this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2024
1353 points (98.2% liked)

politics

19090 readers
4450 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

“It should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working class people would find that the working class has abandoned them,” Sanders said.

“First, it was the white working class, and now it is Latino and Black workers as well. While the Democratic leadership defends the status quo, the American people are angry and want change. And they’re right.”

“Will the big money interests and well-paid consultants who control the Democratic Party learn any real lessons from this disastrous campaign?” Sanders asked.

“Will they understand the pain and political alienation that tens of millions of Americans are experiencing? Do they have any ideas as to how we can take on the increasingly powerful Oligarchy which has so much economic and political power? Probably not.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] hglman@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

You just said exactly what I said while also saying im acting in bad faith.

[–] Mjpasta710@midwest.social 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Apologies, I didn't figure the math right. ~16 million.

I disagree.

Your first statement was that an undecided voter group didn't exist.

That's what I'm responding to.

Undecided did exist as ~16 million fewer votes were cast. Those could be protest votes could be voter roll purges...

We don't know what they've decided because they didn't decide in a way that is counted.

That is all.

They can claim whatever reason they want. They abdicated their voices this time. Hope they're able to use them again.

[–] hglman@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

I said exactly that, its not people choosing between the parties its choosing to engage, but even more than that its people for who voting is a burden and that in 2020 a lot of effort was put into giving people access to voting due to the pandemic.

[–] Mjpasta710@midwest.social 1 points 5 hours ago

No, that undecided group does not exist, this election clearly demonstrated that.

That's what you wrote. You are backtracking on that statement now?

We know that ~16 million people didn't vote this time vs 2020. We know that around 60% of all possible voters participated in 2020. We don't know what that ~50-60% in (2024) actually want because they couldn't be convinced to decide. That is the definition of undecided. That is literally ~50% of registered voting people who left the choice undecided. A group you claim to be non-existent.

If they wanted to protest vote, they should and could have en masse voted for 'Gaza Freedom' or 'No Fascism' or any coordinated name as a write-in.

Several parties suggested it during their primaries. I can't find evidence of it occurring in those primaries.

At least 12 states have no registration requirement for their write-in votes on final elections. Most don't require it on primaries.

That didn't happen or wasn't reported. The evidence suggests the former.

I'd be more accepting of your claim if the facts actually supported your narrative.

The numbers show that only about 60% of people who can vote actually decided.

40% didn't decide even after considering.

Beyond that there's still 40% of the population who didn't even decide to consider voting.

Which group of undecided voting eligible citizens do you claim as non-existent?

You didn't say exactly what I said.

Your initial statement was in disagreement with the statement regarding undecided voters.