No, maga started with the tea party taking over and demanding loyalty. You literally had to sign loyalty oaths that dictated acceptable policy or risk getting primaried by these wackos.
There have always been fringe reactionary elements in the republican party, just like there have always been fringe socialist elements in the democratic party.
IMO, that reactionary movement didn’t reach critical mass until the populist gamergate movement and all the cultural backlash that followed. Trump likely would not have won in 2016 if there hadn’t been widespread reactionary sentiment already boiling over in online spaces.
Similarly, democrats can’t count on winning if they ignore the populist sentiment simmering in their own party, and even less if they continue actively suppressing it.
Trump had nothing to do with gamergate. He won in 2016 because the DNC had given up on getting the working class vote which lost them key rust belt states. They were so sure helping Trump win the primary would be an auto win in the general, they barely bothered campaigning at all.
No disagreement, but they believed he would lose because they miscalculated just how popular he was becoming in that demographic. They assumed either a typical republican turnout, or slightly reduced due to centrist republicans being turned off by his populism and abrasive aesthetic. They didn’t expect the high turnout among young white men, and a big motivation for those voters was a reactionary misogynistic and anti-establishment resentment. That Hillary was a white woman from the political elite class amplified that sentiment, too.
He didn’t ‘have anything to do’ with gamergate directly, but that movement is what set the environment for his popularity. Had that demographic remained politically apathetic, there’s a good chance the election would have gone more like what the democrats were expecting. And had the democrats run a more populist candidate/policy platform that addressed the sinking popularity among their own base, they might have overcome that higher turnout on the republican side.
They seem poised to replay the same strategy, though - Newsome is a milquetost neoliberal candidate from the political elite class, and unless trump actually sinks his own coalition, Newsome likely won’t activate enough of the democratic base (who is increasingly unhappy with the party) to beat a similar high anti-establishment voter base on the republican side. I’m praying AOC actually runs, or another progressive with a populist economic agenda, and that the democrats don’t fuck themselves and the entire country over by working against the popular sentiment among young democrats and non-voters. It would be a huge mistake for them to assume trump is unpopular enough to ignore their own unpopularity within the progressive side of their caucus.
Because trump’s rise through the republican party was predicated on a popular reactionary movement that was - at the very least - far less prominent during the rush limbaugh days. Democrats made a political calculation that Trump couldn’t win, and that calculation included factoring in the green party voters for trump. The part they missed is that the culture had shifted, and a big part of that shift happened during and after gamergate in a demographic they weren’t expecting to turn out.
The alternative being, what exactly? Trump creating the environment of resentment himself?
I think that’s hubris. If that were true, then the American political system is so unstable that all it takes for a fascist takeover is the right person to come along and flip a switch.
Edit: im also not saying gamergate caused Trump to get elected, only that it lead to the environment where he could win
The fascist takeover was facilitated by the compromised republican party infiltrating every level of government with cultists. Literally nothing to do with gamergate.
No, maga started with the tea party taking over and demanding loyalty. You literally had to sign loyalty oaths that dictated acceptable policy or risk getting primaried by these wackos.
There have always been fringe reactionary elements in the republican party, just like there have always been fringe socialist elements in the democratic party.
IMO, that reactionary movement didn’t reach critical mass until the populist gamergate movement and all the cultural backlash that followed. Trump likely would not have won in 2016 if there hadn’t been widespread reactionary sentiment already boiling over in online spaces.
Similarly, democrats can’t count on winning if they ignore the populist sentiment simmering in their own party, and even less if they continue actively suppressing it.
Trump had nothing to do with gamergate. He won in 2016 because the DNC had given up on getting the working class vote which lost them key rust belt states. They were so sure helping Trump win the primary would be an auto win in the general, they barely bothered campaigning at all.
No disagreement, but they believed he would lose because they miscalculated just how popular he was becoming in that demographic. They assumed either a typical republican turnout, or slightly reduced due to centrist republicans being turned off by his populism and abrasive aesthetic. They didn’t expect the high turnout among young white men, and a big motivation for those voters was a reactionary misogynistic and anti-establishment resentment. That Hillary was a white woman from the political elite class amplified that sentiment, too.
He didn’t ‘have anything to do’ with gamergate directly, but that movement is what set the environment for his popularity. Had that demographic remained politically apathetic, there’s a good chance the election would have gone more like what the democrats were expecting. And had the democrats run a more populist candidate/policy platform that addressed the sinking popularity among their own base, they might have overcome that higher turnout on the republican side.
They seem poised to replay the same strategy, though - Newsome is a milquetost neoliberal candidate from the political elite class, and unless trump actually sinks his own coalition, Newsome likely won’t activate enough of the democratic base (who is increasingly unhappy with the party) to beat a similar high anti-establishment voter base on the republican side. I’m praying AOC actually runs, or another progressive with a populist economic agenda, and that the democrats don’t fuck themselves and the entire country over by working against the popular sentiment among young democrats and non-voters. It would be a huge mistake for them to assume trump is unpopular enough to ignore their own unpopularity within the progressive side of their caucus.
I don’t know why you keep trying to bring gamergate into it. That didn’t have anything to do with it.
Because trump’s rise through the republican party was predicated on a popular reactionary movement that was - at the very least - far less prominent during the rush limbaugh days. Democrats made a political calculation that Trump couldn’t win, and that calculation included factoring in the green party voters for trump. The part they missed is that the culture had shifted, and a big part of that shift happened during and after gamergate in a demographic they weren’t expecting to turn out.
You have your causal relationship wrong. Gamergate was not causal in electing Trump. That’s a bit like saying satanic panic got Reagan elected.
The alternative being, what exactly? Trump creating the environment of resentment himself?
I think that’s hubris. If that were true, then the American political system is so unstable that all it takes for a fascist takeover is the right person to come along and flip a switch.
Edit: im also not saying gamergate caused Trump to get elected, only that it lead to the environment where he could win
The fascist takeover was facilitated by the compromised republican party infiltrating every level of government with cultists. Literally nothing to do with gamergate.