524
Democrats worry their most loyal voters won’t turn out for Biden in 2024
(www.washingtonpost.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2023
524 points (95.0% liked)
politics
19159 readers
4513 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
Candidates that will the whole party will find exciting are basically a once in a generation event, if that. This generation's such candidate was Obama. Democrats as a party are reliant on far too big of a tent to make this a viable strategy or thought process.
A candidate that I, a far left progressive, would get excited about is a candidate that a lot of center-of-left or moderate voters would find boring. Even within wings of the party there's not going to be lockstep excitement (go back to Dec 2019 and ask Sanders supporters how "excited" they'd be for a Warren candidacy!).
This line of argument is consistently just people pining for candidates that more closely reflect our own ideological views, not a reflection of the reality available to us. There was no such candidate in 2016 or 2020 and won't be for 2024. I'm not going to hold my breath for 2028 either. Maybe by 2032 we might see the next Obama, someone that excites the whole party.
I gave you an upvote because I agree with the spirit of your message. However, I would like to remind you that if the DNC hadn't literally rigged the system against Bernie Sanders in 2016 that we more than likely would not be where we are today.
There was a HUGE amount of grassroots support behind Bernie (the most in modern American history), and the Democrats burned a lot of goodwill with voters by shoe-horning Hillary in as the heir apparent. There has never been a candidate that bridged the gap the way Bernie did in my lifetime, and that one single decision did incalculable damage to the world.
I will gladly vote for Biden because I know it is a moral imperative to do so, and I am not a moron. I am also not trying to take away from his legislative victories because I believe they warrant more merit than they have received. However, I will not easily forgive or forget the chicanery, underhanded closed door attempts at king-making, and generally coercive tactics utilized by the DNC that got us here.
The support for Bernie wasn't even just in the Democratic party. Young moderates and even a few conservatives I knew were excited about him.
That's exactly what I meant when I said he bridged the gap. Every single person I knew from every walk of life in my state were Bernie supporters including a surprising number of rural voters, moderates, and younger conservatives as you said in your post. I have just never seen anyone who's messaging was so effective at bringing so many different people together over solution oriented propositions on the issues.
Nothing has ever jaded me as much politically as watching what the DNC did to Bernie. The amount of fear they had over a candidate who was able to muster legitimate support from a heterodox voter base was very telling, and it shaped my political views more than any other experience in my life.
I think the bigger problem was that he was completely honest and showed that his message was consistent with his actions and votes over his career. Being smeared and pushed aside early on (see Rachel Maddow and all of the media trying to say Hilary had too many Delegates already pledged to her to overcome before the first primary vote did incredible damage that the "she got more votes than Bernie" group cleanly ignore had a huge effect, and that he still nearly won anyway shows how big the support really was that the Democratic party actively destroyed.
If you're going to make an extraordinary claim like "Rachel Maddow's (objectively correct) reporting that the entire concept of superdelegates is bullshit, changed the outcome of the Democratic primary," you better cough up some extraordinary evidence.
What an absolutely absurd thing to claim. This kind of shit makes me question what your intentions here may be.
If you have to badly fake a quote from apostr you are replying to, then you clearly don't have a legitimate arguement and need evidence to porove that your commments even have any merit at all. I clearly stated "see Rachel Maddow and all of the media trying to say Hilary had too many Delegates already pledged to her to overcome before the first primary vote did incredible damage"
Nothing there at all about the entire conecpt of superdelegates that you yourself self-inserted and shows that perhaps the truth may lie in you either believing completely in the lie to push away anyone who isn't a true blue Democrat from having any say in the party's direction, or you are one of those far right Trump supporting trolls who used this "I supported/voted for Bernie in the primary until Hilary won the DNC nomination" argument to pretend that they were actually on the side of Bernie supporters to get them to vote for Trump. Lies, gaslighting and pretending to be on the same side as the person they are arguing with tells me which side you are on and what YOUR intentions here are.
Yeah, many of whom went on to vote for Donald Trump in the general election.
It's "great" that he had so much "moderate" support, but if it had anything whatsoever to do with his actual policy views, so many of them wouldn't have stayed home or voted Trump.
They just shifted that excitement from Bernie to Trump, because it has nothing to do with policy. They ultimately made things worse by poisoning the well against Hillary.
These aren't the kind of people you want to court.
I disagree. If he had won the primary, those would have been voters for him instead of Trump, and I truly believe he would have won, or at least been more competitive than Hillary. People misjudged the mood of the voters badly prior to that election.
Huge Bernie fan. Voted for him in the primary.
But can we please stop pushing this bullshit agitprop designed to divide Democrats and progressives?
Political parties aren't government organizations, they're private companies. Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat, and even though he often caucuses with them, he's been very outspoken against the Democratic party. Why would anyone ever think that the DNC would do anything to promote him over Hillary?
Even with all of that said, Bernie still came pretty damn close, and the DNC didn't "shoe-horn" anyone in. Hillary got more votes, it's time to get over it.
I fail to see how you could misconstrue my comment as an attempt to divide the base? I specifically said that I would gladly vote for Biden. That does not mean that I am afraid to levy legitimate criticism against the inherently anti-democratic primary process that has continuously shown itself as a failed mechanism for protecting democracy as well as providing for the material well being of our fellow citizens.
Yes, this is a big problem, and at some point we are going to have to engage with this issue if we wish to move forward as a civilization. I agree that this election is not the time to break down or deconstruct this monster that has been created. I would think it should be self-evident that there are serious issues with this kind of monolithic architecture given the Republican Party has fully bent the knee while being almost fully taken over by fascist, christian-nationalist, authoritarians. If you think this is a problem that is just going to go away if we happen to preserve democracy for one more election cycle then I would implore you to listen to reason. The system that allowed this to happen is inherently a problem (amongst many others, I will grant you). Again, at some point we are going to have to wrestle that demon. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but it needs to be done while we still have the opportunity to do so....
Agree to disagree on that one. I think the results speak for themselves. Hillary was a historically unpopular candidate who followed a historically popular candidate. It was a losing proposition, and the apathy towards voting for her is exactly how we got here. You can continue to ignore the very real Kompromat that ultimately soured the electorate against her, as well as the tactical decisions by the DNC (via her dear friend and chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz) to both prop up Trump as a spoiler candidate and ignore the populist support behind Bernie in favor of continuing their structural consolidation of power. However, I am not so naïve, and so willing to forgive or forget as I said before. That does not mean that I will bury my head in the sand, and throw fuel on the fire by disengaging with the political system therefore doing my part in guaranteeing the downfall of democracy ™. Instead, I make it a point to engage locally as well as nationally so that I am practicing what I preach by supporting candidates who are attempting to reframe these issues in a way that is more constructive for future generations.
That isn't what I said. I was pointing out that while that may have been the case it wasn't without controversy surrounding the less than democratic approach the DNC utilized in garnering that outcome. I'm not saying it didn't happen, it did happen. However, that does not paint a nuanced picture of the procession of events that lead to that eventuality.
Edit: Since you seem so inclined on personally attacking me.
I will point out that it is exactly this kind of behavior and ad hominem attack dogging that makes people afraid or unwilling to engage with politics in the first place, and we are all worse for that in my opinion.
Secondly, I did not vote for Trump, and you attempting to paint me into that convenient corner to justify your vitriol because I disagree with you shows your true colors sir. I hope in the future you can aim to be better, and engage with less hostility.
Lastly, I am no way inventing some new reality by pointing out issues with the primary process as a way to comfort myself or mentally masterbate. I fully accept the reality of the events as well as their outcomes. Where we differ is on the semantics of why they occurred. You can attack me all you want for wishing to engage with the problems as I see them within the primary system as it currently exists, but I will continue to raise my concerns regardless because I feel it is important to do so.
I didn't personally attack you, I was describing a type of person and I said that's how you're coming off.
I'm questioning your motives, because you're doing work in this thread and whining about a completely fair and straightforward election that happened nearly a decade ago. What kind of positive outcome do you think this accomplishes?
Keep bringing up DNC dirty laundry. That'll show em. That'll make the Democratic party progressive.
Calling me a fucking idiot by proxy is still calling me a fucking idiot. That is a personal attack as far as I'm concerned, but perhaps that was not your intention. I still think it was at best, intentionally disrespectful.
I'm also not "whining", I was engaging with you because you responded to my comment. I was never shitty towards you, I engaged in good faith with the things you had to say, and if that is where we needed to leave it then it's all good.
However, you intentionally took it another step further by using abusive language to justify your position. I'm not some pantywaist who can't take criticism, but I am also trying to make a point to be better now that I left the Reddit bubble because that is the kind of community I would like to foster. If you don't then by all means, continue with your current trajectory.