You must log in or # to comment.
I want to vote more, but when I try to vote more than once the poll workers get upset and tell me to leave.
I’m voting as hard as I can
There’s just no privacy anywhere anymore.
you need to be a republican governor’s son. if you are, you can vote illegally as many times as you like and no one cares.
You should try being a republican.
The less you brain, the more you back Trump.
I am really not following all the vitriol in the comments, are people not only ignoring the article to react to the headline but then also mis-reading the headline?
It’s not saying anyone ought to vote a certain way, it’s just pointing out that low-propensity voters tend to support Trump.
I suspect this is due to the recent polarization around education. Highly educated people tend to vote more, and over the last decade they have tended to vote more and more for Democrats. And vice versa for low-formal-education folks.
Yeah, when I read the headline I figured it was saying that if you don’t vote, that means you’re actively supporting trump. But after reading the article, it’s definitely not saying that as far as I can tell.
I chalk it up to the headline being worded weirdly, and just the fact that people have been saying things sorta like that.
This has been a recipe for a democratic win for a for decades. High turnouts favor democrats.
Yup, which is why the Republicans try to make it as difficult as possible to vote, especially for minorities. Don’t forget Trump said if minorities vote, Republicans will never win another election.
Also, why they focus on voter suppression and divisive propaganda every election to get the lefties all riled up about whatever makes them stay home. I wonder which issue it is right now!?
Israel. The tankies (some of whom are probably Russian trolls) are pushing the “Genocide Joe” narrative. They like to talk about principles but that means nothing when the brown shirts start throwing punches and are backed by the government.
I really wish Biden would take a harder line to get that under control. At the very least it’s aid that ought to be going to Ukraine which is instead being used for that disgusting mess.
The only justification I can think of is that it’s the only leverage we have over them and without it they would have no reason to be “restrained” at all. Even then I have my doubts.
The entire premise of the article is the exact opposite - that Trump did better when turnout was high.
A new poll suggests it’s Republicans who should be rooting for higher turnout.
You could literally put a half eaten turkey sandwich against Trump and I’d vote for the sandwich 100% of the time.
As an outsider, though neighbor in Canada, I can’t truely comprehend why Trump has the support he does. I sort of get it when looking at specifics (some people enjoy racism, others think he’d stir things up and create change) but the Evangelical support alone is baffling. I’m not religious but went to schools with religion as a subject (didn’t always focus on Christianity in the Anglican one but other one did) and the idea that anyone remotely Christian, or anyone that thinks they have religious values could vote for him makes me want to do the exorcist head spin and spew green pea soup. I didn’t think of that idea in a religious way just an absurd reaction to the situation but it sort of fits.
I’d definitely vote for the inanimate carbon rod over Trump, but the sandwich has merit too.
I think a lot of Trump’s support is imaginary. We’ve had several elections, including the 2022 election, where the polls said we were going to get destroyed, but the Republicans way underperformed their polls. Perhaps it’s over-correction for 2016 when the polls overstated Democratic Party chances. Perhaps they’re over-sampling Republicans, not accounting for the fact that many older, more Republican-leaning people who distrusted the science behind COVID got themselves sick with COVID and then died from it. Or maybe they’re just making wild-ass guesses and don’t have a fucking clue because asking 1000 people what 220 million people are going to do six months away is always a tough thing to do.
That said, I’d still campaign like I was 5 points down in the polls if I was Biden, going 50 State Strategy to get ALL the votes he can, even the ones that ‘don’t count’, and if I was a voter that’s even REMOTELY aligned to the Left, I’d VOTE like he was down 1 point in the polls, and make damn sure I got my vote in for him. The alternative is just that much worse.
Historically, different Christian denominations used to rally behind the two political parties against each other, back when everyone was Christian. If I recall, if you had Catholics on one side, you’d usually find Protestants on the other. Of course this was also back when Republicans were the progressives, and Democrats were conservative.
Things are different now, but there is definitely still a more liberal contingent of Christians who are more in line with ‘separation of church and state’, and the more fundamentalist side whose schools have literally taught their children that it’s their Christian duty to vote for Trump.
Exactly… I think it’s horrific how politically behind we are here in America compared to most other industrialized nations.
-
Trump isn’t racist. That’s a narrative the Left has been throwing around for years. He’s won numerous black awards, has had numerous black support, and only when he ran against Democrats was he labeled by the left as a “racist.”
-
Religious people will always vote conservative, no matter who the candidate is. My Mexican family are very religious Catholics, and even they vote for Trump because they always feel that a Republican better protects their religious rights.
-
The Democrat party is doing everything and anything to stop him from running, and this only makes his case stronger.
Trump isn’t racist.
Trump literally took out newspaper ads calling for the execution of a group of African-American teens falsely accused of a crime. He refuses to apologize
Hard to see that as anything other than racist.
Trump has been part of the African American community for most of his life…and now, he’s all of a sudden a racist…come on…
-
Meanwhile, there’s MILLIONS who are going to vote for him because everyone keeps telling them not too…I love how minorities are told that they’re “not good enough” to vote Republican.
If you wanna drink the right wing Kool-aid, that’s your own prerogative
…that’s your own stupid prerogative.
How I’d say that. ;)
I’m trying to be respectful, but yes. :p
I want to repeat this as much as possible because I think it’s incredibly important. When you vote for a president, you are not voting for one person, you are voting for thousands. You are voting for an entire branch of government, possibly 2. The president appoints an insane amount of positions, so when you vote for the one person you need to also think about all the other positions they will be nominating people for. Hundreds of federal judges, hundreds of secretaries, dozens of heads of departments and agencies, hundreds of ambassadors, and most importantly, potentially lifetime appointments of Supreme court judges, which can flip an entire other branch of government. There are also tons of lower level positions on top of those, and if that’s not enough already, many of these appointments span multiple presidencies, so you’re not just voting for the next 4 years, but potentially long after that.
So when you’re looking at the ballot, do not think about the names on the paper, think about the thousands of incredibly important, powerful, and influential roles that they will fill. As powerful as the president is, when you add up all those other positions, they are even more important than the one position of president.
And if you want to know why we haven’t made much forward progress, well… we flip parties every 8 years.
If you want to know why we’re backsliding, it’s because when Republicans have an advantage it’s 58/42 and when Democrats have an advantage it’s 51/50 for two weeks.
Over the past 50 years Republicans have had more political power in this country.
Democrats held a comfortable dual majority during four years Obama’s presidency and aside from the ACA did fuck all with it. And that’s just in recent history. Go back a bit farther and they had 8 straight years. Go back a bit farther and Democrats had comfortable dual majorities for 26 years straight.
Your own link disproves your point and makes mine. Yeah, there were times with House and Senate Democrat majorities, usually with a Republican president.
Republicans have had more control.over the direction of this country than Democrats for the past fifty years.
You could also make the thin line for president larger, which would make it more obvious.
My fucking god what is it going to take for you fucking zealots to wake the fuck up and get angry at rich politicians fucking us over regardless of party? Fucking wake up. What the fuck.
Fuck the Democrats. Fuck the Republicans. Fuck this procorporate trash.
Where are you from?
Zealot? Well, fuck you too, buddy.
Serinus made a great point. Republicans have had their hands on the levers of power because shitheads want to see liberals suffer, and OTHER shitheads scream bloody murder because they didn’t get the rainbow alicorn they swore they were promised. Cluebus for ya, pal. More than ultra-leftie liberals get to call the shot in the USA and you taking your fucking ball and going home hurts all of us…
didn’t get the rainbow alicorn they swore they were promised.
Nobody promised us a rainbow alicorn. But they did make promises and they were broken. We are not morally obligated to accept that kind of treatment.
you taking your fucking ball and going home hurts all of us…
Oh buddy. We’re taking more than the ball. We’re taking our lives.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68782177
Go fuck yourself.
If you have thoughts of suicide, do what the article says to do and talk to someone. If things are so bad that you’re contemplating killing yourself, this is a dangerous position to be, and I wouldn’t wish that on anyone, even a Trumper or a useful idiot. But throwing that link about suicide down won’t change my point.
You don’t always get exactly what you want from a politician. Ask the Kiwis. They recently stayed home, DESPITE their country offering multiple Left-Wing parties and a system that ensures their vote for one of those Left-Wing parties won’t result in one of the Right-Wing Parties being elected, and now, National, ACT, and NZ First (their Conservative parties, going from main-stream to whacko-extreme) are calling the shots and have rolled back EVERY left-wing priority they could get their hands on at a rapid pace. This is what you get when you say ‘not liberal enough’ and stay home, and that’s BEFORE FPTP used here in the USA gets in on the game.
Again. One of two things will happen in January.
- Biden will start his second term, doing much the same as he’s done in the first term, SLOOOWLY and ever so painfully eeking out some Liberal priority or another, and then being shut down by the Right-Wing Court.
- Trump will start his second term, and you’ll be fighting to not be disappeared into the back of some white van by literal secret police while Trump’s goons enact Project 2025 to ‘erase woke everywhere’.
Every vote Biden doesn’t get…is an increase of the chance that everything you supposedly stand for BEYOND Israel being undone while you dodge shitheads with white vans like Floyd Protesters did in Seattle. I’m just going to be here to remind you and everyone else who reads this of that truth.
And fuck yourself back to you, pal.
Well, this is a fun discussion!
…Anyways, I like to think that the title implies you’re supposed to vote more than once lol
It also implies that not voting for Trump somehow counts more than voting for Trump does
The article is actually about how people that have voted more consistently will vote for Biden and people that vote more inconsistently will vote for Trump.
Very different from how I interpreted the headline.
Ok then! One vote for Trump is better than multiple not-votes for no one, so I’ll vote for Trump!
/s
The less you campaign for electoral reform in your state, the more you support the republican party.
Switching away from first past the post voting allows people to vote for who represents them best while still counting their vote against those they dont want to win. Just search for videos on FPTP voting if you want an explanation on how and why the spoiler effect exists.
Electoral reform is possible in each individual state (for now), we dont need federal reform! Maine and Alaska have already passed electoral reform.
Republicans are moving to make alternative electoral systems illegal in their states. Why would you want to use the same voting system republicans prefer?
More political parties means a higher percentage of the population is representedby their choices in the voting booth. More people involved in the electoral process, more people engaged.
Its a win win win all around for not just the people, but also for the democratic party. More people voting means more democratic votes. The numbers dont lie. So what’s the hold up blue states?
You believe it’s critical to vote for the democrats to beat the Republicans, thus you should 100% be fully invested in passing electoral reform in your state.
Electoral reform needs to be the number one priority for every democrat. This is a existential threat to our nation, so we must use EVERY tool at our disposal. No more waiting. This especially goes for those in blue states.
Consider starting a campaign to change how we vote in your own state! Force our representatives to compete with fresh outside ideas. We deserve the best representation, not excuses.
Electoral reform needs to be the number one priority for every democrat.
Never going to happen.
In other words, more elections years you voted in since 2018 makes it more likely you voted for Biden.
This makes sense because Trump pushed turnout for the Dems with his deeply unpopular presidency. And this same dynamic can sink Biden in 2024 if he continues to be more unpopular than Trump.
This ain’t no big revelation to anyone. Since the 1960’s Republicans have relied on liberal voter’s apathy to win seats in government. It’s liberalism’s greatest weakness and failure - the belief that someone else should be responsible because they can’t be bothered.
Since the 1960’s Republicans have relied on liberal voter’s apathy to win seats
Makes you wonder why Democrats continue to foster that apathy.
A controlled opposition
how?
For example when Obama had the power to codify Roe v. Wade he didn’t.
What if your a lifelong red voter and you vote less?
Like I get where your coming from, but it’s only because your audience are the sane ones.
I had difficulty parsing the article title. I thought it meant that not voting means you back trump (since this is a common narrative by democrat supporters), but actually it’s saying that people who vote less consistently support trump more.
I dont really understand the math behind it, can some one explain to me please ?
When you don’t vote you are voting for the guy who wins.
You hate trump but you hate the other guy too. You don’t vote. That’s one more vote not going against the guy who wins.
Say you have 100 people voting. 60 people decide not to vote. Out of the 40 people who vote 25 vote for guy A and 15 vote for guy B. Guy A wins majority even though only 25 people out of 100 voted for him. This means that guy A caters to the 25 people who voted for him and the 60 people who didn’t bother to vote get zero representation even though they’re the majority.
If the 60 people who didn’t vote decided “he’s not great but he’s better than guy A I will vote for guy B” guy B would win with 75 votes, an actual majority.
Sometimes it’s better to vote for the lesser of two evils and push the not great guy to do better than to just resign your fate to the worst guy and let the entire thing just burn.
That may be true and all but I take it you didn’t read the article, because that not what it was about.
They polled people and those who are regularly vote in past elections tend to be pro Biden, those whom hadn’t voted in recent elections tended to be pro Trump.
Which is ironic because if everyone just got out and voted we might just have a send Trump presidency on our hands. I could be wrong, but I suspect that’s the opposite of what you are thinking would happen.
need I remind you that Trump lost the popular vote and won? With 100% (99.99%…) then it likely wouldn’t have been so close. Trump won because of voter apathy towards HRC.
Also your comment doesn’t take into account voter suppression, disenfranchisement and gerrymandering- all of which are self evidently powerful by token of how common they are.
President Joe Biden performed much better among frequent voters, while Trump had a large lead among people who haven’t voted recently.
Yes, it seems you are correct; according to this article if you want Biden to win you have to tell people NOT to vote. I imagine (I don’t have numbers) this is the opposite of what most of us expected.
He’s in office right now, the time to push was the last three and a half years and for the next 6 months.
I feel like if I pushed Biden on anything he’d fall over and break a hip.
Still voting for him tho
deleted by creator
I’m not sure why you think liberals are the solution. They’re just as much a part of the problem and not in a “liberals have slowly shifted to the right” way.
Keep in mind, Eugenics received pretty heavy support from liberals. Liberals are just as responsible for the corporate hellscape we’re currently entering, they’re just the parent in the abusive household that comes in and makes sure you don’t make problems for the other one that just got done beating you.
Idk what the solution is, but something makes me doubt it’s liberals teaming up.
Clearly we’re not talking about the same “liberals” if you think the liberals I’m referring to would support Eugenics.
I deleted my post btw since I read the article and realized my comment had nothing to do when it.
The various trolls infesting lemmy love to play on the nearly opposite meaning of “liberal” in the global political sense vs the US political sense.
In other countries, they use “liberal” or “liberalism” to refer to a right wing ideology. In the US, “liberal” means a left wing ideology, like social democracy.
I think the misalignment in meaning actually has more to do with the 1-dimensional binary you just pointed to than to a reversal of meanings.
Liberalism is an ideology of individualism, which has some overlap with both left and right US political categories, but is certainly not “left” in the poly-sci sense of the word.
You’re still talking about European liberalism. Liberalism in the United States is more collectivist. Liberals in the US believe that improving the common good makes all our lives better, and believe that those more fortunate should be made to help those less fortunate.
I understand the US political category and the normalized usage of it, but liberalism has a very distinct meaning in polysci. There are aspects of liberalism (in the classical use of the word) within the US political category ‘liberal’, especially when it comes to fiscal policy. People who castigate liberals from the left are those who primarily take issue with that particular quality of US Democratic policy, not the qualities you’re speaking fondly of here.
Edit: I should say - it is still just a term that describes a particular thing, so if that term isn’t adequately describing what you’re talking about, then maybe a different word should be used
in polysci
…which doesn’t matter outside of academic discussions.
There are aspects of liberalism (in the classical use of the word) within the US political category ‘liberal’,
Sure, but they still generally mean opposite things. And trolls are still exploiting that.
I’m not a troll. Liberals haven’t saved us, I’m not sure why you would think a Liberal is going to. I’m voting Biden because a U.S. under Trump is worse, but if you think stifling any conversation about what happens next with “the libs will save us” is contributing anything then you’re just as fucking dumb as the pugs that frequent hexbear.
Do you consider Biden to be a liberal?
Yes.
The libs could save us, if we could ever get enough in power.
Of course the libs haven’t saved us, they haven’t had the numbers. It’s been neck and neck with the fascists for 20 years.
Imagine what we could do if the Dems had a 20 year supermajority. Universal healthcare, UBI, free college, wealth tax, these are all things that standard-issue Dems would love to do if it were feasible. The reason centrist Dems take baby steps isn’t because that’s all they want, it’s because that’s all they can do. Give em the power and they’ll do more.
As I’ve said, I will be voting Biden. I’m inclined to believe things will not change.
Give Dems the power, and we’ll prove you wrong. You’ll love it.
Don’t forget to vote downballot! And in non Presidential elections!
The libs could save us, if we could ever get enough in power.
We were.
For a few months, and in that time they passed legislation that saved thousands of lives and brought us closer to universal health care.
What’s your strategy?
I’m not saying you’re wrong on some points, but tell me how you’re going to fix the “corporate hellscape.”
And not a simple, “vote for a 3rd party” response. Provide a viable, long-term strategy for getting out of this mess.
Then tell me which candidate gives you the highest likelihood of executing your strategy.
Biden.
I’m voting Biden because Trump is demonstrably worse.
That being said, if you think that Biden is going to prevent the next conservative candidate from gaining steam: you are simply fucking dumb. If you think that the libs are going to prevent the next conservative candidate from gaining steam: you are simply fucking dumb. You stifling any conversation because you don’t like the context matter and are predispositioned to assume you’re unable to reach any consensus with the person on the other side is, guess what? BAD.
tell me how you’re going to fix the “corporate hellscape”.
I can’t. I would need the help of the people that are around me, the people that I can communicate to with words.
Let’s see, half of the country is religious. So that’s obviously an uphill battle, the other half… oh that would probably be the side that has people like you and the other people downvoting me.
Gonna go ahead and say it’s an uphill battle on both sides. Imagine actually demanding an entire plan that requires both uniting the country, which includes eradicating white supremacy and the various inequalities in the U.S., and then solving climate change.
God it’s like half the people here are children.
My long term solution would be uniting the under 50 vote to add the 28th amendment.
The 28th amendment needs to eliminate money/donations/bribes/grifts from the election process. It also needs to eliminate any form of augmented monetary enrichment for elected officials.
Until corruption via monetary gain can be somewhat controlled, we can never achieve a legitimate democracy.
How many Democrat senators would you say we’d need for that? 50? 60? 70? 80?
Sure, absolutely.
How much time is your plan going to take? Because we’re on a clock.
There are plenty of conservatives in the under 50 bracket, obviously that will change as more babies are born; but how is your plan going to play out with population replacement rates falling globally?
I’m not intentionally poking holes, your suggestion is great and it is absolutely a step that needs to be taken. I just think that we’ve entered unfamiliar territory and I fear that old strategies may not be applicable. The conservatives have basically been waging a whisper campaign on the people of the U.S. and we’re seeing the effects of that coming to a head. We will not simply “unite the people under 50”.
Vote like your (or someone you love’s) life depends on it and convince everyone you know to do the same, because it does.
