this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2024
710 points (97.7% liked)

politics

19244 readers
1823 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] paddirn@lemmy.world 48 points 9 months ago (2 children)

But sure, yeah... go ahead and just not vote. Letting Trump in will be so much better for the Palestinians.

[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 36 points 9 months ago (3 children)

A week ago, the difference between the two would have been that Trump would enable Israel in every way, while Biden would enable Israel in every way, but staffers would leak stories about how much Biden didn't like Netanyahu from time to time. Now, Biden has started sending aid to Gaza while Harris is calling for a ceasefire, and this is entirely because 100K voters in Michigan voted uncommitted. When done properly, threatening to withhold your vote can be an effective way to make your voice heard.

[–] hasnt_seen_goonies@lemmy.world 32 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I think you make a great point, but I would add a caveat. There IS a difference between Biden and trump. One will listen to protesters, and the other won't. You can pressure Biden and he will change his position because he seems to care what voters think, and Trump doesn't.

[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

Yeah, I agree with that. And, to be clear, I think there have always been tons of differences between Biden and Trump on almost every issue besides Israel/Gaza. I was just saying that, on this single issue, the difference between Biden and Trump would have been mostly rhetoric, not policy, up until the Michigan primary voters convinced Biden to change. I definitely didn't mean to imply they were generally the same.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Now, Biden has started sending aid to Gaza

But he hasn't stopped sending weapons to Israel

[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, I'm not saying there's been enough change, just that there has been some change, and it was brought on by people threatening to withhold their vote.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

it was brought on by people threatening to withhold their vote.

Its definitely been a wake-up call to the party. Watching Biden shed 20% of Democratic voter turnout in a fucking primary is something. Obama and Clinton never had these kinds of problems in '12 and '96. And guys that did - Carter getting burned by Ted Kennedy in '80 and Bush to Buchanan in '92 - should have been a warning to the party as a whole.

[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, I'll be honest, I'm very worried about this election. I'm still unhappy with Biden's approach to Israel, but at least now they can credibly argue that voting for him would be harm reduction for Palestinians. Maybe that will be enough to drive turnout.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

at least now they can credibly argue that voting for him would be harm reduction

Right until the polls close in November, at which point its back to business as usual.

[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Well...yeah, probably.

[–] stinerman@midwest.social -5 points 9 months ago (3 children)

this is entirely because 100K voters in Michigan voted uncommitted

Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

To be clear, I have no problem with people in Michigan voting uncommitted, I just don't think you can draw that line.

[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Biden's entire approach to Isreal changed almost on a dime after that primary. He started aid drops to Gaza, Kamala Harris suddenly started using the word, "ceasefire," he brought Netanyahu's chief opponent to discuss the humanitarian crisis in Gaza...Biden obviously didn't come out and say, "I'm changing my approach to Isreal because I'm afraid of losing Michigan," but it's pretty clear why this shift is occurring.

[–] stinerman@midwest.social 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It's certainly possible. My opinion has long been that politicians are not really all that responsive to public opinion.

[–] joenforcer@midwest.social 1 points 9 months ago

When your representatives are Republicans, that's pretty much true. My blue representatives actually seem to care and I have first-hand experience with this.

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago

I'm afraid that there was a near instantaneous shift in his rhetoric after Michigan.

[–] thisorthatorwhatever@lemmy.world -2 points 9 months ago

The 'uncommitted' voters will think that they changed Biden's mind, but most likely he was going to start sending aiding to Gaza anyway. He doesn't like Netanyahu and probably genuinely does want peace.

At the same time the 'uncommitted' stunt has turned voters against Biden. Remember the average voter is functioning at grade 8 or grade 6 level. Educated voters will see this as the political maneuvers that it is, the average 'grade 6' mental age voter will think 'Biden sucks', and not vote.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Letting Trump in

Winner-take-all electoral college means you never really had a voice in the matter.

You should have moved to a Blue State before 2020, so your physical presence could be used to tip how many electoral votes that state produced, if you really cared about stopping Trump in 2024. That's the only consequential method of putting a (very tiny) finger on the scale of a Presidential contest.

[–] OpenPassageways@lemmy.zip 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Wouldn't it make more sense to move to a swing state and try to tip it blue?

Edit: tip it blue

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago

From a population perspective, it wouldn't matter. Your best bet would be to find a bright blue state that is on the cusp of getting a new house seat. That would boost up the EC total for the state and guarantee consistent adds to Team Blue. Moving to a purple state and hoping you are THE swing voter mostly just means you make the state more valuable to invest in by the various campaigns. You're still going to be functionally feeding Red Team during red election waves (which blue needs votes the most) when your view is most likely to be in the minority.