FWIW, the pollster who did this study predicted a 4-point Kamala win.
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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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. 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.
- 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
Predicting what is going to happen in the future is harder than finding out what happened in the past. Especially when you're asking people what they are going to do vs what they did. Honest people can change their minds.
All true, but it's just worth pointing out that if their methodologies haven't changed, they seem to have overestimated the likelihood of winning by appealing to moderates in the past.
It wasn't a no-show problem, it was that the 2020 numbers were artificially inflated by Covid vote-by-mail precautions.
When the Republicans saw how that boosted turnout, they spent four years trying to handicap it.
I was telling everyone that the '24 numbers would be lower.
We really do need 100% vote by mail in every state to have proper voter participation, but that's the last thing Republicans want.
Just make voting mandatory and give people time off to vote. Read about Australia's voting system. It's really awesome and I wish we could have something like that here.
People refuse mandatory vaccines, can you imagine what they'd do with mandatory voting?
Give people a tax rebate for voting.
I'd rather not have people who don't support any candidate checking the first box or making a random selection to get a tax rebate.
Actually studies show in general people take it seriously. Thought that if youre going to "have to" do it you may as well vote for someone you want.
Right now non-voters are essentially checking a quantum waveform of a box, that collapses to endorsement of the eventual winner.
Id much rather they make a choice, even a random one.
Not an awful idea, but I'm sure someone would claim it's bribery...
Bribery to hand in a blank ballot isn't a big deal when we're have Felon Musk actually bribing to favor a specific party.
In Australia, even the lamest request to cancel the fine will be accepted by the government. The minor slap on the wrist just keeps everyone honest and for the most part politically aware.
Seriously. We need mandatory federal voting holidays with democracy sausages being offered at every polling station.
Doesn't Australia also have problems with far right nut jobs though?
I think it was a no show problem because we had practically the same decreased turnout in 2012 compared to 2008 without pandemic voting weirdness to explain it, but either way 100% vote by mail is an excellent idea (both the underlying policy and campaigning on "let's make interacting with your government less of a pain in the ass" type ideas)
Something interesting, according to this survey 27% of democrat non voters want Obamacare repealed. 27% think women are too easily offended. 20% are pro-life.
As the article suggests, however, we shouldn't really take this data as a defining reason for why democratic voters didn't come out to vote. Even more so, the data literally shows that the majority still broadly support progressive policies. Portraying this as "oh the Democrats were too progressive or too far left" is BS. The articles first couple paragraphs focus on portraying things from this perspective but it does get better.
I think you should just look at the graph though. That's the data. And it shows that non-voters were still majority supporters of progressive policies. That's what matters.
Wanting Obamacare repealed isn’t “Democrat” unless you want it replaced with Medicare for all. Go vote Republican if you want to strip everyone of their healthcare.
My thought as well. I totally get if you want it replaced with Medicare for all (I do), but no actual Democrat wants that shit repealed outright without a universal healthcare replacement.
Yeah, this was an odd write-up. I found this section particularly baffling.
It’s true that Democrats need to energize their base voters, but our analysis suggests that they’re unlikely to do so successfully through a strategy of blanket progressive appeals to an ideologically diverse base. Instead, Democrats need to persuade nonvoters with a clear and credible message about how the party plans to improve the economic lives of working people.
Now, credible eliminates the means-tested-to-death programs the Dems love so much, right out of the gate. This, much as the author seems loath to say it, leaves you with progressive ideas, or Republican/conservative ideas. Presumably, folks who cared enough to register as Democrats don't like the conservative ideas, so we can fairly safely discard them as a winning move to get those voters out. Raising the minimum wage, universal healthcare, building more housing and/or implementing schemes to help people afford current housing, expanding benefits like WIC and EBT, free and universal university education, or taxing the rich and corporations to fund these sorts of programs are all clear, credible and progressive stances that would help working people.
It doesn't get much more simple than, "I make minimum wage. They say they will make minimum wage a bigger number, so I will get more money." or "My check would be bigger if I didn't have to pay insurance premiums, and I could spend it on other stuff if my insurance actually reliably covered most medical expenses without me having to cough up $2500-$6000 a year out of pocket first."
I'd also like to send out a special "Fuck you" to everyone who signed off on changing the position representing nonvoting Democrats and those who voted, depending on whether the nonvoters were more or less likely to respond in a certain way compared to those who voted in this section.
The second thing to notice about the demographics of Democratic nonvoters: They were overwhelmingly working class and relatively economically precarious. Democratic nonvoters were nearly twice as likely (60 percent vs. 32 percent) to have a household income of less than $50,000 per year, they were nearly three times less likely to hold a four-year college degree (47 percent vs. 17 percent), twice as likely to be gig workers (31 percent vs. 15 percent), and only half as likely to be union members (27 percent vs. 14 percent). Further, nonvoting Democrats were more than twice as likely as voting Democrats to report feeling the economy is worse now than a year ago (46 percent vs. 22 percent) or that their incomes had recently decreased. And, perhaps not surprisingly given their economic precarity, Democratic nonvoters were substantially more likely than voters to support increased state welfare spending (61 percent vs. 52 percent).
Perhaps it's just the $150M spent on The Abundance agenda working their magic, producing articles that support centrist neoliberalism.
Over 4 million voters were disenfranchised during the election.
Don't forget this part.
Policy is always important...
But you can't just completely ignore charisma, which is what this article is doing.
Where the progressive edge comes from, is it's a very easy sell because progressive policy is pretty obvious answers to huge problems.
But when you have a zero charisma candidate trying to tell people that the economy is actually great and America has the best healthcare ever...
You need a lot of charisma to sell that.
I’m starting to think fear and anger is just the biggest factor in US politics. When your party is in charge, you get complacent and tune out. However, the other party’s media ecosystem whips up fear and anger which drives turn out. And, vice versa when the other party is in charge. It’s why the US swings back and forth constantly. It’s just volatility built into the system and when certain norms breakdown, the volatility becomes more pronounced. We are very much at risk of going off the rails. People need to turn out even when they aren’t outraged at the current administration. They need to turn out even when their side did just okay.
It’s true, not just for the U.S. either. And the biggest topics are always economy and immigration. At the end of the day, people will vote for what’s perceived as safety and security, a return to “the old times when things were better.” They will sacrifice freedoms for it. That trade is of course, a lie. And that’s how fascists get voted in, by preying on that fear.
Ah, so next time they should swing to the right harder. Interesting.
(The questions were probably loaded, like "do you support sending aid to Palestinians and Hamas in Gaza?")
They surveyed people who self-identify as democrats, and I feel like an increasing number of people who identify as leftist or progressive do not, or have stopped, thinking of themselves as democrats. So, to me, the question is whether these conservative, non-voting democrats outnumber the thoroughly disillusioned, non-voting progressive independents.
Note that they're less progressive, not not progressive. The data tells a different story than the headline.
Oh no. Thanks. Damn those lying statistics.
You can find the data here. Took a quick glance at the data and didn’t find anything particularly loaded and didn’t see any direct mentions of Gaza but I could have missed something.
Thanks for that, but it feels incomplete. A search in the questionnaire doc finds no instances of Gaza, Israel or "Pales"(should cover Palestinian and Palestine), and one question about gun ownership.
Edit: we're missing the "team" data questions (their word not mine)
Oh, you know, just centrist politics things.
The fact is that non-voters either have more important things to do than vote or don't feel they'd make an impact if they did vote.
When countries, states, and localities encourage education, promote mental and physical well-being, provide ample opportunities and fallbacks for financial security, and make it convenient to vote, then people more likely to at least vote, and at most vote progressively.
Scarcity promotes apathy, which promotes conservatism.
I have also come to the conclusion that the US is a center right country and running progressives just lets the far right win.
Because people are, by and large, spectacularly awful.
"Because people are, by and large, spectacularly awful" is a terrible message for getting people to vote for you, and you can tell a lot of actually awful people in the Democratic party believe it based on the stupid shit they campaign on (for example - nobody is going to buy it when you say you want a lethal military, your party likes treaties and peace and UN hearings, you're just pretending to be a Republican because you think we're all stupid).
Maybe if we run on what we actually believe and stopped trying to bullshit people they'd stop being so spectacularly cynical about their country.
I don't think it used to be that way, but it has always struggled with class disparity to different degrees. When the financial security and physical health of people are compromised, they're less likely to be progressive.
After spending months blaming actual leftists, it turns out it was just regular Democrats that were okay with giving Trump the presidency.
It was everyone who didn’t vote. People claiming to be ‘actual leftists’ spent a lot of time shitting on voting in general and voting for Harris in particular (Lemmy skews solidly left, so that’s not a good representation of all non voters, though.) But everyone has a duty to show up and vote. They didn’t. And now chaos and, yes, fascism, is ruling just as we all said it would.
It's like how you wouldn't stamp out a fire in your own house because you're upset of how your neighbour treats his kids. Then complain that you have no home now and blame it on the fire. Jfc.
Idiocy caused the “no show” problem. If you couldn’t remember that Trump was a threat from the last time he won, you’re a fool.
Idiocy caused the "no show" problem. If you couldn't see that the Biden and Harris campaign were creating the exact conditions to make this happen by fighting with their own supporters over Israel (who turned out to vote against Trump anyway but made the Democratic party look like the chaotic shitshow it is with their protests) and telling everyone else that the economy was great actually and they were just too stupid to see that, you're a fool (who was probably being paid six figures for campaign consulting).
It was less about Gaza and more about the economy. Your average American can't find Israel on a map much less Gaza.
But boy howdy, telling the President "the economy sucks!" and only getting back "What are you talkin' about, Jack? Economy is stronger than ever! Never been better!" Not even an "I feel your pain!", that was the career ender.
The economy was great for the elite. Income disparity wasn't improving. Housing was overpriced. Companies actively trying to bust unions or prevent them from happening.
Was it better than Krasnov? Definitely.
People have short memories, though, and are mostly idiots who couldn't find their way out of a wet paper towel and would probably manage to paper cut themselves while attempting it.
The average American can't find Israel on a map, but for a dedicated minority Gaza was very important. In a close election, it's groups like this that decide the result, so the Democrats thoroughly alienating them certainly didn't help.
Because the economy was so much better under Trump 1.0? 🙄
Democrats are center right. They work for billionaire and Israel. Used to be a party that supported working class and was anti war/anti genocide. People moved on. 2028 will be the same. They have not learned. Most of are done with voting the least worse.
By no show they mean the DNC managed to produce non viable candidates for another election, correct?