this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2024
309 points (98.4% liked)

politics

19107 readers
3082 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] EleventhHour@lemmy.world 74 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

He’s really not. No one voting for him will care, and everyone voting against him already knows.

The undecided voters only actually give a shit about things that matter to them personally, and his age and capacity are not The economy or taxes or healthcare or immigration, or whatever else it is those extraordinarily stupid people are still confused about.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 32 points 2 months ago (2 children)

A lot of people don't pay much attention until shortly before the election.

His age and mental capacity can weigh on folks when he can't give a decent explanation of what he's going to do on a particular topic.

[–] Drusas@fedia.io 5 points 2 months ago

Which is why we need to have another debate closer to the election. So those people might actually see it and the fact that he is completely senile and unable to form a coherent sentence.

[–] EleventhHour@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yes, but for fewer than you think, and in not enough places to matter.

But you’re technically correct

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Even if it's small, that still can matter in some elctions. Small changes in tight states can make a difference. Mind you in 2000, the presidental election came down to just 537 votes in florida

Elections can be and often are won on the margins

Edit: or also provide more state wins to make republicans trying to overide state results much more difficult

[–] Drusas@fedia.io 7 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Mind you in 2000, the presidental election came down to just 537 votes in florida

And that this led to the Supreme Court deciding who would be president instead of the voters. They didn't finish recounting. How do we think it would go for us if the Supreme Court decided who would be our next president this year?

[–] EleventhHour@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

As a discarded Florida voter in that election, thank you for speaking up on my behalf. And I still feel pretty shitty about that.

Gore absolutely should’ve won— those hanging chads be damned!

[–] rayyy@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

The Brooks Brothers riot stopped the counting. Gore would have won. Thousands of votes were thrown out because they were black votes and some voters both punched their votes for Gore and wrote Gore's name in. The riot was planned so that the Extreme Court would give Bush the election.

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Alternatively, it could also provide small margins in additional states to make trickier harder. For instance a small with in north carolina and georgia would make republican plots against the elctions results more difficult

[–] Drusas@fedia.io 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, but only if they actually get counted. The problem in 2000 is that they didn't. The count was close and the Supreme Court decided to end counting early. We really need this election to be not down to such small numbers or our current Supreme Court will fuck us.

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

My point is less that it should come down to that, and more that any smaller gain can matter if things do

If you want to do something that it well known to increase turnout more significantly, I highly recommend volunteering for the campaign. Canavassing, for instance, can increase turnout by upwards of ~7-10% (or more or slightly less depending on the data you look at)

Here's one site with both in person and virtual places listed

If nothing else, it can help turn the anxiety down a bit by taking action

[–] Drusas@fedia.io 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I am disabled and can't really canvas, but I donate.

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago

Fair enough, but worth mentioning that canvassing is not the only effective way to volunteer. There's also text banking, phone banking, and post card writing for instance (can find those places on the earlier linked site)

[–] DogPeePoo@lemm.ee 6 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Those who paid any attention during his presidency know it doesn’t matter what he says about anything anyway. His “policies” blow with the wind, can turn on a dime, and are for sale to the highest bidder.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

A fair-sized chunk of this fall's electorate was too young to vote in 2016, and doesn't have a real sense of how awful he is, or how much has deteriorated over the past few years.

[–] DogPeePoo@lemm.ee 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I would surmise young people voting for Trump are primarily from parents who are voting for Trump likely with very little crossover.

He may dupe a few rubes, but doubtful they are educated voters following the issues if they pull the lever for him imo.

[–] EleventhHour@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago

You’re right, but not for the reasons you think. His policies do matter and do have a tremendous effect, but his most dangerous policies never came to pass only because of the people he surrounded himself with during his last administration. They managed to stop the worst things from happening then. That won’t be true this time around, and only those who are already voting against him know that. The idiots who would vote for him this time didn’t care about the last time and don’t know any better this time either. All they care about is voting for the red team no matter what, and they don’t care about the cost.

[–] fluxion@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

If she puts him over her knee and gives him the spanking he deserves there is some slight chance that the strongman delusion will weaken and people will see him for the whiny toddler that most people see.

[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago

I think people can care if it's showcased well, and I think he's dumb and old enough to give Kamala the opening.

He will likely blame the host and storm out.