this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2024
99 points (95.4% liked)

politics

19222 readers
2311 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Latino men played a key role in Donald Trump’s election victory, with 43-55% supporting him, drawn by promises of economic relief, job opportunities, and small business support.

Despite higher workforce participation, many Latino men face wage gaps, dangerous jobs, and lower educational attainment compared to other groups.

Some prioritize trade skills or entrepreneurship over college, seeking practical returns on investment.

Experts highlight the need for policies addressing economic barriers, job training, and health coverage to sustain their support.

Future voting will depend on whether these voters see tangible progress in achieving the American Dream.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 37 points 2 weeks ago (21 children)

Is it just me or does a lot of this post election coverage seem to seek to divide us further? 🧐

This article is delivered with the intended response from those who didn't want Trump being "man, fucking Latino Men, this is their fault."

It's been weird. Talking about specific groups of people and how they supported trump in surprising numbers. I don't understand the purpose beyond divisiveness.

[–] assaultpotato 32 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Whether it's divisive or not really depends on your perspective and reasoning.

"What voters did we fail to capture, and why?" is a very valuable question to be asking. "Who can we blame?" is not. This article would help answer both of these.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

What voters did we fail to capture, and why

The problem with this framing is that it excludes certain answers. If you approach the problem as "voters have good faith issues that we can address" you pre-exclude those issues being bigoted, unreasonable, or naive. If the correct answer to "why Latino men moved toward Trump" is because Harris was a woman, then you'll be forever blind to that fact while you focus on trivial justifications like pocketbook issues.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)