Not a Democrat, is he.
If he only altered his party identification, that would be all. He would lose a lot of his supporters—not because of his policies, but because of the letter next to his name.
Scholars will refer to this as "tribalism."
Many Americans associate being a "Democrat" with higher taxes, more bureaucracy, everything being done at the federal level, inefficiency, toxic political correctness, and contempt for traditional values like independence and personal responsibility—not that they don't respect or even tolerate certain traditional values; rather, they actively work to undermine them. These beliefs are reinforced by the right-wing media's broad audience and by their own personal experiences with the government.
Indeed, those all seem like talking points for the right. The right-wingers are discussing them for a reason. since that is how the Democratic Party seems to the outside world.
Over the weekend, I was listening to NPR, and there was a segment with two journalists. One, I believe, wrote for the New York Times, and the other for the Washington Post. One of them penned a book about how Appalachian residents obtain their news.
The entire narrative was written with the premise that "I, the college-educated, white-collar, urban-dwelling reporter, think these people are misinformed because they are Trump supporters, and they must be voting against their best interests." Let's investigate why they are so ignorant. Why, in my opinion, do they not vote as they should?
My family is from Appalachia. These two reporters were discussing Appalachians as if they were a remote tribe in the Amazon rather than merely people who belonged to a distinct American subculture. The reporter seemed astonished by some of the Appalachians' remarkable eloquence. Considering that they're redneck Hillbillies, you know?
There was no indication that either reporter was aware of how haughty and patronizing they came across.
Furthermore, the right-wing media doesn't treat subcultures like the one in Appalachia with the same haughty, condescending tone, which is why it has such a wide following and has been so successful in inciting a significant segment of the public to be anti-Democratic.
Furthermore, the Democrats have failed to muster a strong opposition to it.
Imagine the following scenario: Election Day 2020 has passed, and the Democratic nominee for president has won. Naturally, the Democratic Party in the US will be very happy about this. Assume, however, that Trump received roughly 55,000,000 votes, or six million fewer than he received in 2016.
Do you think that a growing number of Democratic voters may start to wonder how they could possibly support Trump as an adult? Even though he lost, 55,000,000 Americans still harbor a deep dislike for the Democrats and their policies, to the point that they would gladly cast another ballot for Trump. With that level of public resistance, what hope was there for the Democratic platform?
That is the issue that the Democrats have encountered time and time again: a great deal of what they wish to do calls for the voluntary or coerced participation of the public, and a sizable segment of the public refuses to comply. Republicans don't have as much of an issue with it because a large portion of their platform is more along.
If he only altered his party identification, that would be all. He would lose a lot of his supporters—not because of his policies, but because of the letter next to his name.
Scholars will refer to this as "tribalism."
Many Americans associate being a "Democrat" with higher taxes, more bureaucracy, everything being done at the federal level, inefficiency, toxic political correctness, and contempt for traditional values like independence and personal responsibility—not that they don't respect or even tolerate certain traditional values; rather, they actively work to undermine them. These beliefs are reinforced by the right-wing media's broad audience and by their own personal experiences with the government.
Indeed, those all seem like talking points for the right. The right-wingers are discussing them for a reason. since that is how the Democratic Party seems to the outside world.
Over the weekend, I was listening to NPR, and there was a segment with two journalists. One, I believe, wrote for the New York Times, and the other for the Washington Post. One of them penned a book about how Appalachian residents obtain their news.
The entire narrative was written with the premise that "I, the college-educated, white-collar, urban-dwelling reporter, think these people are misinformed because they are Trump supporters, and they must be voting against their best interests." Let's investigate why they are so ignorant. Why, in my opinion, do they not vote as they should?
My family is from Appalachia. These two reporters were discussing Appalachians as if they were a remote tribe in the Amazon rather than merely people who belonged to a distinct American subculture. The reporter seemed astonished by some of the Appalachians' remarkable eloquence. Considering that they're redneck Hillbillies, you know?
There was no indication that either reporter was aware of how haughty and patronizing they came across.
Furthermore, the right-wing media doesn't treat subcultures like the one in Appalachia with the same haughty, condescending tone, which is why it has such a wide following and has been so successful in inciting a significant segment of the public to be anti-Democratic.
Furthermore, the Democrats have failed to muster a strong opposition to it.
Imagine the following scenario: Election Day 2020 has passed, and the Democratic nominee for president has won. Naturally, the Democratic Party in the US will be very happy about this. Assume, however, that Trump received roughly 55,000,000 votes, or six million fewer than he received in 2016.
Do you think that a growing number of Democratic voters may start to wonder how they could possibly support Trump as an adult? Even though he lost, 55,000,000 Americans still harbor a deep dislike for the Democrats and their policies, to the point that they would gladly cast another ballot for Trump. With that level of public resistance, what hope was there for the Democratic platform?
That is the issue that the Democrats have encountered time and time again: a great deal of what they wish to do calls for the voluntary or coerced participation of the public, and a sizable segment of the public refuses to comply. Republicans don't have as much of an issue with it because a large portion of their platform is more along.