I vote Republican (apparently I'm the only one on Lemmy) and I'm part of this percentage. I don't care for either candidate, but both sides are going to vote for their candidate, because both sides have the "anyone but him" mentality.
But, that's what the Left wants...it literally wants a 100% Liberal/Democrat system. Even Republicans know that there needs to be balance, and we're okay with Democrats and some liberal ideologies...but the Left? Hell no...they literally want to wipe out all Republicans and Conservatives. Just look at the opinions on Lemmy and Reddit? Lol...
You proclaim to be so certain of what this monolithic boogeyman left wants despite claiming to not be a member of that group and at the same time represent yourself to be a member of the equally monolithic "right".
I'm literally wasting my time talking at you I think at this point because you have no ability to comprehend reality.
This is one of many problems with primary voting, but it still works. The DNC elites clearly wanted Hillary to win in 2008, and they wanted Bernie to get far fewer votes in 2016 and 2020. But the reality is there's not a lot of situations where they'd actually reverse a primary vote, if nothing else because the backlash would be so extreme they'd be guaranteeing an election loss anyway.
I mean, not just America, the entire world wishes you had gotten your shit together for this one, but land of the free/home of the brave really is just a bumper sticker slogan I guess.
This community by far has the worst takes on US politics
Even people on the meme sub understand Biden isn't some magical deity who is going to save us from the literal incarnation of satan.
Why are people even remotely surprised the incumbent supporting a genocide is not popular, and that any opposition must be russian trolls or chinese propaganda.
All the way up till 2024 democrats were furiously protecting Biden. Shutting down any critism of him. Now it's election time and all the discussions they refused to have for the last 3 years are at the forefront. Shame they waste their energy defending the presidential elect rather than vetting the better candidates. Like thats never blown up in their faces.
Except for the fact, of course, that the Democrat primaries have never been more democratic. But let's not let the facts or history get in the way of the narrative!
I don't know if I would label it "admitting," but rather just being aware of history. Parties didn't start having votes until around WWII, and after all of the hand wringing after the 2008 and 2016 primaries, Democrats voted overwhelmingly to dilute their power even more.
Making 2020 the most democratic primary for Democrats ever.
Well, I mean it's a lot of effort rigging things so they don't look completely janky. Debbie Whatsername-Smith was done worn out at the end of 2016 making sure it was Her Turn.
Watching the media lose its mind in 2020 when Bernie won Nevada, and candidates abandoning their campaigns like rats fleeing a sinking ship when he won California, really makes me think it was more than just DWS in 2016 fucking with things.
Also, whatever you do, don't google "Shadow Inc Acronym Iowa Primary" or trust anything this news article says about the caucus process because its fine, everything is fine, democracy is actually very healthy and normal in this country, and anyone who says otherwise is a Russian bot.
Democracy is perfectly fine until my candidate loses, at which point democracy is dead until late September when mid-terms start ramping up, and then suddenly democracy works again and we need to get ready to vote in 2026.
Democracy is perfectly fine until the candidate that loses refuses to accept the results, tries to retain power by force, then continues to try undermine faith in democracy for 4 years and is somehow still the frontrunner for his party.
Gore’s VP (Joe)? I don’t remember all of the details, but that was legitimately a contested election by the numbers, not by a sore loser. Won the popular by a decent margin but lost the electoral. It was by a slim enough margin to trigger a recount. As far as contested elections go I thought that could have gone a whole lot worse.
that was legitimately a contested election by the numbers
Not according to the incoming Republican administration. There are still conservatives who flog that election to prove how little Democrats care about democracy.
I’m not sure I get the comparison here.
If Gore had squeaked out a win even in the face of abundant ratfvckery in Florida and Ohio, Republicans would have insisted the election was a fraud in the same way they insisted Clinton stole the election in 1992 and Carter in 1976 and Kennedy stole it in 1960.
Because this is a partisan issue, there's no real clean line between legitimate victory and election theft from the perspective of the partisans themselves. And because both sides routinely fight dirty (Nixon was as aggressive fucking democrats in southern Illinois as Kennedy was in fucking Republicans in Chicago), it is often difficult to talk about a clean race when the reality is more often that one person or the other lost in a dirty knife fight.
62% of the voters seem to think it's a worthwhile endeavor. You're probably right in the sense that democrats couldnt find a progressive candidate if they came up and kicked them in the ass.
The last time the Democrats did that was Ted Kennedy challenging Carter. Even with a historically unpopular president and a well-known challenger he still lost.
I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but our government is dysfunctional and incumbents are not successfully primaried.
Before primary elections became the dominant way to pick a nominee, party leaders were more able to either shut down challengers or smoothly pass the nomination to someone else. Notably, four incumbents who were denied the nomination in the 19th century — John Tyler, Andrew Johnson and Chester A. Arthur — had been Vice Presidents who rose to the Presidency following the deaths of their predecessors, perhaps suggesting they’d never won their parties’ full support in the first place.
Then
In the 1952 Democratic Party presidential primaries, President Harry S. Truman was challenged by Senator Estes Kefauver. Truman lost the New Hampshire primary to Kefauver and dropped out of the race shortly after.
Also
TIME reported that McCarthy’s surprisingly strong showing in the New Hampshire primary was a statement that was “as much anti-Johnson as antiwar,” citing a NBC poll that found more than half of Democrats didn’t even know McCarthy’s position on Vietnam. Less than a week after New Hampshire, Attorney General Robert Kennedy jumped into the race. Then, on March 31, Johnson announced he wasn’t going to run for re-election.
As TIME reported in the April 12, 1968, article on Johnson dropping out, “So low had Johnson’s popularity sunk, said one Democratic official, that last-minute surveys before the Wisconsin primary gave him a humiliating 12% of the vote there.”
It should be noted that Ford nearly lost to Reagan in 1976
He racked up 1,187 delegates compared to Ronald Reagan’s 1,070, which was barely more than the 1,130 he needed to secure the nomination.
And Kennedy nearly beat Carter four years later
Carter won 36 primaries that year, but Kennedy’s 12 victories included important ones in New York and California, and he didn’t concede until Aug. 11, 1980, at the Democratic National Convention at Madison Square Garden in New York City.
In another historic race, William Taft was nearly edged out by Theodore Roosevelt, who went on to place second behind Woodrow Wilson in 1912. That gave Taft the dubious distinction of being the only incumbent to come in at third place in a general election.
The RFK brand name carries a lot of weight among boomer voters. This looks less like coordination by either party and more like a dimwit failson cashing in on his name brand before it expires. He's raised over $72M in his Presidential bid and has numerous friends and family on his campaign payroll.
My man is an absolute money fountain for the consultancy class. Not as lucrative as the comically overpriced Bloomberg primary bid, but definitely worth the grift on his face.
Bloomberg was a NYC Republican who thought he could Moneyball the Democratic Primary by focusing all his efforts in a few big states. Biden wasn't running as a moderate candidate in 2020. He was running as a conservative democrat. The moderates - Warren and Klobacher and Buttigieg and Harris - never managed to triangulate a winning position between Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders.
Idk if I'm back on the accelerationist train or not yet. Not that I can vote in the States, so it doesn't matter. Regardless, I feel like it would be hard for anyone that even slightly cares about the future to vote for either of these two earnestly. As a progressive, you'd have to weigh the pros and cons of the value of the Dems possibly reevaluating and restructuring if Trump gets back in, vs the absolute abysmal reactions and policies that Trump will cause if he does, especially outside the US. But then if you vote the Dems in again, the neo-nazis around the world will feel less empowered, and there will be less terrible decision making in the short term. All at the cost of Dems not having to change the status quo, and effectively being the lesser evil for the foreseeable future.
Actually, I don't envy the American voter. And I certainly wouldn't want to vote in this election.
I'm a true Leftist and it's incredibly frustrating seeing so many Democrats that just went back to sleep during Biden's presidency. People should be out in the streets protesting and fighting for a better future. They let Dems do basically nothing because "at least Biden's not Trump."
Most people desire peace in their life, and will suffer greatly to maintain it. But it's getting harder for people to convince themselves that this is actually peace.
Yall call this civilization? It's the jungle with extra steps and concrete
When Bill Clinton was in office in the 90's, after the Democrats lost three presidential elections in a row to Republicans, he did not adopt socialist policies. Bill Clinton and Democratic party declared they would no longer fight Republicans on economic issues. The Democratic party shifted to the right, not the left, in response to losing elections. They opted to grab moderate voters from Republicans rather than try to win over more progressive voters.
If Democrats see moderates voting in the next election, but not progressives they will move to the right to grab those voters. They aren't interested in chasing nonvoters or third party voters. So, the choice is not between averting fascism and driving the Democratic Party to the left. Those options are one in the same for progressives. The choice is between driving the Democratic Party to the left and averting fascism or allowing fascism to take hold in the US and allowing the Democratic Party to drift to the right. Of course if we lose our democracy, which way the Democrats shift isn't going to matter, but I think it's important to make this clear. There is nothing to be gained for progressives by not participating in elections, only things to lose.
This is a clear cut decision, but unfortunately people on the left are not framing it that way. We need to choose the option that delays fascism for another four years. We need time to give ourselves the opportunity to convince people that socialism is the answer to fixing our problems not blaming out groups. Considering the consequences of a fascist dictatorship in the US, voting is the thing everyone should want to do.
We need to choose the option that delays fascism for another four years.
And then in four years we need to choose that same option.
And four years after that.
And four years after that.
And four years after that.
Just like every presidential election I've voted in.
This is why they don't need to worry about progressives. First, because the country isn't progressive at all. And second because they can always just tell them that if they don't vote they're enabling fascism.
Since Bill Clinton until Trump the choices were between neoliberals and neoconservatives. Neoliberalism leads to fascism, so if we stick with neoliberalism it's going to become harder and harder to delay fascism. We need socialist candidates like Bernie Sanders to win the presidency and Congress. But we're stuck with the incumbent president for this election, which is typical of American politics. If our democracy lasts that long, we will have another shot at a progressive president in 2028.
Give the polling on progressive policies, it would seem the country's population is more progressive overall than our elected representatives. Republicans are definitely overrepresented. That means it is essential that as many progressives vote as possible to give Democrats room to move the left. All the Democrats are interested is being where the Overton window is in order to gain the most votes. Progressives have to shift the Overton window to the left by voting Blue if we want to see change. edit: typos
I disagree that the country is progressive, because we have a government that represents us and there aren't that many progressives at any level of government.
Accepting that Americans are shitty and dumb makes it easier to understand why our government sucks ass.
The country is more progressive than our current representatives. Our democracy has many different flaws in it, that have been there since the constitution was written, that undermine majority rule. Our current government does not accurately represent the population's views. Fascists are exploiting these flaws to perform their takeover. We need more people voting, especially progressives, to correct for these flaws. Mother Jones did a great job of reporting on this topic.
And if progressives don’t move to the flyover states en masse it won’t matter how much they vote.
There are progressives in every state. The margin of victory in swing states is so narrow that every vote counts. And even in non-swing states, there are plenty of races where progressive voters can make a difference. But more importantly, even if a progressive is in a non-swing state they should still vote, because it's important for Democrats to see that progressives make a sizable portion of the electorate and specifically their voting base across the country.
Being more progressive than our current representation isn’t hard, and doesn’t make them “progressive.”
No where in my argument did I say that being more progressive than their representatives make them progressives. Just that the current state of affairs in the United States with its current policies is not representative of the people. Whether that issue is abortion, trans rights, the minimum wage, universal healthcare, or whole host of other issues. The majority is not being represented properly at present on these issues. By assuming that where we are now as a country on these issues is reflective of the people is to miss an incredible opportunity. There is the potential to shift the Overton window to the left and radically change the US for the better. edit: typo
Dude, fuck off. Your opinion doesn't matter, and if it's just that doing the best thing possible also sucks then it's not useful. Yeah, the system needs to change eventually, but I'm happy to vote for the person who is doing more good than most US presidents in my memory. Biden isn't who I'd choose, but he's much better than just a supporter of genocide or whatever. Under his administration the other day the FTC just banned non-compete clauses for example. It's all very quite, but the Biden administration has done much better than most US president.
Guy reiterated what any reasonably knowledgeable American voter already knows and almost equivocated over our choice like we actually have a choice. Well, we do… throw away votes by not voting or voting third party, voting for the trump disaster, or what constitutes our liberal party with Biden.
Unless you’re into fascism and a likely dictatorship, there’s really only one choice. The only people screaming about genocide and laying it at Biden’s feet are the same ones worshipping the military industrial complex.
Regardless, I feel like it would be hard for anyone that even slightly cares about the future to vote for either of these two earnestly...
Actually, I don't envy the American voter. And I certainly wouldn't want to vote in this election.
Yeah, this comment is a little more than just saying it sucks that we only have two choices. It's pretty much saying voting won't change anything, and they wouldn't feel compelled to vote. I'm about as left as they come, but Biden has been fairly good as far as US presidents go (which isn't very far in the past century or so). It's a really easy choice to advocate for, especially when the other party says and does what they do.
No progressive is voting earnestly for Biden, they just don't want a fucking dictator dismantling the EPA and stacking the courts with more corrupt servants of the Federalist Society.
There are no pros for the Dems restructuring, they first of all won't do it, and secondly we are running out of being able to vote at all. The next insurrection has better odds of success.
How is this even a conversation with anyone? We don't like Biden, but he hasn't led an insurrection. Do people want to continue having any choice at all?
Yes, I get that, but at what point do you start considering future children over the current children? Accelerationists are not deontologists, they are consequentialists. A child lost now is valued against the amount of children saved at some calculated point later.
No, the best way to convince an accelerationist that accelerationism is not the right play is to show that there will be no decently positive outcome. Which I'm inclined to agree with, since I can only imagine the continual election of populist figures such as Trump will only increase the divide between voters of the two parties. This'll create more violence, possibly destabilize the US, and could destabilize large parts of the western world due to policy, military vacuum, and emboldening of alt right groups. Now measure all those consequences against the possibility of an improvement in the political system and multiply that by likelihood. This, to me, seems like a very low gain, for the high likelihood of increased losses. So it should be preferable for accelerationists to go with Biden, since he's likely to bring about accelerationists goals too, but with less risk, but much slower.
Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that it's incredibly hard to vote earnestly rather than strategically.
Not me. Fuck Trump. Biden is a good guy and I would vote for him no matter what but I think the idea of Harris getting to be president because Biden is too old and dies is a win win. So the Biden - Harris ticket is fuck yeah from me.
Geez, i expected more fighting in the comments, but everyone here's just dunking on op and calling them a "bad actor" so I'll start one.
Is there even a single comment about the content of the article? Some of y'all commenting on FUD and OPs contributions should take a hard look at their contribution to both this comment chain, and Lemmy in general. I hope it looks better than what i see.
Anyway, enough of how disappointed i am with you, all of you, and on to the article.
Most of the article is just polling opinions, so not a lot to see, but i thought this part was interesting:
Fewer voters also say “it really matters who wins” the 2024 presidential race compared to those that said the same at this point in the 2020 cycle. Back then, 80 percent of Trump supporters and 77 percent of Biden supporters said the race really matters — but those figures have now dropped to 70 percent each.
This is surprising. I thought most people considered this election even more important than the last!
Is there a record somewhere of "election importance"? How far back does it go? Is this 7-10% drop normal?
By the way OP. As someone often critical of Biden i too get called a russian or chinese tank sometimes, so i feel close to ya. Thanks for contentin' and shit. here's an upvote from me <3
I think people forget how significant a moment 2020 felt.
Democrats are in for a rude awakening when the turnout plummets this cycle because normal people don't feel like it's the end of democracy like they do.
I'm sure that'll be a great relief to the normal people suffering who didn't take the warnings seriously.
And I don't know if I'd call it fear mongering considering the concerns about abortion and the Supreme Court came true. If someone chooses not to take warnings seriously after that, well... They shouldn't be surprised if this next set of warnings comes true as well.
51% of likely voters in swing states "strongly or somewhat support aid to Israel". Considering that is the popular opinion among crucial voters, are you fine with Biden's position on Israel? It's just "popular governance" after all.
Maybe Bernie should've also said he was a through and through capitalist to try and win the primary through "popular governance"?
That link is paywalled, so unless you share the text i guess ill take your word for it.
Regardless, that's only "popular" if you limit your definition of popular to swing states. Nationally, only 46% of voters(note this is more accurate when limited to registered voters) support more aid to israel (Quinnepaic, April 24), even fewer when limited to democratic and independent voters.
Quinnipiac poll, support for aid to israel by demographic:
64% over 65 years old
60% Republicans
50% White
46% all voters 46% independents
42% Hispanic 36% Democrats
31% Black 26% under 35 years old
The Bernie point is actually interesting, because historically "capitalism" is broadly popular, but his socialist policies are extremely popular, which I suppose would suggest polling is kinda junk as a predictor for popularity anyway.
Thank you. For supposedly being "the most important election of our lives" a lot of people don't want to hear the truth that Trump could win again and it'll be Biden's fault.
I spent a good amount of time calling OP a shill in this thread without bothering to read the article. The combination of thehill.com + OP's bias + polls aren't really indicative of anything let alone deserving of the "multiple updates multiple times per day" conceptual weight they're being given in OP's posting history, led me to feel it was a better use of time to just talk about why are we talking about this again and why do we think OP posts this so much, as opposed to just obediently feeling like I'm obligated to spend time talking about it again, because OP feels like posting it again.
I mean I will say in my own defense that earlier today when for the other multiple time OP posted a whole story about how bad Biden's doing in the polls, I engaged with that story purely on its own merits. Here's the conversation that ensued:
Me: It seems like this poll is polling everyone, not just likely voters, which is a relevant flaw in it
Someone: "You should read articles before posting them" "You should also believe in science"
Me: (Asks a question to try to Socratically teach them the point I was originally trying to make)
Them: "What are you confused about?" (illustrates that they still don't get the pretty straightforward point I was making)
Me: (Asks the question again)
Them: (Finally answers the question, seeming to get what I was saying for the first time, but effortlessly pivoting to condescending about how limiting polls to likely voters is a bad idea)
And so on. It went on from there, but the point that I'm making is that engaging with this stuff on its own merits isn't the doorway to productive conversation it might appear to be. In my experience the shills will come out of the woodwork to make weirdly hostile bad-faith conversation with you for more or less an unlimited amount of time. I think blithely being okay with putting up with an unlimited amount of that isn't a fair thing to ask people to do.
Any state after super Tuesday has no voice. I won't vote for Biden but at this point I don't know if I'll just cast no vote or if there will be another option?
Well you can vote for the one or two other candidates depending on your state that are on the ballot. Of course they both suck. So you know do with that what you will.
It'd be pretty fucking amazing if I didn't have a preference between the two but regardless of my preference I'd prefer if you voted for your favorite turd regardless if it's the same as mine. Unfortunately the final stage of our executive office election that will happen in November uses a completely fucking broken system.
I believe in a democracy and not that my opinion must be held by everyone else - if you vote third party in our broken ass system you're effectively removing yourself from the voting base.
I absolutely didn't vote for either turd in the primary though, because they're both fucking awful.
It’d be pretty fucking amazing if I didn’t have a preference between the two but regardless of my preference I’d prefer if you voted for your favorite turd regardless if it’s the same as mine.
I don't have a favorite turd. I resent having to vote for a turd.
I believe in a democracy and not that my opinion must be held by everyone else
Maybe none this year, but a big enough percentage of voters going third party would show the big two that we're sick of their shit. It would also help get this false dichotomy mindset out of the majority.
Okay, how many election cycles of Republican majorities in the house and senate along with a Republican president will it take before the major parties change their platform to suit your needs? Or how long until a 3rd party candidate can garner enough votes to get elected?
What percentage will be needed? Do all of us that are involved with your scheme have to vote for the same 3rd party candidate, or can we each vote for the one we like best?
I'd love to break the two party dichotomy, so let's figure out how all of voting party will actually make that happen.
Going by the numbers in the article, ~48% of all voters don't like either candidate. That puts the ratio of people who like their candidate to the people who don't like either at about the same as the Republican/Democrat split. If everyone voted for a candidate they actually like right now (assuming they find a third party they like), there's a chance it could happen this year. Even if it doesn't, 48% of people voting for a third party would show everyone else that it's a viable option.
I'm not sure how 48% of voters voting for n number of different 3rd party candidates shows that 3rd party candidates are a viable option. That's kind of what we have now. Two main party candidates getting enough voter share to win the election, followed by a lot of 3rd party candidates getting an insignificant number of votes.
Maybe voting for 3rd party candidates will encourage main party candidates to adopt watered down versions of the 3rd party platforms in an attempt to lure their voters. They probably couldn't adopt their full platforms because it would alienate other voters that don't share the 3rd parties extreme views.
