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

politics

18147 readers
4079 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

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
[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago (47 children)

They are tired of being promised 40 acres and only given lip service. The DNC uses minorities as political pawns to be used and tossed aside the day after election and minority communities have caught on. Hopefully they will turn out in huge numbers to support Cornel West. Someone that offers the same rhetoric and policy Bernie did without being a party sheepdog.

[–] Fatbuddha@kbin.social 18 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Cornell West, who's campaign is being run by Jill "lunch with Putin" Stein. I thought more of West than to be an obvious Republican plant. I don't even care what I think about Biden, he is the incumbent president and will be the candidate. I'll vote for him in a second because the alternative is literally the likely destruction of the United States as we know it.

This isn't hard. The US is a two party system right now. I don't understand why people think a third party is ever a good idea right now. Maybe third parties should run in local elections instead of this dumb spoiler candidate for the president vs

[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

The thing is that there's never a "good time" to vote third party because we're locked in to a forever crisis. And if you think the democrats will fix it, I think that you're mistaken. IMO, the democrats haven't been serious about fixing stuff basically since Johnson. Carter had a lot of good ideas, but his legacy as president is basically "that guy where gas prices started going up"; Clinton did address some problems (like the deficit), which got the republicans big mad, but failed to address a bunch of other serious issues that would have been much less painful to solve in the 90s; Obama's basically the same way, only two wars kept him from even dreaming of a balanced budget. The democrats basically just stop making things actively worse for a little bit. Sometimes I wonder if this is what it was like to live through the demise of the Roman republic; Caesar is coming, our democracy is floundering and ineffectual, and the best that we've got is to shrug and vote for "not a Nazi". Don't get me wrong: never, ever vote for the Nazi, but come on, we have got to do better than that or things or going to keep getting a lot worse.

[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.world -5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

Nice liberal bullshit neocon talking points you have there. We have a 2 party system because liberals allow it. They are so comfortable with the oppressive status quo and are terrified of the idea of being inconvenienced by the progress of others. There was a reason MLK warned society about liberals. They are the sole reason nothing meaningful for the general public ever gets done.

We won't be voting for your shitty CEO owned warhawk candidate, so if Dems lose the WH this was the work of Dem voters.

[–] DarkGamer@kbin.social 16 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

We have a 2 party system because liberals allow it.

No, we have a 2-party system because of Duverger's Law, and liberals are the ones advocating for ranked choice voting, which fixes the situation and allows for more diversity of viable candidates.

[–] o_0@slrpnk.net 1 points 11 months ago

The Democratic Party is absolutely NOT advocating for ranked choice voting, and explicitly oppose things like abolishing the electoral college

[–] Fatbuddha@kbin.social 10 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I'm living in reality, however unpleasant that may be. No "left" third party candidate will do anything but get Trump another term. I want better things for this country, but the way to get them isn't to help elect a fascist hopeful dictator. Change needs to start at the bottom, you seem really motivated, you should go run for City council and start making the change you want to see. Right now your answer to not liking one candidate is to choose the one that probably would love to put you in a reeducation camp.

[–] o_0@slrpnk.net 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

We literally have over a year until the Election and Cornel West Doesn't have to go through all the hoops Sanders did by running in the Primaries.

It is unlikely, but it's not impossible that West could win. Because with 3 or more candidates in the race, a winner could get by with 30%, and once West starts polling in the double digits and the possibility he could win becomes more realistic, many disaffected democrats and some republicans will switch Sides.

I've never seen a 3rd party candidate get so much momentum this early on, and I've never seen an ecombant party freak out so much about 'spoilers' on an off year. I think the Democratic leadership see West as a Threat for good reason. It's not because of their, easily debunked "spoiler" narrative, it's because West could fuck up the entire progressive plantation.

[–] Fatbuddha@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Ross Perot

Incumbent

Hope the fascist hell you wish upon us treats you well. Work on your propaganda daddy Putin is really starting to just pay anyone.

[–] o_0@slrpnk.net 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Did they say that Ross Perot was a threat to the constitutional order? I find that unlikely, they certainly didn't make this much noise about it the year before the election.

And yes, everyone who disagrees with you is a Putin bot -- speaking of the early 90's, do you remember see how Clinton supported Yeltsin's coup which directly paved the way for Putin to take power in the first place? Of course, Bill couldn't have known that, but maybe the lesson here is we shouldn't be supported coup's in other countries, ya know, overthrowing democracies and putting fascists in power. That's bad right?

[–] Fatbuddha@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I totally agree, putting fascists in power is bad! So voting for a third party candidate that will split the vote of the left and bring fascism to the presidency is bad. If you really don't understand this you are lying to yourself or arguing in bad faith. I'm sure you will reply, but I'm done.

[–] o_0@slrpnk.net 1 points 11 months ago

I'm just saying we need to hold our Politicians accountable in order to make sure they do they right thing. I believe in Democracy and part of that is a having a lively debate about issues that affect us - not just lock step refusing to acknowledge that people are suffering. That doesn't help us overall, and that certainly doesn't help you win an election, so I hope that the presence of 3rd party candidates will force the democrats to move left on key issues, maybe they can spend the many millions of dollars they receive on mobilizing voters, because otherwise they are most likely going to lose. The Democrats need to deal with their own internal problems and start asking why the hugely unpopular GOP is so close to beating them instead of blaming everything on 3rd parties.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

wishing for cornel west is not wishing for "fascist hell".

[–] Fatbuddha@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Wishing? Fine you got me wish your ass off. Voting for him though is splitting the vote and putting a fascist in power. Wish all you want but if you don't vote for the Democrat in the presidential election don't expect me to share my bread scraps while we are in the reeducation camp!

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 11 months ago

if cornel west wins there isn't going to be any camp.

but if you're worried about shooting the vote, you should consider voting with the principal people who won't vote for any other person.

load more comments (44 replies)