politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
How so?
You just can't draw the article's statements as even a reasonable conclusions without ignoring a whole host of things. They're largely comparing a general election to a midterm election, Rs show up for midterms more reliably than Ds, a drop is basically expected. Even compared to the previous midterm, that was with a very polarizing R in office, so we'd also expect a higher D turnout than one with a D in office. Plus add in consideration for the effects of voter suppression that's been building basically specifically targeted at the group in question.
This article is just bait created by someone who is either ignorantly or purposely misrepresenting the actual study's implications.
On the one hand, the article has a point as applied to very tight elections, especially considering that if you swing a couple tens of thousands of votes in a few swing states and we're knee deep into a second trump term. On the other, it's a fucking politico article and their writing is all geared towards creating a horse race and stoking fears and anxiety so that you keep reading politico, and so any nuance beyond "DEMOCRATS ARE IGNORING WARNING ALARMS AND THEY AREGOING TO LOSE THE NEXT ELECTION! ⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️" is intentionally drowned.