this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2023
227 points (93.2% liked)

politics

19241 readers
1689 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Given the current state of partisan polarization, it’s unlikely Biden can get majority job approval next year even with the most fortunate set of circumstances. But the good news for him is that he probably doesn’t have to. Job-approval ratings are crucial indicators in a normal presidential reelection cycle that is basically a referendum on the incumbent’s record. Assuming Trump is the Republican nominee, 2024 will not be a normal reelection cycle for three reasons.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 51 points 1 year ago (3 children)

From what I've heard and seen, there's a massive astroturfing effort to discredit Biden over the actions of an allied nation. It's as if a massive propaganda machine is at work that completely ignores the fact that Republicans would have an even worse stance than Biden on this issue.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Charles Manson would make a better US president than Hitler...

Doesn't mean people are going to get hype to go vote for Charles Manson.

And telling people those are the only options will depress turnout.

And when turnout is depressed, republicans win.

So how about we try running someone who actually cares about genocide and will at least stop trying to get the perpetrators even more money while telling their own citizens we're the only first world country that can't afford universal healthcare?

Like, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that would get more votes.

But the people running the Dem party aren't going to just turn down those AIPAC kickbacks if they can get away with "at least we're not republicans, so shut up and vote for another genocide supporter".

They'll always aim for "barely better than a Republican". So let's fucking replace them with people willing to do more than the absolute bare minimum

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

So how about we try running someone who actually cares about genocide and will at least stop trying to get the perpetrators even more money while telling their own citizens we’re the only first world country that can’t afford universal healthcare?

This is an unpopular opinion and unpopular opinions lose you elections

The real world isn't lemmy.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

There are absolutely very important reasons to still vote for Biden, but you can't rely on millions of people to all do the right thing just because it's logical. The person who's running for office ultimately has the responsibility to ensure people want to vote for them. It's just not really useful to blame millions of people when you know that there are statistically for sure going to be disaffected people out of those who need to be motivated. It doesn't even matter whether most voters who would vote for Biden turn out to vote for him - they almost certainly will - because this fight is at the margins, and to win, you have to capture the irresponsible and unreliable people too.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The "but it could be much worse" argument doesn't carry much weight for many people on this issue.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Has anyone tried explaining that if you allow in the people literally trying to take their rights away, they won't get another chance to vote in a politician against genocide?

Like the genocide is awful but it shouldn't make people forget they have very close to home issues currently happening right now.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I hear that excuse every single election and have always found it lacking.

If we always have to wait until after the next election to demand better of the Democrats then we'll never see any change. "Lesser evilism" will only allow the Democrats to continue sliding the overton window to the right.

Even if you're already planning to vote a straight Democrat ticket, don't tell them that. Make them think you're a swing voter they need to pander to.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

How are you hearing it every single election? The main issues didn't start popping up (or at least blatantly enough to change voter turnout) until the 2016 election.

Like that's not nearly enough elections in between to hear the excuse every election.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

How are you hearing it every single election?

He's only seen 2 that he remembers.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

With my ears, of course. Trump isn't the only threat to the Democrat party, just the most recent one.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I don't particularly care about the democratic party threat, I care about the uptick in voting issues, the supreme court, and...you know...that the opposing party is trying to vote in someone who attempted to not give up the office

So you know, the recent ones that a lot of people started voting in about.

If you truly believe that's nothing new, i'll just consider you to be part of that astroturfing described above and ask you to stop wasting my time. Seriously.....

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not going to compromise my principles out of fear. I'd rather write in "none of the above" than hitch my wagon to a party that gets campaign donations from corporate bombmakers like Raytheon.

If the Democrats want my vote, they should start acting like it. They need to stop pretending they can coast to victory on "lesser evilism" before they end up repeating all their mistakes from 2016, and the threat of withholding my vote is the only leverage I have.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Stop bullshitting. You'll sit on your morals while a dictator takes over, just being happy you didn't "compromise your morals."

Which ultimately just means doing nothing while the dictator takes over.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Am I bullshitting, or am I applying the only leverage I have over the party?

We can't afford politicians, so the threat of withholding our votes is our only tool for influencing the party.

I advise you to stop being a "safe" voter that will always and forever vote blue no matter who. Even if you're going to vote for Dems anyway, make them think that they need to work for it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Am I bullshitting, or am I applying the only leverage I have over the party?

You're bullshitting

I feel like you've had plenty of years to see how that "leverage" is going, and choosing now specifically to try to enforce it is really suspicious.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"Now specifically"? This has been my political messaging strategy since I reached voting age. Feel free to continue lambasting folks for wanting the party to suck less, that seems really effective too. XD

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And it's working so well, huh. Just keep doing it! Doesn't matter how many rights your fellow Americans lose (but not you of course, you're not trans or a woman or anything like that)

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm am trans, moved out of Texas and started hormone therapy last year.

People like me are right up there in "first they came for..", so don't imagine that I don't know what's at stake.

That's precisely why it's so important for the Democrats to reform and stop playing carrot to the Republican stick. They are complicit quislings who gladly work with fascists, even voting with them to censure the only Palestinian-American in congress for her objection to the arms deals that are enabling one of our proxy states to perpetuate genocide.

I'm still hopeful that it isn't too late for the party to seek redemption, but I'm not so naive as to think they'll do it on their own. Nothing short of an existential threat to the party would convince it to change, and the only threat we can offer as voters is to withhold support en masse.

Waste as much time as you want trying to shame me into voting, I live in a blue state now so your efforts would be almost meaningless even if they were successful. The people who actually need convincing are the party bosses, and good luck with that if they think they already have your vote.

[–] burntbutterbiscuits -4 points 1 year ago

These tired ass arguments will no longer work for the younger generation.

Thank god

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Which is still an ignorant take, because we've only got two realistic options. Bad and worse.

Any complaints otherwise are ignorant at best, if not maliciously deceptive.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Which is still an ignorant take, because we’ve only got two realistic options. Bad and worse.

The solution isn't "shut up and be grateful we're not worse". It's actually running someone that's good.

We've tried the "shut up you don't have a choice" strategy and that just keeps ending up with republicans in office.

Why not just run good candidates that want to help America if they get in office?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You push the Democratic Party candidate to the left. Supporting Republicans (which is what you're doing if you don't vote for Joe Biden, full stop) isn't going to help anyone and won't get you better candidates in the future. It will literally have the opposite effect. There's a great batch of possible candidates for 2028 (Witmer, Shapiro, Newsome, etc). Sure I'd prefer them over Biden for 2024 but they're not running.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

Supporting Republicans (which is what you’re doing if you don’t vote for Joe Biden, full stop)

"Vote red no matter who, because Dems are worse" is how trump became the face of the Republican party...

If the Dem party's only standard is "there's a D next to their name" we'll gonna keep getting shitty candidates that lose half the elections to republicans. And even when they do win, nothing gets fixed.

Normally I'd push for primary participation and then begrudgingly voting for the winner of the primary.

But we don't even get a primary because a private organization controls that, and they decided we don't get one.

Will I still vote for Joe?

Sure, I've voted for every single shitty D candidate in the general since I turned 18. But telling people to just shut up and stop complaining about how fucked it is won't fix anything. Hasn't for decades.

And pretending that shitty milk toast candidates don't depress turnout and give Republicans a chance, is like asking why poor people don't just make more money. But you're not going to reach that 1/3 of eligible voters on a political sub on a fringe social media website

The absolute easiest way to get them to vote, is run a good candidate.

So how about you spend your effort communicating that to the Democratic party? That might actually accomplish something....

Although, they're probably just say "shut up and vote for me, at least I'm not a Republican".

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why not just run good candidates that want to help America if they get in office?

Because that doesn't make nearly as much ~~money~~ donations as "Look at how awful the Republicans are."

If the D's ran a real candidate that actually cared about the country, they'd get blasted in fund raising...People like Booker would go broke overnight if we got universal healthcare. Pelosi would lose her ass if we outlawed congressional trading.

We're fucked...irrevocably completely and utterly fucked.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

If the D’s ran a real candidate that actually cared about the country, they’d get blasted in fund raising

Not really, Bernie and even trump made enough off "small" donations to run effective campaigns.

The difference is small donations from voters don't come with all the perks and kickbacks as the same amount from a single PAC/billionaire/organization.

And as long as the bare minimum is having a D next to your name, grifters are going to run with the D, and get those huge donations because the people making them expect a return.

So yeah...

People like Booker would go broke overnight if we got universal healthcare. Pelosi would lose her ass if we outlawed congressional trading.

Those are two great examples of politicians that need to be replaced, and why our standards need to be more than a single letter.