this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2023
532 points (95.7% liked)

politics

19103 readers
3553 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary:

Democrats are becoming increasingly concerned about a possible drop in Black voter turnout for the 2024 presidential election, according to party insiders. The worries arise from a 10% decrease in Black voter turnout in the 2022 midterms compared to 2018, a more substantial decline than any other racial or ethnic group, as per a Washington Post analysis. The decline was particularly significant among younger and male Black voters in crucial states like Georgia, where Democrats aim to mobilize Black voter support for President Biden in 2024.

The Democratic party has acknowledged the need to bolster their outreach efforts to this demographic. W. Mondale Robinson, founder of the Black Male Voter Project, highlighted the need for Democrats to refocus their attention on Black male voters, who have shown lower levels of engagement. In response, Biden's team has pledged to communicate more effectively about the benefits that the Black community has reaped under Biden's administration, according to Cedric L. Richmond, a senior advisor at the Democratic National Committee.

However, Black voter advocates have identified deep-seated issues affecting Black voter turnout. Many Black men reportedly feel detached from the political process and uninspired by both parties' policies. Terrance Woodbury, CEO of HIT Strategies, a polling firm, suggests that the Democratic party's focus on countering Trump and Republican extremism doesn't motivate younger Black men as much as arguments focused on policy benefits. Concerns are growing within the party that if they fail to address these issues, disenchanted Black voters might either abstain or, potentially, be swayed by Republican messaging on certain key issues.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] RagingNerdoholic@lemmy.ca 18 points 1 year ago (3 children)

First of all, I don't even understand the mindset of someone who doesn't vote. So you don't really like any of the candidates, so what? Vote for the least worst option or the actual worst option could win (see: 2016).

Second, to be fair, any party could try running someone who's less than a million years old. American politics are so bizarre this way. Canada's current PM was 43 when he was elected and still more than 30 years younger than America's current president. Parliament is populated largely by middle agers and a few younger members, whereas congress is a sea of bald and gray, pockmarked by a small handful of 40 somethings? Shit is ridiculous.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Privilege.

Not them tho, you. Your privilege is why you can't understand it.

Some people have to wait 8 hours in line while taking a day off work without pay. All for someone whose not going to actually help them. Their choice is "things get obviously worse for me" and "things get worse for me, but slower and no one talks about it".

We could try actually following thru with campaign promises and helping them, but for some reason we dont. Once elected all the Dem presidents in the last 3-4 decades immediately start telling us their campaign promises are obviously impossible so they're just not going to really try.

Even Obamacare was just Mitt Romney's plan by the time it happened.

Personally tho, it takes less than an hour for me to vote and I get a paid half day from work to do so. So I always vote.

That doesn't mean I assume it's as easy for everyone else

[–] tidy_frog@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Privilege.

Not them tho, you. Your privilege is why you can't understand it.

Are you determined to not have allies of any kind?

I get that your state is fucked, but as a resident of one of the other 49 states, my options to help are limited as long as we lack one of the the chambers of Congress since the gop is literally the problem here.

We could try actually following thru with campaign promises and helping them, but for some reason we dont.

That would be because we don't have control of the House. It's difficult to get work done when the side in control of the button that stops everything from working sits on the fucking button while shrieking racist epitaphs at the top of their lungs.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Isn't "things get worse slower" better than "things get worse right away?" What happened to pragmatism? If things get worse slower, there's a chance to stop them in the future.

[–] Iteria@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

In a lot of areas voting isn't easy. It's something you have to work to do. Why stand in the freezing November air worried you're gonna be late for work and lose your job if you're not excited? Why do it in the morning? Because maybe you're me in your 20s and don't have a car and you can actually make it to when the polls open in the morning but not the evening with how the schedules run.

Why go up to the election office and force them to take your mail in ballet after it was rejected twice because your signature "didn't match" if you're not excited?

Why finagle a time in your day when you can stand in the cold for an hour without your baby if you're not excited?

Why stand until you want to literally because the line was way longer than you thought it was and you didn't bring a chair this time if you're not excited?

All this happened to me over the course of me voting in my adult life. This doesn't count how voting locations constantly move on me for reasons unknown. It's not that the voting location moved. For some reason I was just assigned a different location. The times where I've been given the run around about where I should vote. The times where I tried to vote, but whoops all the machines are broken and I decided that I didn't want to wait for a repair which could take hours.

Voting is hard. It can be a breezy affair, but I've never experienced that in presidential elections or midterms, only really in special state elections or pure local elections. The system is definitely rigged against you and you have to ask yourself if it's worth fighting. Is denying my kid's time with me worth this? Is enduring this strain on my body worth this? Is the mental energy when I'm tired from work worth this? I get what you'd say no even if I always say yes

[–] RagingNerdoholic@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago

Oh yeah, that's another thing. For something that's supposed to be a sacred right, voting is made absurdly difficult in the US.

In Canada, employers are legally obligated give up to three hours PTO to vote. There are usually two or three advance polls if election day doesn't work for you. Every podunk town in the country has a polling station setup. Basically every form of ID imaginable is accepted. You can register to vote by mail online weeks before an election, receive your ballot and return it in the included prepaid envelope.

Elections Canada bends over backwards to give everyone the opportunity to vote. But it's like America doesn't actually want people to vote at all.

[–] Nougat@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Pretty sure that every state (with maybe a handful of exceptions?) provides for required unpaid time off work to vote. There's also lots of places that have early voting, for weeks ahead of an election, with early and late hours. Mail-in voting has expanded dramatically since Covid.

But I get it. There are also lots of places in the country where voting is hard, and there's a very clear reason why. The more people who vote, the more likely that a Democrat will win and a Republican will lose. It is always Republicans who want to make voting harder, and it is always Democrats who want to make voting easier.

You want it to be easy to vote, so you don't have to be as excited about voting? Go vote for the people who want to make it easy to vote, and stop voting for people who want to make it hard to vote. If nothing else, get excited about making it easier to vote.

[–] Zaktor@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

For a lot of people "unpaid time off" isn't a favor. You're asking them to pay to vote.

Plus the rules frequently only come into play if their work shift makes it literally impossible to make it to the polls. If they could wake up from their third shift job to get in line as polls open before making it to their other job at 7:45 sharp, then no time off for you. If you need to get your kids to school during that time slot? Too bad, that's time you could technically be voting, so it's not your employer's responsibility.

[–] Nougat@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

I didn't say it was perfect, certainly not everywhere. I was trying to point out that it's easier to vote in some places than in others, sometimes dramatically. And that it's really simple to know who's responsible for making it easier or harder.

[–] tidy_frog@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

For a lot of people "unpaid time off" isn't a favor. You're asking them to pay to vote.

Sorry, but voting is a civic duty.

Not a pastime.

Not a hobby.

Not a privilege.

A duty.

Republicans win when you don't vote, and they get you to not vote by making it difficult, if not dangerous.

Just remember, not voting will only ever make things worse.

I cannot vote for you.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

When someone has three kids and lives paycheck-to-paycheck, asking them to sacrifice pay to vote is not justified. You're saying, "vote or feed your kids, pick one."

[–] tidy_frog@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I'm not saying that you should let your kids starve. I'm saying that this situation has been engineered on purpose, and that it perpetuates itself by design.

If I could, I would stand in line for you. I can afford it.

But I can't. Legally, I can't.

[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

That sounds a whole lot like lesser evil bullshit. There is no lesser evil, only ever expanding, ever growing evil.

[–] DarkGamer@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What you're advocating for helps the greater evil, bud.

[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The greater evil is doing the same thing over and over again as things get worse while expecting different results. The current state of the GOP is directly related to Bill Clinton's Southern Strategy

[–] hihusio@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)
[–] Drusas@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You are very opinionated for someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.

[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago

I know exactly what I'm talking about liberals not paying attention to their own party politics is the problem

[–] hihusio@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

can you paraphrase and explain what this means and it's relevancy here?

[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Bill Clinton helped start the DNC shift to the right by appealing directly to southern Dixiecrats. And the Overton window has been moving to the right since

[–] hihusio@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

that's not historically accurate at all. he shifted to the right as a neoliberal, but he had nothing to do with dixiecrats nor the southern strategy. that happened 3 decades before him.

[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Clinton had his own southern strategy exactly like Nixon did, shift the party far enough to the right to lure in the Dixiecrats back into the party

[–] hihusio@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago
[–] osarusan@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you have to choose between two evils, and you don't choose the lesser one, then you are an absolute knobhead.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Of course there are lesser evils. I'd much rather have President Nixon than President Hitler. If those were my two choices, I'd vote Nixon.

[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well if we're just making shit up I would rather drink orange juice than cyanide. The problem was the duopoly is that one is cyanide the other is arsenic

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Do you not understand hypothetical examples when they're presented to you? Do you have some major cognitive impairment which disallows you from comprehending them?

[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Those were not hypothetical examples. Here's pulling two different opposing things out of your ass

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Sorry... what do you think 'hypothetical' means?