-107
More than 1/3 of voting eligible americans are russian conspirators didjahknow
(media.kbin.social)
this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2024
-107 points (26.4% liked)
Memes
45657 readers
1767 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is a hot take.
Here’s the problem with your hypothesis:
You’re mixing together people who don’t vote with people publicly advocating not voting. That’s completely unsupported. Let’s see some stats on why people don’t vote. Is it because they don’t have time because they’re working, because they’re uncomfortable with the process, because they’re being lazy? On the other hand, what are the predictors of voting? We know age is a factor, so that would encourage us to think about the time availability question.
The second part is that the disengagement approach you’re advocating has driven the Democratic Party to the right. The Third Way movement came entirely from seeing Reagan’s engagement numbers. Not voting casts a zero information signal. First, the numbers only move mildly from year to year, and even when they do it tends to come down to the charisma of the candidate, not the policy positions.
A surprising number of Americans want universal healthcare, support LGBT rights and are against racism, yet vote for Donald Trump or DeSantis because they can get the crowds riled up in the way that policy wonks just don’t.
I mean, when the republicans did that huge study that found that economic and demographic changes in the US meant they needed to adopt more progressive policies (eg not being openly racist) if they wanted to have a future, the gop said “screw that, we will just depress the vote.”
So, no, your policy is not evidence-based, and it’s unreasonable. It forces the country to the right. If that’s what you want, go for it.
Voters turned out in 2016, the DNC didn't like how that went and went to court and had it ruled in a court of law that the DNC is a private entity and can do wtfever they want to, voters be damned.
It's not some big secret that democrats see leftists as a bigger enemy than they ever saw Republicans as.
First “democrats” is doing a lot of work here. I’m assuming the voters that you’re talking about turning out were democrats. I’m assuming the politicians they voted for were democrats. So what you mean is some subset (eg Third Way types, which have already been mentioned).
Use numbers. What was the turnout for the previous years? What was the turnout for Obama? For Bill Clinton? Was it bigger when Dennis Kucinich was in the race? Other than Bernie, he was the leftmost candidate that I can recall - at least in the top 5 in recent years. State the point you are trying to prove clearly, then demonstrate it.
I’m a Bernie supporter - he actually helped secure a research grant I worked on, I’ve met him in person, and I donated to each of his campaigns since I started to be able to do that kind of thing. I’m a member of the DSA. I’m also a scientist, and I deal with this kind of thing all the time.
What you’re basically coming off as, to be honest, is that family member in the maga hat who keeps yelling that 2020 was rigged.
I think you’re arguing with ghosts, I’m honestly confused about what you’re trying to say and can’t keep track of all the assumptions you’re putting on the very little I said… I was truly trying to critique the fact that democrats specifically seem to jump to ‘Russian conspiracy’ very quickly when someone mentions they don’t believe in voting despite the fact that a large fraction of the population abstains from voting on a regular basis. You would think one would expect to run into a lot of true nonvoters given the statistics.
Sure, when you show me where I referenced numbers. I referenced a lawsuit which having happened in, yknow..... a court, can be found easy peasy by anybody who wants to put in two seconds of effort.
What you're basically coming off as, to be honest, is just another establishment Democrat who is putting more energy into fighting leftists than you do Republicans.
In 2012 I voted against Obama because I thought he was too conservative. I didn’t think his healthcare program went far enough, I didn’t like his foreign policy of continuing the Bush wars, and I thought he turned out to be far more establishment than he had indicated as a candidate in 2008.
I voted for Jill Stein. I said it wasn’t a protest vote and that I was voting my conscience, but it was totally a protest vote. Stein would have been the worst president in US history, and I even knew that at the time. I did it because Obama had a predicted 99% chance of winning my state, so I figured it was safe and would communicate to the democrats that there was a preference for more left leaning candidates.
What I did not do was try to campaign for Stein to try to get swing state voters to vote for her. I didn’t try to get swing state voters to not vote.
i live in a swing state and i keep voting green because the democrats keep putting up pentagon shills.
My hypothesis that democrats immediately leap to russian conspiracy rather than looking for actual reasons?
You gave no competing hypothesis. I offered several.
I made a meme claiming democrats call anyone who says they don’t vote a russian conspiracist, you gave a bunch of (likely incorrect, based on the real data) guesses about why people might not vote.
So you're mad that he is taking a serious approach to your meme, but then you're bringing up data.
So is this a joke we shouldn't take seriously? Or should he be looking at the data?
Does going on the internet to insult people make you feel better? Maybe if you didn't try to separate people out into camps and assign negative or positive qualities to those groups based on nothing more than your own ideological bent, but instead had a little chat with people like they were people you would be a little happier. Like, you know, on the inside.
Regardless, I'd like to see the "real data" that says that the assertions of the person to whom you are responding were incorrect. That would be an interesting read.