this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2023
207 points (91.2% liked)

politics

19102 readers
4178 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
 

Black voters continue to be loyal to Democrats, but there are signs that support continues to erode.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] variaatio@sopuli.xyz 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well depending on how they count was there a flip or are the ratios different since certain amount of people have moved to the "not likely voter" category. So instead of flip, there is apathy among democratic voters.

Since they say among black voters, not among black population. Those are two different things and it matters which is it. All voting eligible persons, regardless of likelihood to vote, or just likely voters.

Since voter/not voter is not a fixed grouping, there is constant movement over that line.

[–] Astroturfed@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Exactly this, very few people are switching to republican. They're just sick of the Democrats doing very little they care about. So they aren't going to vote. The Democrats seem to of abandoned any real platform and are just running on not being psychopaths who want to destroy the government. It's not exactly compelling.

[–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

There's a difference between saying Democrats should and could do more. And saying they've done nothing. People hate to talk about it. But under Biden some massive accomplishments have happened like the recent NLRB ruling. Something not on par with, but close to the ball park of passing civil rights. And it isn't isolated. They've done a lot within the system to help a lot of people.

When it comes to loudly pretending to have accomplished things. You can't get Republicans to shut up. When it comes to talking about things they've actually accomplished. Democrats stay quiet. It's a problem.

That's not to say that they are perfect, or wonderful, or free of issues. There's plenty of issues. They've done little to nothing to address the slavery problem in the United States. And despite passing and strengthening a few safety net programs, they've realistically done very little to improve at a baseline, the life of the average American. Something that most of us are sorely in need of. Quite the opposite and they've actually done just as much or more to help out the people who are part of the problem. But to say that they've done nothing , or at least nothing good is very disingenuous.

Disheartening and driving ourselves away from the process as f***** up as it may be, is the surefire way of not changing it.

[–] variaatio@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

But the thing is Democrats could change their strategy. Since frankly (I don't know why, seems stupid given how small and hard to catch segment it is) Democrat strategy is to chase the middle of "moderate Republicans and fence sitters".

When I would hazard a guess, if they instead adopted are strategy of exactly focusing on non-voters with democrat leaning would bring them lot of votes.

In general blaming the voter is a bad idea. It is way easier for party to qdapt to voter sentiments with their strategy, than it is for a party to change the emotional and mental state of millions of voters. In this case it is really the customer aka the voter is always right. If one can't convince voter to vote, it is the candidates fault. To play otherwise is to say millions of people ought to adapt to single or couple persons whims. It shouldn't be that way and in general it isn't that way.

Since in practice, if person is apathetic they won't vote. No amount of "but that is stupid of you" will fix it. Apathy is emotional matter, not matter of logic. As much as some consultant might try to assume humans are rational, no they aren't. Humans are inherently emotional beings and party wanting to succeed must adapt to that.

Only way out of apathy isn't fear, it just makes apathy deeper. The way out is hope, promise of prosperity and then delivering on that promise. Since to not do so is to cause betrayed expectations and doubly deep apathy.

[–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The reason Democrats have this strategy goes back to 1980. If you know about what happened then. You know why things are largely the way they are now.

The nation at large overwhelmingly voted for a fascist. I don't mean just slightly. I mean like nearly every state in the nation voting for the fascist heavily. Even traditional Democrats at the time voted for the fascist. And it scared the ever-loving shit out of democrats.

Combine that with the massive destruction, the fascist wreaked against labor groups. And the massive consolidation of resources and wealth he enabled. Basically gutting and taking away much of labor's power for the last 40 years.

It used to be that labor unions were one of the biggest groups to reckon with in elections. Providing massive funding and support. When the fascist broke their power. Suddenly that massive influence and resource all but dried up. They were still around. But the new ultra wealthy donor class became increasingly more important to both parties. Because if either of them went without the ultra wealthy donors. The other party would eat their lunch.

The damage was so bad. That we got Bill Clinton and his third way Democrats. Which I will say Clinton often gets a much worse rap than he deserves. But he still continued the trend of damage to the working class and society despite the good things he did too.

Voters are definitely to blame in this, however. Not completely. But they have not shown any conviction or solid stance on much of anything for the last half century. Bouncing mindlessly between one party and the other. Even as one collapse into chaos and the other deteriorated dangerously so. We as voters lost a lot of influence of course when the ultra wealthy class took over funding. But they still have to rely on us to get elected. It's why they focus so heavily on demoralization and apathy. It's easier to damage things when less of us vote or are engaged.

And no hope isn't the way out of this. Determination and conviction is. You can hope in one hand shit in the other end. As they say see which one fills up first. It's going to take us getting collectively pissed and ready to engage. Not just in voting but in running for office as well. We are tired of the people they keep running for us. But we've always been able to run our own people. We're just going to have to fund and canvas for them. Not sit back and let the parties do their thing. Because that helps no one but then.

[–] DarkGamer@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But under Biden some massive accomplishments have happened like the recent NLRB ruling. Something not on par with, but close to the ball park of passing civil rights. And it isn’t isolated. They’ve done a lot within the system to help a lot of people.

This is a big deal! Thank you for bringing it to our attention:

the Board ruled that when a majority of a company’s employees file union affiliation cards, the employer can either voluntarily recognize their union or, if not, ask the Board to run a union recognition election. If, in the run-up to or during that election, the employer commits an unfair labor practice, such as illegally firing pro-union workers (which has become routine in nearly every such election over the past 40 years, as the penalties have been negligible), the Board will order the employer to recognize the union and enter forthwith into bargaining.
The Cemex decision was preceded by another, one day earlier, in which the Board, also along party lines, set out rules for representation elections which required them to be held promptly after the Board had been asked to conduct them, curtailing employers’ ability to delay them, often indefinitely.
Taken together, this one-two punch effectively makes union organizing possible again, after decades in which unpunished employer illegality was the most decisive factor in reducing the nation’s rate of private-sector unionization from roughly 35 percent to the bare 6 percent at which it stands today.

I guess this explains the rise in labor organizations and strikes recently.

[–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Definitely! I'm quite left. Heavily socialist. And outside of a few social policies. Democrats really do nothing for me. But it's crazy how little the actual things they accomplish and get recognized. The national labor relations board change was kind of Earth shattering. I've been plenty displeased with biden's current Israel Gaza response. Though I think it was expected and understandable to an extent. But he's been far better than a lot of a thought he would.