Great post, JJ. Any time I want to explain human behaviour I start with status and incentives. Incentives drive behaviour, and each side is increasingly incentivized to campaign against the other half of America. As long as this is the case there seems to be no way out of this mess.
While there was some policy, this was a vibes election, and mostly seemed to signal an answer to the question “what America do we want to be, and who are we?” Put another way, what will be high status and low status following the election?
This brought campaigning against your fellow citizens to the forefront of the issue in a way I’ve never seen before - even the rhetoric was less focused on the political opponents and more on their movements (far left, far right, MAGA republicans, childless cat ladies). It was definitely clear to each side what they DO NOT want America to be, and what beliefs they want to be low status.
Examples abound. The “enemy within” comment was accepted by republicans without them batting an eye. Why? It’s how they feel! Does anyone think Democrats sincerely think people in MAGA hats are not a dangerous enemy within to be controlled? Of course not; they just don’t say it in such stark terms - they just call them racist (a very low status thing to be in left-world).
This isn’t totally surprising. Elites and the working class are genuinely repulsed by each other. I’m on the elite side (though a long time conservative) and I’m disgusted by MAGA and its heroes.
Knowing that this is how people feel today and seeing these results and watching this campaign, it seems clear to me that the Trump victory rewarded and will further incentivize going to war against half your own country.
This is also why the Trump win was so disheartening - I don’t want to live in (or next to) a place that has so soundly defeated my elite culture and it’s markers - restraint, civility, etc - in favour of their own. I suspect that’s why this one hurts for people in a way that's difficult to articulate. The standards by which you'd negatively judge Trump were rejected, and it feels like we are playing a sport where the rules just changed! It wasn’t about abortion or economic policy; ultimately, this was the repudiation of a worldview. For many, the alternative is completely unpalatable and I think many people aren’t sure how they’re supposed to fit into a world and culture that just dispensed with everything they hold dear.
After an election it’s common to hear pundits say “there is more that unites us than divides us.” I just don’t know if that’s true; the sides have so little in common. In past decades, it does seem that there was some common ground, usually over the American civic tradition and love of country. This election has also demonstrated that shared civic values and beliefs about America are not strong enough ties to bind, and that half the country hates the other half. I don’t know how to define American values now - does anyone? Does anyone try in a way that isn't clearly about elevating the status of their own side?
Until this behavior, this rhetoric, and these beliefs are punished and disincentivized, I don’t foresee any positive change. Elections are about winning, and this is what winning politics looks like now. It makes me sad.
As a thought experiment, what could a unifying message possibly be, even if a political leader felt there was advantage in promoting one? If there was one, would it be a winning message? I think this is the first time in my adult life I haven't been able to take a stab at answering one of these questions.
I’m generation Z male. For a number of years now, older people have been unaware of how much reactionaries have connected with teenage boys online.
Many YouTubers like Paul Joseph Watson were (and are) crafting their videos to be fun for young people. They explicitly talk of redpilling the next generation.
I was myself a hardcore anti SJW type who feared being humiliated and shamed by feminists - and a number of my friends regularly consumed reactionary stuff on YouTube.
I don’t want censorship of the Internet - but there should 100% be more consciousness of the reality of what happening to young men.
For the time since turning 18, I voted this election. As a center-left political guy, I voted for Harris more due to green and economic policy rather than themes of democracy or anti-democracy, which would be fourth or fifth on my list of problems with Don. That being said, for some reason I don't fully understand, I find myself a bit excited for the 2nd Trump term. I always found him entertaining and liked what Kamala Harris might refer to as a blight on his character, his "strong man mentality". I can also relate to his seeming "one man against the world crusade" despite his many rabid fans, in that the people who are loudest in hating him are typically more annoying and even less likable than he is; i.e., the social justice warrior types such as Hasan Piker. It reminds me of something you said one time, something like, "The only thing that makes a crank seem less crankish is an even bigger crank." Also Kamala Harris was lame. But more than anything, I believe that the cultural left, especially white women, hold much destain for white men, which bleeds into how they speak about white men, which I believe is an unspoken yet giant reason about why so many white men don't consider voting left. I'm sure you would say, "What does that have to do with voting for Kamala Harris?" Well, probably nothing, but that's basically irrelevant because I believe hate for white men was on the ballot as a cultural issue. Also white men never benefit from, or are typically thought of less, when leftist policy and social outreach are being drafted. "White Dudes for Harris", was a hollow joke, and the punchline was a second Don presidency.
Finally, I like you JJ. I've been watching you ever since I saw you in a PF Jung collaboration, and I believe you're one of the smartest political thinkers in North America with your analysis of North American politics and culture. But perhaps you shouldn't take this stuff so seriously, like with not allowing replies on your Twitter, or openly bragging about censoring your YouTube comments section. I don't think it's good for your mental health. I hope you feel better, and I'll be following your content for the foreseeable future.
I genuinely don't recognise your description of Trump supporters... You assume a lot of things I don’t think are true, including delight at others’ suffering or cruelty towards the weak (any examples?). The delight I notice is at the pundits being wrong and activists screeching at the results.
I also don't recognise your description of Trump disliking immigrants. He dislikes illegal immigrants (and even then I think he can concede that he wouldn't want e.g. cleaning ladies or hard working people getting deported -- it's the violent ones he hates). And I don't believe the vast majority of his voters are hateful. He isn't racist or sexist -- just brash. Democrats should have done better, but their candidates and their handlers were simply not good enough.
You’re inferring a lot of things I didn’t write. And Trump obviously dislikes immigrants which is why he’s pledging to cut ALL immigration not just illegal.
That’s fair, you didn’t write about what I said in the second paragraph. I honestly think most Trump voters don’t think he would do “bad” things and would sour on him if he did, and they’d vote for a correction at the next election. And I believe that a return to an Obama-like or even Reagan figure is possible if a sufficiently charismatic candidate emerges — a candidate who can relentlessly take on Fox News and any hostile media… which I think neither Harris nor Biden could do well and relied on their allies to spin for them.
You're kidding, right? Delight in others suffering is one of the hallmarks of a Trump supporter in online spaces. MAGA is mean and vindictive. Do you spend time on the internet?
You have pathological T.D.S., delusional Harris supporter. Your opinion is completely invalid on this topic. Never use the label "conservative" to describe yourself again.
The Fusionist Republicans displaced an earlier iteration of Republicans, and I am sure they were just as mad and sad as the Fusionists are now. But at some point, the Trumpists too will be displaced by some other faction. No victory is permanent.
Anyways I think, the main victory for the Trumpists for the forseeble future, won't be deporting illegal immigrants or improving the economy(which I don't they will do in any meaningful way) but delegitimizing liberal democracy. Which is fine? God did not hand down liberal democracy on tablet for all peoples and for all times lol.
It developed at a specific time(18th century) amongst a specific people(Western Europeans) in response to specific problems(European Wars of Religion). It arguably made them phenomally succesful for a period which allowed them to spread it across the world. But that doesn't mean it should be the only ideology for peoples and for all times.
If you take a broader perspective on ideology, then you can consider Islam as an ideology too with its own philosophy, ethics, and laws. For a period it was the most succesfull ideology, conquering within a decades everywhere from Spain to Sindh. Arab military succcess meant that it was spread amongst all conquered peoples. The reason Persians are Muslim today is not because Arabs won a debate but because they conquered them. And the reason the Japanese suddenly became a liberal parliamentary democracy after 1945 is not because the Americans convinced them of the superiority of liberalism but because they won the war and imposed it by force. But again, victory in 1945 doesn't mean liberalism is the right answer for all times just as victory in 645 didn't mean Islam is the right answer for all times. Times changes, conditions change, so an ideology must be able to prove that it is the best choice each generation and must not be taken as sacrosanct.
I'm also sad. I try not to for things like this, but this is so obviously damaging to the world economy and to the stability of world peace, as well as a bad omen for what's to come.
Although Trumpists say that Trump would be better for the economy because of tariffs, and I guess inflation? And they say they are in favor of world peace, for which they have a more flexible definition based on Trump's personal relationships with world leaders and feelings towards former US presidents.
That's another thing that's been damaged, a grasp of what the facts are. It can all be traced back to social media influencers.
I've felt rather numb since the results came in. From my perspective as a Belgian, a more mundanely dysfunctional democracy, other than being afraid for my many American friends, I suppose I am mainly worried about the continued viability of the liberal world order from which I have benefited so much.
I'm hoping that this will shock European leaders out of their tepid complacency. That Trump's unpredictability gives us some time still. And of course, that disgust for his administration will renew the American democratic project, before too many lasting damage has happened. But right now these are rationalizations that I can't yet feel wholeheartedly.
On my own website, as paltry as it offerings are compared to your prolific output are, I've tended to eschew overtly political or even ideological statements. Given how I've seen my online communities get mired in the swamps of right-wing populism and the sort of nihilistic far-left ideologies you describe, I wonder if I should change this. Not to change any minds, I doubt I can achieve that much, but just to claim some space for liberal-in-the-broad-sense-of-the-word ideological expression.
Well you’re obviously one of these hard-right MAGA pseudo-intellectual types who this post is not really geared for. People like you have been making your pitch all over the place, which is supported by some of the wealthiest, most powerful men in America, and I’m using my forum here to make mine. You offer one theory of America, which I reject, and I have a different one.
I see rhetoric like yours as a product of the increasingly decadent pessimism of an America that’s achieved such high standards of living it’s developed a weird subculture of middle class armchair radicals who long for revolution just because it would be more exhilarating and dramatic than stable material conditions.
Yeah hey that’s great. I think people are sick of sanctimonious condescending alt-right bullshit like what you’re spouting. I’ve seen enough of it for one lifetime and I don’t need it on my blog.
If people were "sick of" so-called "sanctimonious condescending alt-right bullshit" why did current President(-elect) Trump not only win electorally but also popularly nationally with over 72,787,686 votes and counting compared to Harris' 68,144,796 votes.
Really, besides the Blue Wall states that breached Red (Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan - all a part of said Wall for a long while now) no matter how small the breach was percentagewise, if you look at California and New York state. the two biggest blue strongholds in terms of population (by virtue of being some of the most populous in the Union - 1st and 4th respectively), you can see some interesting numbers opposite of what you suggest:
CA:
Harris: 5,750,004
Trump: 4,023,693
NY:
Harris: 4,023,693
Trump: 3,434,431
While it is only about a million difference give or take, it appears that sentiment counter to yours has risen, this is not even going into Washington state (H: 1,695,120, T: 1,131,581).
As a sidenote, in L.A. county, the DA George Gascon has been sacked during these elections after his Progressive soft-on-crime tenure was deemed a failure by the constituency.
Another thing, the entire Midwestern Great Lakes could have been a part of the Red Sea if Illinois had 451,516 votes.
Numbers for reference:
Harris: 2,846,955
Trump: 2,395,439
It must be added the largest city there, Chicago, uncharacteristically has a very pale light hue of blue as of now.
Moving on, the Senate now has 52 Republican seats over the Democratic 45 while the House currently has 210 and possibly more to have majority for the former as the latter sits on 198, thereby making Congress overall red therefore infested with "alt-right bullshit".
Lastly, in terms of the 50 State Governorships, there are 27 align with the GOP compared to the 23 for the Dems.
Most of this information can be found via AP and the New York Times as of 11/7/2024.
With all of this in mind, I believe the reality is strikingly apparent (at least to me) unless if you somehow believe the election was stolen by Russia or some other nebulous outside force. If you do, you are no better than the "nihilistic far-leftists" or worse, the "decadent pessimis[t]" Trumpists but I be charitable and say you don't sense any sort of rigging within and/or interference without for those ideas are merely crankish, crackpot conspiracy theories/disinformation dangerous for Democracy or at the very least, fuel for petty witch hunts.
Of course, it could and can indeed be argued that not all of these Elephants agree with Trump (one would need to just look at Vermont's Phill Scott who supported the Elect's opponent despite he and the latter both sharing the same party at least on (ballot) paper), seeing as it appears that most citizens vote on the assumption the party members must share the same ideology as the de-facto leader (Trump for the Reds, Harris for the Blues) by mere virtue of being in said party and seeing as most Reds voted you-know-who into office, it's quite clear to the both of us they agree with his views of current-day America to varying extents seeing as they could have switched for Harris or third party or not cast at all.
Thus, it could be assumed on the voters' part that whether they know the GOP is a big-tent party and not some hivemind-led monolith or not. that most will expect these non-Trumpers to heel and follow the new head regardless of if they want to or not.
To go further with Scott, why did 266,425 vote for him and not for Democrat Esther Charlestin who only got 79,220? Especially if it is to believe the Reps' policymaking is now going to be dealing with, to some degrees - perhaps heavy or light, inter-bipartisan between the Trumpists and Never-Trumpers if not outright taken over by the 45th now 47th's faction?
Of course, you can feel free to disagree with what I have said as much as I do with what you have said just now for that is fine, we live in the Free World after all but unless you have anything to reply with, I have not much else to say myself other thank you for reading these ramblings by a random if you did (if you didn't, it's fine, I wouldn't as well), thus I bid you a good afternoon and rest of this and the next year and all the others after these two.
Great post, JJ. Any time I want to explain human behaviour I start with status and incentives. Incentives drive behaviour, and each side is increasingly incentivized to campaign against the other half of America. As long as this is the case there seems to be no way out of this mess.
While there was some policy, this was a vibes election, and mostly seemed to signal an answer to the question “what America do we want to be, and who are we?” Put another way, what will be high status and low status following the election?
This brought campaigning against your fellow citizens to the forefront of the issue in a way I’ve never seen before - even the rhetoric was less focused on the political opponents and more on their movements (far left, far right, MAGA republicans, childless cat ladies). It was definitely clear to each side what they DO NOT want America to be, and what beliefs they want to be low status.
Examples abound. The “enemy within” comment was accepted by republicans without them batting an eye. Why? It’s how they feel! Does anyone think Democrats sincerely think people in MAGA hats are not a dangerous enemy within to be controlled? Of course not; they just don’t say it in such stark terms - they just call them racist (a very low status thing to be in left-world).
This isn’t totally surprising. Elites and the working class are genuinely repulsed by each other. I’m on the elite side (though a long time conservative) and I’m disgusted by MAGA and its heroes.
Knowing that this is how people feel today and seeing these results and watching this campaign, it seems clear to me that the Trump victory rewarded and will further incentivize going to war against half your own country.
This is also why the Trump win was so disheartening - I don’t want to live in (or next to) a place that has so soundly defeated my elite culture and it’s markers - restraint, civility, etc - in favour of their own. I suspect that’s why this one hurts for people in a way that's difficult to articulate. The standards by which you'd negatively judge Trump were rejected, and it feels like we are playing a sport where the rules just changed! It wasn’t about abortion or economic policy; ultimately, this was the repudiation of a worldview. For many, the alternative is completely unpalatable and I think many people aren’t sure how they’re supposed to fit into a world and culture that just dispensed with everything they hold dear.
After an election it’s common to hear pundits say “there is more that unites us than divides us.” I just don’t know if that’s true; the sides have so little in common. In past decades, it does seem that there was some common ground, usually over the American civic tradition and love of country. This election has also demonstrated that shared civic values and beliefs about America are not strong enough ties to bind, and that half the country hates the other half. I don’t know how to define American values now - does anyone? Does anyone try in a way that isn't clearly about elevating the status of their own side?
Until this behavior, this rhetoric, and these beliefs are punished and disincentivized, I don’t foresee any positive change. Elections are about winning, and this is what winning politics looks like now. It makes me sad.
As a thought experiment, what could a unifying message possibly be, even if a political leader felt there was advantage in promoting one? If there was one, would it be a winning message? I think this is the first time in my adult life I haven't been able to take a stab at answering one of these questions.
I’m generation Z male. For a number of years now, older people have been unaware of how much reactionaries have connected with teenage boys online.
Many YouTubers like Paul Joseph Watson were (and are) crafting their videos to be fun for young people. They explicitly talk of redpilling the next generation.
I was myself a hardcore anti SJW type who feared being humiliated and shamed by feminists - and a number of my friends regularly consumed reactionary stuff on YouTube.
I don’t want censorship of the Internet - but there should 100% be more consciousness of the reality of what happening to young men.
Thanks for keeping me sane JJ. 🇺🇸❤️🇨🇦
For the time since turning 18, I voted this election. As a center-left political guy, I voted for Harris more due to green and economic policy rather than themes of democracy or anti-democracy, which would be fourth or fifth on my list of problems with Don. That being said, for some reason I don't fully understand, I find myself a bit excited for the 2nd Trump term. I always found him entertaining and liked what Kamala Harris might refer to as a blight on his character, his "strong man mentality". I can also relate to his seeming "one man against the world crusade" despite his many rabid fans, in that the people who are loudest in hating him are typically more annoying and even less likable than he is; i.e., the social justice warrior types such as Hasan Piker. It reminds me of something you said one time, something like, "The only thing that makes a crank seem less crankish is an even bigger crank." Also Kamala Harris was lame. But more than anything, I believe that the cultural left, especially white women, hold much destain for white men, which bleeds into how they speak about white men, which I believe is an unspoken yet giant reason about why so many white men don't consider voting left. I'm sure you would say, "What does that have to do with voting for Kamala Harris?" Well, probably nothing, but that's basically irrelevant because I believe hate for white men was on the ballot as a cultural issue. Also white men never benefit from, or are typically thought of less, when leftist policy and social outreach are being drafted. "White Dudes for Harris", was a hollow joke, and the punchline was a second Don presidency.
Finally, I like you JJ. I've been watching you ever since I saw you in a PF Jung collaboration, and I believe you're one of the smartest political thinkers in North America with your analysis of North American politics and culture. But perhaps you shouldn't take this stuff so seriously, like with not allowing replies on your Twitter, or openly bragging about censoring your YouTube comments section. I don't think it's good for your mental health. I hope you feel better, and I'll be following your content for the foreseeable future.
Ur gay.
I genuinely don't recognise your description of Trump supporters... You assume a lot of things I don’t think are true, including delight at others’ suffering or cruelty towards the weak (any examples?). The delight I notice is at the pundits being wrong and activists screeching at the results.
I also don't recognise your description of Trump disliking immigrants. He dislikes illegal immigrants (and even then I think he can concede that he wouldn't want e.g. cleaning ladies or hard working people getting deported -- it's the violent ones he hates). And I don't believe the vast majority of his voters are hateful. He isn't racist or sexist -- just brash. Democrats should have done better, but their candidates and their handlers were simply not good enough.
You’re inferring a lot of things I didn’t write. And Trump obviously dislikes immigrants which is why he’s pledging to cut ALL immigration not just illegal.
That’s fair, you didn’t write about what I said in the second paragraph. I honestly think most Trump voters don’t think he would do “bad” things and would sour on him if he did, and they’d vote for a correction at the next election. And I believe that a return to an Obama-like or even Reagan figure is possible if a sufficiently charismatic candidate emerges — a candidate who can relentlessly take on Fox News and any hostile media… which I think neither Harris nor Biden could do well and relied on their allies to spin for them.
You're kidding, right? Delight in others suffering is one of the hallmarks of a Trump supporter in online spaces. MAGA is mean and vindictive. Do you spend time on the internet?
He lied about Haitians eating pets and says he wants to deport Muslims who protest the war in Gaza, but sure, it's only about illegals
How would you compare Harris to Kim Campbell?
You have pathological T.D.S., delusional Harris supporter. Your opinion is completely invalid on this topic. Never use the label "conservative" to describe yourself again.
The Fusionist Republicans displaced an earlier iteration of Republicans, and I am sure they were just as mad and sad as the Fusionists are now. But at some point, the Trumpists too will be displaced by some other faction. No victory is permanent.
Anyways I think, the main victory for the Trumpists for the forseeble future, won't be deporting illegal immigrants or improving the economy(which I don't they will do in any meaningful way) but delegitimizing liberal democracy. Which is fine? God did not hand down liberal democracy on tablet for all peoples and for all times lol.
It developed at a specific time(18th century) amongst a specific people(Western Europeans) in response to specific problems(European Wars of Religion). It arguably made them phenomally succesful for a period which allowed them to spread it across the world. But that doesn't mean it should be the only ideology for peoples and for all times.
If you take a broader perspective on ideology, then you can consider Islam as an ideology too with its own philosophy, ethics, and laws. For a period it was the most succesfull ideology, conquering within a decades everywhere from Spain to Sindh. Arab military succcess meant that it was spread amongst all conquered peoples. The reason Persians are Muslim today is not because Arabs won a debate but because they conquered them. And the reason the Japanese suddenly became a liberal parliamentary democracy after 1945 is not because the Americans convinced them of the superiority of liberalism but because they won the war and imposed it by force. But again, victory in 1945 doesn't mean liberalism is the right answer for all times just as victory in 645 didn't mean Islam is the right answer for all times. Times changes, conditions change, so an ideology must be able to prove that it is the best choice each generation and must not be taken as sacrosanct.
It depends what the contrary argument is.
Thank you everything you do, JJ.
I'm also sad. I try not to for things like this, but this is so obviously damaging to the world economy and to the stability of world peace, as well as a bad omen for what's to come.
Although Trumpists say that Trump would be better for the economy because of tariffs, and I guess inflation? And they say they are in favor of world peace, for which they have a more flexible definition based on Trump's personal relationships with world leaders and feelings towards former US presidents.
That's another thing that's been damaged, a grasp of what the facts are. It can all be traced back to social media influencers.
Do you think Trump's tarrifs will do much to undermine his popularity?
There is no Trump in Canada could be a reason to suspect their influence will not grow over time.
Thank you for your words, J.J.
I've felt rather numb since the results came in. From my perspective as a Belgian, a more mundanely dysfunctional democracy, other than being afraid for my many American friends, I suppose I am mainly worried about the continued viability of the liberal world order from which I have benefited so much.
I'm hoping that this will shock European leaders out of their tepid complacency. That Trump's unpredictability gives us some time still. And of course, that disgust for his administration will renew the American democratic project, before too many lasting damage has happened. But right now these are rationalizations that I can't yet feel wholeheartedly.
On my own website, as paltry as it offerings are compared to your prolific output are, I've tended to eschew overtly political or even ideological statements. Given how I've seen my online communities get mired in the swamps of right-wing populism and the sort of nihilistic far-left ideologies you describe, I wonder if I should change this. Not to change any minds, I doubt I can achieve that much, but just to claim some space for liberal-in-the-broad-sense-of-the-word ideological expression.
Well you’re obviously one of these hard-right MAGA pseudo-intellectual types who this post is not really geared for. People like you have been making your pitch all over the place, which is supported by some of the wealthiest, most powerful men in America, and I’m using my forum here to make mine. You offer one theory of America, which I reject, and I have a different one.
I see rhetoric like yours as a product of the increasingly decadent pessimism of an America that’s achieved such high standards of living it’s developed a weird subculture of middle class armchair radicals who long for revolution just because it would be more exhilarating and dramatic than stable material conditions.
Yeah hey that’s great. I think people are sick of sanctimonious condescending alt-right bullshit like what you’re spouting. I’ve seen enough of it for one lifetime and I don’t need it on my blog.
Hello, J.J.,
If people were "sick of" so-called "sanctimonious condescending alt-right bullshit" why did current President(-elect) Trump not only win electorally but also popularly nationally with over 72,787,686 votes and counting compared to Harris' 68,144,796 votes.
Really, besides the Blue Wall states that breached Red (Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan - all a part of said Wall for a long while now) no matter how small the breach was percentagewise, if you look at California and New York state. the two biggest blue strongholds in terms of population (by virtue of being some of the most populous in the Union - 1st and 4th respectively), you can see some interesting numbers opposite of what you suggest:
CA:
Harris: 5,750,004
Trump: 4,023,693
NY:
Harris: 4,023,693
Trump: 3,434,431
While it is only about a million difference give or take, it appears that sentiment counter to yours has risen, this is not even going into Washington state (H: 1,695,120, T: 1,131,581).
As a sidenote, in L.A. county, the DA George Gascon has been sacked during these elections after his Progressive soft-on-crime tenure was deemed a failure by the constituency.
Another thing, the entire Midwestern Great Lakes could have been a part of the Red Sea if Illinois had 451,516 votes.
Numbers for reference:
Harris: 2,846,955
Trump: 2,395,439
It must be added the largest city there, Chicago, uncharacteristically has a very pale light hue of blue as of now.
Moving on, the Senate now has 52 Republican seats over the Democratic 45 while the House currently has 210 and possibly more to have majority for the former as the latter sits on 198, thereby making Congress overall red therefore infested with "alt-right bullshit".
Lastly, in terms of the 50 State Governorships, there are 27 align with the GOP compared to the 23 for the Dems.
Most of this information can be found via AP and the New York Times as of 11/7/2024.
With all of this in mind, I believe the reality is strikingly apparent (at least to me) unless if you somehow believe the election was stolen by Russia or some other nebulous outside force. If you do, you are no better than the "nihilistic far-leftists" or worse, the "decadent pessimis[t]" Trumpists but I be charitable and say you don't sense any sort of rigging within and/or interference without for those ideas are merely crankish, crackpot conspiracy theories/disinformation dangerous for Democracy or at the very least, fuel for petty witch hunts.
Of course, it could and can indeed be argued that not all of these Elephants agree with Trump (one would need to just look at Vermont's Phill Scott who supported the Elect's opponent despite he and the latter both sharing the same party at least on (ballot) paper), seeing as it appears that most citizens vote on the assumption the party members must share the same ideology as the de-facto leader (Trump for the Reds, Harris for the Blues) by mere virtue of being in said party and seeing as most Reds voted you-know-who into office, it's quite clear to the both of us they agree with his views of current-day America to varying extents seeing as they could have switched for Harris or third party or not cast at all.
Thus, it could be assumed on the voters' part that whether they know the GOP is a big-tent party and not some hivemind-led monolith or not. that most will expect these non-Trumpers to heel and follow the new head regardless of if they want to or not.
To go further with Scott, why did 266,425 vote for him and not for Democrat Esther Charlestin who only got 79,220? Especially if it is to believe the Reps' policymaking is now going to be dealing with, to some degrees - perhaps heavy or light, inter-bipartisan between the Trumpists and Never-Trumpers if not outright taken over by the 45th now 47th's faction?
Of course, you can feel free to disagree with what I have said as much as I do with what you have said just now for that is fine, we live in the Free World after all but unless you have anything to reply with, I have not much else to say myself other thank you for reading these ramblings by a random if you did (if you didn't, it's fine, I wouldn't as well), thus I bid you a good afternoon and rest of this and the next year and all the others after these two.
Goodbye until next time if Fate allows for one.