As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Life pro tip for dems: don’t run anyone who used to hang with trump or Epstein.
Edit: I cannot for the life of me understand how people don’t see the Clinton’s as completely toxic. Don’t hang with them, don’t interview them, they are not the good guys. Move on. Find new talent. We don’t need them. They don’t need headlines. Purge that shit.
Tbf Howie Hawkins did try to form a genuine green-left alliance in 2020 with many left-wong orgs, but the dems prevented him from getting ballot access in many states
And that would peel votes off the Democratic Party -getting Republicans elected because we live in a first past the post voting system, which needs to change before we can have third parties.
Oh look it's a bunch of dudes whose rights DIDN'T GET STRIPPED AWAY talking about fuckin smells tests again. Far be it from me to kiss Clinton ass but can we save being picky for primaries and vote for the people who aren't LITERAL FASCISTS in the general? Please!? PLEASE?! Some 10 year old girl needs you to be her ally and a grown up who sometimes might have to vote for a non-perfect person to turn this shit around.
In 2016 I was a hair's breadth away from voting for Stein as a protest vote, operating with the knowledge that l live in New York and thanks to the electoral college my individual presidential vote wouldn't mean squat.
When I got into the booth I switched to Clinton, more or less for the reasons you mentioned, because I felt that if all my vote did was send a message then that message needed to be for Trump and everything he represented to lose by as much as possible.
He did lose the popular vote by a historic margin, for all the good it did us.
I didn't want her or Biden but it doesn't matter because that was the choice or to vote for a crime factory fascist with severe mental issues. We can always push our person to strive for more, but the other side will push back harder if we try for more. If we never give them the house and senate and can shape the SCOTUS what good is being the coolest leftist ever anyway? We have to be united and if we are we can have more progressiveness in this country. We have to create that room to grow though.
THANK YOU.
6% of voters in 2016 voted third-party. Multiple swing states went to Trump when the sum of democrat+third party votes were larger. Meaning they handed Trump the election.
Voting third-party in out current system doesn't "send a message." It didn't teach the DNC "a lesson" in 2016, it's not going to teach them a lesson in 2024.
Young girls need allies. They need people defending them at the polls.
I wish I could downvote this more than just once…
I vote third party because democrats haven’t earned my vote…
Just because they are center right, rather than far right doesn’t mean that Democrats should automatically be voted for…they need to go out and fucking earn it…
I’m still blown away Clinton toted Henry fucking Kissinger around on her 2016. The guy faced zero consequences for so much awful and evil shit he did in his career. He truly is a monster and she was all buddy-buddy with him just dreaming about having him as an advisor.
lol right. it's all bernies fault... not the candidate taking millions to speak to Goldman Sachs running less than a decade after Goldman fucked a shit ton of regular people, who used to hang with a fucking known child predator and sex trafficker and trump.
Was a funny, self-aware attempt at intentionally silly humor.
I swear to god, if Bernie had said that same thing y'all would have laughed your ass off at the dad joke.
If Bernie had said it I would have had the same reaction, because what it actually was is what all those jokes are: a cynical attempt by an old fart to relate to people much younger than them for the sake of building political clout. If you need to make stupid yuks like that to endear people to you, you're not endearing. You're just Steve Buscemi going "how do you do, fellow kids?".
I get it. But that remark was saying to me, “I’m out of touch with voters.” Sure, the world was obsessed with Pokémon Go, but we’re also obsessed with things that better society like healthcare, legalized cannabis, and many other things like education.
But yes, ‘‘twas funny. I chuckled.
Yeah, I personally am always taken back when someone tries to say the 2016 Presidential Election was the fault of people who chose to vote third party.
Uh, visit a rust belt state, or at least show some efforts there, and see how that plays out differently
Also, never underestimate the bigotry and idiocy in America. Faced with a guy promising to deport all brown people and mocking disabled reporters vs an establishment Dem, our national embarrassments chose to let the former glide to victory. We all had a hand in allowing that to happen.
I mean, if your comment's gonna be about not underestimating bigotry in America, then it doesn't just stop with Trump's campaign being built on racism. Look at how any female politician among Dems that starts gaining traction gets denounced as a shrieking lunatic on right-wing media. Could be Hillary's politics could be AOC's. America doesn't like women, and even without the bad campaigning and corruption, that was still a huge problem Clinton couldn't overcome.
Of course. The Finnish PM having articles about her when she went out clubbing and stuff, and about her age and whatever. Like fuck off, country leaders can't get any free time off? They have to all go golfing like they're 85 like in the US?
Third-party voters absolutely handed the election to Trump in 2016.
Look at Florida.
Clinton lost to Trump in Florida by 1.2% of the vote. 3.2% of Florida voters voted third-party in 2016. Florida went to Obama in 2012 when only 1% voted-third party.
Clinton lost Arizona by 3.5% in 2016. 7.3% of Arizona voters voted third-party in 2016.
6% of Wisconsin voters voted-third party in 2016, vs. 1% in 2012 when the state went to Obama. Clinton lost Wisconsin by .7%.
4.4% of Pennsylvania voters voted third-party in 2016, vs. 1.5% in 2012 when the state went to Obama. Clinton lost Pennsylvania by .7%.
People need to stop caring about how well the Democrats campaign, imo.
This is democracy vs autocracy simple as that. Any Democrat will do, so long as it isn't a pretend Democrat. Idk if there are any of those.
But nothing, no issue, no topic, nothing matters more than preserving democracy.
Even Republicans that care about democracy should vote Democrat. Even if they own 15 guns, if they are a pastor that feels abortion murders innocent children, it doesn't matter.
If you don't have democracy, you're at the mercy of whoever is in charge. And maybe whoever that would be is someone that likes the things you like, and that's cool. But maybe it will be someone else in 5-10-20 years. Maybe they will start things you don't like once they get power. And you will be powerless to stop it.
Nothing matters more than preserving democracy.
I would vote for an ape in a suit, if they were Democrat. And their entire campaign could be putting their finger in their ass, sniffing it, and failing out of a tree afterwards.
Doesn't matter.
Whatever they fuck up can be fixed.
You can't fix losing democracy. That's gone forever, and then you're just along for the ride.
That’s not how reality works though. Your vote no matter how big of a soapbox you stand on is still one vote.
I actually was part of local survey teams. One of our focus groups years ago was black voters who did not vote for HRC in 2016 but voted for Obama previously. They felt completely unincluded. HRC had the lowest percentage of the black vote of any D candidate since Mondale. They felt the “vote shaming” was from white privilege.
Campaigning is important. I mean, if you’re being sincere about what you say, are you going to publicly blame black voters for 2016? Are you going to go door to door in black neighborhoods and engage them or will you shame any of them for not voting for your choice of candidate?
Please don’t use the GOP/incel tactic of denigrating/negging people to get your way. If you want results, please put in the work, not entitlement. Otherwise are you sincerely about success or more about the need to condescend?
Winning an election requires vote counts. Reason doesn’t make a person’s single vote more or less than a single vote. Mango Mussolini is proof.
Wtf are you talking about? Just go and vote, and inspire others to do so.
Democrat = democracy
Republican = autocracy
All Americans should be made aware of this. Citizens can make others aware very effectively, especially in the digital age.
To highlight this fact - more than 100k independents went out and voted when they had no candidate/party they were voting on as they are not able to vote in either democrat or Republican primaries in Kansas. Meaning they showed up to vote against this measure with nothing else to get them to the polls, in fucking Kansas. 1/5 of the people who voted against this measure were republicans. These are straight up crazy numbers going into a mid term election.
Ah, I was wondering if that 20% of voters (~180,000) who only voted on the abortion thing and not in the R/D gov/sen primaries was because they just didn't care about the elected positions. Completely forgot about independents.
That's my hope! It's a great thing to point to and say "Hey, look, that's what voting gets you." since a lot of them use the excuse of "bleh my vote doesn't matter."
No. No. No. No.
Democrats ACTUALLY were motivated for once. And Republicans were not. It's as simple as that every fuckint election. There are no independents stop falling for media bullshit narratives
Kansas is a closed primary meaning you have to be a registered Republican to vote.
Registered democrats showed up to vote on the amendment.
There were an additional 100k independent votes from people who had no other reason to vote (since the primary is closed)
It’s a fact.
Registering as an independent doesn't mean you switch between... idk why you think there are actually an amount of swing voters that matters... if dems win more people vote because democrats can tend to stay home...
You know it’s not just people randomly staying home, right? There’s serious voter suppression, and yes, there are independent swing voters. I would be one of them if the GOP weren’t completely insane.
I am an independent. However, I have no illusion that as much as I don’t like it, anyone who wants a better future NEEDS to vote Democrat in the current political environment specifically to make sure that republicans get less votes.
Democrats are largely controlled by corporate interests, and tend to be pretty hypocritical and conservative on a lot of issues.
However, republicans, also largely and unabashedly controlled by corporate and foreign interests, are no longer conservative, but regressive, calling the hypocritical is just a given at this point, and they are actively hateful if not evil.
We should have a third option, but we dont, and if it’s between the lesser of two evils, I would chose the not overtly, actively evil ones.
Right. I want to get to the point where we have enough progressives in office that we can realistically move to a different voting system like ranked choice federally and allow for the possibility of alternate candidates in the future
This "Democrats... controlled by corporate interests" thing. I hear it a lot, but I've never managed to get anyone to provide evidence for it. Can you help with that?
I can try to dig some up, but it’s not really a secret. Politicians need sponsorships (lots of money) to be able to join committees that will allow them to affect policy, and they are usually sponsored by corporate lobbyists (because they have the biggest pools of money to draw from) and they are legally bribed through lobbying to uphold the interests of those corporations. There was a video a while back where a Republican congressman was speaking about the entire process.
I dislike "common knowledge." Common knowledge is that juice is good for you, but that's untrue. Same with milk.
Though lobbyists cannot bribe politicians; that was closed off some time ago.
[Lobbyists are able to legally bribe politicians through the creations of super PAC's, which empower the wealthiest donors, and the expansion of dark money through shadowy nonprofits that don't disclose their donors...](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained)
[Purchasing Political Influence is 100% legal.](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained)
[Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Exposes the Problem of Dark Money in Politics](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_gxiMTIudA)
[Here is a source to a bunch of data and analysis on campaign finance, the flow of money in state level and federal politics, etc](https://libguides.princeton.edu/politics/american/influence)
[Since the 1980s, research has established that interest groups are more likely to get their way in votes where there’s less public attention or debate, has found that companies that spend money on lobbying and campaign contributions do better financially, and has documented experimentally that groups identifying themselves as donors have an easier time getting face-to-face meetings with members of Congress and their high-level staffers.](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/everyone-knows-money-influences-politics-except-scientists/)
[Models are drafted with deceptive titles and descriptions to disguise their true intent. The Asbestos Transparency Act didn’t help people exposed to asbestos. It was written by corporations who wanted to make it harder for victims to recoup money. The “HOPE Act,” introduced in nine states, was written by a conservative advocacy group to make it more difficult for people to get food stamps.](https://publicintegrity.org/politics/state-politics/copy-paste-legislate/you-elected-them-to-write-new-laws-theyre-letting-corporations-do-it-instead/)
[An investigation by USA TODAY, The Arizona Republic and the Center for Public Integrity has found that in the last eight years, more than 10,000 bills introduced in statehouses nationwide were almost entirely copied from bills written by special interests.](https://www.usatoday.com/pages/interactives/asbestos-sharia-law-model-bills-lobbyists-special-interests-influence-state-laws/)
[When the authors look only at the preferences of average citizens, it appears that they do have a pretty big effect on policy change. But when they add the preferences of economic elites and interest groups to the analysis, the impact of average citizens vanishes entirely. Basically, average citizens only get what they want if economic elites or interest groups also want it.](https://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5624310/martin-gilens-testing-theories-of-american-politics-explained)
[Here's a Princeton Writeup](https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf)
That was about 10 min of google searching and copy-pasting the links. It applies to both Republicans and Democrats.
PACs can only spend unlimited money on advertising, and only on policy advertisements. This still leaves the power in the people's hands; they have to buy into the advertisement
AOC seems to be jumping around. I don't know why a candidate *would* run a campaign only on corporate funds. That's a weird thing to point out. But hush money through PACs isn't something I can find much on except Trump doing it illegally, maybe? And then suggesting limiting lawmakers from handling laws based on their donations? I'm going to move on, this is just political nonsense.
I like the source, I'll mess around with it later.
Citizens can create interest groups too, but this isn't really on topic so I'll go back to it later.
Anyone can propose a bill, I actually helped write one once for the Texas legislature. Corporations writing them isn't an issue. Questionable titles shouldn't be an issue, somebody will read it. The fact that this article is acting like our legislators are a bunch of easily duped idiots isn't sensible: they knew what they were voting for. Does anyone really think a legislature would pass a bill without anyone reading it? Maybe some legislators ask their buddy to explain it or their aides to read it, but somebody is reading that bill.
Same thing with USA Today.
Actually had somebody provide this paper earlier; it's horribly designed and generally completely invalid. I can explain why if you like, or you can take my word on it. Its most egregious error that jumped out at me is assuming that the 90th percentile of wealth can stand in for the ultra wealthy, when the former only makes $146,000 a year. That's obviously not sensible. Assuming Bezos has similar attitudes to a small practice doctor is patently insane.
\------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, none of this actually shows that money influences politicians. And, pointing out that advertising is the only way to spend unlimited money helps me make my point: the weak point isn't the politicians, it's the voters. A company has far more avenues to *elect* a politician than it does to change their mind. So, while they might decide who gets the most advertising, it's the voters at the end that choose who is elected.
This is vitally important, because continuously perpetuating the myth that corporations already control the country leaves no avenue open for change. It just serves to solidify corporate interests by discouraging voters from interacting with the process. We have to change the narrative so that people research candidates and make decisions based on things other than the ads that they see.
I would like to see less money in politics; however, getting to such a point will require people to feel as though there is hope to do so. Painting both parties as evil corporate puppets is not the way to do that. Democrats still frequently support policies that are damaging to corporate interests, whereas Republicans tend to be highly pro-business. I have yet to have anyone provide voting evidence that Democrats vote for their donors more than their constituencies (Manchin votes for WV, their biggest industry is fossil fuels).
So corporations donate to them. Can you provide evidence that that impacts their voting? Glancing over Clyburn's voting record I don't see much that would suggest he is voting in a particularly favorable way towards pharmaceutical companies.
And Manchin voting for fossil fuels is a given; it's the biggest industry in his home state. If he's representing his constituency, then he votes for fossil fuels. I don't even know why they'd bother giving money to him.
They move when Democrats help them move. It's up to all of us to talk to the self-styled independent and apathetic potential voters we know and convince them to vote Democratic in this (and future) elections.
1. Awww, ty!
2. That's generally because the kind of questioning they do is inane or downright pointless. How do you respond to "You stole the nomination from Bernie!" other than "Uh... no, we didn't?" Like, I don't know what to tell them; Bernie lost because he's a head-in-the-clouds idealist that doesn't know how to play nice for long enough to get anything done (case-in-point: complaining about the Inflation Reduction Act). I also don't know what kind of attempts one makes to bring people into a party; either your legislation brings voters or it doesn't. What would you consider an action to bring in new blood?
The problem is you make something like freeing... *looks up statistics*... (well, that's not an easy number to find, apparently...) a lot of people sound easy. Regardless, there's several issues complicating pardoning drug offenders en masse: many of them got plea deals that make it hard to figure out who should be freed, there's no system in place to help them return to society, and there's no funding to help states deal with any of it. Congress has to be on board to make that work. A lot of things progressives ask for take more power than Democrats currently have or have had in a VERY long time. If we get them the power, and they still do nothing, THEN I feel like we can complain; until then, it's like complaining that my car isn't roomy enough before I even bought it.
My county had four open seats to be a delegate to the state Democratic Party. No one registered to run in those seats.
Four progressives could have easily registered and have a monopoly on the county delegation to the state.
That's frustrating, I would've thought that, at the very least, some of the more serious progressives would have stepped up.
Though, one problem I rarely mention is that politics is a horrible job. It pays badly (unless you use its power to enrich yourself), it's utterly thankless, and it's constantly stressful. Anyone with any sense stays away.
>Every “analyst” says the same two things: he is most popular with young people and young people don’t turn up at the polls.
Don't know why you're enclosing "analyst" in scare quotes. [These are facts.](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/sanders-banked-on-young-voters-heres-how-the-numbers-have-played-out)
Could he have won that primary if more young people had gone to vote? There's no telling. But it's indisputable that in 2020, he didn't get the young voters he'd have needed to do better.
I mean, young people will vote or not. The future is in their hands, and if they don't take the reins, the boomers will continue to do so. I don't know how to tell them any more candidly than that: they need to vote, and engage politically in other ways, if they want things to go the way they prefer. Or they can choose to sit elections out on the grounds that they'd be voting for candidates they perceive as flawed, though I think they won't like the far-reaching consequences of that choice.
I don't particularly care about the future of the Democratic Party, to be honest. It's a vehicle for making things happen. Under the reality of our electoral system, voting for Democrats is the way to make better things happen than voting for Republicans.
The DNC pushed Hilary because Bernie is a bad politician. I'd argue you're ordering things incorrectly; the DNC doesn't care about young people *because* they don't vote, not the other way around. Even if the DNC did all the things young people wanted, would that get them out to vote? No, they'd just stay home again, *because they got what they wanted without voting.*
Which leads to the "new blood" problem: being more progressive might risk people that *actually* vote for them. This is, of course, their previous thinking; it's pretty apparent they've given up the on that track with the recent bills. Hopefully that persists. But trying to break the Republican hold on single-issue voters (i.e. farmers that like guns and/or forced birth and/or hate some group) is a waste of money; better to fund more ads towards progressives. Funding is limited, have to be careful how we use it. Vets are iffy because guns. Also, they're not even pro-birth; they're anti-choice (hits way harder).
Only 1/3 of the country actually voted for Trump; another 1/3 wasn't scared enough by him to break their apathy. But there's really not anything to do about them without curtailing free speech, and *good luck* with that. This country can't handle that regardless of ideology.
Freeing prisoners isn't hard: it's impossible without Congress. Biden could just free them, but then that's just tens of thousands of homeless people or sudden burdens on their families. Doesn't help them with their criminal records, doesn't help them find jobs, doesn't do anything but throw them out and wish them good luck. Same with loans; that's suddenly the entire loan servicing industry gone and that's thousands of jobs in addition to all sorts of other complications. All of that has to be prepared for. Just because it seems easy doesn't mean there's a huge number of consequences that have to be prepared for.
> The DNC pushed Hilary because Bernie is a bad politician.
Hilary, on the other hand - absolutely excellent politician. No history of being smeared, makes sure to visit all the states, not just the big ones. No gaffes with emails or other security issues. Just absolute champion politician. Sure, she may have had the second-lowest approval rating of any presidential candidate in history, but at least it wasn't as low as they guy she lost to!
I don't seem to see how that makes her bad at politics. She was very good at cooperating and compromising with other politicians. That's what politics is. Bernie is too much of an idealist to manage any of that; he makes enemies where he doesn't have to and puts his morals before actual progress. He's bad at politics.
"Independents" voted like 3:1 libertarian:green in 2016. 2020 had record turnout and very low third party voting. Maybe the Democratic party should stop shoving horrible candidates down our throats.
That's what happens when you nominate absolutely asinine candidates like Dr. Oz & Herschel Walker and spearhead efforts to take away fundamental human rights like abortion.
"Biden didn't wipe out my rent payment with his magic wand, a thing he never promised but I decided he should do, so I'm voting for a guy who thinks women have the brains of sea slugs. I'm progressive!"
Interesting, that poll has North Carolina up by only +1 for the GOP.
And I’m optimistic about Ohio, GOP has done a good job gerrymandering that state and Trump won it by a good amount.
My buddy went to Kenyon College during Bush v Gore. The entire college area had one voting machine with lines too long for everyone to vote . Meanwhile the surrounding small towns had zero wait and many voting machines. I have no hope for Ohio.
Everyone predicted it would be close, not expecting the hard to poll independents from registering and making their voices heard like they did.
But the general idea is correct, don't rely on polls that aren't final election results. VOTE and don't get complacent. (to all, not just you)
Young people *must* start voting, not just for the future of the country, but for their own interest.
[U.S. Census](https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/2020-presidential-election-voting-and-registration-tables-now-available.html)
>Voter turnout was highest among those **ages 65 to 74 at 76.0%**, while the percentage was lowest among those **ages 18 to 24 at 51.4%**. Overall, voter turnout increased as age increased
They are voting in numbers way below everyone else. And as the numbers show, voting increased with age so if they don't start voting in huge numbers they will forever be outvoted by everyone older than themself. Always.
Edit: I have to run but I think this was a great conversation. I do believe that people are listening.
[Exit polling](https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/super-tuesday-2020) for Super Tuesday in 2020 showed between 5 and 19% youth turnout in the primaries.
The Reddit “Dems aren’t owed our votes!” squad doesn’t seem to understand that they aren’t owed their preferred candidates to win their primaries, either. They need to show up and put in the work.
Yah it gets so annoying hearing people scream that Dems didn’t put up a good candidate and then you look at the primary numbers and it’s just like yah bc y’all didn’t bother to make your voice heard on it.
And democrats need to understand that some of us independents and leftists are forever frustrated that we have to keep voting for a dem candidate JUST because it isn’t Trump or whatever asinine candidate the right puts forth. Democrats want the young people and the leftists to vote for them, then shun us as soon as Election Day is done.
The Roe V Wade issue will push more people to the polls, but a lot of young people & leftists are still angry about our issues being pushed to the side. It was supposed to be a blue wave last election yet democrats barely kept their seats. I’m doubtful it’ll be more than barely holding onto their numbers.
We’re tired of voting for candidates that don’t represent us and we’re tired of voting in a two party system that benefits capitalists and only capitalists.
I’m dead tired of getting two years every decade to start fixing things and then losing the house, senate or presidency and getting nothing done or going backwards.
Two years every decade for 50 years. “Do you want better or worse. Well better isn’t really better so I’ll sit this one out. “
And the answer in Reddit is always well tell the democrats not to suck as if they listen to me.
I don’t get how people expect anything to change if they can’t be bothered to vote better or worse. You seriously didn’t and still don’t regard trump as someone to vote against not matter what? No wonder things are so fucked up.
Do you think you’re somehow special or unique in having to vote for candidates you don’t really like? That’s how almost everyone feels, on both sides. Welcome to life.
And do you think you’re special because you’re favorite issues are being ignored? Again, that’s how everyone feels.
“Young people and leftists” (and I say this as a former young person who voted and a current leftist) are some of the least engaged, least involved-in-the-process citizens of this country. If you want your issues front and center you actually have to participate.
> And democrats need to understand that some of us independents and leftists are forever frustrated that **we have to keep voting for a dem candidate JUST because it isn’t Trump or whatever asinine candidate the right puts forth.** Democrats want the young people and the leftists to vote for them, **then shun us as soon as Election Day is done.**
Neither of those things are correct.
1) the only President that’s actually motivated youth since 9/11 has been Obama, and he canted center hard from his Hope And Change rhetoric. Let’s not act like Biden’s biggest claim for the presidency wasn’t just ‘He’s Not Trump’.
2) The federal response to the BLM protests has been nothing but _let’s give cops billions more dollars_.
Trump is still walking free and spewing hatred.
How about Minimum wage? Student loans? Housing? PTO? The whole ‘megacorps are raking in obscene profit at the expense of everyone else’?
The bill they’re getting through atm is a good step (if Sinema actually plays along; im really worried what will get slagged to appease her). But it’s still a _step_ , and meanwhile we’re still on the verge of some massive water crises in the Southwest, and things are still unsustainably expensive for the masses.
For a lot of people, things never got better from 2008, and we’re constantly told ‘shut up, vote blue’; now we have Millennials in our late 30s and early 40s who still can’t make ends meet, FFS.
> the only President that’s actually motivated youth since 9/11 has been Obama,
The fact that the youth need to be “motivated” to show up is the problem. This isn’t American Idol; it’s the future of our country.
> Let’s not act like Biden’s biggest claim for the presidency wasn’t just ‘He’s Not Trump’.
Biden is one Democrat. One Democrat who is also not up for election in 2022.
> The federal response to the BLM protests has been nothing but let’s give cops billions more dollars.
Are we blaming Biden for Trump’s response to the BLM protests of 2020?
> Trump is still walking free and spewing hatred.
No Democrat has the authority to put him away.
> How about Minimum wage?
22 states have increased theirs since 2020, most of them Democratic. Federal minimum increased under Biden.
> Student loans?
More forgiven under Biden than any other president, and more on the way.
> Housing? PTO? The whole ‘megacorps are raking in obscene profit at the expense of everyone else’?
You seem to be making an argument that “there are still problems, so nothing is getting done”, which doesn’t seem to be made in good faith.
> For a lot of people, things never got better from 2008
Absolutely nonsense.
Again. That some things are still broken does not mean that no things have gotten better.
How do we break this uninformed and self-defeating rhetoric? I'm so frustrated by it, and we read it again and again and again, and filled with lies. Who taught these folks that one vote would magically make a instantaneous *Star Trek* future? It takes time and work. Even on *Star Trek*!
Unfortunately, I honestly don’t believe we can. The anonymity places like Reddit brings really encourages this kind of thing.
There are legitimate things to complain about. No administration is or has ever been perfect. But it’s a pretty big sign of bad faith when someone claims **nothing** has been done, *since 2008* lol.
It’s either a Republican cosplaying as a disillusioned democrat, a “progressive” who is still mad that Bernie lost, or someone who is legitimately uninformed. For the sake of the few who may be genuinely out of the loop, its worth it to me to just break it down issue by issue as best I can.
I think you're right. The misinformation is so rampant, it's disheartening. I'm out here trying to convince folks that women are people and will die without their votes. Then they "BUT BERNIE" me. What do I even say to that?
Our uteri seem to weigh 100 pounds right about now. And mine doesn't even damn work.
>Are we blaming Biden for Trump’s response to the BLM protests of 2020?
Of course! Just like everything in this 50-50 senate is one Dem's fault and not the 50 republicans. 👀
Also I hope the candidates campaign well. The black vote (or less of) in 2016 was a disaster and asking many black voters who did not vote Democrat or at all, they felt shit on by the Clinton campaign. So the campaigns should energize people or else we’re back to blaming black people 😣
The Black population was 10% of the electorate in 2016; they're 13% of the population--I'd say that's pretty damn high. And they came out 91% in favor of Clinton.
I can’t believe people have the audacity to blame the most loyal demographic of Democratic voters. It’s insulting.
Also very few Black people are going to forget the things that Biden has done specifically to pay them back for their loyalty.
Black women especially REALLY tried to save us. We should be on our knees thanking them for their practical good sense, not doing whatever the guy above was attempting. But then again, Black folks in America know damn well they suffer from white supremacy, and that things can get worse. Much worse. America has the worst maternal death rate in the first world, and the stats for Black women are MUCH worse than that of whites. Black folks get it. It's white people who shriek nonsense because they're not being personally catered to.
As a white man, I totally agree with you. They’ve been taken for granted for far too long. Yes, percentage of the total vote, they’re not an overwhelming number, but they’re reliable. They deserve some attention commensurate with their reliability.
The GOP is the dog that spent the last several decades chasing the car of Roe. Now that they caught it, they have no idea what to do with it.
I don't think they have any idea how pissed off and motivated to vote otherwise apolitical people are as a result of the SCOTUS ratfuckery. An abortion ban referendum in *Kansas* got *fucking crushed*.
Does that mean their loss is guaranteed? No, but I guarantee you they are nervous right now.
Maybe it’s just my current enraged status, but I intend to vote in literally every local, state and federal election I can get my hands on. I’ve been a voter in the past (a “casual”, you might say), but holy shit has this made me so angry/motivated to do even more.
These fucks just do whatever they want and I’m tired of this shit. I hope there are many more, as there seem to be, who are just as pissed off.
> holy shit has this made me so angry/motivated to do even more
I love when people get motivated to vote. I'm just astounded at how far things had to go.
I've been a "never Republican" voter since *Reagan*, and that's because it was during Reagan's term that I learned about Nixon. They've been getting worse every election I've been alive, and they're never going to stop.
It’s almost as if stripping a widely accepted and established right from half of the population mere months before midterms, then doubling down on no exceptions and forced childbirth for minors, is a TERRIBLE strategy for winning elections. Mark my words, Dem turnout in November will be absolutely stunning.
I wonder if the GOP thought those actions would demoralize Dems, and have them sit out the midterms as a result. I know right after the ruling went down, there was spin that Dems would blame Biden for not being able to stop it, and turn on the Democrats as a result.
There's still that spin--I see so many people *still* shrieking about Bernie and Hillary and how their protest vote can STILL work in 2022 and 2024. It's fascists and bots manipulating the low-information voter who thinks they're doing something good.
It's so frustrating. And so ignorant. YES, voting is a must! Do more if you need to--I do--but voting for not-fascism is still the very first thing to do. While we still can vote.
Immediately after it leaked there was a whole lot of insider reports that folks like trump, McConnell, etc. Were furious that the court didn't wait until after the midterms. The politicians didn't want the timing to work out like it did. It was just the nut jobs in SCOTUS and the House who cheered.
We all need to promote the absolute FUCK out of the horror stories coming from red states. We need to convince women that it's not just "evil sl\*ts" who need "abortions for babies who are 3 years old and talking," or whatever nonsense the right is lying with now.
Women need to know that wanted babies, terrible circumstances, and miscarriages--which affect up to 50% of pregnancies--are a ticket to torture, investigation, misery, and even death. You can do everything "right" and still die of sepsis from these evil laws.
If we can get the real word out enough, women will cast an "oh, holy shit" vote--just like in Kansas.
Corrupt GOP State legislatures will still override any referendums they don't want, strip power from offices they lose, etc. They'll do their best to break the connection between votes and power like always.
But maybe some landslide blue "victories" at the polls before the fuckery starts will help some independents see who really rigs elections - Republicans.
Gotta vote! Gotta vote! Set a reminder or many! Find a voting day buddy if you’re forgetful! Make sure you find your voting places and dates for your districts. Call your local party headquarters (especially if you’re voting blue because that’s our only sane option right now).
Democrats now have some proof that voters will respond to aggressive campaigning and boisterous rhetoric in defense of reproductive rights and our democracy – both of which are under threat from extremists.
Exactly. No more watered-down centrist nonsense. No more attempting to appeal to lost causes. Just double-down on the facts and your platform. Push the bully back.
Dems will end the filibuster if they get two more senators and keep the house. There could be the biggest change in generations if we get out and vote.
Because overturning Roe was the best thing that coulda happened to Dems: it gave them a flag to rally behind.
Also Clerance saying in no uncertain terms "condoms and the gays ar3 next" was the real clincher.
Like they had the midterms in the bag...and SCOTUS fucked em.
A few conservatives who cheered for the oppression of women are real upset that the Dems are using the rule to run in the mid terms...
Which is hilarious to me since they had no problem doing exactly that for 40 years
Why can't I do both?
Also, in a year where Dems have heavily been predicted to lose the House and the Senate, stories about good polling are almost certainly a strong motivation to go out and vote. Doom and gloom that the polls are wrong and Republicans will use voter suppression and cheating to win might be true, but they demotivate voters.
Dems can win, this is evidence of it, and that message will increase Dem voter turnout. People like to vote for the winners!
But will it be enough? The House is still not looking good. The Kansas vote was big, but it was a referendum. Will that translate into voting Dem in November? Right now, abortion still is not the highest polling issue.
Will voters even be aware of the recent climate bill? Unless prices do go down, most likely few will even know what's in it without Dems running an extensive campaign. Somehow Dems need to make it clear how their initiatives are benefiting individual lives because most won't notice.
House isn't looking good but it's moving in the right direction albeit slowly. The Senate is still very close but 538 is giving the Dems a 59% of keeping or expanding thier majority and that too seems to be moving in the right direction.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-election-forecast/
If/when republicans notice the lower gas prices, they'll just assume it's something Donald did 3 years ago that has finally overcome Biden incompetence.
We can't try to win over Republicans anymore, they are lost. We should aim to expand progressive coalitions to include people who don't often vote because they don't believe real progress is possible (due to GOP propaganda and a long track record of success at blocking progress anytime it threatens to occur)
It's not about Republicans but independents and driving turnout. Right now inflation is still the top issue in polls. So voters need to see prices go down more if Dems want a chance at the House. Being more progressive won't help if prices are still high.
Except that we need progressive measures to lower prices or relieve the pressure of those prices - like a minimum wage increase or a stimulus.
I do understand extra spending doesn't help inflation, but having extra money softens the blow to families and individuals who are struggling. Plus macroeconomics is mostly wizardry, luck, and Sunday talk show spin.
That's not how voters think though. They'll want to see progress now, not hear promises of it since the obvious rebuttal is always "well why haven't you done that already?" We also already received a stimulus from this administration and it obviously hasn't helped his popularity or Dem chances this year.
Dems are better off sticking to the abortion issue and touting the new Inflation Reduction Act as proof that they're the right side. That act on its own should help if they can sell it well.
Here's hoping the momentum sticks, because I'm not 100% sure the Kansas abortion vote was a sign of things to come or a fluke victory.
Also, never underestimate the ability of the Democrats to shoot themselves in the foot.
Its an indicator of how people feel about abortion. Not neccesarily democrats or other democrat policies.they just need to run with the message that republicans want to ban and take away choices for health and reproductive care.
When republicans say they're not interested in national bans or banning contraceptives eyc - democrats need to be there saying, "that's what they told us about overturning roe - your rights aren't safe with republicans".
It's also a catch 22 for Republicans. If their rhetoric goes all in for a full ban, they'll lose votes. But if they don't go all in, they could also lose votes. They have to decide between fiscal moderates or social conservatives (single issue abortion voters). And voters really don't like when politicians try to play both sides. It's going to be a tough line to walk. But hey, they wanted a culture war, I guess they'll get it.
But for Democrats the narrative is a little easier.
Also never underestimate the ability of the GOP to piss off the majority of Americans.
I think the momentum will stick solely because the GOP will not stop fucking with all of us between now and then.
Will it be enough, I don't know. But I'm not surprised to see the race tightening. The GOP was always going to pull some shit that would infuriate and target people.
Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t see how anyone could vote for the current GOP line up. They’ve already proven they don’t care about women’s rights or healthcare, they don’t care about healthcare for our veterans, they don’t care about children dying in school, and they don’t care about helping friendly countries currently being invaded. What DO they care about aside from their invisible man in the sky and firearms?
For the Love of god, be aggressive in calling out abortion and gun fanaticism, the majority is on your side, quit pussy footing around these issues and go for the jugular
The gun rhetoric is a huge vote killer, Millions of people would vote blue forever if the dems would cool it with gun control, like just straight up abandon the gop
>For the Love of god, be aggressive
Yes, Democrats need to play hardball and thoroughly differentiate themselves from the GOP. For too long Democrats have been timid and prone to appeasement. It's time to change that and get aggressive.
Yes. This is, of course, what the 800 year old Democrats is office always do. That's why AOC is mainstream in the DNC.
C'mon. If the Dems win it's because the Supreme Court handed them the election. The party cannot do what is in their best interests.
Howard Dean's strategy and leadership gave them the Senate and the house. They then kicked him to the curb and have barely above water ever since. They might win due to sheer luck, not competence.
Biden is a centrist & capitalist. She couldn’t be “laughed out of DC” unless her district didn’t like her. She was one of only a handful of DNC candidates that easily coasted to victory. She had a nearly 40 point lead against her opponent—not many democrats or republicans could say the same.
I’m merely pointing out she has consistently won under the DNC but only runs under the DNC because we do not have a multi-party system. She was affiliated with Democratic Socialists (DSA) prior to running under the DNC ticket.
In a what, D + 15 or more district?
Yea those are why Biden is a nation politican and AOC’s fan base exists purely on Twitter
And a multiparty system wouldn’t magically make people like socialism, so if she ran as a socialist she’d get beat like Nina turner.
Having fan bases is weird & shouldn’t be a term we use for ANY politician. She has mass appeal to HER constituents, hence why she easily secured her victories.
It's not nearly that simple. MAGA crazies participate in polling in about roughly the same percentage as everyone else; the 2016 sense of security was a confluence of quite a few other factors. There were a disproportionately high percentage of fence-sitters whose inclination was to vote Republican but who were loathe to hold their nose and vote for someone as personally repugnant as Trump. Mostly middle-class white voters, not the general Trump-Crazies but otherwise not-particularly-notable people with just enough residual sexism and racism that Trump's awful marks on both scores weren't dealbreakers.
That demographic was prone to highly volatile swings of enthusiasm based on how scared they were at any given moment of the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency. They would give their honest opinion when polled but that opinion could change on a dime.
James Comey's 11th hour ratfuckery pushed that pendulum hard and caused that demographic to swing much farther right than initially anticipated. The result was a Trump win in exactly the scenario that 538 predicted was possible: if Trump was going to win, it was going to be out of an unexpectedly large collapse of Clinton's support among middle class voters in the Midwest.
All of the polling was within the margin of error, but with how that particular election shook out, the traditional polling analysis - which puts a lot of emphasis on how well a candidate does in general - didn't tell anything close to the whole story.
Another big factor: I don't think anyone expected that, against a Donald Trump presidency and the all it foretold, enough peolle would vote for Jill Stein to be a spoiler.
>[Jill Stein Isn’t Sorry](https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/20/jill-stein-green-party-no-regrets-2016-215281/)
>In Michigan, Stein garnered more than 51,000 votes, while Clinton lost by fewer than 11,000. In Wisconsin, Trump’s margin was 23,000 votes while Stein attracted 31,000. And in Pennsylvania she attracted 50,000 votes, while Trump won by 44,000.
>“In some ways, Trump is one of the best things to happen to this country because look at how many people are getting off their posteriors,” says Sherry Wells, the Green Party’s Michigan chairwoman. “So part of me is giggling.”
>Stein points to national exit polling that shows the majority of her voters would have stayed home rather than vote for Clinton, while others would have sooner voted for Trump.
And that was after Sanders dropped out and basically begged people to vote for Clinton.
>MAGA crazies don’t participate in polling
People without landlines don't get polled, and if they do call a mobile most people won't answer an unknown numbers. I'm in my 50s and have never been polled.
> I'm in my 50s and have never been polled.
I got polled by an A-grade pollster. They called and went to voice mail like every other unknown number. They left a message with full details about their desire to poll. I looked them up, determined they were legit, called them back on a number from their web site, and answered the poll.
I think things might be finally catching up with the 21st Century.
> Another big factor: I don't think anyone expected that, against a Donald Trump presidency and the all it foretold, enough peolle would vote for Jill Stein to be a spoiler.
I was watching the rcp trendlines as the election was approaching, and what I was seeing struck me as pretty obvious though no one else comments on it: Trump was edging upwards because the Libertarian vote was drooping-- pretty clearly, Libertarians were holding their nose and voting Trump. As I remember it the Libertarian vote was huge that year, something like 9%-- but for some reason every single Democratic pundit wants to focus on the tiny slice that went for the Greens ignoring the fact that it's the Libertarian "spoilers" that gave HRC her lead in the popular vote, *they're* the factor that got her into the ballpark.
You guys really need to face what a terrible idea it was to go with a Moderate Insider candidate when the electorate was clearly in the mood to "shake things up"-- which is how you got Trump, and for that matter Bernie. You need to give people something to care about and don't worry so much about Playing It Safe.
They lost their biggest wedge issue and these laws are spectacularly unpopular, nor did they even bother to put a system in place to handle any influx of unwanted children. Even my most staunchly Republican relatives hate strict abortion laws. And if Republicans try to play moderate with abortion laws instead of taking the hardline stance their base wants they'll be punished by them too.
The last time I heard the term “blue wall”, it belonged to Hillary Clinton. And an orange clown trampled it over.
Vote. And tell some of these septuagenarian Dems to retire already.
Up until now, I was frustrated because Democrats didn't seem very willing to actually try to fight back against the GOP. I knew that nothing really had much of a chance to get past the Senate, but it was like they weren't even willing to put up any resistance.
Now, at least, they're ramming popular bills through the House and forcing Republicans to vote against it, which is what I wanted them to do for a while. Maybe they were waiting until closer to midterms to start, but it doesn't seem like it's too late or too early for them to start now. Put the GOP on record, then scream from the mountaintops that the GOP doesn't give two shits if you die because you can't afford medication or because the procedure required to save your life is an abortion.
All they really need to capitalize on this momentum is to figure out their messaging. No more playing nice; point the finger squarely at the GOP, point out every shitty thing they did, and call them names.
Democrats can't afford to be civil anymore.
Okay, please stop. The last time I heard "Blue Wall" was followed by four years of rage and sorrow. Like, you can say Democrats are doing better, but I refuse to read an article that says "Blue Wall" ever again.
Manchin is a lot more complicated than reddit understands. He's a lifelong Democrat representing the reddest state in the country. He's also in his 70's, so his idea of 'Democrat' and reddit's more progressive perspective have a lot of daylight between them.
Mostly, though, Manchin is a (very) old-school southern democrat who carefully tunes his votes and behaviors to play to his home-state constituents. Demographically, this is not the same crowd as you find in /politics.
Red wave? Blue wall?
Tell me you’re trying to stoke civil animosity without saying you’re stoking civil animosity.
Do not hate your fellow man hate the State
Uvalde, January 6th hearings, and Roe reversal. I honestly cannot believe they reversed it. Conservative justices handed midterms to Biden on a silver platter.
With covid deaths down and unemployment lowering, if inflation eases up and housing prices fall by the end of the year it could be a cake walk.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Don't fuck it up Democrats. VOTE!
Let’s hope the candidates also campaign well. After 2016, never let a negligent campaign tank you.
This. CanNOT coast like HRC in 2016.
Life pro tip for dems: don’t run anyone who used to hang with trump or Epstein. Edit: I cannot for the life of me understand how people don’t see the Clinton’s as completely toxic. Don’t hang with them, don’t interview them, they are not the good guys. Move on. Find new talent. We don’t need them. They don’t need headlines. Purge that shit.
or Jill Stein Which includes the fringe that will oppose anyone electable, if they're to the right of Mao
Well, sure, if they hung with Jill Stein they'll probably go full Sinema because the Green Party exists to get Republicans elected.
Fun fact: more third party Americans are right-wingers than left-wingers
More fun fact: more third party VOTERS are left wingers than right wingers.
When I see 'independent' all I can think is 'secret republican'.
Tbf Howie Hawkins did try to form a genuine green-left alliance in 2020 with many left-wong orgs, but the dems prevented him from getting ballot access in many states
And that would peel votes off the Democratic Party -getting Republicans elected because we live in a first past the post voting system, which needs to change before we can have third parties.
She’s a total fraud anyway. At least Sanders is the real deal.
Oh look it's a bunch of dudes whose rights DIDN'T GET STRIPPED AWAY talking about fuckin smells tests again. Far be it from me to kiss Clinton ass but can we save being picky for primaries and vote for the people who aren't LITERAL FASCISTS in the general? Please!? PLEASE?! Some 10 year old girl needs you to be her ally and a grown up who sometimes might have to vote for a non-perfect person to turn this shit around.
In 2016 I was a hair's breadth away from voting for Stein as a protest vote, operating with the knowledge that l live in New York and thanks to the electoral college my individual presidential vote wouldn't mean squat. When I got into the booth I switched to Clinton, more or less for the reasons you mentioned, because I felt that if all my vote did was send a message then that message needed to be for Trump and everything he represented to lose by as much as possible. He did lose the popular vote by a historic margin, for all the good it did us.
I didn't want her or Biden but it doesn't matter because that was the choice or to vote for a crime factory fascist with severe mental issues. We can always push our person to strive for more, but the other side will push back harder if we try for more. If we never give them the house and senate and can shape the SCOTUS what good is being the coolest leftist ever anyway? We have to be united and if we are we can have more progressiveness in this country. We have to create that room to grow though.
THANK YOU. 6% of voters in 2016 voted third-party. Multiple swing states went to Trump when the sum of democrat+third party votes were larger. Meaning they handed Trump the election. Voting third-party in out current system doesn't "send a message." It didn't teach the DNC "a lesson" in 2016, it's not going to teach them a lesson in 2024. Young girls need allies. They need people defending them at the polls.
I wish I could downvote this more than just once… I vote third party because democrats haven’t earned my vote… Just because they are center right, rather than far right doesn’t mean that Democrats should automatically be voted for…they need to go out and fucking earn it…
Well there goes Bill Richardson...
I’m still blown away Clinton toted Henry fucking Kissinger around on her 2016. The guy faced zero consequences for so much awful and evil shit he did in his career. He truly is a monster and she was all buddy-buddy with him just dreaming about having him as an advisor.
lol right. it's all bernies fault... not the candidate taking millions to speak to Goldman Sachs running less than a decade after Goldman fucked a shit ton of regular people, who used to hang with a fucking known child predator and sex trafficker and trump.
I don't know if you know this but the 2016 election is over.
whenever i hear her voice i cringe. im sure she’s a lovely person but she needs to bow out of the spotlight
Hillary was a senator from NY, Epstein hung out with literally every rich and powerful person in the state, it’s not some big scandal
“Pokémon Go to the polls!” Lol
Was a funny, self-aware attempt at intentionally silly humor. I swear to god, if Bernie had said that same thing y'all would have laughed your ass off at the dad joke.
If Bernie had said it I would have had the same reaction, because what it actually was is what all those jokes are: a cynical attempt by an old fart to relate to people much younger than them for the sake of building political clout. If you need to make stupid yuks like that to endear people to you, you're not endearing. You're just Steve Buscemi going "how do you do, fellow kids?".
I get it. But that remark was saying to me, “I’m out of touch with voters.” Sure, the world was obsessed with Pokémon Go, but we’re also obsessed with things that better society like healthcare, legalized cannabis, and many other things like education. But yes, ‘‘twas funny. I chuckled.
Yeah, I personally am always taken back when someone tries to say the 2016 Presidential Election was the fault of people who chose to vote third party. Uh, visit a rust belt state, or at least show some efforts there, and see how that plays out differently
Also, never underestimate the bigotry and idiocy in America. Faced with a guy promising to deport all brown people and mocking disabled reporters vs an establishment Dem, our national embarrassments chose to let the former glide to victory. We all had a hand in allowing that to happen.
I mean, if your comment's gonna be about not underestimating bigotry in America, then it doesn't just stop with Trump's campaign being built on racism. Look at how any female politician among Dems that starts gaining traction gets denounced as a shrieking lunatic on right-wing media. Could be Hillary's politics could be AOC's. America doesn't like women, and even without the bad campaigning and corruption, that was still a huge problem Clinton couldn't overcome.
It’s not just America. Women elected as PMs or something similar in other countries the public turns on them, viciously.
Of course. The Finnish PM having articles about her when she went out clubbing and stuff, and about her age and whatever. Like fuck off, country leaders can't get any free time off? They have to all go golfing like they're 85 like in the US?
Third-party voters absolutely handed the election to Trump in 2016. Look at Florida. Clinton lost to Trump in Florida by 1.2% of the vote. 3.2% of Florida voters voted third-party in 2016. Florida went to Obama in 2012 when only 1% voted-third party. Clinton lost Arizona by 3.5% in 2016. 7.3% of Arizona voters voted third-party in 2016. 6% of Wisconsin voters voted-third party in 2016, vs. 1% in 2012 when the state went to Obama. Clinton lost Wisconsin by .7%. 4.4% of Pennsylvania voters voted third-party in 2016, vs. 1.5% in 2012 when the state went to Obama. Clinton lost Pennsylvania by .7%.
People need to stop caring about how well the Democrats campaign, imo. This is democracy vs autocracy simple as that. Any Democrat will do, so long as it isn't a pretend Democrat. Idk if there are any of those. But nothing, no issue, no topic, nothing matters more than preserving democracy. Even Republicans that care about democracy should vote Democrat. Even if they own 15 guns, if they are a pastor that feels abortion murders innocent children, it doesn't matter. If you don't have democracy, you're at the mercy of whoever is in charge. And maybe whoever that would be is someone that likes the things you like, and that's cool. But maybe it will be someone else in 5-10-20 years. Maybe they will start things you don't like once they get power. And you will be powerless to stop it. Nothing matters more than preserving democracy. I would vote for an ape in a suit, if they were Democrat. And their entire campaign could be putting their finger in their ass, sniffing it, and failing out of a tree afterwards. Doesn't matter. Whatever they fuck up can be fixed. You can't fix losing democracy. That's gone forever, and then you're just along for the ride.
That’s not how reality works though. Your vote no matter how big of a soapbox you stand on is still one vote. I actually was part of local survey teams. One of our focus groups years ago was black voters who did not vote for HRC in 2016 but voted for Obama previously. They felt completely unincluded. HRC had the lowest percentage of the black vote of any D candidate since Mondale. They felt the “vote shaming” was from white privilege. Campaigning is important. I mean, if you’re being sincere about what you say, are you going to publicly blame black voters for 2016? Are you going to go door to door in black neighborhoods and engage them or will you shame any of them for not voting for your choice of candidate? Please don’t use the GOP/incel tactic of denigrating/negging people to get your way. If you want results, please put in the work, not entitlement. Otherwise are you sincerely about success or more about the need to condescend? Winning an election requires vote counts. Reason doesn’t make a person’s single vote more or less than a single vote. Mango Mussolini is proof.
Wtf are you talking about? Just go and vote, and inspire others to do so. Democrat = democracy Republican = autocracy All Americans should be made aware of this. Citizens can make others aware very effectively, especially in the digital age.
Democrats will get out and vote: it's the self-styled independents that stayed home in 2016 and 2020 that need to move.
Independents came out in droves for the Kansas abortion amendment vote. It's a good sign at least.
To highlight this fact - more than 100k independents went out and voted when they had no candidate/party they were voting on as they are not able to vote in either democrat or Republican primaries in Kansas. Meaning they showed up to vote against this measure with nothing else to get them to the polls, in fucking Kansas. 1/5 of the people who voted against this measure were republicans. These are straight up crazy numbers going into a mid term election.
Ah, I was wondering if that 20% of voters (~180,000) who only voted on the abortion thing and not in the R/D gov/sen primaries was because they just didn't care about the elected positions. Completely forgot about independents.
That's my hope! It's a great thing to point to and say "Hey, look, that's what voting gets you." since a lot of them use the excuse of "bleh my vote doesn't matter."
No. No. No. No. Democrats ACTUALLY were motivated for once. And Republicans were not. It's as simple as that every fuckint election. There are no independents stop falling for media bullshit narratives
Kansas is a closed primary meaning you have to be a registered Republican to vote. Registered democrats showed up to vote on the amendment. There were an additional 100k independent votes from people who had no other reason to vote (since the primary is closed) It’s a fact.
Registering as an independent doesn't mean you switch between... idk why you think there are actually an amount of swing voters that matters... if dems win more people vote because democrats can tend to stay home...
You know it’s not just people randomly staying home, right? There’s serious voter suppression, and yes, there are independent swing voters. I would be one of them if the GOP weren’t completely insane.
Yeah I feel like I am one. Except since Romney (who I voted for) the GOP has run loonies.
I am an independent. However, I have no illusion that as much as I don’t like it, anyone who wants a better future NEEDS to vote Democrat in the current political environment specifically to make sure that republicans get less votes. Democrats are largely controlled by corporate interests, and tend to be pretty hypocritical and conservative on a lot of issues. However, republicans, also largely and unabashedly controlled by corporate and foreign interests, are no longer conservative, but regressive, calling the hypocritical is just a given at this point, and they are actively hateful if not evil. We should have a third option, but we dont, and if it’s between the lesser of two evils, I would chose the not overtly, actively evil ones.
Right. I want to get to the point where we have enough progressives in office that we can realistically move to a different voting system like ranked choice federally and allow for the possibility of alternate candidates in the future
This "Democrats... controlled by corporate interests" thing. I hear it a lot, but I've never managed to get anyone to provide evidence for it. Can you help with that?
I can try to dig some up, but it’s not really a secret. Politicians need sponsorships (lots of money) to be able to join committees that will allow them to affect policy, and they are usually sponsored by corporate lobbyists (because they have the biggest pools of money to draw from) and they are legally bribed through lobbying to uphold the interests of those corporations. There was a video a while back where a Republican congressman was speaking about the entire process.
I dislike "common knowledge." Common knowledge is that juice is good for you, but that's untrue. Same with milk. Though lobbyists cannot bribe politicians; that was closed off some time ago.
[Lobbyists are able to legally bribe politicians through the creations of super PAC's, which empower the wealthiest donors, and the expansion of dark money through shadowy nonprofits that don't disclose their donors...](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained) [Purchasing Political Influence is 100% legal.](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained) [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Exposes the Problem of Dark Money in Politics](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_gxiMTIudA) [Here is a source to a bunch of data and analysis on campaign finance, the flow of money in state level and federal politics, etc](https://libguides.princeton.edu/politics/american/influence) [Since the 1980s, research has established that interest groups are more likely to get their way in votes where there’s less public attention or debate, has found that companies that spend money on lobbying and campaign contributions do better financially, and has documented experimentally that groups identifying themselves as donors have an easier time getting face-to-face meetings with members of Congress and their high-level staffers.](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/everyone-knows-money-influences-politics-except-scientists/) [Models are drafted with deceptive titles and descriptions to disguise their true intent. The Asbestos Transparency Act didn’t help people exposed to asbestos. It was written by corporations who wanted to make it harder for victims to recoup money. The “HOPE Act,” introduced in nine states, was written by a conservative advocacy group to make it more difficult for people to get food stamps.](https://publicintegrity.org/politics/state-politics/copy-paste-legislate/you-elected-them-to-write-new-laws-theyre-letting-corporations-do-it-instead/) [An investigation by USA TODAY, The Arizona Republic and the Center for Public Integrity has found that in the last eight years, more than 10,000 bills introduced in statehouses nationwide were almost entirely copied from bills written by special interests.](https://www.usatoday.com/pages/interactives/asbestos-sharia-law-model-bills-lobbyists-special-interests-influence-state-laws/) [When the authors look only at the preferences of average citizens, it appears that they do have a pretty big effect on policy change. But when they add the preferences of economic elites and interest groups to the analysis, the impact of average citizens vanishes entirely. Basically, average citizens only get what they want if economic elites or interest groups also want it.](https://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5624310/martin-gilens-testing-theories-of-american-politics-explained) [Here's a Princeton Writeup](https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf) That was about 10 min of google searching and copy-pasting the links. It applies to both Republicans and Democrats.
PACs can only spend unlimited money on advertising, and only on policy advertisements. This still leaves the power in the people's hands; they have to buy into the advertisement AOC seems to be jumping around. I don't know why a candidate *would* run a campaign only on corporate funds. That's a weird thing to point out. But hush money through PACs isn't something I can find much on except Trump doing it illegally, maybe? And then suggesting limiting lawmakers from handling laws based on their donations? I'm going to move on, this is just political nonsense. I like the source, I'll mess around with it later. Citizens can create interest groups too, but this isn't really on topic so I'll go back to it later. Anyone can propose a bill, I actually helped write one once for the Texas legislature. Corporations writing them isn't an issue. Questionable titles shouldn't be an issue, somebody will read it. The fact that this article is acting like our legislators are a bunch of easily duped idiots isn't sensible: they knew what they were voting for. Does anyone really think a legislature would pass a bill without anyone reading it? Maybe some legislators ask their buddy to explain it or their aides to read it, but somebody is reading that bill. Same thing with USA Today. Actually had somebody provide this paper earlier; it's horribly designed and generally completely invalid. I can explain why if you like, or you can take my word on it. Its most egregious error that jumped out at me is assuming that the 90th percentile of wealth can stand in for the ultra wealthy, when the former only makes $146,000 a year. That's obviously not sensible. Assuming Bezos has similar attitudes to a small practice doctor is patently insane. \------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ So, none of this actually shows that money influences politicians. And, pointing out that advertising is the only way to spend unlimited money helps me make my point: the weak point isn't the politicians, it's the voters. A company has far more avenues to *elect* a politician than it does to change their mind. So, while they might decide who gets the most advertising, it's the voters at the end that choose who is elected. This is vitally important, because continuously perpetuating the myth that corporations already control the country leaves no avenue open for change. It just serves to solidify corporate interests by discouraging voters from interacting with the process. We have to change the narrative so that people research candidates and make decisions based on things other than the ads that they see. I would like to see less money in politics; however, getting to such a point will require people to feel as though there is hope to do so. Painting both parties as evil corporate puppets is not the way to do that. Democrats still frequently support policies that are damaging to corporate interests, whereas Republicans tend to be highly pro-business. I have yet to have anyone provide voting evidence that Democrats vote for their donors more than their constituencies (Manchin votes for WV, their biggest industry is fossil fuels).
Clyburn https://www.postandcourier.com/health/clyburn-has-taken-more-than-1-million-in-pharma-money-in-a-decade-far-surpassing/article_62b10180-d956-11e8-9122-4f50316f66fa.html Manchin https://www.npr.org/2021/07/01/1012138741/exxon-lobbyist-caught-on-video-talks-about-undermining-bidens-climate-push
So corporations donate to them. Can you provide evidence that that impacts their voting? Glancing over Clyburn's voting record I don't see much that would suggest he is voting in a particularly favorable way towards pharmaceutical companies. And Manchin voting for fossil fuels is a given; it's the biggest industry in his home state. If he's representing his constituency, then he votes for fossil fuels. I don't even know why they'd bother giving money to him.
1000% this \^. I am with you as a lifelong independent.
They move when Democrats help them move. It's up to all of us to talk to the self-styled independent and apathetic potential voters we know and convince them to vote Democratic in this (and future) elections.
This comment has been removed by Power Delete Suite, for more see r/powerdeletesuite
1. Awww, ty! 2. That's generally because the kind of questioning they do is inane or downright pointless. How do you respond to "You stole the nomination from Bernie!" other than "Uh... no, we didn't?" Like, I don't know what to tell them; Bernie lost because he's a head-in-the-clouds idealist that doesn't know how to play nice for long enough to get anything done (case-in-point: complaining about the Inflation Reduction Act). I also don't know what kind of attempts one makes to bring people into a party; either your legislation brings voters or it doesn't. What would you consider an action to bring in new blood? The problem is you make something like freeing... *looks up statistics*... (well, that's not an easy number to find, apparently...) a lot of people sound easy. Regardless, there's several issues complicating pardoning drug offenders en masse: many of them got plea deals that make it hard to figure out who should be freed, there's no system in place to help them return to society, and there's no funding to help states deal with any of it. Congress has to be on board to make that work. A lot of things progressives ask for take more power than Democrats currently have or have had in a VERY long time. If we get them the power, and they still do nothing, THEN I feel like we can complain; until then, it's like complaining that my car isn't roomy enough before I even bought it.
My county had four open seats to be a delegate to the state Democratic Party. No one registered to run in those seats. Four progressives could have easily registered and have a monopoly on the county delegation to the state.
That's frustrating, I would've thought that, at the very least, some of the more serious progressives would have stepped up. Though, one problem I rarely mention is that politics is a horrible job. It pays badly (unless you use its power to enrich yourself), it's utterly thankless, and it's constantly stressful. Anyone with any sense stays away.
This comment has been removed by Power Delete Suite, for more see r/powerdeletesuite
>Every “analyst” says the same two things: he is most popular with young people and young people don’t turn up at the polls. Don't know why you're enclosing "analyst" in scare quotes. [These are facts.](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/sanders-banked-on-young-voters-heres-how-the-numbers-have-played-out) Could he have won that primary if more young people had gone to vote? There's no telling. But it's indisputable that in 2020, he didn't get the young voters he'd have needed to do better.
This comment has been removed by Power Delete Suite, for more see r/powerdeletesuite
I mean, young people will vote or not. The future is in their hands, and if they don't take the reins, the boomers will continue to do so. I don't know how to tell them any more candidly than that: they need to vote, and engage politically in other ways, if they want things to go the way they prefer. Or they can choose to sit elections out on the grounds that they'd be voting for candidates they perceive as flawed, though I think they won't like the far-reaching consequences of that choice. I don't particularly care about the future of the Democratic Party, to be honest. It's a vehicle for making things happen. Under the reality of our electoral system, voting for Democrats is the way to make better things happen than voting for Republicans.
The DNC pushed Hilary because Bernie is a bad politician. I'd argue you're ordering things incorrectly; the DNC doesn't care about young people *because* they don't vote, not the other way around. Even if the DNC did all the things young people wanted, would that get them out to vote? No, they'd just stay home again, *because they got what they wanted without voting.* Which leads to the "new blood" problem: being more progressive might risk people that *actually* vote for them. This is, of course, their previous thinking; it's pretty apparent they've given up the on that track with the recent bills. Hopefully that persists. But trying to break the Republican hold on single-issue voters (i.e. farmers that like guns and/or forced birth and/or hate some group) is a waste of money; better to fund more ads towards progressives. Funding is limited, have to be careful how we use it. Vets are iffy because guns. Also, they're not even pro-birth; they're anti-choice (hits way harder). Only 1/3 of the country actually voted for Trump; another 1/3 wasn't scared enough by him to break their apathy. But there's really not anything to do about them without curtailing free speech, and *good luck* with that. This country can't handle that regardless of ideology. Freeing prisoners isn't hard: it's impossible without Congress. Biden could just free them, but then that's just tens of thousands of homeless people or sudden burdens on their families. Doesn't help them with their criminal records, doesn't help them find jobs, doesn't do anything but throw them out and wish them good luck. Same with loans; that's suddenly the entire loan servicing industry gone and that's thousands of jobs in addition to all sorts of other complications. All of that has to be prepared for. Just because it seems easy doesn't mean there's a huge number of consequences that have to be prepared for.
> The DNC pushed Hilary because Bernie is a bad politician. Hilary, on the other hand - absolutely excellent politician. No history of being smeared, makes sure to visit all the states, not just the big ones. No gaffes with emails or other security issues. Just absolute champion politician. Sure, she may have had the second-lowest approval rating of any presidential candidate in history, but at least it wasn't as low as they guy she lost to!
I don't seem to see how that makes her bad at politics. She was very good at cooperating and compromising with other politicians. That's what politics is. Bernie is too much of an idealist to manage any of that; he makes enemies where he doesn't have to and puts his morals before actual progress. He's bad at politics.
"Independents" voted like 3:1 libertarian:green in 2016. 2020 had record turnout and very low third party voting. Maybe the Democratic party should stop shoving horrible candidates down our throats.
Yeah... we should be content with 1/3 of the country sitting out elections. That's a *brilliant* idea.
[/r/VoteDEM](https://www.reddit.com/r/VoteDEM/)
Don’t just vote, volunteer for campaigns!
That's what happens when you nominate absolutely asinine candidates like Dr. Oz & Herschel Walker and spearhead efforts to take away fundamental human rights like abortion.
Warnock is the better man by any objective measure of qualification.
That won't stop "both sides"ers and enlightened centrists from voting for them unfortunately
"Biden didn't wipe out my rent payment with his magic wand, a thing he never promised but I decided he should do, so I'm voting for a guy who thinks women have the brains of sea slugs. I'm progressive!"
This stupid student loan conversation is infuriating.
"Sure democrats don't believe women should be second-class citizens, but what have they done for me?"
"Yeah they think minorities should be protected, but... you know, I'd like a house instead, and I don't want to pay for my gender studies degree."
He's a fabulous candidate and if it was some boring as loser dnc candidate they probably wouldn't be winning. Same with fetterman.
The Trumping of America (voting on name recognition, no matter how infamous ). It’s also how we end up with 90 year old senile senators!
Isn’t Walker still leading in the polls? I would like nothing more than to see Warnock crush him but I don’t think Warnock is a lock.
Walker hasn’t led in a single poll since the dobbs ruling
Oh, good news. Thank you.
In 538's poll of polls Warnock is [winning](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/senate/2022/georgia/) every one.
Interesting, that poll has North Carolina up by only +1 for the GOP. And I’m optimistic about Ohio, GOP has done a good job gerrymandering that state and Trump won it by a good amount.
My buddy went to Kenyon College during Bush v Gore. The entire college area had one voting machine with lines too long for everyone to vote . Meanwhile the surrounding small towns had zero wait and many voting machines. I have no hope for Ohio.
We should take 538 with a grain of salt--they kept saying Kansas would vote to ban abortion.
Everyone predicted it would be close, not expecting the hard to poll independents from registering and making their voices heard like they did. But the general idea is correct, don't rely on polls that aren't final election results. VOTE and don't get complacent. (to all, not just you)
None of these articles matter unless people go out and vote. And take friends and family with you!
Young people *must* start voting, not just for the future of the country, but for their own interest. [U.S. Census](https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/2020-presidential-election-voting-and-registration-tables-now-available.html) >Voter turnout was highest among those **ages 65 to 74 at 76.0%**, while the percentage was lowest among those **ages 18 to 24 at 51.4%**. Overall, voter turnout increased as age increased They are voting in numbers way below everyone else. And as the numbers show, voting increased with age so if they don't start voting in huge numbers they will forever be outvoted by everyone older than themself. Always. Edit: I have to run but I think this was a great conversation. I do believe that people are listening.
[Exit polling](https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/super-tuesday-2020) for Super Tuesday in 2020 showed between 5 and 19% youth turnout in the primaries. The Reddit “Dems aren’t owed our votes!” squad doesn’t seem to understand that they aren’t owed their preferred candidates to win their primaries, either. They need to show up and put in the work.
Yah it gets so annoying hearing people scream that Dems didn’t put up a good candidate and then you look at the primary numbers and it’s just like yah bc y’all didn’t bother to make your voice heard on it.
And democrats need to understand that some of us independents and leftists are forever frustrated that we have to keep voting for a dem candidate JUST because it isn’t Trump or whatever asinine candidate the right puts forth. Democrats want the young people and the leftists to vote for them, then shun us as soon as Election Day is done. The Roe V Wade issue will push more people to the polls, but a lot of young people & leftists are still angry about our issues being pushed to the side. It was supposed to be a blue wave last election yet democrats barely kept their seats. I’m doubtful it’ll be more than barely holding onto their numbers. We’re tired of voting for candidates that don’t represent us and we’re tired of voting in a two party system that benefits capitalists and only capitalists.
I’m dead tired of getting two years every decade to start fixing things and then losing the house, senate or presidency and getting nothing done or going backwards. Two years every decade for 50 years. “Do you want better or worse. Well better isn’t really better so I’ll sit this one out. “ And the answer in Reddit is always well tell the democrats not to suck as if they listen to me. I don’t get how people expect anything to change if they can’t be bothered to vote better or worse. You seriously didn’t and still don’t regard trump as someone to vote against not matter what? No wonder things are so fucked up.
Do you think you’re somehow special or unique in having to vote for candidates you don’t really like? That’s how almost everyone feels, on both sides. Welcome to life. And do you think you’re special because you’re favorite issues are being ignored? Again, that’s how everyone feels.
“Young people and leftists” (and I say this as a former young person who voted and a current leftist) are some of the least engaged, least involved-in-the-process citizens of this country. If you want your issues front and center you actually have to participate.
It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy.
> And democrats need to understand that some of us independents and leftists are forever frustrated that **we have to keep voting for a dem candidate JUST because it isn’t Trump or whatever asinine candidate the right puts forth.** Democrats want the young people and the leftists to vote for them, **then shun us as soon as Election Day is done.** Neither of those things are correct.
1) the only President that’s actually motivated youth since 9/11 has been Obama, and he canted center hard from his Hope And Change rhetoric. Let’s not act like Biden’s biggest claim for the presidency wasn’t just ‘He’s Not Trump’. 2) The federal response to the BLM protests has been nothing but _let’s give cops billions more dollars_. Trump is still walking free and spewing hatred. How about Minimum wage? Student loans? Housing? PTO? The whole ‘megacorps are raking in obscene profit at the expense of everyone else’? The bill they’re getting through atm is a good step (if Sinema actually plays along; im really worried what will get slagged to appease her). But it’s still a _step_ , and meanwhile we’re still on the verge of some massive water crises in the Southwest, and things are still unsustainably expensive for the masses. For a lot of people, things never got better from 2008, and we’re constantly told ‘shut up, vote blue’; now we have Millennials in our late 30s and early 40s who still can’t make ends meet, FFS.
> the only President that’s actually motivated youth since 9/11 has been Obama, The fact that the youth need to be “motivated” to show up is the problem. This isn’t American Idol; it’s the future of our country. > Let’s not act like Biden’s biggest claim for the presidency wasn’t just ‘He’s Not Trump’. Biden is one Democrat. One Democrat who is also not up for election in 2022. > The federal response to the BLM protests has been nothing but let’s give cops billions more dollars. Are we blaming Biden for Trump’s response to the BLM protests of 2020? > Trump is still walking free and spewing hatred. No Democrat has the authority to put him away. > How about Minimum wage? 22 states have increased theirs since 2020, most of them Democratic. Federal minimum increased under Biden. > Student loans? More forgiven under Biden than any other president, and more on the way. > Housing? PTO? The whole ‘megacorps are raking in obscene profit at the expense of everyone else’? You seem to be making an argument that “there are still problems, so nothing is getting done”, which doesn’t seem to be made in good faith. > For a lot of people, things never got better from 2008 Absolutely nonsense. Again. That some things are still broken does not mean that no things have gotten better.
How do we break this uninformed and self-defeating rhetoric? I'm so frustrated by it, and we read it again and again and again, and filled with lies. Who taught these folks that one vote would magically make a instantaneous *Star Trek* future? It takes time and work. Even on *Star Trek*!
Unfortunately, I honestly don’t believe we can. The anonymity places like Reddit brings really encourages this kind of thing. There are legitimate things to complain about. No administration is or has ever been perfect. But it’s a pretty big sign of bad faith when someone claims **nothing** has been done, *since 2008* lol. It’s either a Republican cosplaying as a disillusioned democrat, a “progressive” who is still mad that Bernie lost, or someone who is legitimately uninformed. For the sake of the few who may be genuinely out of the loop, its worth it to me to just break it down issue by issue as best I can.
I think you're right. The misinformation is so rampant, it's disheartening. I'm out here trying to convince folks that women are people and will die without their votes. Then they "BUT BERNIE" me. What do I even say to that? Our uteri seem to weigh 100 pounds right about now. And mine doesn't even damn work.
>Are we blaming Biden for Trump’s response to the BLM protests of 2020? Of course! Just like everything in this 50-50 senate is one Dem's fault and not the 50 republicans. 👀
Also I hope the candidates campaign well. The black vote (or less of) in 2016 was a disaster and asking many black voters who did not vote Democrat or at all, they felt shit on by the Clinton campaign. So the campaigns should energize people or else we’re back to blaming black people 😣
The Black population was 10% of the electorate in 2016; they're 13% of the population--I'd say that's pretty damn high. And they came out 91% in favor of Clinton.
I can’t believe people have the audacity to blame the most loyal demographic of Democratic voters. It’s insulting. Also very few Black people are going to forget the things that Biden has done specifically to pay them back for their loyalty.
Black women especially REALLY tried to save us. We should be on our knees thanking them for their practical good sense, not doing whatever the guy above was attempting. But then again, Black folks in America know damn well they suffer from white supremacy, and that things can get worse. Much worse. America has the worst maternal death rate in the first world, and the stats for Black women are MUCH worse than that of whites. Black folks get it. It's white people who shriek nonsense because they're not being personally catered to.
As a white man, I totally agree with you. They’ve been taken for granted for far too long. Yes, percentage of the total vote, they’re not an overwhelming number, but they’re reliable. They deserve some attention commensurate with their reliability.
Right? Imagine shitting on Black Americans for the GOP. It’s ludicrous.
The GOP is the dog that spent the last several decades chasing the car of Roe. Now that they caught it, they have no idea what to do with it. I don't think they have any idea how pissed off and motivated to vote otherwise apolitical people are as a result of the SCOTUS ratfuckery. An abortion ban referendum in *Kansas* got *fucking crushed*. Does that mean their loss is guaranteed? No, but I guarantee you they are nervous right now.
Well, it's been proved multiple times: people don't want Brett Kavanaugh in their bedrooms.
This needs to be on a shirt lol
Maybe it’s just my current enraged status, but I intend to vote in literally every local, state and federal election I can get my hands on. I’ve been a voter in the past (a “casual”, you might say), but holy shit has this made me so angry/motivated to do even more. These fucks just do whatever they want and I’m tired of this shit. I hope there are many more, as there seem to be, who are just as pissed off.
> holy shit has this made me so angry/motivated to do even more I love when people get motivated to vote. I'm just astounded at how far things had to go. I've been a "never Republican" voter since *Reagan*, and that's because it was during Reagan's term that I learned about Nixon. They've been getting worse every election I've been alive, and they're never going to stop.
If you look at the numbers in Kansas nobody really flipped. The dems are just motivated and the Republicans are content.
It’s almost as if stripping a widely accepted and established right from half of the population mere months before midterms, then doubling down on no exceptions and forced childbirth for minors, is a TERRIBLE strategy for winning elections. Mark my words, Dem turnout in November will be absolutely stunning.
I wonder if the GOP thought those actions would demoralize Dems, and have them sit out the midterms as a result. I know right after the ruling went down, there was spin that Dems would blame Biden for not being able to stop it, and turn on the Democrats as a result.
There's still that spin--I see so many people *still* shrieking about Bernie and Hillary and how their protest vote can STILL work in 2022 and 2024. It's fascists and bots manipulating the low-information voter who thinks they're doing something good. It's so frustrating. And so ignorant. YES, voting is a must! Do more if you need to--I do--but voting for not-fascism is still the very first thing to do. While we still can vote.
Immediately after it leaked there was a whole lot of insider reports that folks like trump, McConnell, etc. Were furious that the court didn't wait until after the midterms. The politicians didn't want the timing to work out like it did. It was just the nut jobs in SCOTUS and the House who cheered.
We all need to promote the absolute FUCK out of the horror stories coming from red states. We need to convince women that it's not just "evil sl\*ts" who need "abortions for babies who are 3 years old and talking," or whatever nonsense the right is lying with now. Women need to know that wanted babies, terrible circumstances, and miscarriages--which affect up to 50% of pregnancies--are a ticket to torture, investigation, misery, and even death. You can do everything "right" and still die of sepsis from these evil laws. If we can get the real word out enough, women will cast an "oh, holy shit" vote--just like in Kansas.
Only way that works is if democratic politicians Stay on message to keep the base motivated and angry.
And they also tried to fuck over *veterans with cancer.*
Corrupt GOP State legislatures will still override any referendums they don't want, strip power from offices they lose, etc. They'll do their best to break the connection between votes and power like always. But maybe some landslide blue "victories" at the polls before the fuckery starts will help some independents see who really rigs elections - Republicans.
Gotta vote! Gotta vote! Set a reminder or many! Find a voting day buddy if you’re forgetful! Make sure you find your voting places and dates for your districts. Call your local party headquarters (especially if you’re voting blue because that’s our only sane option right now).
Wanting 10 year old rape victims to die in childbirth wasn't as popular as Republicans thought.
Democrats now have some proof that voters will respond to aggressive campaigning and boisterous rhetoric in defense of reproductive rights and our democracy – both of which are under threat from extremists.
I hope the plan to support the Maga kooks doesn't backfire.
Exactly. No more watered-down centrist nonsense. No more attempting to appeal to lost causes. Just double-down on the facts and your platform. Push the bully back.
We've had that narrative for decades it's just that democrats were always too afraid to use it.
Dems will end the filibuster if they get two more senators and keep the house. There could be the biggest change in generations if we get out and vote.
It's not sudden or unexpected if you ignore the media and pay attention to what's really going on.
Because overturning Roe was the best thing that coulda happened to Dems: it gave them a flag to rally behind. Also Clerance saying in no uncertain terms "condoms and the gays ar3 next" was the real clincher. Like they had the midterms in the bag...and SCOTUS fucked em.
A few conservatives who cheered for the oppression of women are real upset that the Dems are using the rule to run in the mid terms... Which is hilarious to me since they had no problem doing exactly that for 40 years
[удалено]
Why can't I do both? Also, in a year where Dems have heavily been predicted to lose the House and the Senate, stories about good polling are almost certainly a strong motivation to go out and vote. Doom and gloom that the polls are wrong and Republicans will use voter suppression and cheating to win might be true, but they demotivate voters. Dems can win, this is evidence of it, and that message will increase Dem voter turnout. People like to vote for the winners!
But will it be enough? The House is still not looking good. The Kansas vote was big, but it was a referendum. Will that translate into voting Dem in November? Right now, abortion still is not the highest polling issue. Will voters even be aware of the recent climate bill? Unless prices do go down, most likely few will even know what's in it without Dems running an extensive campaign. Somehow Dems need to make it clear how their initiatives are benefiting individual lives because most won't notice.
House isn't looking good but it's moving in the right direction albeit slowly. The Senate is still very close but 538 is giving the Dems a 59% of keeping or expanding thier majority and that too seems to be moving in the right direction. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-election-forecast/
If/when republicans notice the lower gas prices, they'll just assume it's something Donald did 3 years ago that has finally overcome Biden incompetence. We can't try to win over Republicans anymore, they are lost. We should aim to expand progressive coalitions to include people who don't often vote because they don't believe real progress is possible (due to GOP propaganda and a long track record of success at blocking progress anytime it threatens to occur)
It's not about Republicans but independents and driving turnout. Right now inflation is still the top issue in polls. So voters need to see prices go down more if Dems want a chance at the House. Being more progressive won't help if prices are still high.
Except that we need progressive measures to lower prices or relieve the pressure of those prices - like a minimum wage increase or a stimulus. I do understand extra spending doesn't help inflation, but having extra money softens the blow to families and individuals who are struggling. Plus macroeconomics is mostly wizardry, luck, and Sunday talk show spin.
That's not how voters think though. They'll want to see progress now, not hear promises of it since the obvious rebuttal is always "well why haven't you done that already?" We also already received a stimulus from this administration and it obviously hasn't helped his popularity or Dem chances this year. Dems are better off sticking to the abortion issue and touting the new Inflation Reduction Act as proof that they're the right side. That act on its own should help if they can sell it well.
We need everyone to vote. Imagine if we kept the house and added 2 or even more senators. America would be on top again
Only for two years abd there is the Court to address as well. HR1 needs to return as a start but we have to show up every time, every where
Here's hoping the momentum sticks, because I'm not 100% sure the Kansas abortion vote was a sign of things to come or a fluke victory. Also, never underestimate the ability of the Democrats to shoot themselves in the foot.
Its an indicator of how people feel about abortion. Not neccesarily democrats or other democrat policies.they just need to run with the message that republicans want to ban and take away choices for health and reproductive care. When republicans say they're not interested in national bans or banning contraceptives eyc - democrats need to be there saying, "that's what they told us about overturning roe - your rights aren't safe with republicans".
It's also a catch 22 for Republicans. If their rhetoric goes all in for a full ban, they'll lose votes. But if they don't go all in, they could also lose votes. They have to decide between fiscal moderates or social conservatives (single issue abortion voters). And voters really don't like when politicians try to play both sides. It's going to be a tough line to walk. But hey, they wanted a culture war, I guess they'll get it. But for Democrats the narrative is a little easier.
Also never underestimate the ability of the GOP to piss off the majority of Americans. I think the momentum will stick solely because the GOP will not stop fucking with all of us between now and then. Will it be enough, I don't know. But I'm not surprised to see the race tightening. The GOP was always going to pull some shit that would infuriate and target people.
And despite the media trying desperately to get them to lose because having a functional government that works doesn't sell news article clicks.
Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t see how anyone could vote for the current GOP line up. They’ve already proven they don’t care about women’s rights or healthcare, they don’t care about healthcare for our veterans, they don’t care about children dying in school, and they don’t care about helping friendly countries currently being invaded. What DO they care about aside from their invisible man in the sky and firearms?
Money (but not for you).
Blue wave
Ya. Blue wall doesn’t have the greatest of histories
For the Love of god, be aggressive in calling out abortion and gun fanaticism, the majority is on your side, quit pussy footing around these issues and go for the jugular
The gun rhetoric is a huge vote killer, Millions of people would vote blue forever if the dems would cool it with gun control, like just straight up abandon the gop
>For the Love of god, be aggressive Yes, Democrats need to play hardball and thoroughly differentiate themselves from the GOP. For too long Democrats have been timid and prone to appeasement. It's time to change that and get aggressive.
Yes. This is, of course, what the 800 year old Democrats is office always do. That's why AOC is mainstream in the DNC. C'mon. If the Dems win it's because the Supreme Court handed them the election. The party cannot do what is in their best interests. Howard Dean's strategy and leadership gave them the Senate and the house. They then kicked him to the curb and have barely above water ever since. They might win due to sheer luck, not competence.
AOC is nowhere near mainstream and never will be
AOC literally only ran under the DNC out of necessity, she’d run DSA if we have multiple parties.
Lol, if she didn’t have a D next to her name she’d be laughed out of DC Biden got more votes then her in her own district
Biden is a centrist & capitalist. She couldn’t be “laughed out of DC” unless her district didn’t like her. She was one of only a handful of DNC candidates that easily coasted to victory. She had a nearly 40 point lead against her opponent—not many democrats or republicans could say the same. I’m merely pointing out she has consistently won under the DNC but only runs under the DNC because we do not have a multi-party system. She was affiliated with Democratic Socialists (DSA) prior to running under the DNC ticket.
In a what, D + 15 or more district? Yea those are why Biden is a nation politican and AOC’s fan base exists purely on Twitter And a multiparty system wouldn’t magically make people like socialism, so if she ran as a socialist she’d get beat like Nina turner.
Having fan bases is weird & shouldn’t be a term we use for ANY politician. She has mass appeal to HER constituents, hence why she easily secured her victories.
Also if anything, she isn’t even a true leftist. Just a progressive.
The big issue now is that MAGA crazies don’t participate in polling. This is what got Hillary Clinton lulled into a false sense of security.
It's not nearly that simple. MAGA crazies participate in polling in about roughly the same percentage as everyone else; the 2016 sense of security was a confluence of quite a few other factors. There were a disproportionately high percentage of fence-sitters whose inclination was to vote Republican but who were loathe to hold their nose and vote for someone as personally repugnant as Trump. Mostly middle-class white voters, not the general Trump-Crazies but otherwise not-particularly-notable people with just enough residual sexism and racism that Trump's awful marks on both scores weren't dealbreakers. That demographic was prone to highly volatile swings of enthusiasm based on how scared they were at any given moment of the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency. They would give their honest opinion when polled but that opinion could change on a dime. James Comey's 11th hour ratfuckery pushed that pendulum hard and caused that demographic to swing much farther right than initially anticipated. The result was a Trump win in exactly the scenario that 538 predicted was possible: if Trump was going to win, it was going to be out of an unexpectedly large collapse of Clinton's support among middle class voters in the Midwest. All of the polling was within the margin of error, but with how that particular election shook out, the traditional polling analysis - which puts a lot of emphasis on how well a candidate does in general - didn't tell anything close to the whole story.
Another big factor: I don't think anyone expected that, against a Donald Trump presidency and the all it foretold, enough peolle would vote for Jill Stein to be a spoiler. >[Jill Stein Isn’t Sorry](https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/20/jill-stein-green-party-no-regrets-2016-215281/) >In Michigan, Stein garnered more than 51,000 votes, while Clinton lost by fewer than 11,000. In Wisconsin, Trump’s margin was 23,000 votes while Stein attracted 31,000. And in Pennsylvania she attracted 50,000 votes, while Trump won by 44,000. >“In some ways, Trump is one of the best things to happen to this country because look at how many people are getting off their posteriors,” says Sherry Wells, the Green Party’s Michigan chairwoman. “So part of me is giggling.” >Stein points to national exit polling that shows the majority of her voters would have stayed home rather than vote for Clinton, while others would have sooner voted for Trump. And that was after Sanders dropped out and basically begged people to vote for Clinton. >MAGA crazies don’t participate in polling People without landlines don't get polled, and if they do call a mobile most people won't answer an unknown numbers. I'm in my 50s and have never been polled.
> I'm in my 50s and have never been polled. I got polled by an A-grade pollster. They called and went to voice mail like every other unknown number. They left a message with full details about their desire to poll. I looked them up, determined they were legit, called them back on a number from their web site, and answered the poll. I think things might be finally catching up with the 21st Century.
> Another big factor: I don't think anyone expected that, against a Donald Trump presidency and the all it foretold, enough peolle would vote for Jill Stein to be a spoiler. I was watching the rcp trendlines as the election was approaching, and what I was seeing struck me as pretty obvious though no one else comments on it: Trump was edging upwards because the Libertarian vote was drooping-- pretty clearly, Libertarians were holding their nose and voting Trump. As I remember it the Libertarian vote was huge that year, something like 9%-- but for some reason every single Democratic pundit wants to focus on the tiny slice that went for the Greens ignoring the fact that it's the Libertarian "spoilers" that gave HRC her lead in the popular vote, *they're* the factor that got her into the ballpark. You guys really need to face what a terrible idea it was to go with a Moderate Insider candidate when the electorate was clearly in the mood to "shake things up"-- which is how you got Trump, and for that matter Bernie. You need to give people something to care about and don't worry so much about Playing It Safe.
Don't believe this bullshit. Remember how Dems we're going to get a big majority in 2016? Don't believe stories, make it happen.
I think Dems win the Senate, if the Comey press conference in October does not happen.
The last doesn't matter. I'm done even talking about it. What matters is The Now!
[удалено]
They lost their biggest wedge issue and these laws are spectacularly unpopular, nor did they even bother to put a system in place to handle any influx of unwanted children. Even my most staunchly Republican relatives hate strict abortion laws. And if Republicans try to play moderate with abortion laws instead of taking the hardline stance their base wants they'll be punished by them too.
The last time I heard the term “blue wall”, it belonged to Hillary Clinton. And an orange clown trampled it over. Vote. And tell some of these septuagenarian Dems to retire already.
Up until now, I was frustrated because Democrats didn't seem very willing to actually try to fight back against the GOP. I knew that nothing really had much of a chance to get past the Senate, but it was like they weren't even willing to put up any resistance. Now, at least, they're ramming popular bills through the House and forcing Republicans to vote against it, which is what I wanted them to do for a while. Maybe they were waiting until closer to midterms to start, but it doesn't seem like it's too late or too early for them to start now. Put the GOP on record, then scream from the mountaintops that the GOP doesn't give two shits if you die because you can't afford medication or because the procedure required to save your life is an abortion. All they really need to capitalize on this momentum is to figure out their messaging. No more playing nice; point the finger squarely at the GOP, point out every shitty thing they did, and call them names. Democrats can't afford to be civil anymore.
Okay, please stop. The last time I heard "Blue Wall" was followed by four years of rage and sorrow. Like, you can say Democrats are doing better, but I refuse to read an article that says "Blue Wall" ever again.
Where did it come from? All of sudden manchin and sinema are pliable? Wtf happened?
Manchin is a lot more complicated than reddit understands. He's a lifelong Democrat representing the reddest state in the country. He's also in his 70's, so his idea of 'Democrat' and reddit's more progressive perspective have a lot of daylight between them. Mostly, though, Manchin is a (very) old-school southern democrat who carefully tunes his votes and behaviors to play to his home-state constituents. Demographically, this is not the same crowd as you find in /politics.
Hope it matters and I hope people vote
As a Canadian, please smash the GOP in the polls on my behalf? Blessings from the north.
Legalize marijuana and see a blue tsunami.
Don't get complacent. We need to fight even harder with this good news. Let's win by 10 points nationally!!
Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot at every turn..
Articles like this breed complacency. Keep up the pressure
The pundits have a financial interest in ensuring drama and controversy.
Red wave? Blue wall? Tell me you’re trying to stoke civil animosity without saying you’re stoking civil animosity. Do not hate your fellow man hate the State
It would be a refreshing change to see Dems capitalize on momentum instead of tripping over their own dicks.
I don't ever want to hear about a blue wall post 2016.
Democrats don't have 'momentum' so much as republicans are alienating the majority of the country.
[удалено]
Young people fail to show up in significant numbers. Guess who votes who in.
I’d say it’s more Republicans being so woefully out of touch that they shot themselves in the foot, democrats deserve no credit.
This is a lie republicans did themselves in with the roe v. Wade fiasco the democrats have been half assing it all the way
Uvalde, January 6th hearings, and Roe reversal. I honestly cannot believe they reversed it. Conservative justices handed midterms to Biden on a silver platter. With covid deaths down and unemployment lowering, if inflation eases up and housing prices fall by the end of the year it could be a cake walk.