> Trump got a majority because the prior majority political party was literally participating in genocide, which was on display for the entire world to see.
Is the argument here that people vote based on what the prior party was up to, while completely ignoring whether the new party will do less or more of the same action?
Most votes are cast against something, not for something. That's why negative ads work, no matter how annoying and insulting they are.
Most of the Americans I've spoken with who acknowledge voting for Trump said they did so either because they were against abortion or because the were against the great replacement. My sample is small though and may not be significant but there is a similar pattern in my country.
Is the argument here that people vote based on what the prior party was up to, while completely ignoring whether the new party will do less or more of the same action?
Because that's really depressing if it's true.