Why are younger men so right wing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No real man is liberal.

They can’t be. They have actively villainized masculinity for the better part of two decades.
And if—as the lefts tells you all day long — “representation matters” then it might be a good idea of someone on the left would start realizing that demonizing masculine traits in men makes men who have those natural traits feel undervalued and marginalized by what is supposed to be their own party.

Try naming five examples of a masculine democrat male leader in n politics and you’ll see what I mean.

Young men feel abandoned by the left. It’s not that difficult to decipher.
But instead you’d rather demonize him or infantilize him by imagining that he’s gone crazy or is ignorant. He is neither. He just doesn’t buy into hating himself for having natural male traits like ambition, competitiveness, and physical strength. He also might like the idea that one should be rewarded for his own work output capitalist model of America that the left seems to abhor right now.

Likely not impressed by republican leaders. Trump and Vance are not masculine men, Pence is weird, and Obama and Walz definitely are masculine men and strong family men so this argument falls apart just at the recent presidential level.

There is a lot of marketing towards men from the right and kids want to be counter cultural to their parents. Plus as the previous poster said, they likely haven't struggled much. If they are a good person they at least know that many on the right in politics are not speaking in a positive way. You can have conservative values and still hate the political fighting, insults, and lies. There are conservatives that still hated Rush Limbaugh and his kind.

If you think the bolded, you have no idea what masculine means.

Football coach versus a twink who wears eyeliner and has sexual intercourse with couches.

You seem confused about which is masculine.

Football coach is one of the leading categories of rapist of males, along with Christian preacher and Republican politician.... Hmmm, see a pattern?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have yet to see one compelling argument that isn't about white men whining about no longer being handed everything when they want it (as often), or rooted in hatred/mistrust of women.

Okay, run with that and keep losing presidential elections for eternity.

Oh noes, you feel the world is against you so you want to vote for the grifter billionaires who don't give a shit about you? See how that helps you and your family, kids, etc.

I’m a Harris-voting, lifelong Democrat, you moron. I am just not sealed inside the deep blue bubble like you are. I want to win the presidential election again some day, and I see nobody on the horizon who even comes close to being a realistic candidate.

For context, I accurately called Trump’s wins months before the election each time, as well as Biden’s. I’ve correctly predicted each presidential election since I started paying attention (Obama). I tried to warn people here that Trump was going to win and got a lot of posts back about how wrong I was. 🤷‍♀️

Also don’t come back about stupid special elections or whatever. They are irrelevant to national voting patterns. The Democrats will win the midterms but at this rate will get trounced again in the presidential election unless a dark horse candidate emerges. And a lot of that has to do with the denialism on display in this thread.

If you’re hoping for a white male candidate who won’t scare away the racists and who is good at insulting people and pandering to young men with shallow lies, those are called Republicans.

Why are we getting lectures about The Democrats Hate Young Men And Have Lost Them Forever (with zero evidence to back that up, other than “sometimes they talk about issues that don’t center me” and “why did Harvard reject me and why do I not have an upper management job at age 25”), and no corresponding lectures about The Republicans Hate Women And Will Never Win Another Election Because Of That? Republicans actually back that up with policy. Women are bleeding out in hospital parking lots. There’s a huge push to get women out of the military, jobs, and academia, and back in the kitchen having babies. There’s talk of removing their right to vote, and going back to the days when women couldn’t open bank accounts or have credit cards in their name. Now THAT’S real hatred. “Oh no, the acronym BIPOC exists” is not.

There are so many threads devoted to Winning Back Young Men for Democrats, and zero devoted to Winning Back Young Women for Republicans. That should tell you what the real problem is. Republicans don’t give a sh*t about women, except as baby vessels. They don’t need to. They already have a structural advantage baked in to the Electoral College. They have the Supreme Court locked down for a generation. They have an enormous billionaire-backed media megaphone pumping out lies and distortions to the public 24/7. They don’t need anyone’s vote except for straight white evangelical men, and that is exactly who the country is being run by and for. Spare us the sob stories about underrepresentation.

You are correct that no Republican cares about winning women but your reasoning about why is wrong and your understanding of the political landscape is wrong. No Republican cares about winning women to the Republicans because the Democrats are pushing women to the Republicans on their own. The Republicans don’t have to do any work to get those votes.

It is also interesting to me that you, like most of the other sealed blue bubble posters in this thread, are focused on straight white males only, when the data you should really be worried about is the shift of men who aren’t straight and/or white. That is the trend that is unfortunately and likely going to keep Democrats out of the presidential office for many years, unless sealed blue bubble Democrats like you step out of your bubble.

But unfortunately your political ideologies won’t allow you to recognize that electoral reality or speak openly about it, so you are back to shaking your fist at straight white men. And you are reflective of the Democratic Party apparatus and control. Which is why Democrats remain more unpopular than Trump even given how unpopular Trump is. You simply cannot face electoral reality because facing reality unmoors your self-identity too much. Your self-identity is grounded in a political philosophy that insists on a ranked hierarchy of identities, and recognizing the shift of men who are not straight and/or white to the Republicans would require you to take a hit to that self-identity. That’s too much for you to handle, and same with other identitarian Democrats (who unfortunately control the party), so the Democrats and you would rather languish as being less popular than Trump and accept never winning the presidential election again.

Perhaps VA and NJ aren't good proxies for the entire country, but every trend you list above was completely reversed in the 2025 elections.

Democrats won a large majority of 18-29 males of every race...even more pronounced with non-straight, non-white men.

Let's just admit that there are 10% who are far-left and far-right and will always live in their bubbles, and then there is the remaining 80% that votes mainly because of pocket-book issues. It's irrelevant what anyone thinks of political parties in general.

PP here. A special election is almost never a proxy for a presidential election. It is very risky to over-index on those. Personally, I don’t consider the VA and NJ elections particularly relevant for the 2028 presidential election. I expect Democrats to do well in the midterms, in fact, but I don’t consider them good signal for a presidential race either.

The only race that I do think is interesting with respect to the 2028 election is Mamdani’s election. He isn’t a 2028 presidential contender, but his election had some voting trends that gave me hope for the first time in a long time. It’s too early to tell now, though.

[Anonymous]

It's a lot easier for a privileged person to be pro rights for others before those people actually get their rights. When the check comes due, many lose their appetite

It's like how Warren Buffett "supports" raising taxes on himself, which he knows will never happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you can’t see the hostility to young men, particularly straight white men, in the modern Left’s messaging you are willfully blind.

The entire identity/diversity movement is based on excluding straight white men.

What does BIPOC mean? It means “not white.”

What does it mean if an organization lacks diversity? It means too many men and/or too many white people. It never means too few men or white people.

If you are a young man who hasn’t found a place in the world you feel targeted, and you aren’t wrong.

This article is one perspective on the phenomenon: https://www.compactmag.com/article/the-lost-generation/

If the Democrats want to turn things around they need to understand that a young man coming of age in 2025 (particularly white men) finds himself in the minority, often a small minority, in universities, corporate America, the media, and every other path towards a stable upper middle class existence.

The Ivy League today is only roughly one third white and a bit over 50% female… leaving white males at roughly 15% of undergrads. Meanwhile they continue to be told that they are somehow responsible for every ill of the generations that came before them and that they are “privileged.”

Yes, there are still many white men in senior positions across America, but they are men from a different generation (often still baby boomers) and their experience was totally different from a young man today.

The old school Democratic Party wanted union voters, rural voters, working class white people who celebrated America, but the modern party is increasingly urban, coastal, and intolerant of anyone that deviates from their orthodoxy.

Does that make Trump a good alternative? Obviously not… but at this point you are dealing with voters who feel like they only have bad choices.

When someone is accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.

I can't take any of the whining by white men seriously.

If you don't pander to losers, then you don't get the loser vote. And most people are losers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot of those mothers were forced out of the workforce. They didn’t voluntarily drop. Return to office mandates, less flexibility around care, and the elimination of DEI and ERG programs were big factors.

People who think “oh yes, this is great” either haven’t fully thought through the consequences, or they don’t care about women. What happens to these women if/when they want to return to the workforce, but now their skills are outdated and there’s a 15 year gap on their resume? What happens if their husband dies or leaves them? What happens to them in retirement? What happens to the economy when half of the labor and talent pool is gone?

I’m not saying it’s a bad thing to stay home with kids (it’s wonderful if inclination and financial circumstances allow), but it should be a choice, not something forced on women because men don’t want to compete with them. “Ingrained biological roles” is just a subset of the Appeal to Nature fallacy.

+1

1 million people - men and women - became unemployed in the past year thanks to Trump's economy and the assumption is that the women left by choice?? Hahaha that is a stretch. Again, I do not begrudge any woman her choice, but I will always think women should have freedom of choice! Unlike Republicans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The entire premise of this thread ("how can my well adjusted son be Republican?!") is grotesque.

it is just the next step in the evolution , once you have nothing but contempt for other people , you know, those damn deplorables, the US workers that do manual labor, well the next step is to make sure you tell your family "they" are not human.

makes them feel superior.

You’ve just described the Republican attitude towards illegally present immigrants.

Fixed it for you.

So you think that illegally present immigrants are not human.

Got it.

Your statement doesn't make any sense. They are a illegally present, not an immigrant, and somehow that has an impact on their humanity.

What?

Just because we want to close the borders doesn't mean the liberal scum gets to treat them like less than human. We are gently as possible removing them from the country any other human being that doesn't belong here.

“As gently as possible” snatching people off the street and rendering them to an El Salvador torture prison where they are beaten and starved and told they will never see the light of day again. What’s your idea of harsh?

It's not a vacation at the Hilton:
"Multiple news outlets and reports say that a group of House Democrats — Reps. Maxwell Frost (FL), Robert Garcia (CA), Maxine Dexter (OR), and Yassamin Ansari (AZ) — stayed at the Hilton San Salvador during their visit to the capital city of San Salvador on or around April 21, 2025"

That has nothing to do with the question. Stay on topic.

It does. Why do liberals go on vacations to Nazi towns?

How is it a "vacation?" Who goes on vacations with work colleagues? Nobody. They were there to find out more about what's going on with CECOT.

Just pointing out how Democrats don't have any problems traveling to foreign countries and staying at cushy hotels, taking advantage of cheap labor while the governments at the places are considered to be persecuting people.

Remember when Matt Gaetz traveled to El Salvador in 2023 to meet with Bukele? I do.

Remember when Gaetz, Trump Jr., Tucker Carlson, and Rubio traveled to El Salvador last year to attend Bukele’s second inauguration? I doubt they stayed in a youth hostel. No, they probably stayed in similar cushy accommodations, taking advantage of the cheap labor that you’ve suddenly developed such deep concern about.

Speaking of vacationing in Nazi towns (as you were earlier), remember when Republican Madison Cawthorn visited Hitler’s vacation retreat? I do.

Republicans like Bukele though, so it's morally consistent.

On "Hitlers vacation retreat," you do realize its one of the biggest tourist attractions in Germany right? Not exactly a statement to go there.

And democrats like JustinTrudeau, Kier Starmer and Emanuel Macron as they are harassing and persecuting their electorate in the name of multiculturalism. So wtf is your point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In recent years, Democrats really went out of their way to ostracize and demonize young straight white men. It's not a surprise some turned toward the Republican Party. The Democratic Party is a very little tent these days.

^^Liar alert^^

I don't see that and neither do my young, straight, white sons, but then again they weren't constantly listening to "the right" telling them lies about what "the left" was saying.

[Anonymous]

Has anyone mentioned the phenomenon of replacing White men with basically anything else in media?

That’s something that really turned a lot of people against the left.

[Anonymous]

The funniest political analysis on here is the triumphal, "the Dems are looking good for 2026 and 2028!"

Trump, Trumpism, and Republican populism are the biggest threats Democrats have faced to their hegemony since Reagan.

George W Bush barely "won" in a squeaker against Gore, then got re-elected on war on terror momentum. But other than W's 2nd election, Dems have been somewhat dominant in Presidential politics since Reagan. (Clinton 2 terms, Gore winning the popular vote, Obama 2 terms, Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote.)

Until recently. Trump, for all his faults, has driven a massive ballot box resurgence for both parties. Voter turnout in the last two Trump elections has been massively higher than in any other elections for more than 50 years.

Trump has transformed Republicans from the stingy country club party with losing candidates like George H W Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney into the party of the working man, the party of blue collar workers, the party of flyover states He has repeatedly set the all time records for most votes and highest turnout among Republicans. He just beat us again even after multiple impeachments, multiple indictments, demonization by every reputable news organization, etc. He's been a pretty formidable opponent.

But for a full decade, we've failed to grapple with his successes or our failures. We refuse to wonder why he was able to get so many people to vote for him, why he was able to dramatically increase Republican success with minorities, or why people keep voting for him in spite of establishment denouncements.

If we intend to win elections in the future, we have to ask ourselves what we've done wrong. Not just DNC types, but dcurbanmom types too.

It's very, very hard for us to do. Voting Democratic and subscribing to the Democratic Party platform has become, in our minds, an important signal of intelligence, education, morality, and class. If we're better people because we're Democrats, then how can we "grapple with failure"? "We've done nothing wrong! The voters are the ones who have done wrong! By falling for a charlatan/fascist!"

But we have done things wrong, according to the voters. Covid Karenism, Open Borders, Lawfare, Censorship, LGBTQIA+ education for elementary school children, etc. Are we willing to moderate on any of those policies? Are we willing to roll back the clock even 10 years and align our policy platform with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama? Or are we going to stubbornly insist that our policy platform (and our governing performance) is beyong reproach and the voters are just stupid and racist?

People who don't know why they lost recent battles are less likely to win future battles.

Rahm Emanuel is running for President, and he's about to bring the tough love. He's going to tell our party, particular the upper middle class dcurbanmom types, that we have to STOP pushing unpopular policies and STOP sneering at all the voters. He's going to tell us that we have to ADMIT that we've been wrong on immigration, covid, trans, and more. He's going to tell us that we have to admit that WE, the education party, FAILED at teaching minimal literacy, and got CORRUPTED by our Party's alliance with the teachers' union.

We are going to hate Rahm's medicine. But if we don't take it, we are less likely to win elections over the next decade.

Maybe Trump's unpopularity will let us win again without admitting any faults. It's certainly possible. But trying to run and win without admitting any faults introduces a major "degree of difficulty."

Some primary candidates will flatter us that we've been right about everything all along. Some candidates (like Buttigieg) will remind us of ourselves, and that will be flattering too. "Former McKinsey consultants would make great Presidents." Some candidates will double down on our least popular positions and demand "amnesty and a path to citizenship" for illegal immigrants. But a few candidates, like Rahm, are going to tell us exactly why we've been losing and exactly what unpopular policies we're going to drop from our platform (at least for now.)

Rahm is very tough, very persuasive, and very disciplined. He might get us to take our medicine and approach the next election with humility and discipline. Or we might reject him for saying things we don't want to hear. It will be interesting to see what happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In recent years, Democrats really went out of their way to ostracize and demonize young straight white men. It's not a surprise some turned toward the Republican Party. The Democratic Party is a very little tent these days.

^^Liar alert^^

I don't see that and neither do my young, straight, white sons, but then again they weren't constantly listening to "the right" telling them lies about what "the left" was saying.

This is so condescending. The Left is completely wrong about the Right living in a bubble or being brainwashed.

The Left avoids Fox News and most conservative news and opinion *like the plague.* For most Democrats I know, it's a point of pride to avoid conservative media. It's trashy, it's trumpy, it's "beneath us." For Republicans, it's the opposite. They CAN'T avoid liberal media. It's the air we breathe. No-one on the right is unaware of the Democratic Establishment narratives. They KNOW what the New York Times thinks, what CNN thinks, what academia thinks, what CEOs think, what affluent white liberal women think. AND they read conservative media too, without fear of catching cooties from it.

Sure, the average redneck reads less than the average dcurbanmom. But for any given level of media consumption, the conservative at that level is getting a broader perspective of opinions than the liberal. Because liberals CAN and DO deliberately shut out, willfully misunderstand, demonize, and oversimplify Republican opinion. Liberals CAN and DO manage to live in an information bubble. Whereas conservatives CAN'T live in an information bubble even if they wanted to.

Similarly, most Trump voters are NOT in a Trump cult. Trump voters understand Trump better than his opponents do, and with more nuance. Very few people go around believing things just because Trump says them. Heck, there are Trump quotes on both sides of almost every issue!

Young men who think the Democratic Establishment is against them did NOT get that idea from right wing media! They feel it in their bones. It's obvious. The Democratic Establishment has been literally SCREAMING for a decade that voting against Democrats proves racism or Nazism. The Democratic Establishment screamed during Covid that freedom-loving conservatives should be put in internment camps if they didn't want experimental medications forced on them. The Democratic Establishment created conditions in which the hiring of young white men collapsed in recent years due to preferences for other Demographics.

Young men are turning away from the Democratic Establishment because they sense, correctly, the disdain the establishment has for them. And because they have felt, practically, the results of governance by the Democratic Establishment. Fewer jobs for young white men, increased income inequality, a world designed to maximize home prices for affluent blue city baby boomers while making them unaffordable to the next generations, etc etc etc.

It is condescending, incorrect, and self-destructive to tell young men they are WRONG to think something that they have personally experienced in an intense way.

[Anonymous]

This condescension toward young men builds on itself.

The more sure liberals are that they are right about everything, the quicker they are to assume racism and stupidity in the people who don't agree with them.

And hating Trump has intensified this dynamic. Of course Trump's opponents are right about everything, Trump is the worst!

But when we go around believing that the only possible reasons roughly half the voters chose Trump over Democrats in 2016, 2020, and 2024 are:
- racism
- stupidity
- cult membership
- brainwashed by conservative media
- etc.,
it is we who are being dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The funniest political analysis on here is the triumphal, "the Dems are looking good for 2026 and 2028!"

Trump, Trumpism, and Republican populism are the biggest threats Democrats have faced to their hegemony since Reagan.

George W Bush barely "won" in a squeaker against Gore, then got re-elected on war on terror momentum. But other than W's 2nd election, Dems have been somewhat dominant in Presidential politics since Reagan. (Clinton 2 terms, Gore winning the popular vote, Obama 2 terms, Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote.)

Until recently. Trump, for all his faults, has driven a massive ballot box resurgence for both parties. Voter turnout in the last two Trump elections has been massively higher than in any other elections for more than 50 years.

Trump has transformed Republicans from the stingy country club party with losing candidates like George H W Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney into the party of the working man, the party of blue collar workers, the party of flyover states He has repeatedly set the all time records for most votes and highest turnout among Republicans. He just beat us again even after multiple impeachments, multiple indictments, demonization by every reputable news organization, etc. He's been a pretty formidable opponent.

But for a full decade, we've failed to grapple with his successes or our failures. We refuse to wonder why he was able to get so many people to vote for him, why he was able to dramatically increase Republican success with minorities, or why people keep voting for him in spite of establishment denouncements.

If we intend to win elections in the future, we have to ask ourselves what we've done wrong. Not just DNC types, but dcurbanmom types too.

It's very, very hard for us to do. Voting Democratic and subscribing to the Democratic Party platform has become, in our minds, an important signal of intelligence, education, morality, and class. If we're better people because we're Democrats, then how can we "grapple with failure"? "We've done nothing wrong! The voters are the ones who have done wrong! By falling for a charlatan/fascist!"

But we have done things wrong, according to the voters. Covid Karenism, Open Borders, Lawfare, Censorship, LGBTQIA+ education for elementary school children, etc. Are we willing to moderate on any of those policies? Are we willing to roll back the clock even 10 years and align our policy platform with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama? Or are we going to stubbornly insist that our policy platform (and our governing performance) is beyong reproach and the voters are just stupid and racist?

People who don't know why they lost recent battles are less likely to win future battles.

Rahm Emanuel is running for President, and he's about to bring the tough love. He's going to tell our party, particular the upper middle class dcurbanmom types, that we have to STOP pushing unpopular policies and STOP sneering at all the voters. He's going to tell us that we have to ADMIT that we've been wrong on immigration, covid, trans, and more. He's going to tell us that we have to admit that WE, the education party, FAILED at teaching minimal literacy, and got CORRUPTED by our Party's alliance with the teachers' union.

We are going to hate Rahm's medicine. But if we don't take it, we are less likely to win elections over the next decade.

Maybe Trump's unpopularity will let us win again without admitting any faults. It's certainly possible. But trying to run and win without admitting any faults introduces a major "degree of difficulty."

Some primary candidates will flatter us that we've been right about everything all along. Some candidates (like Buttigieg) will remind us of ourselves, and that will be flattering too. "Former McKinsey consultants would make great Presidents." Some candidates will double down on our least popular positions and demand "amnesty and a path to citizenship" for illegal immigrants. But a few candidates, like Rahm, are going to tell us exactly why we've been losing and exactly what unpopular policies we're going to drop from our platform (at least for now.)

Rahm is very tough, very persuasive, and very disciplined. He might get us to take our medicine and approach the next election with humility and discipline. Or we might reject him for saying things we don't want to hear. It will be interesting to see what happens.

I’m the PP who was begging Democrats here to change their approach in the springs of 2016 and 2024 because I knew Trump would win and I agree with nearly all of this.

However, I have less faith in Rahm Emmanuel than you do. I think, unfortunately, he will get quickly booted due to the money from the teachers unions and various NGOs that will see his candidacy as an existential threat to their benefits and ongoing revenue streams. He doesn’t have the war chest to compete.

I currently don’t see a winnable candidate on the horizon for 2028, for what it’s worth.

[Anonymous]

Tw no Thanks

[Anonymous]

"PP here. A special election is almost never a proxy for a presidential election. It is very risky to over-index on those. Personally, I don’t consider the VA and NJ elections particularly relevant for the 2028 presidential election. I expect Democrats to do well in the midterms, in fact, but I don’t consider them good signal for a presidential race either."

This is right on. And it's very telling that Democrats are so quick to jump on these special elections as "proof" that we can win in 2028 without making any concessions to the voters.

There are good and bad signs out there for Democrats.

Good signs: one off special election results, historical midterm patterns

Bad signs: collapsing poll numbers for Congressional Democrats (lower than Republicans), our inability to come up with any names of Democratic Presidential candidates who seem likely to win, the Republican victory in 2024, and our doubling down on our least popular policies:

We lost partly because of Biden's open borders; this year we've started protesting deportations of criminals

We lost partly because of trans athletes; this year 100% of Democratic Senators voted to block a bill limiting biological male access to girls' locker rooms.

We lost partly because of perceptions of government fraud and waste; we FREAKED OUT about "Doge" audits and spending cuts. Yes, Doge stinks, Musk stinks, they were jokers harvesting data and breaking protocols and cutting some good programs. But...to many swing voters it sure looked like we were staunchly defending every single dollar of federal spending as sacrosanct. Not a great look.

As a betting person, I would be quite surprised if we won the Presidency in 2028. We're too full of ourselves. We refuse to take onboard any voter feedback.

Hillary Clinton used to catch flack for being too manufactured and poll driven. But now we think we're so smart and so moral that we shouldn't "have to" consider voter preferences. If the voters don't want illegal immigrants and biological males in the girls' locker room, then the voters are bad and we'll force them to accept even MORE of what they don't like!

We've been postponing our "listening tour," our "how the heck did we lose to Trump" since 2016. We're going to have to go through that process at some point if we hope to have our team selected to lead the country again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No real man is liberal.

They can’t be. They have actively villainized masculinity for the better part of two decades.
And if—as the lefts tells you all day long — “representation matters” then it might be a good idea of someone on the left would start realizing that demonizing masculine traits in men makes men who have those natural traits feel undervalued and marginalized by what is supposed to be their own party.

Try naming five examples of a masculine democrat male leader in n politics and you’ll see what I mean.

Young men feel abandoned by the left. It’s not that difficult to decipher.
But instead you’d rather demonize him or infantilize him by imagining that he’s gone crazy or is ignorant. He is neither. He just doesn’t buy into hating himself for having natural male traits like ambition, competitiveness, and physical strength. He also might like the idea that one should be rewarded for his own work output capitalist model of America that the left seems to abhor right now.

This.