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.
As a latino man, I can tell you all of these economic reasons are just as bullshit as when white men say it’s their reason for voting for him.
The reason is Machismo. They view Trump as a strong man who does whatever he wants and gets away with it and there are PLENTY of latino men who are very much in favor of this.
Why did Mexico get a woman president? Or Argentina? Or Brazil? Or Nicaragua, or Panama? Chile, Costa Rica and Honduras…? I’m not in saying macho doesn’t exist in Latinos, but I’m struggling to understand how these countries could do it…
American culture magnifies it.
Pickup trucks have evolved from work vehicles into powerful status symbols in American culture. While 75% of truck owners rarely or never use them for towing, they purchase these vehicles as symbols of success, masculinity, and lifestyle choice. In urban and suburban areas, professionals spend $70,000+ on trucks as alternatives to luxury cars, particularly in Southern states where they represent wealth and power. The trend continues growing, with trucks now accounting for 20% of U.S. vehicle sales. Despite minimal towing usage, truck owners display the highest vehicle loyalty rate, with nearly 80% choosing another truck when replacing their current one.
Meanwhile China is slowly working towards global dominance in the EV space which we all know is the future.
The American empire is in that stage of decay where the men are actively lying to themselves about their greatness. The whole manosphere (which originated in the US) is based on that premise.
As they feel themselves sliding further and further into the periphery of relevance, they’ll elect increasingly fascist leaders to try and reassert their dominance, only to be swindled by those they put into power.
It’s all downhill from here.
It’s because they want to be in the settler class, ie they want to be white. It’s not an irrational strategy, whites in the US have a different relationship to the means of production and other races that were once considered minorities like Irish and Italians, are now treated as white now.
It really has nothing to do with ideology. It’s calculated economic move that many liberals’ ancestors themselves made.
Yeah. That’s why Mexico’s president is a left-wing feminist woman. Because “machismo”, you’ve got it all figured out. The 60% of US Latinos who have Mexican origin came to the US to run away from her.
That just proved his point. Mexico elected a woman so they went to a country that’s going to have a misogynistic president. Also women outnumbers the men in mexico 51% to 48%.
I seriously can’t tell if you’re kidding.
Apparently a shitload of Mexican men came running over the border since Sheinbaum was elected in June. So they could get away from the woman and vote Trump. Yeah.
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
If the data is legitimate, the intelligent conclusion is “how is this group not getting their needs met, such that they choose trump?” “How can this group be understood, such that they can better thier lives without putting others in danger?”
It’s Facebook-brained to conclude “fucking Latino men…”
Talking about specific groups of people and how they supported trump in surprising numbers. I don’t understand the purpose beyond divisiveness.
Since Obama, the political press spends almost all of their time focusing on how different demographics vote. Democratic campaign people bought this idea that “demographics are destiny” and I remember pundit morons even saying things like it might not be possible for a Republican to ever win again given shifting demographics in the country after 2012.
I don’t think people in America necessarily vote this way. Democratic campaigns have too much of a focus group, pseudoscientific approach to electioneering. What’s somewhat amusing about it – or would be if the stakes weren’t as high as they are – is that it is bigoted to think of “demographics” as always voting on the basis of their identities.
Yup, it’s generally half baked science. Now, I will concede that age and education represent something, but all groups are at best proxies for what’s happening to people. But racial groups have always been pretty bad proxies, especially pan-asian and Latino.
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.
The entire article is 84 sentences. There are only 4 sentences that talk about the election, Biden, or Trump.
I don’t understand the purpose beyond divisiveness.
I’m not seeing divisiveness in the article. I’m seeing a perspective I don’t have because I’m not Hispanic. I’m interested in knowing the experiences of others, what challenges they face, what they value, and goals they want to accomplish. This article does quite a bit of those things. These are my fellow Americans and my neighbors. We share society and built it together. We rise together and fall together.
Is it just me or does a lot of this post election coverage seem to seek to divide us further? 🧐
I think you should do some personal examination as to why you see an entire article talking about the needs and wants of a specific group of people with less than 5% of that article mentioning politics/election, and you came away saying this is an article about election divisiveness.
Just like with Reddit: it’s about the headline, not the article content. Same article, different headline? It would be a big stretch to argue it is trying to divide us.
Holy shit get off your high horse.
Division is where the money is.
they were conned. whatever they’re hoping for, they ain’t see any of it for at least four years.
Misogynists and racists are always easily conned, because they’re rubes
How is it a con? Trump has no class. That’s exactly what these “hold my beer” voters want and it’s what they get. That don’t care if he grifts as long as the “elite” are annoyed. But they will ultimately hurt from his policies, so that’s when the gymnastics start.
Lol all they are gonna get is a free ride out of the country
80% of Latinos are citizens and those that voted must hold citizenship. Expressing shaudenfraude over the possibility of denaturalization is a level of capitulation so profound it makes it feel as if some of our liberal brethren are invertebrates.
White liberals taking joy in the fact that they and their families can have freedom of choice reinforces age old racial hierarchies. Yes, your uncle might be a racist, sexist, narcissist, but no one is going to question their citizenship over it.
Meanwhile, PoC must vote Democrat and if they don’t, their white liberal compatriots will applaud when they’re put in cages and extricated from the country. The racial hierarchy is reinforced when PoC are not granted agency.
They must vote the way I think is right. Otherwise, I will join hands with my regressive conservative kin and shamelessly capitulate as we take glee in the racial purification of America.
Do you all even believe in what you say you believe in? If these are our allies, who needs enemies?
I’m sure the Jews thought they were fine too, I’m sure their citizenship will help them when they get black bagged onto a bus to sit in a cage with no trial because Karen called ICE
deleted by creator
