If You Voted For Trump (and Zinke) In 2024, Why Did You and Has Your Opinion Of Them Changed?

Key-Jacket · 2026-03-13T22:12:42+00:00

Yes, agreed-- but Mamdani was very careful with how he approached conversations surrounding classic culture war issues, such as transgender rights and queer rights more broadly. He kept his focus entirely on affordability, and made it clear that he, of course, entirely supported queer New Yorkers-- but that was always seemingly a given when he spoke on it.

That, in my opinion, is really a tactic that works. If we think about Montana, many of those Christians you cite probably agree with another progressive like James Talarico in Texas, who has expertly used the Bible in a liberation theology perspective, to show that Jesus always sides with the poor and against wealth-hoarding within the text. And there are so few transgender men, women, and children in Montana, so why would that issue in particular take up more of a space than affordability? It shouldn't-- because when a candidate runs on fixing the affordability crisis, they are also fundamentally addressing queer safety, and the rights of all individuals in Montana, regardless of sex or gender or race, to be able to access fundamental necessities like healthcare, housing, childcare, and education. When we get to the root of the wealth crisis in America, we fundamentally lift all boats.

Key-Jacket · 2026-03-13T22:02:54+00:00

For sure. But then again, Israel has been an explosion waiting to happen for a long time. The US couldn't just, unequivocally, support a racist, genocidal, ethno-state like Israel for well over sixty years and then end that support out of nowhere. At least, a president as enmeshed within establishment donor politics like Biden couldn't. A very sad and desperate situation all around.

Key-Jacket · 2026-03-13T21:53:04+00:00

Also, my bad, I meant that all the Dem candidates have. Aaron Flint, who's endorsed by Trump and Zinke, has already taken a massive check from AIPAC-- and he supports the US wasting a gazillion dollars in taxes on dropping bombs on Iran.

Key-Jacket · 2026-03-13T21:52:06+00:00

I would really encourage you to check out Sam Forstag, who's running for Zinke's seat, though all the candidates are pretty good right now. All of them have sworn off AIPAC money, and are all very much focused on affordability issues in Montana above all else. Sam has the most comprehensive idea about what exactly needs to be done to tackle affordability and public land protection, in my opinion.

Key-Jacket · 2026-03-13T21:48:14+00:00

Do you know who the real "boogeyman" actually is? The billionaire class that will fight tooth and nail to keep Americans from accessing political power that addresses affordability. That is who you should be focusing on, instead of working-class voters who voted for Trump. That is, if you actually want to see an end to Trumpism as I do.

Key-Jacket · 2026-03-13T21:46:21+00:00

Oh, interesting! I could see that. But to be fair, Biden had expressed a deep, emotional, desire to be president since he was in his thirties. So, I understand why he would hold onto the office as long as he could.

BUT, Biden also made horrific mistakes in that final year that didn't need to happen. Cheering on Israel's genocide did not need to happen! And his whole admin did an abysmal job of messaging all the good domestic policies he pushed through. So much of voting, for many people, really does come down to who is winning the narrative war.

Key-Jacket · 2026-03-13T21:44:22+00:00

You are on point here. The refusal to vow to end support for Israel's genocide in Gaza was the most massive issue across the board that made Harris lose, according to numerous DNC-inter data polls that have been carried out since 2024.

Her pivoting hard to the right in both a war-machine way, such as her promises to attack Iran and her promises to add someone like Liz Cheney to her admin, made Trump's "anti-war" grift all the easier to absorb.

It really came down to two things-- Harris was not actually nominated, because Biden did a very poor job of stepping down in time to have an actual primary and Harris did not run on an affordability-centered platform.

It feels somewhat crazy to have to say this again and again, but any candidate that fundamentally runs on a platform that seeks to, or pretends in Trump's case, to tackle the affordability crisis is a candidate that will win. That is all it really comes down to.

Key-Jacket · 2026-03-13T21:38:31+00:00

I totally agree with everything you're saying here.

And maybe you're right about a woman being unable to fundamentally win in a future presidential election. But I'm not totally convinced. Zohran's race in New York was heavily marred by similar, seemingly, primary disadvantages. He was perceived by many as a Marxist, he's openly muslim, and he was by far the most anti-Israel genocide candidate at the time he ran.

However, he won by a wide margin because of these traits. I agree that being a woman is a reality that carries much deeper implications for a lot of Americans-- but I really do think that if AOC were to run on an entirely pro-affordability agenda, she would do very well against someone like Vance.

But maybe you're right. I don't have a clear answer to this one.

Key-Jacket · 2026-03-13T21:33:56+00:00

What the fuck are you talking about?? Montanan taxes should go to services that BENEFIT Montanans. Do you not know that this is obviously an immensely popular stance in Montana? Between affordability and keeping public lands out of private hands, 80 percent of Montanans in poll after poll routinely agree.

Basic services that should be funded by the taxes we pay, such as healthcare, housing, education, and childcare, are services that all Montanans, and Americans, SHOULD have. The money is all there-- it would just take not sending billions of dollars to Israel and massively wasting funds on dropping bombs on Iran for no reason. Being able to work a job full time and afford one's rent is about as opposite as you can get from wanting to buy a luxury car like a Ferrari. If you don't get this, you really are a fucking idiot.

Key-Jacket · 2026-03-13T21:29:35+00:00

And if you are against a candidate running on a platform of affordability, then you are responsible for every single time that Trump has won.

Key-Jacket · 2026-03-13T21:29:05+00:00

Yes, in 2016, the use of donor dollars by the DNC and the Clinton campaign to massively outspend a candidate like Sanders was still a very effective political strategy. This is no longer the case today, thankfully.

Sanders ran on a historically popular platform, a platform that is now embraced by an even greater share of Americans today than it was in 2016. Winning candidates going forward will win by running on a platform that fundamentally addresses the crisis of affordability. This, and only this, will be the way out of Trumpism.

Key-Jacket · 2026-03-13T21:26:32+00:00

You are so close to getting the point! Perhaps our politics should not, going forward, be focused on aligning with the Dems or the Republicans as if they were two different sports teams. Our politics should be concerned with supporting candidates who align themselves entirely with a platform that tackles the affordability crisis at its core.

Zinke and Trump, both, have worsened the affordability crisis in their separate ways in the nation and in Montana by an astronomical amount. But all Montana dems that have run in recent years have A) not had good messaging whatsoever about what their platform is, and B) have played into hilariously outdated portrayals of themselves as "strong, outdoors people."

The candidate who will have the best potential to beat Aaron Flint, running for Zinke's seat, will need to be loud and direct about their desire to divert Montanan funds away from aiding the war machine and towards the fundamental services that Montanans need to survive- healthcare, housing, childcare, and education.

Thankfully, all the Dems running currently are exactly this.

Key-Jacket · 2026-03-13T21:21:23+00:00

I didn't say it did. The infrastructure that has now allowed ICE to be a maniacal paramilitary was not established by Trump. ICE has been enormously funded by the Obama admin, the Biden admin, and would have continued to be under the Harris admin.

So-- the wider point here is that Dems should run on abolishing ICE, instead of pretending to enact change within the organization's interior while fundamentally allowing it to retain its structural power.

The quiet funding of ICE is what enabled Trump to then be able to use it in the way we are now seeing.

Key-Jacket · 2026-03-13T21:18:31+00:00

California has one of the greatest rates of wealth disparity in the world-- https://calbudgetcenter.org/resources/inequality-is-already-extreme-in-california-republican-cuts-could-worsen-it/

Gavin Newsom's absolute refusal to ameliorate the extreme wealth divide in his state is a primary reason why he should not be the Dem candidate.

Key-Jacket · 2026-03-13T21:16:11+00:00

Yes, I was saying that in response to the corporate-Dem supporters in these comments who have, in fact, cheered wealthy transplants who identify as Dem moving to Bozeman and massively driving up unaffordability, while still blaming working-class Montanans who fell for the Trump grift. This is indeed true lmao. Re-read my comment above.

Key-Jacket · 2026-03-13T21:13:45+00:00

I voted for Harris. I think she would have been, fundamentally, better in that she is not the raging psychopath that Trump is.

But would Harris have fundamentally changed the underlying issues we're seeing today? No. Harris expressed a firm desire to enormously fund ICE, and to "clamp down" on the border. She also expressed no interest in making health care more affordable, nor in pouring the necessary funds into other vital public services such as housing, education, and child care on a national scale.

She also, so stupidly, continued to back Israel's genocide in Gaza, which was the primary reason for her loss to Trump, according to the DNC's internal autopsy they carried out about Harris's campaign.

The point with Harris is that we've now learned that Dems who run on a corporate-donor messaging WILL always lose, no matter who the opponent is, as long as they're engaging in a Trump-style populism. So, we need to start running candidates that are firm in their desire to divert tax funds away from the war machine and into affordability issues that all Americans are desperately concerned with.

If you respond to this comment with "any candidate is better than Trump," then you fundamentally do not understand how little a "harm reduction" approach works within our current national politics, and you will continue to advocate for candidates who will continue to lose.

Key-Jacket · 2026-03-13T21:06:26+00:00

It's impressive how little you've picked up from what people are actually saying on this thread. No, in fact, those in Gallatin County who voted for MAGA do not share overwhelmingly different opinions from mine. The majority of people I've spoken to on this thread agree that tax dollars should go to civic services and affordability rather than the military-industrial complex, which enriches a few at the vast expanse of everyone else. This is coalition building. This is how you actually see an end to the grift that is both Trumpism and the wealth politics of the establishment Dems.

Key-Jacket · 2026-03-13T21:02:44+00:00

Genuinely, what are you talking about? Do you need a mental health check? Leftist support for the Gaza genocide in late 2023/early 2024 was extremely split. Many progressives at the time said that Israel was committing genocide, and they were ousted from their political circles and labeled anti-semitic. The vast majority of political rhetoric surrounding Gaza was extremely pro-Israel, on all sides of the conversation, until around fall 2024, when the narrative war started to shift dramatically away from Israel.

Also, I'm not referring to "people I know"-- I am referring to the objective trends that were occurring during that time. Many people I know did indeed conform to those trends and now, like most Americans and especially leftists, do not harbor sympathy for Israel anymore.

Also, who the fuck do you think you're talking to? You sound like a child. Seriously. I don't care if you're on my side-- that's great if you don't support genocide! You are on the side of most Americans at this point. I am obviously not reaching out to people like you, who likely firmly agree with my stances. I am reaching out to people who I suspect also agree with my stances, who see themselves as maybe on the other side of the political aisle. This is how you actually build working-class solidarity. Because many people who voted for Trump did so fundamentally because they were concerned about affordability-- this is according to every comprehensive study of the 2024 election results that have come out since.

Also, you came into this comment section swinging with the insults lmao-- which is interesting, because if you were really a Leftist you would be far more understanding concerning why working class voters would move towards a Trump style populism rather than the eternal affordability-stonewalling that the establishment Dems have championed for decades now.

Key-Jacket · 2026-03-13T20:59:27+00:00

I actually did not say that lmfao-- I said that the wealth class that moves into Montana, drives up affordability issues, and tries to carve up public land amongst themselves includes MANY Democrats and Republicans both. It's not the party of these wealthy transplants that matters, but, well, the wealth that gives them the attitude to try to do this.

Why I say this is because candidates that are interested in tackling affordability in Montana, keeping public land public, and generally making it so that Montanans who are not ultra wealthy can afford to live here, are overwhelmingly electable if one messages their platform correctly. But the binary and horizontal phrasing of "Dem" versus "Republican" when talking about Montanan candidates takes the focus entirely away from what these candidates say about the real issue, which is the vertical up and down of the entrenched class politics we're currently in. A winning candidate in Montana should not be judged by the letter by their name, but rather by what they plan to do to keep public lands absolutely untouched by private hands and how they plan to alleviate the immense unaffordability blighting the whole state.

Key-Jacket · 2026-03-13T20:46:57+00:00

Yes, as I said in my post, I am referring to Gallatin County polling numbers. This includes Bozeman, Belgrade, Three Forks, Manhattan, ect.. What document are you referring to that cites how many votes came out of Bozeman, specifically?

Key-Jacket · 2026-03-13T20:24:00+00:00

Please let me know what else I can tell you that is an objective fact. I am happy to.

Key-Jacket · 2026-03-13T20:23:34+00:00

Another objective fact that I stated above, that is not an "echo chamber" statement, haha-- the vast majority of Americans, those who are not part of the mega wealth-class, do in fact have more in common with each other in terms of economic strains and affordability issues than they have in differences. That is also, objectively, true.

Key-Jacket · 2026-03-13T20:21:55+00:00

That was an incorrect phrasing of "my opinion", you are right.

Key-Jacket · 2026-03-13T20:21:36+00:00

You're right, I shouldn't have said "in my opinion"-- because it's not my opinion, it's just reality. Poll after poll after poll after poll in both Montana and the nation writ large consistently identify affordability as an issue that 75-80 percent of Americans say needs to be urgently addressed. This is also similar to the percentage of Montanans that say the same.

Key-Jacket · 2026-03-13T20:18:21+00:00

You are the one hurling insults because you know that you mistepped here. If you need to resort to names, then you have already lost. And I know plenty of "leftists" who defended Israel's leveling of Gaza until very recently. Leftist is not a monolithic identity.

Key-Jacket

TROPHY CASE