it’s close because racism, jeebus, and guns. it seems like it should be more than that, but it isn’t. broke uneducated GOP voters literally don’t care about anything except for some combination of the above 3 things, because that’s what the 1% propaganda machine told them to do
deleted by creator
Gay panic is passe, it’s trans panic now.
Gay trans furry fascist communist Muslim atheists. Somehow the paradoxical bogeyman keeps folding in new and contradictory traits.
And the Dems will have very little affect (if any) on anyone’s jebus or guns. So it’s really just the racism that’s the distinguishing factor.
Dems will have very little affect (if any) on anyone’s jebus or guns
and yet the bleating of “they’re trying to take yer gunnnnnnns” and “war on christmas/christianity” never ever fucking stops
It’s insane.
And it’s far more likely that if the GOP had total control, they’d institute a national religion (good luck having your flavor picked for that one) and that they’d take away all the guns to protect their power (since there is clearly nothing they’d avoid doing if it meant getting/keeping power).
They’d probably be thrilled to give up their guns if it was GOP taking them.
OMG, you’re right
The guns thing. There is a rather large swath of rural, liberal gun owners. If you’ve ever lived in a locale that lacks enough ambient light for you to see your hand in front of your face at night, you get it. If you live in a place where you can hear a car approaching from more than a mile away you get it.
Let my handgun have a normal clip (average 9mm is 15 bullets) and we’re probably golden. And yet. DEMs lose moderate libs on this single issue.
Yes, I own a handgun. Off the shelf with no mods it holds 18 per clip standard and comes with 2 clips.
i live in the mountains in a town of ~3000. i can drive 30 miles without seeing a traffic light. and i also have a gun
i’m still voting D, because i see that as a boneheaded thing to acquiesce to trump over. though to be fair, there IS NO valid defensible reason to vote for that incompetent pluted bloatocrat rapist coward
I have several. Not once have I actually felt like someone was coming to take them. Beto shot himself in the foot saying he would, especially in Texas.
I like common sense gun laws. I took classes for my concealed carry. I can pass a test about the care and feeding of firearms any day of the week. No one except me has access to my guns.
Of course I’m voting blue. They ain’t coming for my guns. And even if they were I’d still vote against Trump and fight them on it.
Ofc not, and yet this is a single issue that motivates people.
He is a rapist. A coward. A traitor. A cluster B personality disorder. And now he’s fraying around the edges from old age. The stress can’t be helping his decline.
It makes a lot of sense for very rural living: you need a defense against the wild, and possibly hunting for food. I fully support that.
The general desire among Democrats is stricter regulation, which is a very reasonable thing. People should be required to prove that they can be a responsible gun owner and are mentally fit to own one. I shouldn’t be able to pick one up from the sporting goods store like it’s a bag of potato chips. It is an incredibly powerful tool and can easily kill others. It should be treated as such.
I generally hear them water down the gun control, like a handgun with a stock number of bullets is generally ok. Or a rifle or shot gun. Unless you have some red flags, which you probably don’t have. Even in some of the stricter nations of gun control, there’s frequently some path for rural folks to at least have long guns.
Let’s not forget the group that’s voting 3rd party due to the situation in Israel. Does it make sense to do, no, but they will do it.
I’ve tried to discuss it in the ML communities but as soon as you start proving your points with solid facts they just delete everything you said, censored and banned, a bit ironic.
Israel support…
Every time some ridiculous shit like this happens, I remember when Howard Dean yelled a little too loud and that invalidated his entire political career.
Even worse, apparently we only got the audio from his mic and it was an appropriately loud EEEEAAAAGH given the audience volume
He went on to run the DNC on the platform of healthcare reform and was instrumental in getting Obama elected with a supermajority trifecta. And then he was fired and Lieberman got to kill the public option.
He offered too much to maintain cultural hegemony.
Been thinking this thought a lot lately. IIRC he was a decent man and likely would have been a decent president - but god forbid he get a little excited at a rally. Meanwhile, Trump has proven that literally nothing he could do or has done would change the mind of his voters. He could start and end every speech with a Howard Dean scream, and no one would even bat an eye.
(And I seem to also recall hearing that the isolated microphone of his scream that we’ve all heard a hundred times did not reflect how it even sounded at the event.)
Most conservatives believe state education isn’t anything more than brainwashing against conservative ideas.
They’re 100% correct. Education tends to make one confront reality and live in the real world, a very un-conservative concept.
they have to start from kindergarten onward, because it doesn’t take much education to make people realize that “because tradition” is just about the dumbest reason to do anything. and if that’s the only reason you’re doing something, then maybe it’s time to grow the fuck up and move on
but no, they’ve turned words like “progress” and “change” into pejoratives. same as “expert,” “science,” and “facts/fact-checking”
to be fair: reality does have a liberal bias. lol
Compulsory indoctrination is a dumb tradition.
“Go to college and get a good education!”
goes to college, gets educated in class and from people from all over who aren’t like me. Realize different people have different needs
“College is a liberal brain wash machine!”
Sucks for them that reality has a liberal bias.
You talking about the place where people pledge their allegiance to a flag every day?
this race…
this race?
The past three Republican presidents saw a job growth of 1 million, the past three Democratic presidents 51 million. Now sure, the president doesn’t define every aspect of the economy, but my god that big a discrepancy is not accidental. As someone not from America, I don’t understand why this race is so close, but why any race involving the Republicans, even outside of Trump, would be. I’ll consider Romney an exception though, but he doesn’t seem representative of the Republican Party before or after him.
nearly all republicans rig elections to their favor and make decent education an expensive luxury to help maintain their control over poorly educated & informed voting masses and democrats let them since it makes their job easier and they know that there’s no viable alternative.
the icing on this shit cake is that most democrat voters will shame you if you don’t participate and blame you if you can’t because of voter suppression.
the icing on this shit cake is that most democrat voters will shame you if you don’t participate
Drag is very surprised you find this odd. Democrat voters want you to fight back against Republican voter suppression. They think keeling over and giving up is a bad idea. The icing on the shit cake is that centrists who would rather have a D than an R choose to cooperate with Republican tactics.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
i don’t find it surprising at all and many aren’t participating because the don’t want either gentler diet genocide from kamala nor full fat genocide from trump.
Because the democrats are doing everything they can to lose. They don’t message well, and they keep running to the right.
Most Americans want leftist policies, but the Democrats refuse to capitalize on that. Kamala is toting a right wing immigration bill thinking it’s going to help her.
Because Trump is energizing his base with lies and propaganda designed to get them angry and motivated, while Kamala has squandered the enthusiasm her base had for her by pursuing disaffected center-right never-Trumpers. It’s basically the same strategy Hillary Clinton ran in 2016 and it’s terrifying to watch the Democrats gamble on it yet again.
its because their corporate owners don’t want to have to implement left wing economic policies for the good of the nation. unfortunately we’ll continue to have fascist bogey men until people start holding dems accountable.
It’s because the media, who teach most people how to think, is mostly owned by corporations who benefit from pro-corpo status quo policies.
media is just an amplifier. but yes you could make such an argument; though its deeper than that.
Obviously it’s the sort of thing one could write doctoral theses about, but I reckon that much is not contentious.
There’s also the fact that this, “centrist liberal,” strategy worked exactly once in 1992 (and that may have had more to do with Ross Perot than anything else), but now there’s an entire pundit and strategist class built around it. Most of these people don’t mind losing elections if it means they can keep their jobs.
The Harris campaign must pursue those voters in order to win. They are the voters who live in battleground states. Pursuing a hard-left strategy the way everyone on lemmy wants is a guaranteed loss.
This is the problem with the non-proportional EC makeup. Unfortunately it’s not going to change any time soon because the party who wins got there on the old system.
Thank you, this is a spectacular example of how Democrats use faulty logic and bad faith arguments to defeat themselves. I’m going to break it down for everybody so we can all understand why they keep losing.
The Harris campaign must pursue those voters in order to win. They are the voters who live in battleground states.
This is confidently stated as fact, but not only is there no evidence to support this statement, there’s strong evidence against it. This is, at its core, the same statement that Chuck Schumer made when predicting a Democratic sweep in 2016:
“For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia. And you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”
Not only did this strategy fail spectacularly in 2016, we’re watching it fail in 2024; Harris has recently dropped in all crucial swing states. The only thing backing up this argument is its proponents’ self-confidence (or self-delusion).
Moving on:
Pursuing a hard-left strategy the way everyone on lemmy wants is a guaranteed loss.
Here, we leave behind false assertions and move into bad-faith arguments. Notice how the user completely ignored the voters I mentioned (her base) in order to pivot to what they think is an easier target: Lemmy users. Sure, if Kamala Harris came out in support of the abolition of capitalism, she’d lose, but no (or at least no one serious) is saying she’d win if she did.
What people are actually saying is much more tangible and and reasonable: sharpen your criticism of Israel and increase your Palestinian outreach if you want to win Michigan; don’t just talk about the middle-class, get your working-class base out with transformative social programs (like Biden proposed in 2020; stop hanging out with Liz Fucking Cheney, for Christ sake. These are all criticisms the user sidestepped by creating a false dichotomy between the, “hard-left,” and Harris’ current strategy.
Finally:
This is the problem with the non-proportional EC makeup. Unfortunately it’s not going to change any time soon because the party who wins got there on the old system.
This is unrelated, but incorrect. The Democrats have won the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 elections; they would abolish the Electoral College in a heartbeat, but it would require a constitutional amendment, which they’ll never get passed. It has nothing to do with the fact that, “the party who wins got there on the old system.”
Anyway, this is how the Democrats continuously fail. First, they convinced themselves that the only way to win is to get centrist voters, even though evidence doesn’t bear that out. Next, they dismiss criticism of this strategy as, “far-left.” Finally, if they lose (which is looking alarming possible this election), they will blame leftists for not supporting them strongly enough, thus allowing them to continue the same strategy next election without self-reflection…assuming there is a next election, which no longer feels like a given.
This is confidently stated as fact, but not only is there no evidence to support this statement, there’s strong evidence against it.
i agreed with all of the other statements in your comment and this one’s the most fascinating to me: can you share some of this evidence, please?
Well, first, let’s look at the last 6 elections. In 2000, Al Gore ran a centrist campaign and lost. 2004, John Kerry ran a centrist campaign and lost. 2008, Barack Obama ran a very progressive campaign, promising universal healthcare, Wall Street reform, homeowner bailouts, closing Guantanamo…he wound up governing from the center, but he ran far to the left (by American standards). Even in 2012, the center of his reelection campaign was dealing with wealth inequality, and he won despite being called a communist. In 2016…well, we all know what happened there…and 2020, Biden, ran on a very progressive platform and strong support for labor (and he was actually surprisingly committed to it, especially student loan forgiveness).
But election results have many factors and are open to interpretation, so let’s look at some data, specifically from 2016. Clinton and the Democrats’ strategy was to go to the center to pick up moderate Republicans, but the data shows they failed spectacularly. Clinton picked up about 4% of voters who identified as Republican by going to the center, while Trump picked up 5% of Democrats by going far-right. Clinton got 42% of Independents, Trump got 43%. Even in the target demographic, people with mixed political views (AKA moderates), she got 42% to Trump’s 48%. And even if she’d won the center, it’s not clear that it would have helped much, as there’s relatively new data that shows that moderates are less likely to get involved in politics, including voting. In short, 2016 is a case study in why centrism is a losing strategy.
It’s also worth noting that, overall, Americans are not centrist. Sure, if you ask them if they like socialism, the results are pretty devisive, but if you ask them about progressive policies, they’re all for them: raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations, single-payer healthcare, and even Universal Basic Income enjoy widespread support across the country. Shrinking away from these policies in favor of more moderate positions simply doesn’t make sense.
Ok.
Those semi-con swing voters are deciding this election though. Nobody else is “on the fence” right now.
Jesus christ, we saw two assassination attempts on Trump and it didn’t change polls. While polls are trash and not to be trusted, they still would have changed if there was some large amount of moderate undecided voters.
And lets not forget H. Clinton won the popular vote by millions of votes. Yes, the Dems are addicting to losing and make the worst decisions in order to appeal to the most useless people, but they’re also playing against a stacked deck here.
I broke this down in another comment, but there’s really no evidence that this moderate strategy will work. Democrats win when their base turns out, and they lose when their base isn’t motivated. Watching Harris campaign with Liz Cheney doesn’t motivate the base. They may pick up some moderate voters in PA (though, again, it didn’t work in 2016, so there’s no reason to think it will work now), but it’s not going to matter if she loses Michigan because of a hard-right position on Israel.
but they’re also playing against a stacked deck here.
that they’re helping perpetuate.
It’s entirely the EC.
Biden won by ten million votes, and it was still a clencher because some idjit in kansas thinks the candidates sucking Pennsylvania’s fracking drill all election keeps their interests represented.
We need to stop letting land vote.
If it was 70-30, like it should be, the electoral college wouldn’t be relevant.
You’d think so, but the EC is able to override a majority of even over 80% if the other candidate picks up half plus 1 victories in small states.
50% of people have below average intelligence and they finally feel represented… 🤷♂️
“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.” -George Carlin
Wouldn’t that be the median person? 🤓
Don’t be mean.
Yes but in this case it likely makes little difference.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average#Summary_of_types
Technically they could be talking about the median.
Oh so I’ve been out-akshuallied, ta!
“Half of them are smarter than that!” doesn’t have the same ring to it.
Have you seen some of the wishy-washy mouth breathers in the “undecided” focus groups? I’m embarrassed to admit we’re the same species. The Trump cultists might be insane, brain-poisoned, sociopathic, fundamentalist idiots but at least they have the capacity to make a bad decision. The independents can’t seem to make any decision. It if they do, it’s based on some random nonsense or impulse. I dunno if they’ve got learning disorders or are just sad windsocks, but the fact that they are the ones who get to decide if America dies next month is terrifying.
I don’t think you have any idea who you’re describing. Of course it’s possible to find a couple dozen people who legitimately have no idea who to vote for, but you know it’s a lot easier to find millions of people who are going to stay home. As always, the real challenge is getting people to go vote.
But you think this ultra-minority, that is barely in existence, is going to decide an election. By your reasoning, it doesn’t matter what anyone else does. Everyone else in the United States is powerless between now and election day. That’s your position, right? … But I think it’s just a cop out. You just want someone to blame if your candidate loses, and you certainly don’t want to blame yourself or your candidate.
Removed by mod
wishy-washy mouth breathers in the “undecided” focus groups
This website is deteriorating into Democrats insulting non-Democrats constantly.
You’re party is simply unpopular as it caters to “moderates” and then has to spend an absurd amount of money to convince regular folks that the Democrats are the best those folks are allowed to have. No amount of memes and insults is going to change this simple truth.
If you’re claiming to be undecided on Trump in 2024, you’re full of shit. If you claim to be a moderate but still can’t decide between Trump and Harris, you’re not a moderate, you’re just full of shit
I haven’t claimed to be any of those things.
Edit: On a second reading, I think you are talking about “moderates in general.” I truely don’t understand how either party plans out their platform, nor what attracts people to them. (Outside of perhaps Sanders, who made too much sense I guess.)
Removed by mod
This is a website?
No, this is Patrick.
The race is close because Republicans have built something better than a platform when you’re dealing with ignorant masses.
They built a brand.
Republicans don’t want the country to be educated.
People with college degrees are overwhelmingly voting Harris. Republicans know that if we make the country smarter they’re screwed
What is with this elitist attitude about college? I’ve met plenty of idiots with degrees and many educated people without. I hate that we essentially say people are stupid if they didn’t go to college or university
why is this race so close?
Two words: Electoral College.
The electoral college takes it from a 45-55 to a 50-50. But what on God’s green earth gets him that 45% of the votes?
People who only loosely follow politics but liked the Obama economy that trump inherited and only watch Fox News. “He can’t possibly be worse than a demoncrat, he’s the same party as Reagan! It’s really sad how the media slanders him”
some people are misogynistic, others like how much he represents the average American (dancing away the difficult problems).
If you go by the polls, the two candidates are within margin of error of each other, or very close. We’re looking at a possibility that Trump would not only win the EC, but the overall popular vote, as well.
The EC is not the only issue at play. Millions of Americans either like Trump or are willing to handwave his behavior away rather than vote for a Democrat.
No Republican has won the popular vote in 22 years, and that was because of 9/11. Before that, it was George Bush Sr. in 1988.
Great. Not what’s going on right now.
We’ll see in a month.
Nope, we won’t. I say that because my claim is specifically that the EC is not the only thing going on. If the EC breaks with the popular vote next month, it still won’t be the only thing going on.
We’re looking at a possibility that Trump would not only win the EC, but the overall popular vote, as well.
You claimed that Trump might win the popular vote, and that’s very, very unlikely (but not impossible). That’s the only part I was referring to.
One word: stupidity.
Pam_from_The_Office.jpg
Also because big business owns all the media and everyone can lie without consequences. Democracy can’t survive in these conditions.
Pretty sure it’s the economy. Despite the fact that the US economy has been reasonably well managed, by international standards, people are hurting – which is the perfect recipe for changing the governing party. Telling people that things aren’t as bad as they think they are makes you sound out of touch.
As John Stewart would say: well I’m still undecided… Cause a horse kicked my head.
For the same reason I got temp banned from this community. People only need to be slightly against the circlejerk to be pushed away from a community, and this creates a “well, might as well let everything burn” counter-resentment. I can’t vote in the US, but part of that reason is having prioritized society and consequences over ego and money. if I could I would vote against Trump, but it seems you guys are stuck doing it, and you reap what you sow. Stop being surprised pikachu-faced.
In addition to all the things said elsewhere in this thread, younger demographics are less likely to engage with polling, which is likely effecting the outcome of the polls. The emails/texts/phone calls/etc just get ignored, so that leaves the older generations as the only ones who actually answer.
I know the polls try to take that into account, but it’s never going to be possible to do so perfectly.
So tldr: fuck the polls go vote, and make sure your friends/family votes
Also worth noting that younger people are less likely to vote
That is true, however the last few elections have seen strong increases in youth voter turnout. And that makes sense given the now broadened popularity of mail in voting, the climate crisis, etc.
