384
It Will Be an Election Unlike Any We’ve Lived Through. Are the Democrats Prepared?
(newrepublic.com)
this post was submitted on 01 Jan 2024
384 points (91.6% liked)
politics
19146 readers
2854 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Whatever. I’m voting D no matter what, for every election, because republicans are disgusting traitor filth.
Too many people can't bear conscience for voting for someone actively abetting a genocide. A lot are boting 3rd party this year, so the vote's split
Cool. Vote third party. We’ll get Trump (or one of the other authoritarian dominionist clowns in the car), who will end up pushing for a nuclear attack on Gaza while dismantling every institution we have here, meager as they are, but people still need them. Then in 2028, don’t vote at all because you will probably lose your right to do so. At least you voted with your ~heart~<3 though, so have a nice cup of tea and give yourself a hug.
We do not have a system in place where your idealistic protest can do anything other than make things worse. Fix the goddamn system, put people in power on a local level who have a chance, and work up from there. Fuck outta here with any Jill Stein horseshit.
If not voting Biden is a vote for Trump, wouldn't not voting Trump be a vote for Biden by the same logic? The logic only works if you assume all third party voters would be voting Democrat which isn't the case.
You know what I’m talking about. Of course not all third party voters would vote for the Democratic candidate, but how many leftists would otherwise vote for the Republican? I reeeally doubt these people are stumping for the American Freedom or Constitution candidates.
Trump arguably won in 2016 because of the 13% of Obama-Trump voters, Bernie-Trump supporters are also a thing, and not all Trump voters are politically engaged people as aren't many Democrats, and only about 66% of eligible Americans voted, with lowest rates in the 50s-low 60s being red states. A third party wouldn't necessarily only "steal" Democrat voters because this isn't a closed system with one option. The logic I presented there is perfectly valid because not everyone is a leftist, for "not voting Biden is a vote for Trump" to work you have to ignore a bunch of voters and potential voters. It's just something people say online for people to say "yes" to that has no relevance or impact on material politics at all.
I’m referring specifically to actual politically engaged people who refuse to vote for Biden because he isn’t progressive enough. Also, as I have not addressed it, I do get why they do refuse, as he would not be my first choice either, and I absolutely agree that Biden (and most democrats, tbh) needs to reach out to these voters because the base is more progressive than is reflected in their representation. I was aware of Bernie-Trump voters but, beyond their disdain for the establishment party politicians, I do not understand their motives; however, I will read up on it because it so baffles me.
I do hope that you’re right about this; being a mediocre white guy, I am not really in any danger of the fallout of a Trump presidency beyond what it would mean for all of us, but I don’t want to see more of what happened to marginalized people during his administration, as I fully expect things to be even worse if he gets in, just out of spite and due to redhats becoming even more deeply emboldened to act out. Not that they won’t act out otherwise, but I expect them to see themselves as self-appointed enforcers.
No, because you assume both sides are equally likely to switch their vote to third-parties. Right-wing voters are less susceptible to fits of conscience, and are much more reliable getting to the voting booths. They are more likely retirees, or zealous Fox News foot soldiers. The GOP knows this and that's why mushy "both sides suck" third-party pushes disfavor democrats.
The lowest rates of voter turnout are actually in red states on average, which are 50s-low 60s, and Trump arguably won because of the 13% of Obama-Trump swing voters. Not all Trump voters are even politically engaged just like most Americans, some see the media and Democrats going crazy about him yet haven't felt any impact of this on their daily lives so they don't connect with the "vote for us because we're not Trump" messaging at all. The most ignored group of Trump voters are people who just vote for him for some dumb superficial reason and don't really care about politics, next to Obama-Trump swing voters.
I hear your point, but I do think "Obama-Trump swing voters" is a defined group that is fun to talk about without any true diagnostic purpose. It captures too many different types of voters. They're not all just those who change affiliation with the slightest breeze - many are probably people who went down alt-right rabbit holes between 2012 and 2016, or the cumulative effect of Fox News, or voters who more often vote against the incumbent party seeking "change," and so on.
But also, even if the lowest rates of turnout is in red states, that doesn't mean that in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, etc GOP voters will be more reliably good foot soldiers. Turnout naturally will trend lower where the votes in fact matter the least, I'm sure that's true for both parties. The relevant metric is comparative voter turnout in swing states.
Isn't Trump's victory predicated on an electoral college victory?
How does voting third party impact whether or not your state's electors vote for Donald Trump?
Sure we do. Look at the very origins of the Republican Party. Abraham Lincoln emerged as the frontrunner against a Whig Party that was in full collapse. It was only possible thanks to Freemont's break from the Whigs in 1856, galvenizing abolitionists into a full formal partisan block.
Or consider the Farmer-Laborer party of North Dakota, which controlled the state for several decades before merging with the Democrats under Roosevelt.
Or consider the rise of Libertarian, Socialist, and Fascist candidates within the major parties. Primary insurgency candidates will routinely build a base of non-partisan support before joining the major parties as outsiders. Sanders ran as an Indie from Vermont for 14 years, before stepping up to run for President in 2016. Donald Trump himself was a Reform Party candidate in 2000 and was a staunch Democratic mega-donor/bundler in New York well, before defecting the GOP in 2012. Senators like Mike Lee and Rand Paul built their brands outside the party system before winning primaries in their respective branches.
The split in the Dem Party in '68 gave rise to Nixon and Reagan's Southern Strategy, which secured the Presidency for the GOP (with the exception of the narrow Carter win in '76) for the next 24 years. Great news for Dixiecrats who cared more about maintaining racial supremacy than New Deal economics and who found a way to profit handsomely from Reagan-Era giveaways to large land owners and shareholders.
Third Party campaigns have a long and proud history in the US of paving the way for more successful general election runs in subsequent election cycles. They don't always pay off year-of, but they can have a seismic effect on politics going on decades afterwards.
It doesn't have to be. If there are enough splits to deny any candidate an outright majority in the EC, the task of choosing a president falls to the congress in the 'contingent election' procedure, whereby state congressional delegations each have 1 vote. If 26 states have republican delegations (which seems plausible, given how many states are controlled by the gop) it's very likely Trump wins if it goes to a contingent election.
If anything, this supports the argument against voting 3rd party protest votes in any FPTP election
Well, double damn then. I'm in a heavily gerrymandered house seat so now my vote extra doesn't matter.
That's heavily predicated on how midwestern states manage their house seats in the next election. Pennsylvania's forced redrawing of maps in 2018 flipped five or six house seats. Wisconsin and Michigan redistricting fights could cost as many more, each. Dems are within range of the House (barring another landslide swing like in 2010 or 2018) if too many of these break the Dems' way. And now that Dems appear more focused on winning state SCOTUS elections, that's not inconceivable.
I'm guessing you're not a Lieberman 2008 guy. And who can blame you?
But folks with sufficiently high name recognition can definitely win third party. Just ask Lisa Murkowski. Or Jesse Ventura, for that matter.
i don't think so. i voted for howie in 2020 and we got biden.
With donnie in power, we may very well have genocide in our borders.
Part of the problem with the Biden Administration (and Obama before him) is that it seems content to allow guys like Abbott and DeSantis to Do As Thou Wilt in their respective states. Biden could win reelection in '24 and we'd still see a genocide of border people, entirely because his administration is unwilling to pick a fight with a powerful governor in a state flush with heavily armed state border guards.
Uhh have you seen your borders the last... America's entire history
Sorry, I didn't word that very well. I mean within our borders. The extremists on the right wing get tingly in their swimming suit areas over the idea of killing their fellow citizens, and over stupid shit like not being sufficiently deferential to their Orange Jesus (OJ), being POC, gay, an uppity woman or liberal, and so on.
I'm assuming they are a fringe, but this kind of terrorism on a nation-state level does not require a majority. Not even all of the conservatives taken as a group are a majority. I suspect the teabaggers types are 30% or less of the population, and the ones that will gleefully cheer on/actively participate in genocide are probably less, but it's still at a very scary point, since even 10% of them and having a government that backs them is a recipe for disaster.
I think the logic here is that Biden, while endorsing genocide outside of the U.S., isn’t causing it inside of the borders. With Trump you’d have it both outside and inside.
Ergo, they see the choice as less genocide or more genocide. Both terrible but why choose more over less?
Blessed be the day we can vote for no genocide.
You can do it today. It's called third party.
In a FPTP system, that's called voting for Trump with extra steps. The fact that it fucking sucks doesn't change the fact that it's true.
wrong.
Contrary to popular belief, a voter is not responsible for other peoples votes. Im not changing my vote based on things im not responsible for, that's propaganda.
Yes.
No it's called not voting for Zionist Nazi genocide maniacs.
Lol this message of 'vote 3rd party' is such copium for trump being the GOP frontrunner.
Everyone knows trump is a turd, the only hope for the orange shitbag to win is a split vote. You sloppy trolls aren't very good at trying to fool people.
Your sloppy trolls are far worse. Everyone know Biden is a Genocidal Zionazi.
At least make up your own insults lmao.
Sloppy AND lazy, great combo.
Clever insults are for people capable of understanding them.
Here is why you should never vote third party in a FPTP voting system. If you are not happy with your candidate choices, then we need to increase voter turnout in local elections, mid terms, and most importantly, primary elections. Primary elections are where you actually can change the spirit of the political parties, but hardly anyone votes in primaries despite them being arguably the most important.
This only holds when the respective parties are roughly evenly tied with one another and the two major parties have the marginally more-popular candidates.
In a state where one party or the other is an overwhelming favorite to win, this math doesn't matter. In a state where both parties have put up a shit candidate (say, you're in Arizona or West Virginia and being asked to support Kristen Sinema or Joe Manchin yet again), a third party vote is the only way to clear the deck of deplorable alternatives. If you're in Nebraska and the popular frontrunner is the indie union activist Dan Osbourn you would be foolish to vote party line as that's effectively a vote for Deb Fischer.
No, it holds regardless. Your argument is the same as saying there's no point in voting if you don't win.
Your real problem is as I said, Primary Elections, where we have EXCEPTIONALLY terrible voter turnout. The primaries are where you choose your party representatives. If you are complaining about the General election, the fight was already lost.
This is demonstrably true, though. Hell, there's no point to voting if you do win, when the election is sufficiently lopsided. The general election process is the tail end of a far larger and more financially involved whittling of the candidate pool.
Even then, the focus is on building a movement rather than a single candidate's campaign. Elections are not one-and-done. Candidates can rise and fall in iterative races based on the coalitions they built (or squandered) in prior campaigns.
Turnout hardly matters when only a few candidates have the resources to compete. This Presidential primary is case-in-point. When Trump is favored to win 60% of the primary vote and Biden is virtually uncontested, volume of participation is irrelevant. Whether turnout is 10% or 100%, the same two guys are going to move on to the general.
I'll spot you that primaries have an outsized influence and that entryists in the democratic process are savvy to focus their attentions on these races. But Beto O'Rourke winning the primary for Texas Senate and then Texas Governor did nothing to overcome the enormous support-deficit he suffered in the general.
So what do you propose? Do what instead of voting? Seems like the lowest hanging fruit to me. The left tends to win with turnout. The left tends to be more progressive and more conducive to evidence based problem solving. Fixing the parties at the primary level seems like the lowest effort solution for the largest pay off.
Encouraging voter apathy is counterproductive, unless you are going to propose we do something else that's more effective for the same energy expenditure.
I truly believe that if every person who complained about politics spent as much time voting as they did complaining, we'd have a more representative government.
We complain about a government that is corrupt, run by the wealthy as if we're not the ones who put them there. Inaction is an action. Why should they represent our interests if we don't even vote? All not voting tells a politician is that you aren't their constituent.
Depends heavily on what kind of problems you're facing at home. In my home town of Houston, the state government has hijacked the school board of HISD and imposed a bunch of shitty rules and regs, designed to waste money and torture kids. So I joined my local PTA. We go to meetings and harass/shame the bureaucrats involved. We reach out to the teachers and administrators who are under the gun to enforce these policies and offer them our support. There was a picket of the school district's office in October for instance.
Direct action - refusing to comply with harmful public policy, harassing public officials who are advocating and endorsing this policy, and getting other parents and teachers on board with alternative policy that you can implement outside the scope of the administration - is an effective means of undermining an unelected bureaucracy appointed by a corrupt state government.
There's more to politics than complaining. You need workable alternative and you need a popular consensus. Ten different people all pulling in ten different directions won't affect any kind of change. But ten activists with a shared understanding and vision, pulling in the same direction can.
We're not. Far more often, it is the wealthy and well-organized interest and advocacy groups that put these people in power.
Greg Abbott and Ken Paxton aren't rogue agents who just kinda bubbled up from a political morass. They are the direct beneficiaries of large social mobilizations - O&G lobbying groups paid for with overpriced fossil fuels, large religious organizations like Houston's Second Baptist Church and Lakewood Church which galvenize masses of people along socially conservative political issues, doctors and lawyers and real estate associations and car dealership clubs who have formed cartels designed to guarantee higher salaries. One of the most politically active people in my community is Jim "Mattress Mack" McIngvale, a local celebrity businessman with a penchant for hookers and blow and QAnon conspiracy bullshit. This guy single-handedly bankrolls half a dozen talk-radio shock jocks with his advertising money and influences hundreds of thousands of my neighbors. Another is Dr. Peter Hoetz, a close personal friend of Dinesh D'Souza, who helped produce "2000 Mules" a documentary about how Joe Biden stole the 2020 election from Donald Trump.
Knowing who these people are and how they influence the body politick is instrumental in understanding where and how public opinion is crafted and distributed. If you're just showing up to the polls every two years and praying that Truth Will Prevail, you're walking to the slaughter. Only by recognizing who these assholes are, how they're seeding conspiracy theory and bigotry into the public domain, and where they fucking live so you can put a few rocks through their windows, can you discourage them from continuing.
I think the problem is that third parties are thinking too big. You can't just rival the Democrats or Republicans on a national level overnight.
Let's say hypothetically, one state becomes disillusioned with the mainstream parties and a third secessionist party starts making headway in mayoral and state elections, soon winning over the people.
If it's a big state like Texas, that's well over a hundred electoral college votes lost for the Republicans.
The problem is the spoiler effect. It's a well documented shortcoming of FPTP.
We need to all ask ourselves what is the biggest impact I can make politically with the energy I am willing to spend. For me, energy spent voting should never be LESS than energy spent complaining about politics.
It's funny. It's already election year and you can't even name a 3rd Party candidate with any sort of shot. But yes, some perfect candidate will declare in late September, right?
The Green Party was an absurd joke even decades before Stein the Russian useful idiot came along...
I hate it, but there is just no viable third party choice for progressives in this country.
The choice is to find Dems like AOC and get them elected.