297
submitted 5 days ago by nifty@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

I’ve decided undecided voters have low critical thinking skills and/or are attention seekers

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Geek_King@lemmy.world 153 points 5 days ago

I can't imagine how anyone looks at Trump, and who he is as a person, then compares to Harris and still can't decide. The choice is so painfully clear, it's not even a choice. Trump isn't fit for office at any level, let alone the highest office in the land.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago

I can't imagine how people could see the dip right after she took back all progressive stances and not understand the easy solution is moving to the left...

But here we are bro

It's 2024 and people constantly do irrational stuff.

She's not going to gain any trump voters, there's zero logical reason for Dems to move to the right. Except they think they can get away with being more to the right.

If they just wanted to win the election, Kamala would be out there for M4A, legal weed, affordable college plan that fixes the flawed system, and some good ole tax raises for the rich.

It's literally that easy.

Obama wasn't near that progressive, and he got a landslide and carried House and Senate.

[-] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 5 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

She’s not going to gain any trump voters, there’s zero logical reason for Dems to move to the right. Except they think they can get away with being more to the right.

While I can't speak on the effectiveness of the strategy, I would point out that Harris et al. aren't really aiming to recruit Trump voters. They're more aiming for more traditional Reaganite Republicans, the "never Trump" people. Think of the type of Republicans like Dick Cheney. That's the type of Republican they're aiming for. They're not aiming to convince an active Trump supporter to flip to Harris. They're trying to get Republicans who don't want to vote for Trump, who would otherwise stay at home, to instead vote for Harris.

My own parents fit into this mold. They're in their sixties and voted for Republicans their entire adult lives, up until 2016. They voted third party in 2016, and in 2020 they switched over to supporting Biden, and now they support Harris and are voting for Democrats across the board.

Whether appealing to voters like my parents or trying to appeal to younger, more disaffected progressive voters is a better strategy, I can't say. But the perennial problem of appealing to hard-core progressive voters is that they are incredibly fickle and often engage in self-destructive purity testing. Look at the leftist voters refusing to vote for Harris over the Palestine issue. Far-left voters have a tendency to find any excuse not to vote for a candidate. It's Palestine this time around, but it could easily be something else. There's always some issue that the main Democratic candidate has that some leftists will cite as a reason not to vote for the mainline Democratic candidate. In 2024, it's Palestine. In 2020, it was Biden and the crime bill. In 2016, it was Hillary's treatment of Bernie. Etc. There's always a purity test violation a certain segment of far left voters will cite to vote against their own interests. They want a perfect candidate, and they will actively seek out any excuse not to vote for the mainline candidate. As no politician will share 100% of their views, there will always be some reason to not vote for them.

The reason Democrats often tilt to the right is that voters on the far left side of things are often short-sighted and incredibly fickle. They're not reliable voters.

[-] HK65@sopuli.xyz -2 points 5 days ago

To be fair, it's hard to criticise leftists for not voting reliably for the Dems if they keep moving right. I imagine your parents didn't really become leftists, it's just that Dems moved to where the Reps were decades ago.

Supporting a Holocaust-sized genocide is not really "any issue" either. The reason why it still makes sense to vote for Harris is not because that genocide does not matter, it's that Trump would start another one on American soil while endorsing the former as well.

You've basically got the Goldman Sachs candidate, or Hitler from Wish. I hope people turn out for Goldman Sachs-lady, for all our sakes in the world.

I hope people turn out for Goldman Sachs-lady, for all our sakes in the world.

Same here.

To be fair, it’s hard to criticise leftists for not voting reliably for the Dems if they keep moving right.

Agreed. But also see above.

I imagine your parents didn’t really become leftists, it’s just that Dems moved to where the Reps were decades ago.

I feel like it's an issue with the political system as a whole that it's ended up like this, though...

[-] HK65@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 day ago

I guess my point is that a (leftist) person is smart and pragmatic, but (leftist) people are impulsive and stupid.

God I hope the US gets its head out its ass and flushes that orange turd.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (25 replies)
this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2024
297 points (91.1% liked)

politics

18863 readers
3984 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