1078
submitted 1 month ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works 53 points 1 month ago

Almost as if you need to win before you can do anything at all.

Like it or not, the reality of the electoral college.

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 10 points 1 month ago

You can win in multiple different ways, not simply picking a purple state moderate. The whole reason there's a story about "more youth voters like Harris" is because more youth voters could help her win. And the youths notably live in every swing state.

[-] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago

The youth are not historically known for showing up to vote.

[-] zbyte64@awful.systems 11 points 1 month ago

That's what the media says, but kids these days are showing up more than their parents were at their age.

[-] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

I just hope it's enough.

[-] kofe@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

There's an increasing trend, though. The last couple elections have been pivotal. Sucks we didn't turn out in 2016, but we're learning. Young women telling young men you ain't getting laid while abortion is illegal. LGBT+ saying you won't take our healthcare. New parents saying we need universal childcare, college students saying debt forgiveness is essential.

I don't know if it'll be enough, but I know I'll never miss an election again, at least

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

"The youth are notorious for low turnout. That's why Kamala Harris (and possibly her VP) increasing their turnout isn't important."

[-] AbidanYre@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

More like being popular with a demographic who doesn't show up to vote hasn't historically been a good way to win elections.

If they actually show up this time, awesome.

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 6 points 1 month ago

Biden literally won in 2020 with strong youth turnout while Clinton lost in 2016 with a weak one. Historically, youth turnout is extremely important for Democrats, and people continually dismissing their value will only harm that effort.

https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/half-youth-voted-2020-11-point-increase-2016

[-] MagicShel@programming.dev 2 points 1 month ago

No one is dismissing their value. It's exciting to see them energized. The youth vote has been trending up and that's awesome for many reasons. But we may need another election or two to see if it will hold or if it's a reaction to Trump that will revert to norms once he's gone.

If it holds, I think we are likely to see some changes in political calculus.

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 month ago

This is the problem. You're demanding that young voters just naturally show up for multiple voting cycles before you think politicians should try to court them. Why on earth would you expect that to work? Would you expect that to work for black voters or women? Voter motivation doesn't rise and fall based on its own, it's something politicians actively work to inspire. It wasn't an accident that Obama had great turnout and Clinton had poor turnout.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Maybe the party should continue to listen to them. That seems to be working.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

And yet they're excited right now because the party was responsive to their concerns.

[-] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Let's hope they stay excited.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Let's hope the party remains responsive, then.

[-] Xanis@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Smoke and mirrors. Right now we need the clearest path to victory, not a path. The Right has their strengths and one of them is throwing wrenches into things. Can't throw a stick into my spokes if my bike doesn't have any.

[-] timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 month ago

And youths are also notorious for not turning out too.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

And yet, they seem motivated to vote for Harris because the party stopped lecturing and listened instead.

[-] timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 month ago

I feel like i heard those same people say she was too moderate before.

Funny how that changes.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

And yet they rallied behind her. Guess the centrist narrative about progressives wanting absolute perfection and purity testing everything to death was horseshit from the very beginning, and that progressives are willing to accept a reasonable compromise candidate when the party isn't too stubborn and arrogant to listen.

Now since we're talking about things people said before Biden dropped out, where's all the chaos that Biden stans were predicting?

[-] timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 month ago

Thankfully not there.

Wanna gloat more? I'll pull up a million comments of yours. Go for it. Douche

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Have a party.

You wanted to stick with a losing candidate.

[-] Socsa@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago

It's so frustrating people don't get this. Progressive politics is stringing together election victories. The US system is designed to require longer term horizons to enact significant change. And we saw precisely why when we survived Trump's term.

this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2024
1078 points (98.0% liked)

politics

18852 readers
4168 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

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