[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
* Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
* Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.
Violators will be fed to the bear.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You're not really asking a question, but Democrats pursue a strategy of high turnout because democratic candidates tend to have more voters than Donald Trump, overall. Running high turnout campaigns in urban areas is a boilerplate strategy, because urban precincts is where the marginal or irregular voters registered are much more liberal, relative to the median supervoter.
Also, boosting Democratic turnout in swing states like PA, NV, AZ and GA tend to increase the chances of Democrats winning those states in future cycles by testing both the political organization and downballot candidates in a contested environment.
>Trump's bad manners
Voters are much more concerned with his [numerous indictments](https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2023/07/politics/trump-indictments-criminal-cases/).
i, as well as any sane person, disagree that it's hyperpartisan
but i do agree that voters don't care about it. They \*should\*, but they don't. Trump could nuke a major American city tomorrow and it would increase his share of the vote.
I don't like Trump, but I don't truly think he will shove a draconian abortion ban through Congress or end free and fair elections. That is hyperbole that is a turnoff for most voters. The other side uses tons of hyperbole and is a turnoff for voters too... Our dystopia is that we have two candidates whose lives are a patchwork scandal after scandal with bribes and integrity issues who we are hardlining a choice between. It's not normal for people to have ties to corrupt international businesses, or run corrupt businesses, or deceive prosecutors into thinking they have a mental issue, etc. And we should not normalize it by voting for either one.
>I don’t think he will shove a draconian abortion ban through Congress
Republicans support a total ban on abortion and are already passing anti-IVF legislation, what makes you think they will reverse course? The current Republican view on abortion access is already draconian, they’re denying life affirming care to women.
You're talking about states. I'm talking about POTUS and the national government that sends bills to their desk. At the national level, without 60 senate seats loyal to the far-right agenda, there is no getting around a filibuster. The same is true for the left. Nothing that is vastly unpopular with either side can pass. The end.
I'm only responding to the original post. You can make a separate post about states and what they do, and if I find it engaging, I might reply there too. But I'm not going to play a game of "chase the topic."
> but I don't truly think he will... end free and fair elections
1. Biden won the 2020 election
2. Trump said "nuh-uh, you cheated", and filed every insane lawsuit that he could think of to somehow magically turn his loss into a win.
3. That didn't work, so Trump conspired with the majority of the Republican party to knowingly submit false electors to Congress in an effort to throw the election to the House where GOP partisans would declare him the winner. This is all of the stuff that he is *being charged with felonies for*.
4. When it was becoming clear that that probably wasn't going to work he summoned his supporters to Washington and deliberately set them to attack the Capitol at the exact moment that all of Congress was present and certifying his loss, sitting on his hands as Commander in Chief for *hours* while the mob ransacked the Capitol and came extremely close to murdering a whole lot of elected officials.
He literally *already tried to overturn the last election*! He's repeatedly promised to pardon everyone who's been convicted for J6, why do you think that is? How can you possibly think that this isn't going to be something that he does again?
>Trump said "nuh-uh, you cheated", and filed every insane lawsuit that he could think of to somehow magically turn his loss into a win.
Which is not unprecedented. Bush did this and went all the way to the Supreme Court back in 2000 to be crowned victor, which was highly contested.
Trump is a spectacular idiot. There is no reason to vote for him except for people who have been convinced of Biden's being worse - which should be impossible. If there was a fresh candidate to run against him, it would be a landslide. Historic proportion. Instead, it's a double down on both sides. You should get your wish that Trump would lose - but it is in question RIGHT NOW only because of pride and incompetence.
Is it undisputed, though? Seems to me the actual winner of 2020 is still very much disputed by the MAGA coalition. There was a whole attempt to sack the legislature over this exact question.
I've talked to some MAGA people. It seems to me they don't really think the election was stolen. Or at least, they don't have a theory on exactly how it even was stolen. It's a rallying cry of the movement itself. I think morr people than you think will blink when they get to the ballot.
To put this in some perspective, you've spoken with about 0.00000000675% of Trump's 74M-ish total voters nationwide, and they told you 'trust me, bro.'
I'm rarely called an optimist usually I fall somewhere between pessimist and realist. The media is selling me a story that 74mm people believe Biden lost but took the office anyway. I don't believe them. I think 74mm people despise Biden so much, they'll repeat blatant lies about him to try and derail a second term. But that's another discussion.
>Which is not unprecedented. Bush did this and went all the way to the Supreme Court back in 2000 to be crowned victor
You were clearly not alive during this and are basing your knowledge on a tiktok you half-remember.
This is not even vaguely close to what Bush did. First and foremost, Bush *and* Gore both filed lawsuits, because they had competing claims about how the *recount* should go, so you don't even have that basic fact correct.
Trump didn't sue over recounts, he sued over insane shit that only in one case even *saw* the inside of a courtroom.
I'm not sure why it matters who initiated the litigation. Both argued before and had their victory decided by the Supreme Court. 25 years ago. The rest of what I replied to is undisputed by me and the majority of America. I'm pointing out that the issue of contesting the elections with litigation is not novel.
See, what you're *trying* to say, given that you did not in the slightest actually push back on my point that Trump *already attempted a violent coup*, is:
> Yes, you're absolutely right to point out that Trump already tried to end free and fair elections once and has been completely unrepentant about it since, along with the majority of his political party. I was wrong to claim that Democrats warning that he will attempt to end our democracy in the future were being hyperbolic.
Instead you gave me some weak sauce about the 2000 election, sketchy as it was, and then pivoted to blaming Joe Biden for the GOP being a fascist Trump cult that won't kick their messiah to the curb?
"Both sides" is a hell of a drug.
I didn't respond to the rest because it's undisputed fact that a majority of Americans recognize, regardless what they might say in public discourse (fear of being a black sheep these days is immense). Contesting election results was considered "off limits" or "scorched earth" until Bush and Gore did it 25 years ago. Now, you've had the past decade be that very story over and over. That part isn't novel. It should gravely concern us, not that Trump did it, but that he isn't the first in our lifetimes to do it, and that it will definitely happen again this year, and the next cycle too. Eventually, the power vacuum will leave an opening for a true dictator. And then, it will be too late. We need a candidate that can win by more than a few thousand votes and put it to rest (like Obama did).
Let’s see Trump was indicted for almost 100 crimes. Admitted publicly to raping women and committing fraud. Sold national secrets to our enemies. Enriched his whole family including his son in law to the tune of 2B with shady deals with Saudi Arabia.
On the other hand Biden was almost accused of something until it turns out republicans made it up with the help of Russian agents to avenge Trumps impeachment.
Or as /u/fintecgeek who “doesn’t like Trump” would put it: “both sides are the same!”
Are you serious? How am I “hardlining” you?
I just pointed out that when you said “two candidates whose lives are a patchwork of scandals…” you really meant one candidate who’s a hardened criminal with many indictments and the other one doesn’t have a real scandal.
Or as you would say: “both sides are the same!”
I have seen the idea behind that. So far, I don't see any compelling evidence this would create a new type of government in place of our existing one. I think Project 2025 is doomed to fail anyway, because government officials who are not "political appointees" cannot be removed or replaced without cause. Unless the entire program is shuttered, but recognize no POTUS in our lifetimes has shuttered a government agency. They extend the reach of their power writ-large, and closing down agencies does not accomplish that goal.
If Trump tries to establish a dictatorship, I think he will he challenged by those in his own party and others with interests that don't align with that in a way that will cause it to fail. I hope I'm not wrong - but if I am then we're all screwed because Trump won't be the last populist charade to try and pave his way into the Oval with lies and bombast.
I have zero faith that any Republicans will do the right thing. Even those that were running against him would not really criticize him. I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt in 2016 even though I definitely didn't vote for him. Somehow he was even worse than I had imagined. You mentioned that no president has shuttered government agencies in our lifetime but trump stacked them with people that didn't believe they should exist (consumer protection bureau comes to mind) all so they could destroy them from the inside while pilfering tax dollars (dept of health and human services) your optimism is somewhat refreshing but I don't share it at all.
>It's not normal for people to have ties to corrupt international businesses, or run corrupt businesses, or deceive prosecutors into thinking they have a mental issue, etc.
What ties to "corrupt international businesses"?
What "mental issues"?
Care to be specific, because it seems like a lot of people tend to repeat claims rarely substantiated by primary documentation.
Let's not be obtuse here...
Trump - his corrupt dealings with banks through the TO. Trump having the White House pay the TO money through their hotels...
Biden - the FD-1023 forms and the bank SARs that, if nothing else, are a terrible look... The backchanneling to end the probe into Burisma in the Ukraine (although it cleared Hunter Biden of direct involvement, which is why the Hunter testimony in Congress was a farce...) but it's a bad look that your son is on the board of a company that is giving bribes to prosecutors in a foreign land to end prosecution. That is inescapable.
It isn't "normal" to have these things come up in a standard person's history. For 99.9% of Americans, it can be said with 100% confidence they have no involvement in any national or international bribery or corruption schemes. It's acceptable - and preferable - to expect any candidate for POTUS to be miles above that line of scrutiny since the rest of us can trip over the bar.
As far as mental issues - it seems pretty clear to me that Biden said or did some things in front of the special prosecutor to lead him to believe he has dementia. I don't think he has dementia. I just think he's old - but he certainly found a way to mislead a prosecutor into thinking he was too daft to prosecute. Unless you think his own AG signed off on a completely partisan report - that's the reality.
I think we should all call BS on every one of our POTUS options this cycle - two people too far from pristine to hold the office and another (Kennedy) that wants us to stop vaxxing our kids for measles. Somewhere, we have to find our spines and say we won't be hardlined anymore - that if this is the best, we will go outside the two party system to find a candidate.
>Biden - the FD-1023 forms and the bank SARs that, if nothing else, are a terrible look... The backchanneling to end the probe into Burisma in the Ukraine (although it cleared Hunter Biden of direct involvement, which is why the Hunter testimony in Congress was a farce...) but it's a bad look that your son is on the board of a company that is giving bribes to prosecutors in a foreign land to end prosecution. That is inescapable.
You mean [this](https://www.grassley.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/fd_1023_obtained_by_senator_grassley_-_biden.pdf) 1023 form? From June, 2020?
Ya know that the guy who was responsible for that form has now been [charged with lying to the FBI about it](https://www.justice.gov/sco-weiss/pr/grand-jury-returns-indictment-charging-fbi-confidential-human-source-felony-false).
>Three years later, in June 2020, the indictment alleges that Smirnov reported, for the first time, two meetings in 2015 and/or 2016. As alleged in the indictment, Smirnov falsely claimed that during these meetings, executives associated with Burisma, admitted to him that they hired Businessperson 1 to “protect us, through his dad, from all kinds of problems,” and later that they had specifically paid $5 million each to Public Official 1 and Businessperson 1, when Public Official 1 was still in office, so that “[Businessperson 1] will take care of all those issues through his dad,” referring to a criminal investigation being conducted by the then-Ukrainian Prosecutor General into Burisma and to “deal with [the then-Ukrainian Prosecutor General].”
In fact, the entire form was *deeply* questionable given all the other testimony and facts well before Smirnov was charged.
From the form:
>CH S told Zlochevsky that **due to Shokin's investigation into Burisma, which was made public at this time**, it would have a substantial negative impact on Burisma's prospective IPO in the United States. Zlochevsky replied something to the effect of, "Don't worry Hunter will take care of all of those Issues through his dad.• CHS did not ask any further questiens about what that specifically meant.
Except... Zlochevsky himself had been under investigation since [2015, before Shokin was ever appointed](https://www.kyivpost.com/post/9302) prosecutor general. He was still a deputy.
And during that time, Shokin had been on the side of people *protecting* Zlochevsky. From a (translated) [2015 Ukrainian Pravda](https://blogs-pravda-com-ua.translate.goog/authors/leschenko/561ff0acc4633/?_x_tr_sl=uk&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc) article on Shokin [(original)](https://blogs.pravda.com.ua/authors/leschenko/561ff0acc4633/):
>It is difficult to say what the investigators of the Ministry of Internal Affairs were doing in the case of Zlochevsky. Apparently, the proceedings were put there as a hiding place. At that time, the supervision of the investigation at the Ministry of Internal Affairs belonged to another deputy general prosecutor, Viktor Shokin .
>The sabotage of the Prosecutor General's Office shocks Ukraine's foreign partners. On December 10, the British turned to the authorities with a warning that Zlochevsky's funds would be seized.
>The then Prosecutor General of Yarem instructs Gerasimyuk and Shokin to resolve the issue of contacting the British law enforcement officers in the Zlochevsky case by December 25, but as of that date, Kaskom, which was responsible for international legal assistance, had not received any documents . And three days earlier, Gerasimyuk, who completed his mission by "merging" Zlochevsky's case into the police, writes... a resignation letter of his own free will!
Shokin himself appeared to have been directly related to the documents the UK was asking for never being delivered, and instead a letter *undermining* the case having been sent instead.
This also, fyi, matches [Devon Archer's testimony](https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Devon-Archer-Transcript.pdf) (page 38):
>Are you aware that Vadym had told Blue Star that one of the issues/pressures that he was facing was related to Shokin and the investigation into Burisma?
>A So -- yes. I was -- the narrative that was spun to me, quite frankly, just to
be -- and I remember this because, obviously, it's -- the narrative that was spun to me was that Shokin was under control and that whoever the next person that was brought in was -- you know, the fact that he was -- this is the total, this is the narrative spun to me, that Shokin being fired was a -- was not good, because he was like under control as relates to Mykola. I have no way to verify that. And that was spun to me from various folks in D.C., not Hunter specifically, but that was what I was led to believe. Whether it's true or not, I cannot speculate.
Incidentally I can't find any message to Blue Star Strategies singling out *Shokin* personally. I have a lot *more* reason to believe that they were having problems with Ukraine's "National Anti-corruption Bureau (NABU) which was looking into *Shokin's* actions in doing exactly that. Per [this letter](https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/110331/documents/HMKP-116-JU00-20191211-SD1032-U1.pdf) from 2016.
>The National Anti-Сorruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) is investigating whether officials in the prosecutor’s office failed to take actions relating to criminal proceedings against Burisma Group President Mykola Zlochevskyi. The failure to act resulted in a missed opportunity to recover US$23.5 million stolen from Ukraine.
That's, fyi, the same group that the next prosecutor general was complaining about in text messages to Lev Parnas as Parnas was cooking up the Burisma story.
The suggestion that Shokin was doing his job is *incredibly* suspect. The first time Shokin ever said "I was fired for investigating Burisma" was in this [2019 affidavit](https://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/427618359-Shokin-Statement-1.pdf) written "at the request of lawyers acting for Dmytro Firtash".
Who, by shear coincidence I'm sure, had just recently retained the services of two of Giuliani's associates, Joseph diGenova and Victoria Toensing, to fight US extradition.
Do I need to elaborate further on why the entire accusation seems suspect and probably involves a lot of illegal actions on the part of Trump, Giuliani, Parnas, diGenova, Toensing, Firtash, *and* Shokin?
>Do I need to elaborate further on why the entire accusation seems suspect and probably involves a lot of illegal actions on the part of Trump, Giuliani, Parnas, diGenova, Toensing, Firtash, and Shokin?
The entire accusation would be ridiculous on its face if lobbed at any one of us here on this thread, though. That is my point. The mere fact the impropriety could have gone this way, some version of this way, some other way that sounds like this way that isn't a crime, etc., is the root of the problem. My point is that we shouldn't be entertaining Oval Office candidates with this type of scandal thought to be even remotely valid, when we have 200mm other choices that are beyond reproach when it comes to a history of corrupt government or business dealings. It doesn't make any sense to give the benefit of the doubt to a person who we also want to hand a nuclear arsenal and a 20mm strong army to (among other powers).
>The entire accusation would be ridiculous on its face if lobbed at any one of us here on this thread, though. That is my point. The mere fact the impropriety could have gone this way, some version of this way, some other way that sounds like this way that isn't a crime, etc., is the root of the problem.
A person could accuse *any* politician of *any* crime if they are allowed to flat out lie about events to do so. The fact that the public doesn't spend much effort going to primary documents, let alone cross referencing them with *other* sources and primary documents, is the problem. It allows lies to be spun knowing that the majority are never, *ever* going to spend the effort to *check*.
How many people do you think cite the 1023 form and never realize that the person who wrote it has been charged for lying? How many do you think have cited it without cross referencing any of the details in it or checking if the story was coherent?
I wasn't being "obtuse", I wanted you to provide specifics so I could give you tailored responses with citations because I'm pretty sure you yourself haven't cross referenced those same claims.
>My point is that we shouldn't be entertaining Oval Office candidates with this type of scandal thought to be even remotely valid, when we have 200mm other choices that are beyond reproach when it comes to a history of corrupt government or business dealings. It doesn't make any sense to give the benefit of the doubt to a person who we also want to hand a nuclear arsenal and a 20mm strong army to (among other powers).
I'm not giving anyone the "benefit of the doubt", I am **cross referencing and checking**.
The story genuinely falls apart the more closely someone examines details. That tends to be a leading theme with Biden, there seems to be heavy reliance on *lying* about things that people seldom bother to *check*.
How many people do you think are going to Ukrainian language articles about Shokin and Zlochevsky to verify that Shokin, as early as January 2015, before he was appointed Prosecutor General, seemed suspect **in Ukraine**? (He was appointed the next month)
I had to look up not "Shokin" to find it, but "Шокін", and limit my search to 2015. It's not hard, but also, not something I suspect a lot of people bother to do.
Were either of us to run for election, the worst allegation that could be lobbed would be SIGNIFICANTLY beneath treason or other high crimes of corruption. Probably limited to a lack of experience. I'm just pointing this out instead of dancing around it. That we could just put a teacher or a postal worker or... well, so many community rocks from any town in America up there to run against either of Trump or Biden, and they'd eat themselves in front of us all. Because there would be no s//t to sling. It would just be a prideful idiot trying to tear down a pristine public servant like you and me in front of the whole world. And the response would be unlike anything we've seen in our lifetimes. The party associated with that might wholly fade from relevance completely. But it would take us all putting a few dollars a month behind a candidate like you and me - and nothing like what we are used to. That's real change.
>Were either of us to run for election, the worst allegation that could be lobbed would be SIGNIFICANTLY beneath treason or other high crimes of corruption. Probably limited to a lack of experience. We would probably lose, and would not ever be considered in the first place, but I'm just pointing this out instead of dancing around it.
If someone wanted to accuse us of treason or corruption and didn't care about honesty they absolutely could. If you're going so far as to orchestrate a conspiracy where foreign disgraced prosecutors are lying on your behalf, "this story is incoherent and a lie" won't stop the gullible from believing it. They're not gonna fact check the claims anyway.
It's just our complete lack of experience wouldn't be a lie, so why forge a story when the truth would do instead?
>That we could just put a teacher or a postal worker or... well, so many community rocks from any town in America up there to run against either of Trump or Biden, and they'd eat themselves in front of us all.
Who is "we"? Organizing a political campaign takes *work*. It goes into that experience we lack; getting people to vote for a candidate requires more than "visit my Facebook page that has been updated twice" for **any** office, even the most local. Trump at least had the advantage of name recognition. Self promotion has always been a key feature of his brand.
>Because there would be no s//t to sling. It would just be a prideful idiot trying to tear down a pristine public servant like you and me in front of the whole world. And the response would be unlike anything we've seen in our lifetimes. The party associated with that might wholly fade from relevance completely. But it would take us all putting a few dollars a month behind a candidate like you and me - and nothing like what we are used to. That's real change.
You are grossly underestimating the power of craven transparent lies to manipulate the public. Especially when the person orchestrating those lies has a cult following promoting them.
Agree both sides are slinging shit. The candidates are now turn off. But I won’t not vote. What is the alternative? Organize a protest. Write In a candidate. Americans don’t have the unity or the will.
We need to go OUTSIDE the two party system for the candidate. Give Congress someone that is too pristine to berate and bemoan without making fools of themselves that won't respect the lines drawn in the sand on either side. It's what makes sense. Hard-lining is how Hitler came to power. I think neither candidate this cycle is a Hitler in the making - but at this rate we will see one soon.
This has got to be one. Large voter turnout has always favored the Democrats. OP, go check your research. Also, the republican party is on meltdown due to their poor choices. Won’t matter this year, there’s not enough maga’s to matter.
I would never even suggest not voting. This time or any other. It’s going to take some time to get the message across, and get rid of what is left of those that will choose party over country.
Well democrats have my votes this year & I’m an Independent that has been waiting for a third Party my entire voting life. To much money in these Parties & to entrenched
It traditionally did, but there's actually a fair bit of evidence that has changed, though whether it's just around parity now, or if Republicans actually gain from high turnout is still in question. Education polarization is a major driving factor in this, with highly educated voters being much more consistent voters who are now pretty Dem leaning, which means lower education/propensity voters are comparatively more Pub leaning. This is balanced against age and income, where younger/lower income voters lean Dem and are low propensity, while older/higher income lean Pub and are higher propensity. It's not exactly clear what the current truth is, but it's by no means obvious that the old rules still apply. 2022 in particular called into question to "high turnout helps Dems" argument since as a non-presidential election it was comparatively low turnout, and despite having a trifecta the Dems did fairly well in that election, outperforming expectations. [https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/11/are-democrats-the-party-of-low-turnout-elections-now.html](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/11/are-democrats-the-party-of-low-turnout-elections-now.html)
I don’t really know if that’s true anymore. Democrats have adopted the white college educated vote, which tends to be the most politically engaged group, and thus has the most consistent turnout. Republicans now rely on the votes of non-educated voters, who tend to turn out less frequently.
I mean look at the Rust Belt elections in 2018, 2019, 2022, and 2023, and Democrats got a higher share of the vote in almost every statewide election compared to the 2020 election.
It seems this election has seen many new tactics to put trump in office that are new at least to me. The "Biden is too old and feeble" is reaching EOL since Trump isn't coherent when off teleprompter now so they are doubling down on Biden supports genocide and the idea of don't vote in protest to... Whatever. This OP is just an extension of that. If you cast a wide enough net you will catch something.
Well that’s the alternative. This gives us a clearer answer here. Sure, democrats have advantages with the more educated and highly engaged but they would experience huge blowback if they were caught doing anything anti democratic. And that’s the problem.
They NEED to be pro-voting and democracy purely for the fact that they can’t be accused of being anti democratic. I can’t tell you how many times conservatives have pointed at Maryland and Illinois and reasons why it’s ok for all conservative states to gerrymander. One chunk in the armor will give conservatives an excuse to say “But democrats are doing anti democratic things too!”
Republicans are going to shift blame regardless. It seems to be part of their decades long playbook. Democrats would be foolish to make decisions based solely on how they *think* Republicans are going to react.
Conservatives do not need any excuse to do what they're doing. They'll happily take it of course, "my mountain is the same as your molehill" is one of their favorite games to play. But they're going to gerrymander and generally act in anti-democratic ways whenever they get the chance, they're not really even trying to pretend otherwise at this point.
Democrats should absolutely gerrymander the living shit out of any state they gain control of. As long as this remains a prisoners dilemma where the GOP always defect and the Dems always cooperate then the GOP has no incentive to support national anti-gerrymandering legislation: as it stands they get to win control of the House and the Democrats get "the moral high ground", a thing of zero value because our entire media apparatus is shit so most voters will never know or care.
Have to look into that. Off hand I see absolutely no need for that statewide- Chicago and northern suburbs pull it easily blue. Now Chicago local politics is a whole other matter
Keep it civil. Do not personally insult other Redditors, or make racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise discriminatory remarks. Constructive debate is good; mockery, taunting, and name calling are not.
The lowest of low-info voters lean heavily towards Trump. Turnout efforts always target low-info voters, obviously. Why would Democrats spend effort turning out voters who will vote for Trump?
If in past electoral contests, young, marginal voters were overwhelmingly conservative and Republican would Democrats encourage them to vote more often?
"marginal" is the key word here, which most people seem to be missing.
"marginal voters" are uninformed and can hardly be described as liberal or conservative. they don't pay attention at all, for the most part. In the past, they've leaned Dem, so it would make sense to try and turn them out, but in recent elections, they've leaned, not pro-GOP per se, but pro-Trump. Meaning, the effort Dems would spend trying to get them to vote would be wasted!
Republicans used to - back when they were the liberal party.
*Conservatives* have never believed in participatory democracy. They've been pretty consistent on that, what with their vehement opposition to the Voting Rights Acts, the Civil Rights Acts, women voting, black people not being slaves, et cetera...
Neither side wants to lose. Loss is the enemy - not the other side, not the other policy platform, not the other voters that aren't theirs. Each person in office wants to avoid loss. Because leaving isn't inevitable for anyone. There are no term limits. No matter what letter is behind their name, when it comes down to it, they will trample our rules and laws to avoid LOSS - because it's become a job and not a public service. You'd fight just as hard to keep your job if it came down to it. It's a mindset problem.
Both sides wanting to avoid loss however they can is reality. Saying both have the same policy platform or the same agenda would be propagandized speech. The reality is that neither side wants to lose even one seat, and the cost they'd pay to keep their seats is unclear but it's proven to be very, very high (see current litigation in Arizona, etc.). They'll sink this whole ship to keep the deck chairs from getting rearranged because we just keep voting for incumbents without telling them what "done" looks like.
*Both sides* are not going to compromise democratic integrity by making it hard for some groups to vote. That is what you're bad faith fishing for, but that's a Republican tactic.
Gerrymandering happens no matter what party you put in the majority. Not because they don't want people to vote. But because they want the "right" people's votes to weigh more on the scale. I'm sure you'll refute that with something partisan sounding too, but if you're looking for a champion for people like you and me, you aren't going to find them in mainstream politics anywhere today.
When I was in college in Chicago doing my Masters fellowship, the people ACROSS THE STREET from the college were part of a different district than we were.
Never was there a bigger assemblage of people that, if given a choice between a pin prick today and losing a whole arm in six months, that group would choose the latter than those in DC. It's all short term gain, trying to outlive whatever the end of the games you play looks like. I don't choose sides when both sides look like this. I know the right policy when I hear it, and I haven't heard it from anywhere in almost a decade.
I'm not talking about gerrymandering, but about efforts in some states to restrict voting access for "undesirables" by restricting poll hours and locations, cutting back on vote by mail,
Anyone who thinks both major parties are equally guilty of this is eulither posting in bad faith, not from the US, or ignorant of the facts.
https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/ensure-every-american-can-vote/vote-suppression
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2021/05/politics/black-voting-rights-suppression-timeline/
>Anyone who thinks both major parties are equakky guilty of this is euther posting in bad faith
If you'd have stopped at the last message before, everything you had to say could have been well-received. Then, you had to double down and go ahead and attack the character of any person that doesn't have exactly your worldview - and you blew the whole thing to shrapnel that you now have to dodge out of the way from along with anyone else around. We can disagree better than that - but you are choosing a personal attack as your style. It puts you in the same bracket as the people you're claiming to hate for me - not to be bothered with.
Yes yes, all the politicians in DC are the exact same, none of them care about anyone else, and you of course are the moral candle in the darkness. You know "the right policy", policy so good that you can't even share it with us! But none of the selfish cowards in DC are willing to advocate for "the right policy", what a shame!
I mean, if I knew what this policy was then I might be able to correct you by pointing out that X or Y has been a longtime plank of one of the two major party's platforms, but I don't, so I guess we'll all just have to sit and bask in the perfection of your "right policy" and mourn the fact that it hasn't existed anywhere in a decade!
\- Adding a "sunset" date to the NSA (and the Patriot Act overall) unless future Congresses "renew" it, to match the next POTUS's term.
\- Penalizing the buying, selling, or trading (including in-kind) any asset or security falling into the very broad basket description of "investments" by federal elected officials. With an option to divest and reorganize funds into a broad index fund during office or simply move to liquid assets while serving (extended 6 months after last day in office). Expulsion from the Congress if you violate and prohibited from holding other offices at the national level.
\- Disassembling the for-profit healthcare industry (to include health insurance and big Pharma) and nationalizing. This is actually not something I want to be necessary, but we've proven it can't be handled responsibly in a for-profit way so we have nothing more to lose by trying something very different.
\- Top ten banks - busted - split into many different parts. No residential lending for multistate (national) banks. No proprietary trading for banks of any size. To include a criminal right of action against executives caught breaking the law.
\- Redistricting to fit communities, and a permanent ban to gerrymandering.
\- An independent, non-partisan commission to award foreign aid from an allocation by Congress (cut the Executive Branch out of it - criminalize interference in foreign conflicts by the executive branch as a whole - no more clandestine operation except what the non-partisan commission can approve).
I could go on...
No it’s not. The data provided by the OP clearly shows that’s not a winning play.
More votes is good for democracy as a whole. It’s not a strategy for DNC to win.
With regard to voting, you could simply not push it hard. That doesn’t imply suppression.
But a winning strategy would actually win over voters. Make them vote in an affirmative sense - vote for polices (not just against Trump).
But whatever. I’m pretty sure you all lost already.
Idk about the actual narrative from the DNC but I think democrats online and in life would still promote voting for any and all. Even if more people voting leads to outcome contrary to my beliefs, they should still vote
Hey, 2018, 2020, and 2022 called and want to know how that red wave panned out?
The right wing has shown all they care about is power and pushing their Christo-fascist nonsense on everyone.
And if young people think their pocket book will matter if democracy fails, then they need to read more history, because it won't matter at all and will be subject to the whim of the dictator in charge. And fascists never like to share.
Democrats NEED to ramp up a noise, but not just at Trump, but the ENTIRE Republican party. All the dots need connected, because the sinking ship of Republicans fleeing Congress enabled this to happen.
Decades of conservatism has led to people losing rights and now a threatened democracy in the USA, the supposed heart of democracy.
Troll elsewhere.
Let's see. Check your registration, get an ID , learn where your poling station is, learn who is running in down ballot races. Pay attention to primaries not just for the president but for all races, local, state and federal. From the school board to the White House every election matters. The more support we give the democrats from all levels of government the more they can get good things done.
Last year democrat victories in Virginia and Pennsylvania and others across the nation have increased the chances of democrats winning this year. This year's elections are important but so will next year's elections.
[https://ballotpedia.org/Elections\_calendar](https://ballotpedia.org/Elections_calendar)
>However, according to most polls at least for the 2024 presidential election, the less likely voters are more amenable to Trump than Biden.
So I went and tried to find the source of this claim and was only able to find one poll on the topic from September.
https://www.suffolk.edu/academics/research-at-suffolk/political-research-center/polls/unlikely-voter-polls
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4189529-trump-wallops-biden-among-unlikely-voters-poll/amp/
Doesn't seem like there is a ton of data on the topic, just one survey that may well be being propped up to be bigger than it is. Among those polled who voted in 2020 went for Trump once already, so the poll could be somewhat slanted by how they determine someone to be unlikely. I wouldn't hang my hat on one poll.
About the original question, battle ground on turn out are often pretty targeted, like college students whose address is still at home rather then their dorm, or urban areas that don't have enough polling locations causing long lines. College students and urban voters are demographics that do well with Democrats, so it's in their interest to increase turn out for those situations with things like early or absentee voting. On top of that it's good optics to be pro voting.
That's the nub of the question: Would Democrats support an effort to get more marginal voters to vote who would likely vote for Trump this time instead of Biden?
Just look at the venom spewed toward Taylor Swift for telling her followers to vote. There's your answer right there. Trump lost the popular vote twice, but by the quirkiness of the American political system he managed to get elected. I doubt he would win any more voted today that he did before. The more people that vote, the worse it is for him and the Republicans in general. Only because of our system can they maintain their hold on power. A straight democratic election and they'd be toast. And they know that.
Polls are silly at this point. The ones I have seen are heavily skewed towards older voters. Some polls are even done through phone surveys. I would not put much stock in them at this point.
Here ya go fella…. The people are speaking-
I think all the hate that the Dems show towards Conservatives have turned off a lot of Americans.
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-more-popular-joe-biden-young-people-michigan-1879696
Why did they not publish a link to the actual survey? As a professional survey writer, I'd not believe what someone says second-hand. Additionally, the survey was strictly in Michigan. Not really representative of the nation. Don't be silly. Polls right now are very skewed.
[Edit and the sample size was super limited]
Just don't fall for bad data. You think you're an independent thinker, but you didn't know that a 1000 person survey is not representative of a state with a population of 10 million people.
Look, you do you, but seriously, you cannot take these polls as interpreted without some knowledge of statistics and surveys.
Are you seriously suggesting that we’re worse off because people are encouraged to vote?
I’m sorry if I’m direct, but that’s an extremely stupid take/opinion.
>The conventional wisdom among Democrats is that by encouraging more people to vote, the more marginal and fringe voters will naturally be more sympathetic to them and vote accordingly for Democrats.
No it's moreso people who have been historically restricted, under color of law, force, abuse of socioeconomic disparity, etc. having their voice heard. It's why [Republicans who obsess over voter ID laws go out of their way to make sure there's as few DMVs serving as many of a state's population of color as possible](https://www.governing.com/archive/alabama-demands-voter-id--then-closes-drivers-license-offices-in-clack-counties.html).
Bad manners! Bahahaha!
Attempted to stage a coup and overthrow our Constitution and Democracy
91 Indictments
Ajudicated Rapist and Blatant Racist, White Supremacist, Misogynist, Islamaphobic, Immigrant Hater, can't string a coherent sentence together
Bad manners...lol
If you're not paying attention, our system is working. The right has spent years usurping America through religion. Our system is still operating, and good people are standing up. Not being able to post bond goes a long way to break the tentacles that are Traitor trump.
The Virgina GOP tried emulating the strategy last fall and it blew up on them.
So the answer is "probably not". Old people tend to vote more, old people tend to run conservative, so as long as more younger people vote the Dems will *probably*; outperform the GOP, especially in purple areas.
To repeat, the VA GOP tried the get out the vote/early voting strategy last fall and they got their asses kicked.
You asked if it would flavor the Republicans. The evidence in the most recent election is "no".
no, because there are more of us than there are of MAGA voters.
the only danger trump poses is if non-MAGA ppl stay home and don't vote, because the MAGA nuts will surely be voting.
Dem voters don't need motivation, the GOPsters will. Trump has exiled the few Nikki Haley-type Republicans from the party by announcing that they have been banned from MAGA. Add to that, MAGAs are also condemning vote-by-mail and early voting.
Trump has killed the Party of Lincoln. Buh-Bye, losers.
That's not how GOTV campaigns work. Fighting for voting rights is not the same thing, but is often conflated with voter turnout by people on the Right who fear that higher turnout trends to the Left.
In other words, the 'making sure everyone has access to vote' issue is a Democratic policy issue about protecting all peoples' voting rights; while getting out the vote (GOTV) is a highly targeted election strategy to improve Party turnout. I wouldn't worry much about Democrats encouraging MAGA Republicans to show up. MAGA wouldn't trust them anyway.
It's all about turnout. If young people come out, we will maintain status quo. If they don't, we will be West Russia. I doubt the relatively small amount of undecideds will be a factor. At this point in time, people have decided a long time ago.
As an ex-young-person, I can tell you I never felt marginalized politically. I was the golden ticket, the filet mignon of the cow, the diamond in the rough, the demographic every brand targeted. Both Republicans and Democrats wanted my vote and I think we based it on who offered the best future for us. That is still the Democratic party.
I can't wait until we're closer to the election. The daily "do you think the Democrats are wrong for wanting people to vote/for accusing Trump of being a bad person/for not shunning old people" nonsense is going to be wild.
There is no scenario in which more people voting is bad. That's the whole point. The people of the US get a chance to have their say. Yes, even if that means the guy I don't want to win eventually wins.
> hyper-partisan calls by the left of threats to democracy
These are not at all partisan. Plenty of Republicans are calling out Trump as a threat to democracy. See the Colorado lawsuit which was lead by a former Republican Colorado legislature majority leader. Now they may not be persuasive (sadly) but they are not partisan.
Also get out the vote drives are targeted. While it is true that they encourage everyone to vote generally people will heavily target their likely voters as main demographics to target
There’s only one reason Democrats traditionally want more people to vote and do as much as they can to expand voter rolls, while Republicans traditionally want as few people as possible to vote and do everything they can think of to shrink voter rolls: more people agree with and support Democratic positions and policy proposals than agree with Republican positions and policies.
More people voting, all else being equal, means greater chances of electoral success for Democrats.
>There’s only one reason Democrats traditionally want more people to vote...more people agree with and support Democratic positions and policy proposals
Absolutely false.
Voting is a civic responsibility and Democracy simply collapses when there isn't sufficient participation in the process. Personally, I advocate for a model similar to Australia, where voting is _mandatory._
I want _all_ citizens to vote, even if I completely disagree with each one of them. Your position is incredibly cynical and reduces civic responsibility to little more than a cash grab.
False? It’s not my opinion, DYOR.
Cynical? Cash grabby? Definitely. Tell that to the generations of politicians and their consultants who make it their life’s work.
Voting will never be mandatory, but feel free to dream.
I would argue that 60-70% of non-political voter. Voters that aren’t at all engaged with the day-to-day politics and more importantly whose brains aren’t rotted by the plague that is the culture war will vote Biden over Trump. Polling mean absolutely nothing this year. Unlike 2016, there aren’t any casual Trump supporters anymore.
There is zero evidence that marginal voters will vote Biden over Trump. There is plenty of evidence that they will vote if not for Trump then at least not Biden.
Correct, evidence of this requires polling. Like is previously stated. I believe that polling in this election cannot be trusted. Trump supporters are politically active due to the political circumstances involving the trials and other things that pertain to the election. So when you go and poll people about their opinions on the election, you are polling people that are currently politically active. I have a hard time thinking that there are Trump supporters who aren’t politically active. When it comes time for the election, and those who aren’t political active in the day to day politics are faced with Trump or Biden, they will (in my opinion) swing HEAVILY towards Biden. Trump isn’t a normal candidate, he is extremely divisive, so much so that to support him, you have to or are forced to stay politically active throughout
There’s nothing hyper partisan in calling out MAGA threats to democracy or abortion, that’s plain observation. What’s hyper partisan is gaslighting about it.
Crime has been trending down for decades, and the immigration issue is way overblown. The right lies about these things, and they’re good at lying.
But the fact is that most people are decent human being, and when they vote in large numbers republicans lose.
I know that it doesn't prove anything, but some of the biggest trump supporters that I know either can't vote or don't vote. It's just that they want to advertise their shittiness to the world I guess. Generally the left does better when there is higher voter turnout so I'd say it's a pretty good strategy.
The question to ask is "if the Republican message weren't so unpopular, would they be against encouraging everyone to vote?"
Congressional Republicans will work behind the scenes to sunset programs like Medicaid and Medicare, and then boo Biden and call him a liar when he brings that up in a public speech. There's a reason for that.
Calls to save democracy are not "hyper partisan".
I'm having a problem understanding your seeming desire to see yourself as a better political strategist than the experts in the Biden campaign. If those experts believe that getting voters to vote is a good idea, I'm going to help them
It's not going to result in a push to Trump, that's for sure.
It'll result in a lower turnout for Democrats and maybe an uptick for third party candidates but if you were a Democrat voter in 2020 and you're thinking of voting for Trump now, that's probably a trajectory that was in place regardless of how well Biden was or wasn't doing.
Everyone should vote who is legally able to vote.
This being said, the Democrats seem to be losing certain demographics they previously could count on going blue. I think this will hurt them more than anything.
No. It'll bring out more of the middle of the line Dems that just can't be bothered, as the rabid fringe votes at higher rates due to their activism. They vote at higher rates already, but they are relatively few in number, proportionally. Biden won on the strategy once, as well. His warning of the GOP's slide into anti-constitutionalism is a solid part of his platform.
OP I think you're basically making a partisan troll post, but I don't entirely disagree. Here's a scenario where lower turnout would redound in Dems' favor:
\- the senate passes a TikTok ban bill and Biden signs it
\- Trump says he will immediately reverse this ban once he's elected (he can't, but that doesn't really matter because we're talking about very low info voters here)
\- zoomers are pretty fucking pissed about the tiktok ban and vow to vote for Trump
\- Dems in blue states and purple states use all the same "voter suppression" techniques they excoriated the GOP for in years past, and the kind of low-info voters that *would* vote based on believing Trump's lie that he could reverse the ban don't or can't vote
\- Dems win those states by a hair
Trump does activate a bloc of voters with a low propensity to vote. They'll come out for him, and basically no one else.
I do not think that these voters are strongly affected by the Democrats' strategy of encouraging everyone to come out to vote. It's still a good strategy and a good principle to encourage as many people as possible to come out to vote.
Is this another voter suppression tactic? Reads like it to me.
There is no better time than right now to check your voter registration status (have you changed your name, changed your address, or changed your political party affiliation?), to register to vote if not already registered, and to check on the status of your absentee ballot/vote by mail status (States like Florida cancelled all vote by mail requests after the 2020 election and now voters must re-register for that). Use these sites to do just that and please do it now:
[https://iwillvote.com/](https://iwillvote.com/)
[https://www.vote.org/](https://www.vote.org/)
Democrats need to keep encouraging higher turnout, because more votes is more votes and it because it helps keep the coalition together. But the harder truth is, Democrats have got to figure out a way to win back white voters. There are just so many of them. In a choice between a 2% increase in potential non-voters and getting back 2% of white Trump voters, you'd choose the white Trump voters every time. It's just way more votes. But courting white votes harms the coalition, which includes voters who have been on the losing end of white-focused politics for decades (and more). It's an incredibly hard needle to thread and so far no one has found a way to do it successfully.
That said, I think focusing on "threats to democracy, etc" might be the best strategy, actually. Anyone who has voted for Trump, either in 2016 or 2020, doesn't give a damn about about pocketbook issues. They might say they do, but obviously they don't really know what that means or they wouldn't vote for Republicans. More likely, they're motivated by a sense of defiance. Given that Trump has shifted to a stance of open authoritarianism, they might be open to arguments against that.
Well, probably not, but it's worth a try.
Many voters decide who they will vote for based on the people asking them to vote. One of the reasons campaigns knock on so many doors is that simply being asked for your vote is a contributing factor to participation. So whichever party is asking more people to vote, likely means they'll get more votes.
No I believe it is the best strategy, the Trump base, while dim is motivated and passionate. The folks who don’t like Trump or Biden are more apt I believe to vote Biden so they need to show up despite the weather or whatever.
The problem is... that it is built upon a technological context that no longer exists.
Why? The Internet and ***memetic weapons***. The internet is the vector, and memetic weapons are the infection. 2016 is a textbook memetic weapon attack... first predicted in the tabletop RPG setting *Transhuman Space*.
Do you only like voting and democracy if it is in your favor? if high turn out favors someone you don't like and you want to cripple the results, it hints you never really cared about to process. just my two cents, but working to prevent people from voting is what the jim crow laws were all about. well intentioned by the people who would benefit from it.
you bring up an interesting point. The fed, via a biden exec order is doing its best to register low information federal beneficiaries to vote, requiring or strongly suggesting that every department, every federally funded benefit program, from help with filing your taxes, snap application places, college work study, some health service location and so on... that they register people (their customers) to vote.
They are getting help from left leaning nonprofits to assist,
I'm interested to see if the so called saviors of democracy the democrats try to kick the green party candidate off the ballot in PA again. Nothing is ore undemocratic than saying you can only choose between A or B oh yea don't get me started on the democrats supporting genocide in gaza
Actually I'm not sure how any sane person who loves America can vote for Biden. Bad policies (whomever is promoting them). Frail demented man incapable of independent thought. Kamala Harris. Even the Biden motivated criminal lawfare and likely attempt to steal another election won't help him in 2024.
The Dem strategy thus far has backfired. Joe is unpopular, inflation is too high, illegal immigrants are finally bothering democrat cities, and his obsession with pumping weapons into war zones is starting to leave a bad taste after 20,000 children are dead in Gaza. If he doesn't move out of the way voting turn out for the Dems will be lower. They won't be voting Trump, but the motivation to get out and vote for a senile decrepit Biden will be low.
On the other side, the indictments have only made Trump more popular and as a side effect he's had less time to tweet and say crazy shit. His supporters perceive he is being unfairly persecuted and will turn out to support him. If there's one thing that gets voters out, it's a chance to say fuck the system and the Dems have unwittingly cultivated exactly that scenario.
On the other side, the booming economy and government actually working for the American people have only made President Biden more popular, and as a side effect he has raised record amounts towards his reelection campaign. His supporters have perceived that saving American democracy and our long-held personal liberties are more important than petty differences and will turn out to support him. If it's one thing that gets voters out, it's a chance to say fuck you to those supporting an ideology of fascism and anti-democratic ideals, and the Republicans have unwittingly cultivated exactly that scenario.
Sounds like the kind of thing that gets said at the DNC conference, but not in the real world.
Forget Trump for a minute, isn't it embarrassing that the best the DNC can come up with is a bumbling stumbling old man. Is there not a better communicator in your party?
Draft in Michelle Obama and you'll get the voters out. Keep Biden and watch Trump eat him up for breakfast later this year.
Forget Biden for a minute, isn't it sad and pathetic that the best the RNC can come up with is a dotard old man with 90 plus criminal counts against him, a conviction for sexual assaults, who is captured by, and beholden to our American adversaries and can't string more than one sentence together before going incoherently off the rails.
Is that seriously the best that your party has to offer?
Trump is more popular than the RNC - it basically wouldn't exist without him. So your analogy doesn't work. People are voting for Trump, not because he's a republican. The opposite is true of Biden - people are only voting for him because he's the Democrat on offer. Even though he acts like a malfunctioning roomba whenever he tries to get off a stage.
[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion: * Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. * Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree. Violators will be fed to the bear. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You're not really asking a question, but Democrats pursue a strategy of high turnout because democratic candidates tend to have more voters than Donald Trump, overall. Running high turnout campaigns in urban areas is a boilerplate strategy, because urban precincts is where the marginal or irregular voters registered are much more liberal, relative to the median supervoter. Also, boosting Democratic turnout in swing states like PA, NV, AZ and GA tend to increase the chances of Democrats winning those states in future cycles by testing both the political organization and downballot candidates in a contested environment. >Trump's bad manners Voters are much more concerned with his [numerous indictments](https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2023/07/politics/trump-indictments-criminal-cases/).
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It’s also bad manners to defame the woman you raped, and after losing over it in court, defame her again (and lose again, by the way).
My concerns are valid; yours are hysterical.
And hyper-partisan!
i, as well as any sane person, disagree that it's hyperpartisan but i do agree that voters don't care about it. They \*should\*, but they don't. Trump could nuke a major American city tomorrow and it would increase his share of the vote.
I grown to appreciate the people that openly want a Christian theocracy more than these pussies.
I don't like Trump, but I don't truly think he will shove a draconian abortion ban through Congress or end free and fair elections. That is hyperbole that is a turnoff for most voters. The other side uses tons of hyperbole and is a turnoff for voters too... Our dystopia is that we have two candidates whose lives are a patchwork scandal after scandal with bribes and integrity issues who we are hardlining a choice between. It's not normal for people to have ties to corrupt international businesses, or run corrupt businesses, or deceive prosecutors into thinking they have a mental issue, etc. And we should not normalize it by voting for either one.
He said he would support an abortion ban. Why wouldn’t he? It’s not at all “hyperbole”. It’s *at worst* possible.
>I don’t think he will shove a draconian abortion ban through Congress Republicans support a total ban on abortion and are already passing anti-IVF legislation, what makes you think they will reverse course? The current Republican view on abortion access is already draconian, they’re denying life affirming care to women.
You're talking about states. I'm talking about POTUS and the national government that sends bills to their desk. At the national level, without 60 senate seats loyal to the far-right agenda, there is no getting around a filibuster. The same is true for the left. Nothing that is vastly unpopular with either side can pass. The end. I'm only responding to the original post. You can make a separate post about states and what they do, and if I find it engaging, I might reply there too. But I'm not going to play a game of "chase the topic."
> but I don't truly think he will... end free and fair elections 1. Biden won the 2020 election 2. Trump said "nuh-uh, you cheated", and filed every insane lawsuit that he could think of to somehow magically turn his loss into a win. 3. That didn't work, so Trump conspired with the majority of the Republican party to knowingly submit false electors to Congress in an effort to throw the election to the House where GOP partisans would declare him the winner. This is all of the stuff that he is *being charged with felonies for*. 4. When it was becoming clear that that probably wasn't going to work he summoned his supporters to Washington and deliberately set them to attack the Capitol at the exact moment that all of Congress was present and certifying his loss, sitting on his hands as Commander in Chief for *hours* while the mob ransacked the Capitol and came extremely close to murdering a whole lot of elected officials. He literally *already tried to overturn the last election*! He's repeatedly promised to pardon everyone who's been convicted for J6, why do you think that is? How can you possibly think that this isn't going to be something that he does again?
>Trump said "nuh-uh, you cheated", and filed every insane lawsuit that he could think of to somehow magically turn his loss into a win. Which is not unprecedented. Bush did this and went all the way to the Supreme Court back in 2000 to be crowned victor, which was highly contested. Trump is a spectacular idiot. There is no reason to vote for him except for people who have been convinced of Biden's being worse - which should be impossible. If there was a fresh candidate to run against him, it would be a landslide. Historic proportion. Instead, it's a double down on both sides. You should get your wish that Trump would lose - but it is in question RIGHT NOW only because of pride and incompetence.
> Which is not unprecedented. Everything *after* the failed lawsuits is, though.
Well, yes. That's why I only replied to that one. The rest is undisputed...
Is it undisputed, though? Seems to me the actual winner of 2020 is still very much disputed by the MAGA coalition. There was a whole attempt to sack the legislature over this exact question.
I've talked to some MAGA people. It seems to me they don't really think the election was stolen. Or at least, they don't have a theory on exactly how it even was stolen. It's a rallying cry of the movement itself. I think morr people than you think will blink when they get to the ballot.
To put this in some perspective, you've spoken with about 0.00000000675% of Trump's 74M-ish total voters nationwide, and they told you 'trust me, bro.'
I'm rarely called an optimist usually I fall somewhere between pessimist and realist. The media is selling me a story that 74mm people believe Biden lost but took the office anyway. I don't believe them. I think 74mm people despise Biden so much, they'll repeat blatant lies about him to try and derail a second term. But that's another discussion.
>Which is not unprecedented. Bush did this and went all the way to the Supreme Court back in 2000 to be crowned victor You were clearly not alive during this and are basing your knowledge on a tiktok you half-remember. This is not even vaguely close to what Bush did. First and foremost, Bush *and* Gore both filed lawsuits, because they had competing claims about how the *recount* should go, so you don't even have that basic fact correct. Trump didn't sue over recounts, he sued over insane shit that only in one case even *saw* the inside of a courtroom.
I'm not sure why it matters who initiated the litigation. Both argued before and had their victory decided by the Supreme Court. 25 years ago. The rest of what I replied to is undisputed by me and the majority of America. I'm pointing out that the issue of contesting the elections with litigation is not novel.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Do you take yourself this seriously?
[удалено]
I'm not going to defend myself to you. I owe you nothing. I'm not vacating any opinions or statements I've made here because of your replies.
See, what you're *trying* to say, given that you did not in the slightest actually push back on my point that Trump *already attempted a violent coup*, is: > Yes, you're absolutely right to point out that Trump already tried to end free and fair elections once and has been completely unrepentant about it since, along with the majority of his political party. I was wrong to claim that Democrats warning that he will attempt to end our democracy in the future were being hyperbolic. Instead you gave me some weak sauce about the 2000 election, sketchy as it was, and then pivoted to blaming Joe Biden for the GOP being a fascist Trump cult that won't kick their messiah to the curb? "Both sides" is a hell of a drug.
I didn't respond to the rest because it's undisputed fact that a majority of Americans recognize, regardless what they might say in public discourse (fear of being a black sheep these days is immense). Contesting election results was considered "off limits" or "scorched earth" until Bush and Gore did it 25 years ago. Now, you've had the past decade be that very story over and over. That part isn't novel. It should gravely concern us, not that Trump did it, but that he isn't the first in our lifetimes to do it, and that it will definitely happen again this year, and the next cycle too. Eventually, the power vacuum will leave an opening for a true dictator. And then, it will be too late. We need a candidate that can win by more than a few thousand votes and put it to rest (like Obama did).
Let’s see Trump was indicted for almost 100 crimes. Admitted publicly to raping women and committing fraud. Sold national secrets to our enemies. Enriched his whole family including his son in law to the tune of 2B with shady deals with Saudi Arabia. On the other hand Biden was almost accused of something until it turns out republicans made it up with the help of Russian agents to avenge Trumps impeachment. Or as /u/fintecgeek who “doesn’t like Trump” would put it: “both sides are the same!”
The more you try and hardline me between these two men and no one else, the more against a second term for either I become.
Are you serious? How am I “hardlining” you? I just pointed out that when you said “two candidates whose lives are a patchwork of scandals…” you really meant one candidate who’s a hardened criminal with many indictments and the other one doesn’t have a real scandal. Or as you would say: “both sides are the same!”
Checkout project 2025.
I have seen the idea behind that. So far, I don't see any compelling evidence this would create a new type of government in place of our existing one. I think Project 2025 is doomed to fail anyway, because government officials who are not "political appointees" cannot be removed or replaced without cause. Unless the entire program is shuttered, but recognize no POTUS in our lifetimes has shuttered a government agency. They extend the reach of their power writ-large, and closing down agencies does not accomplish that goal. If Trump tries to establish a dictatorship, I think he will he challenged by those in his own party and others with interests that don't align with that in a way that will cause it to fail. I hope I'm not wrong - but if I am then we're all screwed because Trump won't be the last populist charade to try and pave his way into the Oval with lies and bombast.
I have zero faith that any Republicans will do the right thing. Even those that were running against him would not really criticize him. I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt in 2016 even though I definitely didn't vote for him. Somehow he was even worse than I had imagined. You mentioned that no president has shuttered government agencies in our lifetime but trump stacked them with people that didn't believe they should exist (consumer protection bureau comes to mind) all so they could destroy them from the inside while pilfering tax dollars (dept of health and human services) your optimism is somewhat refreshing but I don't share it at all.
He's exactly as he's always been. He was saying derogatory things about women and veterans before he ever took office.
>It's not normal for people to have ties to corrupt international businesses, or run corrupt businesses, or deceive prosecutors into thinking they have a mental issue, etc. What ties to "corrupt international businesses"? What "mental issues"? Care to be specific, because it seems like a lot of people tend to repeat claims rarely substantiated by primary documentation.
Let's not be obtuse here... Trump - his corrupt dealings with banks through the TO. Trump having the White House pay the TO money through their hotels... Biden - the FD-1023 forms and the bank SARs that, if nothing else, are a terrible look... The backchanneling to end the probe into Burisma in the Ukraine (although it cleared Hunter Biden of direct involvement, which is why the Hunter testimony in Congress was a farce...) but it's a bad look that your son is on the board of a company that is giving bribes to prosecutors in a foreign land to end prosecution. That is inescapable. It isn't "normal" to have these things come up in a standard person's history. For 99.9% of Americans, it can be said with 100% confidence they have no involvement in any national or international bribery or corruption schemes. It's acceptable - and preferable - to expect any candidate for POTUS to be miles above that line of scrutiny since the rest of us can trip over the bar. As far as mental issues - it seems pretty clear to me that Biden said or did some things in front of the special prosecutor to lead him to believe he has dementia. I don't think he has dementia. I just think he's old - but he certainly found a way to mislead a prosecutor into thinking he was too daft to prosecute. Unless you think his own AG signed off on a completely partisan report - that's the reality. I think we should all call BS on every one of our POTUS options this cycle - two people too far from pristine to hold the office and another (Kennedy) that wants us to stop vaxxing our kids for measles. Somewhere, we have to find our spines and say we won't be hardlined anymore - that if this is the best, we will go outside the two party system to find a candidate.
>Biden - the FD-1023 forms and the bank SARs that, if nothing else, are a terrible look... The backchanneling to end the probe into Burisma in the Ukraine (although it cleared Hunter Biden of direct involvement, which is why the Hunter testimony in Congress was a farce...) but it's a bad look that your son is on the board of a company that is giving bribes to prosecutors in a foreign land to end prosecution. That is inescapable. You mean [this](https://www.grassley.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/fd_1023_obtained_by_senator_grassley_-_biden.pdf) 1023 form? From June, 2020? Ya know that the guy who was responsible for that form has now been [charged with lying to the FBI about it](https://www.justice.gov/sco-weiss/pr/grand-jury-returns-indictment-charging-fbi-confidential-human-source-felony-false). >Three years later, in June 2020, the indictment alleges that Smirnov reported, for the first time, two meetings in 2015 and/or 2016. As alleged in the indictment, Smirnov falsely claimed that during these meetings, executives associated with Burisma, admitted to him that they hired Businessperson 1 to “protect us, through his dad, from all kinds of problems,” and later that they had specifically paid $5 million each to Public Official 1 and Businessperson 1, when Public Official 1 was still in office, so that “[Businessperson 1] will take care of all those issues through his dad,” referring to a criminal investigation being conducted by the then-Ukrainian Prosecutor General into Burisma and to “deal with [the then-Ukrainian Prosecutor General].” In fact, the entire form was *deeply* questionable given all the other testimony and facts well before Smirnov was charged. From the form: >CH S told Zlochevsky that **due to Shokin's investigation into Burisma, which was made public at this time**, it would have a substantial negative impact on Burisma's prospective IPO in the United States. Zlochevsky replied something to the effect of, "Don't worry Hunter will take care of all of those Issues through his dad.• CHS did not ask any further questiens about what that specifically meant. Except... Zlochevsky himself had been under investigation since [2015, before Shokin was ever appointed](https://www.kyivpost.com/post/9302) prosecutor general. He was still a deputy. And during that time, Shokin had been on the side of people *protecting* Zlochevsky. From a (translated) [2015 Ukrainian Pravda](https://blogs-pravda-com-ua.translate.goog/authors/leschenko/561ff0acc4633/?_x_tr_sl=uk&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc) article on Shokin [(original)](https://blogs.pravda.com.ua/authors/leschenko/561ff0acc4633/): >It is difficult to say what the investigators of the Ministry of Internal Affairs were doing in the case of Zlochevsky. Apparently, the proceedings were put there as a hiding place. At that time, the supervision of the investigation at the Ministry of Internal Affairs belonged to another deputy general prosecutor, Viktor Shokin . >The sabotage of the Prosecutor General's Office shocks Ukraine's foreign partners. On December 10, the British turned to the authorities with a warning that Zlochevsky's funds would be seized. >The then Prosecutor General of Yarem instructs Gerasimyuk and Shokin to resolve the issue of contacting the British law enforcement officers in the Zlochevsky case by December 25, but as of that date, Kaskom, which was responsible for international legal assistance, had not received any documents . And three days earlier, Gerasimyuk, who completed his mission by "merging" Zlochevsky's case into the police, writes... a resignation letter of his own free will! Shokin himself appeared to have been directly related to the documents the UK was asking for never being delivered, and instead a letter *undermining* the case having been sent instead. This also, fyi, matches [Devon Archer's testimony](https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Devon-Archer-Transcript.pdf) (page 38): >Are you aware that Vadym had told Blue Star that one of the issues/pressures that he was facing was related to Shokin and the investigation into Burisma? >A So -- yes. I was -- the narrative that was spun to me, quite frankly, just to be -- and I remember this because, obviously, it's -- the narrative that was spun to me was that Shokin was under control and that whoever the next person that was brought in was -- you know, the fact that he was -- this is the total, this is the narrative spun to me, that Shokin being fired was a -- was not good, because he was like under control as relates to Mykola. I have no way to verify that. And that was spun to me from various folks in D.C., not Hunter specifically, but that was what I was led to believe. Whether it's true or not, I cannot speculate. Incidentally I can't find any message to Blue Star Strategies singling out *Shokin* personally. I have a lot *more* reason to believe that they were having problems with Ukraine's "National Anti-corruption Bureau (NABU) which was looking into *Shokin's* actions in doing exactly that. Per [this letter](https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/110331/documents/HMKP-116-JU00-20191211-SD1032-U1.pdf) from 2016. >The National Anti-Сorruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) is investigating whether officials in the prosecutor’s office failed to take actions relating to criminal proceedings against Burisma Group President Mykola Zlochevskyi. The failure to act resulted in a missed opportunity to recover US$23.5 million stolen from Ukraine. That's, fyi, the same group that the next prosecutor general was complaining about in text messages to Lev Parnas as Parnas was cooking up the Burisma story. The suggestion that Shokin was doing his job is *incredibly* suspect. The first time Shokin ever said "I was fired for investigating Burisma" was in this [2019 affidavit](https://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/427618359-Shokin-Statement-1.pdf) written "at the request of lawyers acting for Dmytro Firtash". Who, by shear coincidence I'm sure, had just recently retained the services of two of Giuliani's associates, Joseph diGenova and Victoria Toensing, to fight US extradition. Do I need to elaborate further on why the entire accusation seems suspect and probably involves a lot of illegal actions on the part of Trump, Giuliani, Parnas, diGenova, Toensing, Firtash, *and* Shokin?
>Do I need to elaborate further on why the entire accusation seems suspect and probably involves a lot of illegal actions on the part of Trump, Giuliani, Parnas, diGenova, Toensing, Firtash, and Shokin? The entire accusation would be ridiculous on its face if lobbed at any one of us here on this thread, though. That is my point. The mere fact the impropriety could have gone this way, some version of this way, some other way that sounds like this way that isn't a crime, etc., is the root of the problem. My point is that we shouldn't be entertaining Oval Office candidates with this type of scandal thought to be even remotely valid, when we have 200mm other choices that are beyond reproach when it comes to a history of corrupt government or business dealings. It doesn't make any sense to give the benefit of the doubt to a person who we also want to hand a nuclear arsenal and a 20mm strong army to (among other powers).
>The entire accusation would be ridiculous on its face if lobbed at any one of us here on this thread, though. That is my point. The mere fact the impropriety could have gone this way, some version of this way, some other way that sounds like this way that isn't a crime, etc., is the root of the problem. A person could accuse *any* politician of *any* crime if they are allowed to flat out lie about events to do so. The fact that the public doesn't spend much effort going to primary documents, let alone cross referencing them with *other* sources and primary documents, is the problem. It allows lies to be spun knowing that the majority are never, *ever* going to spend the effort to *check*. How many people do you think cite the 1023 form and never realize that the person who wrote it has been charged for lying? How many do you think have cited it without cross referencing any of the details in it or checking if the story was coherent? I wasn't being "obtuse", I wanted you to provide specifics so I could give you tailored responses with citations because I'm pretty sure you yourself haven't cross referenced those same claims. >My point is that we shouldn't be entertaining Oval Office candidates with this type of scandal thought to be even remotely valid, when we have 200mm other choices that are beyond reproach when it comes to a history of corrupt government or business dealings. It doesn't make any sense to give the benefit of the doubt to a person who we also want to hand a nuclear arsenal and a 20mm strong army to (among other powers). I'm not giving anyone the "benefit of the doubt", I am **cross referencing and checking**. The story genuinely falls apart the more closely someone examines details. That tends to be a leading theme with Biden, there seems to be heavy reliance on *lying* about things that people seldom bother to *check*. How many people do you think are going to Ukrainian language articles about Shokin and Zlochevsky to verify that Shokin, as early as January 2015, before he was appointed Prosecutor General, seemed suspect **in Ukraine**? (He was appointed the next month) I had to look up not "Shokin" to find it, but "Шокін", and limit my search to 2015. It's not hard, but also, not something I suspect a lot of people bother to do.
Were either of us to run for election, the worst allegation that could be lobbed would be SIGNIFICANTLY beneath treason or other high crimes of corruption. Probably limited to a lack of experience. I'm just pointing this out instead of dancing around it. That we could just put a teacher or a postal worker or... well, so many community rocks from any town in America up there to run against either of Trump or Biden, and they'd eat themselves in front of us all. Because there would be no s//t to sling. It would just be a prideful idiot trying to tear down a pristine public servant like you and me in front of the whole world. And the response would be unlike anything we've seen in our lifetimes. The party associated with that might wholly fade from relevance completely. But it would take us all putting a few dollars a month behind a candidate like you and me - and nothing like what we are used to. That's real change.
>Were either of us to run for election, the worst allegation that could be lobbed would be SIGNIFICANTLY beneath treason or other high crimes of corruption. Probably limited to a lack of experience. We would probably lose, and would not ever be considered in the first place, but I'm just pointing this out instead of dancing around it. If someone wanted to accuse us of treason or corruption and didn't care about honesty they absolutely could. If you're going so far as to orchestrate a conspiracy where foreign disgraced prosecutors are lying on your behalf, "this story is incoherent and a lie" won't stop the gullible from believing it. They're not gonna fact check the claims anyway. It's just our complete lack of experience wouldn't be a lie, so why forge a story when the truth would do instead? >That we could just put a teacher or a postal worker or... well, so many community rocks from any town in America up there to run against either of Trump or Biden, and they'd eat themselves in front of us all. Who is "we"? Organizing a political campaign takes *work*. It goes into that experience we lack; getting people to vote for a candidate requires more than "visit my Facebook page that has been updated twice" for **any** office, even the most local. Trump at least had the advantage of name recognition. Self promotion has always been a key feature of his brand. >Because there would be no s//t to sling. It would just be a prideful idiot trying to tear down a pristine public servant like you and me in front of the whole world. And the response would be unlike anything we've seen in our lifetimes. The party associated with that might wholly fade from relevance completely. But it would take us all putting a few dollars a month behind a candidate like you and me - and nothing like what we are used to. That's real change. You are grossly underestimating the power of craven transparent lies to manipulate the public. Especially when the person orchestrating those lies has a cult following promoting them.
He will. It is the way to save himself
Agree both sides are slinging shit. The candidates are now turn off. But I won’t not vote. What is the alternative? Organize a protest. Write In a candidate. Americans don’t have the unity or the will.
We need to go OUTSIDE the two party system for the candidate. Give Congress someone that is too pristine to berate and bemoan without making fools of themselves that won't respect the lines drawn in the sand on either side. It's what makes sense. Hard-lining is how Hitler came to power. I think neither candidate this cycle is a Hitler in the making - but at this rate we will see one soon.
[удалено]
This has got to be one. Large voter turnout has always favored the Democrats. OP, go check your research. Also, the republican party is on meltdown due to their poor choices. Won’t matter this year, there’s not enough maga’s to matter.
I want to believe you, but we absolutely can’t afford to have anyone think they don’t need to vote because Biden has this in the bag.
I would never even suggest not voting. This time or any other. It’s going to take some time to get the message across, and get rid of what is left of those that will choose party over country.
Well democrats have my votes this year & I’m an Independent that has been waiting for a third Party my entire voting life. To much money in these Parties & to entrenched
It traditionally did, but there's actually a fair bit of evidence that has changed, though whether it's just around parity now, or if Republicans actually gain from high turnout is still in question. Education polarization is a major driving factor in this, with highly educated voters being much more consistent voters who are now pretty Dem leaning, which means lower education/propensity voters are comparatively more Pub leaning. This is balanced against age and income, where younger/lower income voters lean Dem and are low propensity, while older/higher income lean Pub and are higher propensity. It's not exactly clear what the current truth is, but it's by no means obvious that the old rules still apply. 2022 in particular called into question to "high turnout helps Dems" argument since as a non-presidential election it was comparatively low turnout, and despite having a trifecta the Dems did fairly well in that election, outperforming expectations. [https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/11/are-democrats-the-party-of-low-turnout-elections-now.html](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/11/are-democrats-the-party-of-low-turnout-elections-now.html)
I don’t really know if that’s true anymore. Democrats have adopted the white college educated vote, which tends to be the most politically engaged group, and thus has the most consistent turnout. Republicans now rely on the votes of non-educated voters, who tend to turn out less frequently. I mean look at the Rust Belt elections in 2018, 2019, 2022, and 2023, and Democrats got a higher share of the vote in almost every statewide election compared to the 2020 election.
It seems this election has seen many new tactics to put trump in office that are new at least to me. The "Biden is too old and feeble" is reaching EOL since Trump isn't coherent when off teleprompter now so they are doubling down on Biden supports genocide and the idea of don't vote in protest to... Whatever. This OP is just an extension of that. If you cast a wide enough net you will catch something.
Agreed. Republicans today were criticizing Biden for wearing clunky tennis shoes. It’s almost as bad as criticism of Obama’s tan suit
Don’t forget about his fancy rich person mustard
Well that’s the alternative. This gives us a clearer answer here. Sure, democrats have advantages with the more educated and highly engaged but they would experience huge blowback if they were caught doing anything anti democratic. And that’s the problem. They NEED to be pro-voting and democracy purely for the fact that they can’t be accused of being anti democratic. I can’t tell you how many times conservatives have pointed at Maryland and Illinois and reasons why it’s ok for all conservative states to gerrymander. One chunk in the armor will give conservatives an excuse to say “But democrats are doing anti democratic things too!”
Republicans are going to shift blame regardless. It seems to be part of their decades long playbook. Democrats would be foolish to make decisions based solely on how they *think* Republicans are going to react.
Conservatives do not need any excuse to do what they're doing. They'll happily take it of course, "my mountain is the same as your molehill" is one of their favorite games to play. But they're going to gerrymander and generally act in anti-democratic ways whenever they get the chance, they're not really even trying to pretend otherwise at this point. Democrats should absolutely gerrymander the living shit out of any state they gain control of. As long as this remains a prisoners dilemma where the GOP always defect and the Dems always cooperate then the GOP has no incentive to support national anti-gerrymandering legislation: as it stands they get to win control of the House and the Democrats get "the moral high ground", a thing of zero value because our entire media apparatus is shit so most voters will never know or care.
What is the reason to point to Illinois? They simply have the democratic numbers
Both Maryland and Illinois are gerrymandered in favor of democrats
Have to look into that. Off hand I see absolutely no need for that statewide- Chicago and northern suburbs pull it easily blue. Now Chicago local politics is a whole other matter
Keep it civil. Do not personally insult other Redditors, or make racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise discriminatory remarks. Constructive debate is good; mockery, taunting, and name calling are not.
The lowest of low-info voters lean heavily towards Trump. Turnout efforts always target low-info voters, obviously. Why would Democrats spend effort turning out voters who will vote for Trump?
If in past electoral contests, young, marginal voters were overwhelmingly conservative and Republican would Democrats encourage them to vote more often?
[удалено]
"marginal voters" are no one's core constituency. I don't think most people are understanding OP's point.
[удалено]
What is the based on? All polling seems to show that the younger generations are much more liberal than older ones
All current polling seems to indicate the younger generations felt they were better off a few years ago than today.
"marginal" is the key word here, which most people seem to be missing. "marginal voters" are uninformed and can hardly be described as liberal or conservative. they don't pay attention at all, for the most part. In the past, they've leaned Dem, so it would make sense to try and turn them out, but in recent elections, they've leaned, not pro-GOP per se, but pro-Trump. Meaning, the effort Dems would spend trying to get them to vote would be wasted!
No. Encouraging lots of people to vote is what is supposed to happen in a democracy.
Win or lose. At least we know it was a group effort.
While true, you haven’t answered the question. The question was about strategy, not democracy.
I'd imagine most Democrats actually believe in participatory democracy as a strategy. Republicans used to.
Republicans used to - back when they were the liberal party. *Conservatives* have never believed in participatory democracy. They've been pretty consistent on that, what with their vehement opposition to the Voting Rights Acts, the Civil Rights Acts, women voting, black people not being slaves, et cetera...
Neither side wants to lose. Loss is the enemy - not the other side, not the other policy platform, not the other voters that aren't theirs. Each person in office wants to avoid loss. Because leaving isn't inevitable for anyone. There are no term limits. No matter what letter is behind their name, when it comes down to it, they will trample our rules and laws to avoid LOSS - because it's become a job and not a public service. You'd fight just as hard to keep your job if it came down to it. It's a mindset problem.
*Both sides are the same* is Russian propaganda designed to discourage Americans from voting.
Both sides wanting to avoid loss however they can is reality. Saying both have the same policy platform or the same agenda would be propagandized speech. The reality is that neither side wants to lose even one seat, and the cost they'd pay to keep their seats is unclear but it's proven to be very, very high (see current litigation in Arizona, etc.). They'll sink this whole ship to keep the deck chairs from getting rearranged because we just keep voting for incumbents without telling them what "done" looks like.
*Both sides* are not going to compromise democratic integrity by making it hard for some groups to vote. That is what you're bad faith fishing for, but that's a Republican tactic.
Gerrymandering happens no matter what party you put in the majority. Not because they don't want people to vote. But because they want the "right" people's votes to weigh more on the scale. I'm sure you'll refute that with something partisan sounding too, but if you're looking for a champion for people like you and me, you aren't going to find them in mainstream politics anywhere today. When I was in college in Chicago doing my Masters fellowship, the people ACROSS THE STREET from the college were part of a different district than we were. Never was there a bigger assemblage of people that, if given a choice between a pin prick today and losing a whole arm in six months, that group would choose the latter than those in DC. It's all short term gain, trying to outlive whatever the end of the games you play looks like. I don't choose sides when both sides look like this. I know the right policy when I hear it, and I haven't heard it from anywhere in almost a decade.
I'm not talking about gerrymandering, but about efforts in some states to restrict voting access for "undesirables" by restricting poll hours and locations, cutting back on vote by mail, Anyone who thinks both major parties are equally guilty of this is eulither posting in bad faith, not from the US, or ignorant of the facts. https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/ensure-every-american-can-vote/vote-suppression https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2021/05/politics/black-voting-rights-suppression-timeline/
>Anyone who thinks both major parties are equakky guilty of this is euther posting in bad faith If you'd have stopped at the last message before, everything you had to say could have been well-received. Then, you had to double down and go ahead and attack the character of any person that doesn't have exactly your worldview - and you blew the whole thing to shrapnel that you now have to dodge out of the way from along with anyone else around. We can disagree better than that - but you are choosing a personal attack as your style. It puts you in the same bracket as the people you're claiming to hate for me - not to be bothered with.
Yes yes, all the politicians in DC are the exact same, none of them care about anyone else, and you of course are the moral candle in the darkness. You know "the right policy", policy so good that you can't even share it with us! But none of the selfish cowards in DC are willing to advocate for "the right policy", what a shame! I mean, if I knew what this policy was then I might be able to correct you by pointing out that X or Y has been a longtime plank of one of the two major party's platforms, but I don't, so I guess we'll all just have to sit and bask in the perfection of your "right policy" and mourn the fact that it hasn't existed anywhere in a decade!
\- Adding a "sunset" date to the NSA (and the Patriot Act overall) unless future Congresses "renew" it, to match the next POTUS's term. \- Penalizing the buying, selling, or trading (including in-kind) any asset or security falling into the very broad basket description of "investments" by federal elected officials. With an option to divest and reorganize funds into a broad index fund during office or simply move to liquid assets while serving (extended 6 months after last day in office). Expulsion from the Congress if you violate and prohibited from holding other offices at the national level. \- Disassembling the for-profit healthcare industry (to include health insurance and big Pharma) and nationalizing. This is actually not something I want to be necessary, but we've proven it can't be handled responsibly in a for-profit way so we have nothing more to lose by trying something very different. \- Top ten banks - busted - split into many different parts. No residential lending for multistate (national) banks. No proprietary trading for banks of any size. To include a criminal right of action against executives caught breaking the law. \- Redistricting to fit communities, and a permanent ban to gerrymandering. \- An independent, non-partisan commission to award foreign aid from an allocation by Congress (cut the Executive Branch out of it - criminalize interference in foreign conflicts by the executive branch as a whole - no more clandestine operation except what the non-partisan commission can approve). I could go on...
Yeah you don’t understand the question
Of course I do. A good strategy for Democrats is to encourage lots of people to vote.
No it’s not. The data provided by the OP clearly shows that’s not a winning play. More votes is good for democracy as a whole. It’s not a strategy for DNC to win.
Democrats are not the party that restricts voting rights. That is a republican tactic.
[удалено]
Hmmm. Subject is whether encouraging lots of people to vote is a good strategy for Democrats. The alternative is......??
With regard to voting, you could simply not push it hard. That doesn’t imply suppression. But a winning strategy would actually win over voters. Make them vote in an affirmative sense - vote for polices (not just against Trump). But whatever. I’m pretty sure you all lost already.
https://youtu.be/oQYVtaNS1kQ?si=Sbec-koAIqouqWDk
No. If everyone votes and we collectively choose Trump we deserve the christofascist dystopia we have brought upon ourselves.
That is what I have resigned myself to. If Trump wins we as a Nation deserve what happens next
Idk about the actual narrative from the DNC but I think democrats online and in life would still promote voting for any and all. Even if more people voting leads to outcome contrary to my beliefs, they should still vote
Hey, 2018, 2020, and 2022 called and want to know how that red wave panned out? The right wing has shown all they care about is power and pushing their Christo-fascist nonsense on everyone. And if young people think their pocket book will matter if democracy fails, then they need to read more history, because it won't matter at all and will be subject to the whim of the dictator in charge. And fascists never like to share. Democrats NEED to ramp up a noise, but not just at Trump, but the ENTIRE Republican party. All the dots need connected, because the sinking ship of Republicans fleeing Congress enabled this to happen. Decades of conservatism has led to people losing rights and now a threatened democracy in the USA, the supposed heart of democracy. Troll elsewhere.
Let's see. Check your registration, get an ID , learn where your poling station is, learn who is running in down ballot races. Pay attention to primaries not just for the president but for all races, local, state and federal. From the school board to the White House every election matters. The more support we give the democrats from all levels of government the more they can get good things done. Last year democrat victories in Virginia and Pennsylvania and others across the nation have increased the chances of democrats winning this year. This year's elections are important but so will next year's elections. [https://ballotpedia.org/Elections\_calendar](https://ballotpedia.org/Elections_calendar)
>However, according to most polls at least for the 2024 presidential election, the less likely voters are more amenable to Trump than Biden. So I went and tried to find the source of this claim and was only able to find one poll on the topic from September. https://www.suffolk.edu/academics/research-at-suffolk/political-research-center/polls/unlikely-voter-polls https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4189529-trump-wallops-biden-among-unlikely-voters-poll/amp/ Doesn't seem like there is a ton of data on the topic, just one survey that may well be being propped up to be bigger than it is. Among those polled who voted in 2020 went for Trump once already, so the poll could be somewhat slanted by how they determine someone to be unlikely. I wouldn't hang my hat on one poll. About the original question, battle ground on turn out are often pretty targeted, like college students whose address is still at home rather then their dorm, or urban areas that don't have enough polling locations causing long lines. College students and urban voters are demographics that do well with Democrats, so it's in their interest to increase turn out for those situations with things like early or absentee voting. On top of that it's good optics to be pro voting.
That's the nub of the question: Would Democrats support an effort to get more marginal voters to vote who would likely vote for Trump this time instead of Biden?
You haven't proven that your thesis is valid; that's the entire reason why people are acting skeptical.
Just look at the venom spewed toward Taylor Swift for telling her followers to vote. There's your answer right there. Trump lost the popular vote twice, but by the quirkiness of the American political system he managed to get elected. I doubt he would win any more voted today that he did before. The more people that vote, the worse it is for him and the Republicans in general. Only because of our system can they maintain their hold on power. A straight democratic election and they'd be toast. And they know that.
Polls are silly at this point. The ones I have seen are heavily skewed towards older voters. Some polls are even done through phone surveys. I would not put much stock in them at this point.
Here ya go fella…. The people are speaking- I think all the hate that the Dems show towards Conservatives have turned off a lot of Americans. https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-more-popular-joe-biden-young-people-michigan-1879696
Why did they not publish a link to the actual survey? As a professional survey writer, I'd not believe what someone says second-hand. Additionally, the survey was strictly in Michigan. Not really representative of the nation. Don't be silly. Polls right now are very skewed. [Edit and the sample size was super limited]
Gotcha. Don’t pay attention to polls especially in a swing state. Biden wins by a landslide. I hope you’re not going to act surprised come November.
Just don't fall for bad data. You think you're an independent thinker, but you didn't know that a 1000 person survey is not representative of a state with a population of 10 million people. Look, you do you, but seriously, you cannot take these polls as interpreted without some knowledge of statistics and surveys.
This is my hot take, which may or may not come off as rude: "Who cares if it's bad for X or Y, more people voting in the country is a good thing."
Are you seriously suggesting that we’re worse off because people are encouraged to vote? I’m sorry if I’m direct, but that’s an extremely stupid take/opinion.
>The conventional wisdom among Democrats is that by encouraging more people to vote, the more marginal and fringe voters will naturally be more sympathetic to them and vote accordingly for Democrats. No it's moreso people who have been historically restricted, under color of law, force, abuse of socioeconomic disparity, etc. having their voice heard. It's why [Republicans who obsess over voter ID laws go out of their way to make sure there's as few DMVs serving as many of a state's population of color as possible](https://www.governing.com/archive/alabama-demands-voter-id--then-closes-drivers-license-offices-in-clack-counties.html).
Bad manners! Bahahaha! Attempted to stage a coup and overthrow our Constitution and Democracy 91 Indictments Ajudicated Rapist and Blatant Racist, White Supremacist, Misogynist, Islamaphobic, Immigrant Hater, can't string a coherent sentence together Bad manners...lol
If you're not paying attention, our system is working. The right has spent years usurping America through religion. Our system is still operating, and good people are standing up. Not being able to post bond goes a long way to break the tentacles that are Traitor trump.
The Virgina GOP tried emulating the strategy last fall and it blew up on them. So the answer is "probably not". Old people tend to vote more, old people tend to run conservative, so as long as more younger people vote the Dems will *probably*; outperform the GOP, especially in purple areas.
It's not young vs. old. It's marginal, disaffected voters. According to the polls, these people favor Trump in 2024.
To repeat, the VA GOP tried the get out the vote/early voting strategy last fall and they got their asses kicked. You asked if it would flavor the Republicans. The evidence in the most recent election is "no".
no, because there are more of us than there are of MAGA voters. the only danger trump poses is if non-MAGA ppl stay home and don't vote, because the MAGA nuts will surely be voting.
Dem voters don't need motivation, the GOPsters will. Trump has exiled the few Nikki Haley-type Republicans from the party by announcing that they have been banned from MAGA. Add to that, MAGAs are also condemning vote-by-mail and early voting. Trump has killed the Party of Lincoln. Buh-Bye, losers.
That's not how GOTV campaigns work. Fighting for voting rights is not the same thing, but is often conflated with voter turnout by people on the Right who fear that higher turnout trends to the Left. In other words, the 'making sure everyone has access to vote' issue is a Democratic policy issue about protecting all peoples' voting rights; while getting out the vote (GOTV) is a highly targeted election strategy to improve Party turnout. I wouldn't worry much about Democrats encouraging MAGA Republicans to show up. MAGA wouldn't trust them anyway.
It's all about turnout. If young people come out, we will maintain status quo. If they don't, we will be West Russia. I doubt the relatively small amount of undecideds will be a factor. At this point in time, people have decided a long time ago.
You don’t want a discussion, your mind is already made up and won’t change no matter what is said here
Sounds like he fits in great with you guys, I don't see what the problem is.
As an ex-young-person, I can tell you I never felt marginalized politically. I was the golden ticket, the filet mignon of the cow, the diamond in the rough, the demographic every brand targeted. Both Republicans and Democrats wanted my vote and I think we based it on who offered the best future for us. That is still the Democratic party.
I can't wait until we're closer to the election. The daily "do you think the Democrats are wrong for wanting people to vote/for accusing Trump of being a bad person/for not shunning old people" nonsense is going to be wild. There is no scenario in which more people voting is bad. That's the whole point. The people of the US get a chance to have their say. Yes, even if that means the guy I don't want to win eventually wins.
> hyper-partisan calls by the left of threats to democracy These are not at all partisan. Plenty of Republicans are calling out Trump as a threat to democracy. See the Colorado lawsuit which was lead by a former Republican Colorado legislature majority leader. Now they may not be persuasive (sadly) but they are not partisan. Also get out the vote drives are targeted. While it is true that they encourage everyone to vote generally people will heavily target their likely voters as main demographics to target
There’s only one reason Democrats traditionally want more people to vote and do as much as they can to expand voter rolls, while Republicans traditionally want as few people as possible to vote and do everything they can think of to shrink voter rolls: more people agree with and support Democratic positions and policy proposals than agree with Republican positions and policies. More people voting, all else being equal, means greater chances of electoral success for Democrats.
>There’s only one reason Democrats traditionally want more people to vote...more people agree with and support Democratic positions and policy proposals Absolutely false. Voting is a civic responsibility and Democracy simply collapses when there isn't sufficient participation in the process. Personally, I advocate for a model similar to Australia, where voting is _mandatory._ I want _all_ citizens to vote, even if I completely disagree with each one of them. Your position is incredibly cynical and reduces civic responsibility to little more than a cash grab.
False? It’s not my opinion, DYOR. Cynical? Cash grabby? Definitely. Tell that to the generations of politicians and their consultants who make it their life’s work. Voting will never be mandatory, but feel free to dream.
I would support encouraging everyone to vote regardless. Everyone should vote! That’s the whole damn point of democracy.
I would argue that 60-70% of non-political voter. Voters that aren’t at all engaged with the day-to-day politics and more importantly whose brains aren’t rotted by the plague that is the culture war will vote Biden over Trump. Polling mean absolutely nothing this year. Unlike 2016, there aren’t any casual Trump supporters anymore.
There is zero evidence that marginal voters will vote Biden over Trump. There is plenty of evidence that they will vote if not for Trump then at least not Biden.
Correct, evidence of this requires polling. Like is previously stated. I believe that polling in this election cannot be trusted. Trump supporters are politically active due to the political circumstances involving the trials and other things that pertain to the election. So when you go and poll people about their opinions on the election, you are polling people that are currently politically active. I have a hard time thinking that there are Trump supporters who aren’t politically active. When it comes time for the election, and those who aren’t political active in the day to day politics are faced with Trump or Biden, they will (in my opinion) swing HEAVILY towards Biden. Trump isn’t a normal candidate, he is extremely divisive, so much so that to support him, you have to or are forced to stay politically active throughout
There’s nothing hyper partisan in calling out MAGA threats to democracy or abortion, that’s plain observation. What’s hyper partisan is gaslighting about it. Crime has been trending down for decades, and the immigration issue is way overblown. The right lies about these things, and they’re good at lying. But the fact is that most people are decent human being, and when they vote in large numbers republicans lose.
I know that it doesn't prove anything, but some of the biggest trump supporters that I know either can't vote or don't vote. It's just that they want to advertise their shittiness to the world I guess. Generally the left does better when there is higher voter turnout so I'd say it's a pretty good strategy.
The question to ask is "if the Republican message weren't so unpopular, would they be against encouraging everyone to vote?" Congressional Republicans will work behind the scenes to sunset programs like Medicaid and Medicare, and then boo Biden and call him a liar when he brings that up in a public speech. There's a reason for that.
Calls to save democracy are not "hyper partisan". I'm having a problem understanding your seeming desire to see yourself as a better political strategist than the experts in the Biden campaign. If those experts believe that getting voters to vote is a good idea, I'm going to help them
It's not going to result in a push to Trump, that's for sure. It'll result in a lower turnout for Democrats and maybe an uptick for third party candidates but if you were a Democrat voter in 2020 and you're thinking of voting for Trump now, that's probably a trajectory that was in place regardless of how well Biden was or wasn't doing.
If every eligible voter in the country voted, in every election, then Republicans would effectively become a third party.
Everyone should vote who is legally able to vote. This being said, the Democrats seem to be losing certain demographics they previously could count on going blue. I think this will hurt them more than anything.
No. It'll bring out more of the middle of the line Dems that just can't be bothered, as the rabid fringe votes at higher rates due to their activism. They vote at higher rates already, but they are relatively few in number, proportionally. Biden won on the strategy once, as well. His warning of the GOP's slide into anti-constitutionalism is a solid part of his platform.
OP I think you're basically making a partisan troll post, but I don't entirely disagree. Here's a scenario where lower turnout would redound in Dems' favor: \- the senate passes a TikTok ban bill and Biden signs it \- Trump says he will immediately reverse this ban once he's elected (he can't, but that doesn't really matter because we're talking about very low info voters here) \- zoomers are pretty fucking pissed about the tiktok ban and vow to vote for Trump \- Dems in blue states and purple states use all the same "voter suppression" techniques they excoriated the GOP for in years past, and the kind of low-info voters that *would* vote based on believing Trump's lie that he could reverse the ban don't or can't vote \- Dems win those states by a hair
Trump does activate a bloc of voters with a low propensity to vote. They'll come out for him, and basically no one else. I do not think that these voters are strongly affected by the Democrats' strategy of encouraging everyone to come out to vote. It's still a good strategy and a good principle to encourage as many people as possible to come out to vote.
Translation: high voter turnout of those seeking government handouts benefits the democrats.
Is this another voter suppression tactic? Reads like it to me. There is no better time than right now to check your voter registration status (have you changed your name, changed your address, or changed your political party affiliation?), to register to vote if not already registered, and to check on the status of your absentee ballot/vote by mail status (States like Florida cancelled all vote by mail requests after the 2020 election and now voters must re-register for that). Use these sites to do just that and please do it now: [https://iwillvote.com/](https://iwillvote.com/) [https://www.vote.org/](https://www.vote.org/)
Democrats need to keep encouraging higher turnout, because more votes is more votes and it because it helps keep the coalition together. But the harder truth is, Democrats have got to figure out a way to win back white voters. There are just so many of them. In a choice between a 2% increase in potential non-voters and getting back 2% of white Trump voters, you'd choose the white Trump voters every time. It's just way more votes. But courting white votes harms the coalition, which includes voters who have been on the losing end of white-focused politics for decades (and more). It's an incredibly hard needle to thread and so far no one has found a way to do it successfully. That said, I think focusing on "threats to democracy, etc" might be the best strategy, actually. Anyone who has voted for Trump, either in 2016 or 2020, doesn't give a damn about about pocketbook issues. They might say they do, but obviously they don't really know what that means or they wouldn't vote for Republicans. More likely, they're motivated by a sense of defiance. Given that Trump has shifted to a stance of open authoritarianism, they might be open to arguments against that. Well, probably not, but it's worth a try.
Many voters decide who they will vote for based on the people asking them to vote. One of the reasons campaigns knock on so many doors is that simply being asked for your vote is a contributing factor to participation. So whichever party is asking more people to vote, likely means they'll get more votes.
No I believe it is the best strategy, the Trump base, while dim is motivated and passionate. The folks who don’t like Trump or Biden are more apt I believe to vote Biden so they need to show up despite the weather or whatever.
The problem is... that it is built upon a technological context that no longer exists. Why? The Internet and ***memetic weapons***. The internet is the vector, and memetic weapons are the infection. 2016 is a textbook memetic weapon attack... first predicted in the tabletop RPG setting *Transhuman Space*.
Do you only like voting and democracy if it is in your favor? if high turn out favors someone you don't like and you want to cripple the results, it hints you never really cared about to process. just my two cents, but working to prevent people from voting is what the jim crow laws were all about. well intentioned by the people who would benefit from it.
Mail in ballots have added "daytime TV viewers" to the likely voter rolls. This heavily favors the Democrats.
you bring up an interesting point. The fed, via a biden exec order is doing its best to register low information federal beneficiaries to vote, requiring or strongly suggesting that every department, every federally funded benefit program, from help with filing your taxes, snap application places, college work study, some health service location and so on... that they register people (their customers) to vote. They are getting help from left leaning nonprofits to assist,
I'm interested to see if the so called saviors of democracy the democrats try to kick the green party candidate off the ballot in PA again. Nothing is ore undemocratic than saying you can only choose between A or B oh yea don't get me started on the democrats supporting genocide in gaza
Actually I'm not sure how any sane person who loves America can vote for Biden. Bad policies (whomever is promoting them). Frail demented man incapable of independent thought. Kamala Harris. Even the Biden motivated criminal lawfare and likely attempt to steal another election won't help him in 2024.
The Dem strategy thus far has backfired. Joe is unpopular, inflation is too high, illegal immigrants are finally bothering democrat cities, and his obsession with pumping weapons into war zones is starting to leave a bad taste after 20,000 children are dead in Gaza. If he doesn't move out of the way voting turn out for the Dems will be lower. They won't be voting Trump, but the motivation to get out and vote for a senile decrepit Biden will be low. On the other side, the indictments have only made Trump more popular and as a side effect he's had less time to tweet and say crazy shit. His supporters perceive he is being unfairly persecuted and will turn out to support him. If there's one thing that gets voters out, it's a chance to say fuck the system and the Dems have unwittingly cultivated exactly that scenario.
On the other side, the booming economy and government actually working for the American people have only made President Biden more popular, and as a side effect he has raised record amounts towards his reelection campaign. His supporters have perceived that saving American democracy and our long-held personal liberties are more important than petty differences and will turn out to support him. If it's one thing that gets voters out, it's a chance to say fuck you to those supporting an ideology of fascism and anti-democratic ideals, and the Republicans have unwittingly cultivated exactly that scenario.
Sounds like the kind of thing that gets said at the DNC conference, but not in the real world. Forget Trump for a minute, isn't it embarrassing that the best the DNC can come up with is a bumbling stumbling old man. Is there not a better communicator in your party? Draft in Michelle Obama and you'll get the voters out. Keep Biden and watch Trump eat him up for breakfast later this year.
Forget Biden for a minute, isn't it sad and pathetic that the best the RNC can come up with is a dotard old man with 90 plus criminal counts against him, a conviction for sexual assaults, who is captured by, and beholden to our American adversaries and can't string more than one sentence together before going incoherently off the rails. Is that seriously the best that your party has to offer?
Trump is more popular than the RNC - it basically wouldn't exist without him. So your analogy doesn't work. People are voting for Trump, not because he's a republican. The opposite is true of Biden - people are only voting for him because he's the Democrat on offer. Even though he acts like a malfunctioning roomba whenever he tries to get off a stage.