Summary:

Democrats are becoming increasingly concerned about a possible drop in Black voter turnout for the 2024 presidential election, according to party insiders. The worries arise from a 10% decrease in Black voter turnout in the 2022 midterms compared to 2018, a more substantial decline than any other racial or ethnic group, as per a Washington Post analysis. The decline was particularly significant among younger and male Black voters in crucial states like Georgia, where Democrats aim to mobilize Black voter support for President Biden in 2024.

The Democratic party has acknowledged the need to bolster their outreach efforts to this demographic. W. Mondale Robinson, founder of the Black Male Voter Project, highlighted the need for Democrats to refocus their attention on Black male voters, who have shown lower levels of engagement. In response, Biden’s team has pledged to communicate more effectively about the benefits that the Black community has reaped under Biden’s administration, according to Cedric L. Richmond, a senior advisor at the Democratic National Committee.

However, Black voter advocates have identified deep-seated issues affecting Black voter turnout. Many Black men reportedly feel detached from the political process and uninspired by both parties’ policies. Terrance Woodbury, CEO of HIT Strategies, a polling firm, suggests that the Democratic party’s focus on countering Trump and Republican extremism doesn’t motivate younger Black men as much as arguments focused on policy benefits. Concerns are growing within the party that if they fail to address these issues, disenchanted Black voters might either abstain or, potentially, be swayed by Republican messaging on certain key issues.

  • NewEnglandRedshirt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    178
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Maybe… Maaaaaayyyyyyybeeeee the Democrats need to nominate someone who is actually worth getting excited about instead of just being not-Trump.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      58
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because if voters are excited, they may start voting in primaries…

      Every since Obama beat Clinton 15 years ago, party leaders seem more motivated to make sure their pick wins the primary than a Democrat winning the general.

      “Moderates” seem ineffictive because they’re not trying to just win, they’re trying to win by as little as possible. Like a corrupt pro athlete who’s not throwing the game, but trying to win by less than the spread.

      They know the reason most people vote for moderates like Biden, is if they don’t, someone like trump would win. It’s just the party leaders would rather trade back and forth than let Dems like FDR win every election for decades.

      • keegomatic@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ever since Obama beat Clinton 15 years ago

        Jesus I thought you were exaggerating and then I did the math

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          34
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          If you think that’s bad:

          Biden’s first presidential primary was 35 years ago…

          He was the expected front runner due mainly to his (at the time) exceptional public speaking but got caught plagiarizing speeches, lying about his grades in law school, and even people finding out he cheated while in law school by plagiarising papers.

          But everyone forgot about all that because he spent 8 years standing next to Obama. And the only reason he got that job was to make old white people less uncomfortable voting for a Black guy.

      • Upgrade2754@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s a great way to put it. Both parties are funded by dark money interests, one drives us to the right and the other keeps us in place. This is described as the ratchet effect

        • Elderos@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          and millions are claiming the democrats are radicals, little do they know that the country was more progressive on certain fronts 50 years ago. So they have to resort to blaming gays and trans, because everything else about the current staye of the country is kinda right-wingy to begin with.

    • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Anyone “worth getting excited about” is going to challenge the status quo too much - even nominally - for the DNC to be okay with it. They are conservative in the descriptive sense. “No-one’s standard of living will fundamentally change.”

      • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        I get that we have many problems that aren’t really being actively solved, but personally I’ve been pretty happy with this return-to-status-quo term as compared to the previous non-status-quo term… and right now the narcissistic traitor is leading the nomination polls.

        • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’ve been pretty happy with status quo have you? Great, love that for you. Sounds like being apathetic to the problems is working out for you specifically. I certainly wouldn’t want you to have to think about the enormous numbers of disenfranchised, poor and minority people who overwhelmingly don’t turn out to vote because they don’t see a real difference in their lives between parties and the dems aren’t doing anything to prove to them why they should care. That sounds like it wouldn’t be comfortable for you, and that’s the top priority here.

          • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You’ve been pretty happy with status quo have you?

            I’ve been pretty happy with this return-to-status-quo term as compared to the previous non-status-quo term

            Context matters. If you take my words out of context, then you aren’t actually addressing what I said, you’re addressing a straw man. Or did you intend to imply that you were happier with the previous president?

            And this is putting words in my mouth:

            Sounds like being apathetic to the problems is working out for you specifically.


            But never mind your flawed approach to debate, let’s actually take a look at what’s been done during Biden’s time in office:

            The bill’s economic-relief provisions are overwhelmingly geared toward low-income and middle-class Americans, who will benefit from (among other provisions) the direct payments, the bill’s expansion of low-income tax credits, child-care subsidies, expanded health-insurance access, extension of expanded unemployment benefits, food stamps, and rental assistance programs.

            “Historians, economists and engineers interviewed by The Associated Press welcomed Biden’s efforts. But they stressed that $1 trillion was not nearly enough to overcome the government’s failure for decades to maintain and upgrade the country’s infrastructure.”

            The Inflation Reduction Act is the largest piece of federal legislation ever to address climate change.

            Since the May 2020 onshoring of TSMC used by Under Secretary of State Keith J. Krach as a catalyst for the bill and to secure the U.S. semiconductor supply chain, a significant number of companies and a list of ecosystem suppliers have committed or made announcements for investments and jobs in the US.

            “Nine months ago, President Joe Biden signed a sweeping bipartisan gun law, the most significant legislative response to gun violence in decades.[…]Several months in, the law has had some success: Stepped-up FBI background checks have blocked gun sales for 119 buyers under the age of 21, prosecutions have increased for unlicensed gun sellers and new gun trafficking penalties have been charged in at least 30 cases around the country. Millions of new dollars have flowed into mental health services for children and schools.” [reference]


            In fact, Biden’s track record is pretty good overall. So every single problem hasn’t been solved in 2.5 years, at least there’s been progress. And did you forget that Biden inherited the country in a crisis which Trump massively bungled? You’re like a poster child for letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

            • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              15
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I could compile a similar list of their failures if I cared to. This is just a gish gallop.

              Here’s one: Hillary’s campaign directly promoted the extreme far right leading directly to Trump’s victory in 2016.

              In its self-described “pied piper” strategy, the Clinton campaign proposed intentionally cultivating extreme right-wing presidential candidates, hoping to turn them into the new “mainstream of the Republican Party” in order to try to increase Clinton’s chances of winning.

              https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/

              That’s not “good”, that’s “enabling fascism”. Absolute clown shit.

              If you have to compare them to outright fascists to say they are comparatively “good”, that’s not a great look, but even then you can’t ignore when they do shit like this. You can’t hide behind their supposed good intentions either. They nearly threw 2020 by pushing Biden into everyone’s faces like a wet fart and saying, “At least it’s not a torrent of diarrhea! Vote for the wet fart please!”

              I never told anyone not to vote as far left as was practical - which in the US means voting Dem. I am simply pointing out the reality that the most disenfranchised people in the US don’t even vote. Not voting isn’t a sign of privilege, thinking voting will change anything is a sign of privilege, because it means you’re in the increasingly small minority that might see any change from it.

              You say I’m letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, but you actively defend mediocrity from any and all criticism because you can’t see past the false dichotomy you’ve been presented with. If I want my kids to leave the park, I don’t say, “We’re leaving now,” I say, “Do you want to leave in 5 minutes or 10?” and they respect the results, even though I invented the entire spectrum of possibility for them. The two party system has done the same thing to you.

              It doesn’t matter why you’re happy with the status quo, what matters is that you are defending the status quo. That makes you functionally conservative. Just because there are other conservatives that are worse by comparison doesn’t change that.

            • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              Some of those accomplishments are worth celebrating, but:

              A competent response to COVID-19

              lol are you kidding? The only countries on Earth with a competent response to COVID were New Zealand, South Korea, and China.

              Supporting domestic manufacturing of semiconductors

              This is just tradewar bullshit with China. I work in manufacturing so I’m not against seeing more investment in my sector, but like, this isn’t about making good American jobs. It’s only about preparing for the inevitable war over Taiwan.

    • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sorry, the do-something machine is broke. Best we can do is partially fossilized C-Suite moderates.

      Well, what if we put RFK Jr beside them, does that make them seem any better?

      Well, now you’re just being unreasonable.

    • HurlingDurling@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This shit right here. Both times I was exited for a candidate he got thrown out because the party leaders didn’t like him, first with Hillary, and then with Biden. I’m just going to continue to vote for not-trump because I know how bad it will be but I don’t want any centrist democrat almost as much as I dont want trump.

    • Pratai@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not being trump is enough for me. Sure, I’d love someone better. But I’d vote for a wooden brick if it meant america wouldn’t turn into a dictatorship.

      • InvaderDJ@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t think that was the main reason.

        IMO, Biden was nominated because he was a fairly uncontroversial (by mainstream sensibilities anyway) white male candidate who also isn’t that attached to many positions that would threaten the powers that be.

        Biden is a weather vane that swings in accordance to the winds. Which is all that was needed to beat a historically unpopular candidate like Trump. Thankfully, Trump is such a bad option that even Biden can be a palatable candidate.

        Why this fossil didn’t bend the knee and allow another younger, more exciting candidate step up for 2024 is beyond me though. But I guess seeing the average age and mental capability of Congress, it shouldn’t be surprising. IMO, everyone over the age of 65 should be ineligible for elected office. They are at retirement age, and have no real, justifiable stake in the future. They should retire with the knowledge they won life and can live out the rest of their days in comfort and leave running the country to people who have skin in the game and the energy/mental faculties to actually play it.

        • Upgrade2754@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Biden joining + everyone else dropping out was the last hope the establishment had to kneecap Bernie, and it fucking worked

          • GodlessCommie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            That almost makes it sound like we live in an autocracy and not a democracy when the party picks who’s running and not the voters…

        • tidy_frog@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Why this fossil didn’t bend the knee and allow another younger, more exciting candidate step up for 2024 is beyond me though.

          Probably because the geriatrics fucked two whole generations of politicians by not stepping down when they should have.

          Gen X and millennials don’t have enough horses in the race with the experience necessary to run for president because they got fucked by the boomers.

          We’re going to be in for an exciting ride over the next two decades as something like 40% of Congress retires or dies in office without anyone with experience available to replace them.

          And this is on both sides.

        • kbotc@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Biden won because black women liked him and they actually go out and vote in the primaries, unlike the louts in this thread who are literally talking about how they won’t vote.

          • InvaderDJ@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Biden won because black women liked him and they actually go out and vote in the primaries, unlike the louts in this thread who are literally talking about how they won’t vote.

            I think that goes with him being uncontroversial. Black people in America are fairly conservative, and politically they like to go for people who can win that aren’t too radical. Biden was that candidate.

      • chakan2@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well…maybe it will be his time and we will get Harris. We can dream I guess.

        • themeltingclock@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Your dream is Harris?! Shit, no. No, no, no.

          My hope is that Biden is staying in the race until the 11th hour to be the lightening rod and the dems have someone better to step in.

          Of course, that would require some intestinal fortitude and a few brain cells and I don’t think the dem leadership has that.

    • Azal@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Maybe… Maaaaaayyyyyyybeeeee the left voters need to actually show up to vote.

      Now everyone is going to say they voted in a presidential election, possibly even a primary which makes them a rarity! Those aren’t what we’re talking about. The right has made it a point to vote on everything even as small as schoolboards so the only people voting in the tiny little races are the right wing rage crowd or the centrists who are being pulled to the right. Yes, the presidential vote matters, but frankly those lower down votes mean a lot more and if you watch how the Republican primaries are going, shows exactly how much power that batch that will show up has over a party.

    • prole@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Or maybe grow up and realize that political offices and the people that fill them shouldn’t be “exciting”. Maybe the problem is that we all want someone exciting… With no regard for competence.

      “I’d have a beer with him.” Who gives a fuck???

      • Elderos@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Problem is that you need to convince tens of millions of people to grow up. I think this chap here is merely suggesting we give the idiots what they want.

        • LetMeEatCake@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Candidates that will the whole party will find exciting are basically a once in a generation event, if that. This generation’s such candidate was Obama. Democrats as a party are reliant on far too big of a tent to make this a viable strategy or thought process.

          A candidate that I, a far left progressive, would get excited about is a candidate that a lot of center-of-left or moderate voters would find boring. Even within wings of the party there’s not going to be lockstep excitement (go back to Dec 2019 and ask Sanders supporters how “excited” they’d be for a Warren candidacy!).

          This line of argument is consistently just people pining for candidates that more closely reflect our own ideological views, not a reflection of the reality available to us. There was no such candidate in 2016 or 2020 and won’t be for 2024. I’m not going to hold my breath for 2028 either. Maybe by 2032 we might see the next Obama, someone that excites the whole party.

          • Riccosuave@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I gave you an upvote because I agree with the spirit of your message. However, I would like to remind you that if the DNC hadn’t literally rigged the system against Bernie Sanders in 2016 that we more than likely would not be where we are today.

            There was a HUGE amount of grassroots support behind Bernie (the most in modern American history), and the Democrats burned a lot of goodwill with voters by shoe-horning Hillary in as the heir apparent. There has never been a candidate that bridged the gap the way Bernie did in my lifetime, and that one single decision did incalculable damage to the world.

            I will gladly vote for Biden because I know it is a moral imperative to do so, and I am not a moron. I am also not trying to take away from his legislative victories because I believe they warrant more merit than they have received. However, I will not easily forgive or forget the chicanery, underhanded closed door attempts at king-making, and generally coercive tactics utilized by the DNC that got us here.

              • prole@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yeah, many of whom went on to vote for Donald Trump in the general election.

                It’s “great” that he had so much “moderate” support, but if it had anything whatsoever to do with his actual policy views, so many of them wouldn’t have stayed home or voted Trump.

                They just shifted that excitement from Bernie to Trump, because it has nothing to do with policy. They ultimately made things worse by poisoning the well against Hillary.

                These aren’t the kind of people you want to court.

            • prole@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Huge Bernie fan. Voted for him in the primary.

              But can we please stop pushing this bullshit agitprop designed to divide Democrats and progressives?

              Political parties aren’t government organizations, they’re private companies. Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat, and even though he often caucuses with them, he’s been very outspoken against the Democratic party. Why would anyone ever think that the DNC would do anything to promote him over Hillary?

              Even with all of that said, Bernie still came pretty damn close, and the DNC didn’t “shoe-horn” anyone in. Hillary got more votes, it’s time to get over it.

              • Riccosuave@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                But can we please stop pushing this bullshit agitprop designed to divide Democrats and progressives?

                I fail to see how you could misconstrue my comment as an attempt to divide the base? I specifically said that I would gladly vote for Biden. That does not mean that I am afraid to levy legitimate criticism against the inherently anti-democratic primary process that has continuously shown itself as a failed mechanism for protecting democracy as well as providing for the material well being of our fellow citizens.

                Political parties aren’t government organizations, they’re private companies. Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat, and even though he often caucuses with them, he’s been very outspoken against the Democratic party. Why would anyone ever think that the DNC would do anything to promote him over Hillary?

                Yes, this is a big problem, and at some point we are going to have to engage with this issue if we wish to move forward as a civilization. I agree that this election is not the time to break down or deconstruct this monster that has been created. I would think it should be self-evident that there are serious issues with this kind of monolithic architecture given the Republican Party has fully bent the knee while being almost fully taken over by fascist, christian-nationalist, authoritarians. If you think this is a problem that is just going to go away if we happen to preserve democracy for one more election cycle then I would implore you to listen to reason. The system that allowed this to happen is inherently a problem (amongst many others, I will grant you). Again, at some point we are going to have to wrestle that demon. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but it needs to be done while we still have the opportunity to do so…

                Even with all of that said, Bernie still came pretty damn close, and the DNC didn’t “shoe-horn” anyone in. Hillary got more votes, it’s time to get over it.

                Agree to disagree on that one. I think the results speak for themselves. Hillary was a historically unpopular candidate who followed a historically popular candidate. It was a losing proposition, and the apathy towards voting for her is exactly how we got here. You can continue to ignore the very real Kompromat that ultimately soured the electorate against her, as well as the tactical decisions by the DNC (via her dear friend and chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz) to both prop up Trump as a spoiler candidate and ignore the populist support behind Bernie in favor of continuing their structural consolidation of power. However, I am not so naïve, and so willing to forgive or forget as I said before. That does not mean that I will bury my head in the sand, and throw fuel on the fire by disengaging with the political system therefore doing my part in guaranteeing the downfall of democracy ™. Instead, I make it a point to engage locally as well as nationally so that I am practicing what I preach by supporting candidates who are attempting to reframe these issues in a way that is more constructive for future generations.

    • Techmaster@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It will only last a few more years, but in the near-ish future the problem will take care of itself. (They’re both very old)

    • DarkGamer@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’d rather we nominate someone who is electable, i.e., palatable to centrists, even if they’re not as exciting as someone who would move the Overton window leftwards.

      • jimmyjazx@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        What if is instead of focusing on a vanishingly small number of centrist swing voters, you focused on the 35% of non-voters by improving their material conditions?

  • MossBear@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    93
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Biden may not be exciting, but he’s had a surprising amount of policy victories given the deadlock in congress. And he hasn’t tried to burn our democracy to the ground to satisfy his own ego, so that’s always a plus.

    • Coreidan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s because democracy was burnt to the ground awhile ago and all that’s left are corporate shills.

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            17
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Lmao the fuckin gold standard.

            I wanna wondering when we’d get these weird-ass takes on this site

              • 80085@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                Gold standard at this point in time would be deflationary (if the population is growing faster than new gold is being mined, at least). Deflation incentivizes money hoarding, and disincentivizes loans and investments. Capitalism basically breaks down during times of deflation (investments dry up, people stop spending money on things they don’t absolutely need, companies lay off or go out of business, unemployment rises).

  • starrox@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    79
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    From a non-US standpoint this is rather easy:

    You have 2 geriatric options. Option 1 would lead to a dictatorship. Option 2 would lead to the - non-ideal - status quo.

    How the fuck do you even have to think about which option would be better???

    • Thurgo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The Dems have ran non ideal status quo candidates for so long it becomes fatiguing so people stay home or write in Snoop Dogg.

      • starrox@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        While I totally understand the frustration - apathy cannot be a solution in this scenario!

        You’d rather sit at home and watch your democracy go up in flames than just make an “x” on a piece of paper or a screen? Seriously, come on man…

        • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nothing in the comment to which you replied suggests that the commenter has given up. They merely describe what causes people to do so. At least as I read it.

        • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          While I totally understand the frustration - apathy cannot be a solution in this scenario!

          Then quit accepting it from those we elect.

        • vagrantprodigy@lemmy.whynotdrs.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          Democracy is going up in flames either way, the question is whether we want it fast or slow. The only way to stop it is for the Dems to put up decent candidates who want to stop the slide, and thus far, they’ve declined to do so. So while yes, we should keep voting blue to slow the slide, we shouldn’t be stupid enough to believe that doing so is enough to stop it.

        • silentknyght@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Don’t be an idiot. It’s been going on for so long, and the two party FPTP system is so broken, that this disgruntlement is justified. If neither party changes, and if voting for the less bad choice is construed as endorsement, them what other choice does a conscientious voter have?

          • tidy_frog@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            You do understand that the choice you are essentially voting for, if you don’t vote, is a fundamentalist dictatorship that will tell you how to live your life, and imprison you if you don’t obey, while taking your freedoms and wealth anyway even if you do. Yes?

            Apathy is fine as long as both parties believe in running a democracy. The gop no longer does.

          • MiddleWeigh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I see alot of don’t let perfect be the enemy of good rhetoric and it comes off to me as “I’ve done fairly well in this system, I’m OK with it being rigged to its core”

    • TwoGems@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Exactly. I live in America and I can’t believe the stupidity of some of these comments like “well because they’re running Joe Biden I won’t vote waaaah!” Ok, then enjoy your dictatorship? It culturally is the worst thing I hate about being here.

    • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      But if you don’t consider Trump the absolute threat that he is, you just stay home. When I thought there was no way he’d win (2016) I didn’t vote for Hilary because I hate her. I voted for Biden because the threat had become real.

      Dems are correctly assessing that there are still people who see Trump as a clown show rather than a future dictator.

      • HaiZhung@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        An actual fascist dictatorship IS the real threat. What do you think trump will do if he wins?

        • TwoGems@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yep. These “I just won’t vote” comments are naive.

          We have lost the Supreme Court to Republicans and they put in three hack judges. We have lost the House. We barely have a 50/50, and some paid off Dems like Tricia Cotham who was a GOP plant switched sides. Steve Bannon is running chaos agent RFK Jr. to try to screw up Dem votes. We cannot pass any bills, really. We are at risk of Trump or a Hitler clone like Desantis running. We are at high risk of fascism right now.

          The LAST thing we need right now is to whine about current candidate availability. We are not in a position to do so. To not vote, or even vote third party right now in our tenuous position is suicide. We can fix these things later. But not now. The goal right now is to get in enough Democrats to repair what Trump did. Then prevent it from happening again. And it takes time.

    • AfricanExpansionist@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I just don’t bother voting. We need a large majority of eligible voters, those who actually don’t believe in the system, to stop showing up. When the tide goes out, we can all see who’s swimming naked.

        • emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          First of all, not voting is, by definition, not a vote for anyone or anything. Second, the right to vote always includes the right to not vote for any of the given choices.

            • hark@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              What does it say about the democratic party that they praise this system, uphold it, and use it as a cudgel to shame people into voting for them? Top democratic members, including biden, claim that we need a strong republican party. Why do we need a strong fascist party? To scare people into voting for the democrats who are republican-lites, of course.

              • Grant_M@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                They mean a strong opposition party without fascists. The Rs are led by an actual Nazi who has stated his desire to obliterate all who oppose him If that’s not enough to motivate you, it means you’re okay with it.

                • hark@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  This just screams “I can fix him!” but for a political party. The republican party is a lost cause, even assuming your charitable interpretation of what they said, it’s an impossible task. That democrats insist that we must keep them strong means that they’re not only okay with fascism, they actively encourage it. It is the natural evolution of capitalism, after all, and democrats are all about that. While they’re enabling fascism, democrats think they have a monopoly on morality and that if you don’t vote for them then it’s your fault that fascism exists… which, again, they enable.

                  I’ve said this elsewhere, but I vote for democrats every single time, I’m just not stupid enough to think it’s going to make things better. That’s simply not the goal of democrats.

      • starrox@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        I was mostly referring to the (likely) candidates as options, but yes, sadly you are right. Doesnt help that by design it is more difficult to vote for certain groups than others. Still. If I had to take a day off and risk my job by doing so - It would be worth it to prevent a dictatorship!

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      In 2020 there were double digits dems in the primary…

      In 2024 we’re expected to believe the only choice is Biden or a Republican.

      If you’re pissed “there’s no other nominee” be mad at the party leaders who aren’t allowing a primary. And realize there’s 100s of people qualified to run as a Dem

        • Running_Out_Of_Plans@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          … That’s what a primary is for. So people can, like, actually choose.

          There are a LOT of people who don’t want Biden for another four years. There are people who didn’t like him, but have warmed up to him.

          Would he win a primary? Yeah, probably, because of incumbent advantage.

          But that should be for people to decide.

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Fun fact: if an incumbent President has a Primary, they are exponentially more unlikely to win the Presidency again as it can easily be spun into a “vote of no confidence” narrative.

        • randon31415@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          There were four primaries in 2020 where the contest had candidates other than Biden and Bernie running. Biden lost three of them.

          46 primaries had no one under 70 running on either side.

    • Upgrade2754@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      If the DNC didn’t say there would be no primary on day 1 then we might have actually been able to see people step forward. Marianne Williamson is at least running on the issues and is physically capable of having a two hour conversation. Biden… not so much

      • Silverseren@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Marianne Williamson, the pseudoscience and conspiracy nutter that helped convince a bunch of people with HIV that medicine doesn’t work and praying and willpower would cure them instead?

      • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t know why they’re so content to hitch themselves to terrible candidates. I’ve never in my life voted Republican, and the last time I was excited about a democratic nominee was Obama (RIP young idealistic me). Hillary had more baggage than a travelling circus, and felt a lot like just dead ass casting a vote for Goldman Sachs to run the oval office; Primary Biden made Jeb Bush seem like a live wire, besides not really having much to get excited about on his platform. Bernie was basically the only exciting thing the democrats have had going in soon to be over a decade now. The part has to do better.

        • DarkGamer@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          They had a lot of what I considered exciting candidates in the primaries; Yang, Sanders, and Warren come to mind. They didn’t win because they weren’t as viable or popular.

        • DigitalTraveler42@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          As if Biden wasn’t already a serious candidate with a provable winning record.

          Biden is clearly the better option and it shows by how much money the Republicans and the far right are dumping into “Democratic candidates” like RFK Jr and Dr. Cornell West. Which is also why the Right wingers and their “Democratic” proxies are the only ones trying to push for a democratic primary that would set a new precedent by primarying an incumbent Democratic President.

          The only person this infighting about these unqualified challengers to Biden helps is Trump or whatever MAGA loyalist that replaces him once Trump finally winds up in prison. (Hopefully)

      • Chaser@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Capable of a two hour conversation maybe, but a strong candidate? Not even close

        • Upgrade2754@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think if there was a regular debate schedule it could have gotten interesting. But with the way it is now, you’re absolutely correct

          • Chaser@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think Dem debates would absolutely help to hold Biden to more progressive positions but no one worth the limelight is running (I’m sure partially due to not holding an open primary). I think '28 is Newsome’s race to lose. He’s got name recognition and is a pretty good debater in conservative spaces so far. Not as progressive as I’d like but I’ve been saying that since I could vote

            • Upgrade2754@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              He has definitely been positioning himself for it. The insulin moves are welcome, but the fact he let a single payer bill expire after promising to pass it leaves an all too familiar sting. But perhaps he can at least be moved on reducing prices for more pharmaceuticals and descheduling marijuana due to its legalization in CA. We’ll see.

  • formergijoe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I always viewed Biden as the lemon I suck on to cleanse my palette between courses, now they want the lemon to be the whole damn meal.

  • ObiWon_KanBloMi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Because nobody wants Biden again. Nobody voted for Biden, they voted against Trump.

    Democrats are more than likely going to lose because Biden decided to run for reelection. He had the perfect opportunity to make a symbolic transition of power from the old Washington to the new Washington if he would’ve endorsed a younger candidate to run for 2024 instead of himself. But nope.

    It’s obvious the American people are desperate for a change. All Biden represents is the status quo of elderly Washington, which is the same way this country has been ran for 50 years. Clearly the people are tired of that.

    They’re going to vote for whoever represents the most change, which Biden does not. So unless the GOP has an absolute turd casserole for their candidate, the GOP candidate has the best bet for winning.

    They’re so fucking braindead and out of touch in DC it’s going to cost us our democracy.

    • Aa!@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      While I didn’t really want Biden in 2020, after his administration’s record so far, I can honestly say I do want more of that. Not to say I wouldn’t rather have someone much better and more left, but I’m pretty sure nobody better will be any more successful than Biden has been, given the Republican opposition in Congress.

      What I really want is fewer Republicans in Congress, and short of moving to another district, there isn’t much more I can do there. My district’s congressmen are fantastic.

    • Bramble Dog@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree with the other user who said this a terrible take.

      Biden is who the Democratic party selected overwhelmingly (to my chagrin) and there is nobody who can beat him in a primary (the person who theoretically could already lost before, and immediately endorsed Biden this time around).

      It also makes no sense to take out the guy we know will beat Trump.

    • BastingChemina@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If Biden is reelected then he will be 86 years old at the end of the second mandate.

      86 !

      Bill Clinton, Georges W Bush and Barack Obama are still younger than him. Except than Clinton was elected 30 years ago.

    • justaveg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Americans are desperate for change, but half of them want to go backward and half want to go forward. Add to that it basically takes a supermajority to pass legislation that makes real changes and well… you’re pretty much left with things you can do via the executive branch.

      So yes, a big part of the problem is that neither party really has the ability to appeal to the other “side” at all. We need sweeping social change before we get sweeping political change.

    • thomcat@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      People are way too worried about this.

      Republicans got what they wanted when Roe V. Wade was overturned. Now they get to watch purple states become blue for the foreseeable future.

    • chakan2@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      57
      ·
      1 year ago

      The Democrats lost me when than ran Hillary over Bernie.

      We will never get a progressive with the two party system. We are just voting hard R vs centrist R at this point.

      • IntangibleSloth@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        37
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yup, better give up! /s

        I was disappointed too, but there’s only one party fighting for what I value, so they get my vote.

          • tidy_frog@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            24
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Fuck the greens. Their leadership takes gop cash to help split the left vote.

            You can’t vote for moon shot candidates in a first past the post election system. All that ever does is help the candidate you don’t want.

            If you want to see change, you have to volunteer. Change starts at the bottom. Not at the top.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              They also almost never run candidates for lower office. How about trying for mayor before president, Green Party?

            • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              i don’t want either the democrat or the republican candidate, so i’ll be voting green. at least i plan to. i suppose i could be swayed if one of the parties nominated someone who aligned with jill stein/cornel west.

              • tidy_frog@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Then you’re voting authoritarian.

                Don’t fool yourself. The math behind FPtP voting doesn’t end any other way if you vote 3rd party.

            • UnknownQuantity@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              I just wrote the first party other than the dems or reps that I could think of, because I know that neither the former or latter fight for what their voters want.

              • tidy_frog@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Well, parties don’t fight for what you want. They’re too big.

                Representatives fight for you. That’s literally their job.

                I have a congressional rep for the district I live in. I make sure to attend one town hall every year to make myself heard and let him know what I want him to fight for.

                And even then, he has to take the wants and needs of roughly 130,000 people into account.

                • UnknownQuantity@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  And you actually believe what you’re saying?

                  Do you know how they finance their campaigns? Do you think that your concerns outweigh one of the campaign donations they get? If you multiply your concerns by 130k it still won’t match a single donation from a corporate donor in their interest.

          • randon31415@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

            And when they do, we get stuff like former green party Sinema killing the first climate change bill that could pass in a generation.

            • UnknownQuantity@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Sorry, my reply was just a quick reaction trying to highlight that neither dems nor reps fight for their voters.

      • QHC@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Bernie voters were statistically unreliable at the polls. He lost that one and isn’t running this cycle, so what is the relevance?

      • vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’m honestly surprised that this is such a popular take. You know how your country works right? How the Supreme Court works?

        If nothing else, is your Ideological purity worth 4 years of conservative (read batshit crazy fundies) appointments to the federal bench?

        From where I’m standing, outside your political system, it seems like a colossally stupid argument. Unless of course you are agitating for the fundies.

        Just go vote Democrat. Then lie about it to your friends if you have to, and hope they do the same.

  • funkless@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    one of the biggest issues, in my humble and also arrogant opinion, is that no political party in any English-speaking country, represents any interests of anyone earning under 7 figures. Maybe even 8 figures, and they have 0 interest or motivation in changing that — despite the lip-service both main parties make for it.

  • Chickenstalker@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    You can’t run on having people vote for you just to avoid voting in the enemy. You must get people to vote for you because they want you. One day, a broadly populist Reagan-like Republican candidate will re-appear and he will utterly destroy your country.

    • agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Lesser evilism does nothing but make it easier for the next populist to take advantage of the dissonance between the American citizen and the American political institutions. If we keep voting for bad candidates they will keep giving us bad candidates.

  • Captain Howdy@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Then maybe get a better candidate? I’m pretty sure most sane Americans will vote for anyone not Trump. It’s not that hard, just use another candidate…

  • icdmize@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m 40+, but youngsters are probably thinking, ‘Vote for old white guy #1 or old white guy #2, who cares, neither can relate.’ I voted for Joe last time only because Bernie wasn’t running. I’m thinking Marianne Williamson this time, though. I don’t know if Joe will make it, and I definitely don’t want Kamala as president. She put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana.

  • userdata2@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    You’d better believe I’ll turn out. I don’t care if Biden is sometimes a disaster, I vote D to protect my LGBT friends. Accelerationism only hurts people

    • psycho_driver@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t care if Biden is sometimes a disaster

      “Studies show that poor kids are just as capable of succeeding academically as white kids.”

      • Bramble Dog@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You aren’t shocking anybody by pointing out an 80 year old is a tad bit racist.

        But you are actively being a liar if your point is that Biden’s level of racism is anywhere near the Republican party.

  • infyrin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    1 year ago

    Democrats have until next March/April to get some more refined, relatable and more prominent candidates to front run it’s party. Right now, we aren’t hearing about any of them as much except Biden re-election. That is not a very strong position, I feel, to be leaning towards. The guy could still fall over dead at any point and he could be tired from running again next year.

    I don’t want us to be left with just Biden as the “choice” to vote for. I only voted Biden to get us out of the nightmare circus a few years ago. I don’t have the ambition to vote for him again on his prowess alone, because there’s things with the guy I simply don’t like. Notably, with him being in bed with the entertainment industry and their efforts to demonize piracy. When, he isn’t nailing them down for corruptible practices against the consumer.

    What happened in 2016 when we were left with Clinton and Trump? Welllll, we ended up with fat orange old dude because we didn’t want the corporately approved democrat in Clinton to make it. Sanders was too good, I suppose.

    We’ll get these results again, might not be specifically Trump again, but whoever Republicans will position. Hope not DeSantis of all fucking people.

  • hark@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Are they “loyal” because they have no other choice? There’s your problem.

    • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They know what they’re doing. Republicans are the threat they use to stay in office despite running the absolute middle of the road. Pelosi, for example, has been in office 36 years (according to Google). Look at the bullshit with Feinstein (my supposed rep). I’ve despised her for years, ever since her response to my emailing her office to support something or other sent back a form letter telling me I was wrong without even bothering to do the ass-kiss politician thing and pretend my opinion had some merit even if she was voting a different way. We could have had something with Bernie or other progressives if the establishment would just get the fuck out of the way.

  • negativeyoda@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    so while I’m sure this is a factor it really has to be pointed out that the media really wants to play shit up to keep the batshit GOP viable. It sells papers (clicks, whatever). The WaPo is bad, but when you look at NYT columns it really skews right in a weird and alarming way