Summary

Donald Trump and Republicans are falsely framing his 2024 election win as a historic “landslide” and sweeping mandate, despite the data showing otherwise.

Trump won the popular vote by just 1.6%, the smallest margin for a winning president since 1968, and his 307 electoral votes rank low in U.S. history.

Crucial Senate and House gains were limited, with Republicans relying on gerrymandering for their narrow House majority.

This exaggeration of victory serves to justify potential power expansions, but the facts debunk claims of an unprecedented or overwhelming mandate.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      71 day ago

      Yes and no. All power, ultimately, depends on compliance. Even autocracies. There would not have been a “divine right of kings” if kings did not have a pressing need to assure people of their right to hold power.

      The “mandate” narrative is aimed at convincing everyone that their objections are in the minority. That even if they stand up and say something, they’ll simply be the odd one out.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        4
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Power ultimately depends on violence. Violence can create compliance and vice versa, but the violence and compliance with violence is what’s fundamental. These politicians are very capable of overwhelming violence. It’s a crucial part of their function. It’s been the norm as long as states have existed.

        There wouldn’t have been the “divine right of kings” if kings were unable to torture and murder people.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          101 day ago

          The state’s ability to use violence is entirely contingent on compliance.

          There are approximately 1.3 million police officers in the US. That number doubles if you were to throw in the entire US military. That is about 1% of the adult population of the US (~260 million).

          The only reason state violence is possible is because people accept it. If every time a police officer tried to arrest someone, an entire neighbourhood rolled out to stop them, no amount of military grade weaponry would prevent a total breakdown of government control. This is what is meant by “policing by consent”. It is the understanding that policing only works because people consent to be policed.

          • @krashmo
            link
            61 day ago

            One could reasonably interpret the entirety of the modern era to be the upper class’s quest to push us as close to that point as possible without quite getting there. They’ve already pushed it pretty god damn far with very little meaningful resistance. If the public’s line in the sand is on the far side of fascism then that line may as well not exist at all.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              41 day ago

              Well, yes, exactly. It’s all about creating sufficient compliance, something they’ve gotten very good at.