left leaning voters that voted trump or withheld their vote feel their assistance in getting trump into office is helping their own policy positions.
A perfect example of the primary system working pretty well is the recent New York Mayor’s race. A legacy previously elected Democratic governor ran and lost to the proudly open farthest left-leaning Democratic Socialist. That Democratic Socialist when on to win the general election for mayor of New York City.
Third parties in the USA have historically fielded pretty weak candidates. For the 2024 Presidential election, the next most leftist candidate on the general election ballot was Jill Stein. Prior the run for President of the United States Steins highest held elected office was in 2005 she successfully won the election for one of the 7 Lexington Town Meeting seats (a small municipal office). 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.
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?
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.
Most should be strung upside down like Mussolini.
Okay then field strong candidates.
Would you actually vote for them if they did or just shame people for not voting blue no matter who?
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.
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.
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?
Now you’re just straight up strawmanning.
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.
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.
no. al gore won that election. voting for the so-called third party had no bearing on the outcome.
You’re the one advocating to run for genocidal far-right jingoist party.
You’re intentionally avoiding the point because you know I am right at this point.
You: “vote blue no matter who.”
Me: “You’re saying we should vote blue no matter.”
You: “STRAW MAN STRAW MAN”
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.