676
Biden supporters mostly back him in 2024 election because they oppose Trump, poll finds
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2024
676 points (94.5% liked)
News
23301 readers
3562 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
-Union strike busting
-Climate acceleration, more highways, more trucks and SUV's, banning affordable EVs
-Increased defense spending
-Higher deportations and now executive order asylum closing
-Renewed oil and gas leasing on federal lands, and weird restriction on leasing federal lands for renewable energy that more oil and gas leasing has to happen first
-The longest stretch of no minimum wage increase ever.
-rampant inflation
-lack of prosecution for a ton of crimes from Trump and other republicans
-no effort against Americas problem of gun violence
-campaigned on fixing a gap in subsidy coverage for health insurance for the lowest earning Americans, with no mention since
Not even mentioning the biggest problem people have with them, plenty of people have told you already.
Roe v. Wade was overturned under his mandate period as well. Sure it’s a Supreme Court decision, and the SC is mostly republican but it’s not like Biden couldn’t have pushed harder. He could, but then he wouldn’t be able to campaign on it.
“Vote for me and I’ll return some rights to people, maybe.”
Yes, it's all the Democrats' fault that six Republican appointed justices overturned Roe.
Bullshit.
It is absolutely their fault there are more Republicans in the Supreme Court. Justices aren't naturally occurring by unpredictable Acts of God.
It is also RBG's fault, while we're at it.
Your RGB point is the first one of merit. Sure should have left at an advantageous time.
The judges were appointed by a majority Republican Congress with a republican president. In what way could democrats stop it?
Scalia died almost a full year before Obama left office. That was his appointment, but the Dems didn't bother putting up a fight because they were convinced Clinton would be the next president and wanted to focus on the election. Then in freaking late October 2020, days before the election, they once again allowed another Trump appointment without putting up any sort of fight or stall tactic because they didn't want to rock the boat before the election.
The majority republican congress and the republican president are also their fault. They're pretty much the only ones running against them.
So more people should have voted Democrat, despite misgivings, to avoid a worse outcome that comes from not voting Democrat.
It's a two-party system, those are your choices.
The party should have fielded better candidates instead of constantly pushing candidates that appeal to right-wing voters who would never even vote for them to begin with.
When the farther right candidate wins, that's the direction they go. It sucks, but they're going to follow the voters.
Seems that's the only direction they go since all their wealthy donors prefer it that way which is why we keep getting status quo "business as usual" candidates like Clinton and Biden getting all the party support, while progressive candidates get sidelined, get excluded from debates, get zero media coverage, get treated like lunatics, etc.
If you think voters are "getting what they want" then you haven't been paying attention to politics in this country.
That is exactly the kind of dogshit strategy that disenfranchises voters, loses elections and gives republicans a majority.
What "strategy?" That's what the system is. It's a two-party system, inherently.
You have two candidates to pick from. You either pick the candidate who is closer to your ideals or you pick the candidate that's farther away from your ideals. If you don't vote or you vote for a "third party" candidate then you're just throwing your choice away and abdicating it to those who do vote for one of those two options.
If you want it to be different from that then the fundamental voting system itself needs to be changed. The current one that America operates under inevitably becomes two-party. CPG Grey did a video a few years ago explaining why this is so.
the video you linked called it strategic voting, and the real takeaway from that video is that strategic voting leads to voters having fewer choices and losing representation.
If they don't vote strategically then they give the advantage to their opponents. The alternative is to take votes away from a party that doesn't quite align with you but could win and give them instead to a party that can't win, resulting in an increased chance of the party that doesn't align with you at all winning.
if I vote for somebody who doesnt align with me I can't win at all.
It's a question of whether you want to win somewhat or lose completely. Democracy is compromise; you're never going to find a candidate that perfectly aligns with your interests.
If you insist that you will only vote for a niche third-party candidate under a system like America's, then you've taken yourself out of the effective voting pool. Now neither of the two candidates who has a chance of winning needs to care about your interests at all.
that's how I felt since I voted for Obama and he didn't close gitmo. so I may as well not support them if they don't care about me.
Because Romney or McCain would have been so much better?
Those were your choices.
I don't vote for imperialists, so they weren't choices either
Then as I've said elsewhere, you're effectively not a part of the voting population and your preferences are not reflected in the results.
so when do I stop getting blamed for what everyone else votes for?
When you use the opportunity you have to cast a vote that could actually make a difference. Instead you're standing on the sidelines doing nothing except signal your virtue.
I'm not joining a club i dont want to be in. characterize me any way you like, and I'll gladly do the same for you.
Banking on voters picking the least terrible option instead of giving them actual reasons to vote is a dogshit strategy that disenfranchises voters, loses elections, and gives republicans a majority. That dogshit strategy.
"Picking the least terrible option" is a reason to vote. It's the only one that the system allows for.
Relying on that is a dogshit strategy that disenfranchises voters, loses elections, and gives republicans a majority
Again, it's not a choice to rely on that. It's the physics of the system. There is no other practical way to contest an election in the United States. It's a first-past-the-post electoral system.
There. Are. Two. Candidates.
Only two. You pick from those two. One of them will likely be closer to your ideals, the other will be farther away from your ideals. Pick one. Which one do you pick? The one closer to your ideals, or the one farther away?
Or will you decide not to vote at all and just let everyone else pick for you? How is that a better strategy? You still get one of those two candidates.
Enjoy your republican majority and good luck with the coup.
I'm not American, I'm writing all this as an external observer.
What alternative do you propose to voting Democrat?
Support local grassroots pro-working class political movements and candidates instead of voting for the least worse ghoul every 4 years? Find the local chapter of whatever you think is better? Get involved for a cause that both parties are actively harming ? Demand, by any means available, elected officials to not be pieces of shit if they want your vote? Maybe just stop defending genocide support on the internet because it makes our guy look bad.
Putting your vote behind someone you believe to be detrimental to your own values should not be the default position and is, at best, the worst case scenario. Screw the two US parties and everything they stand for.
Did you watch that CPG Grey video I linked to earlier? Voting third party is the same as not voting under the American electoral system. It's basic game theory. So your alternative to voting Democrat boils down to "do nothing."
cgpgreys video does not say it's the same as not voting
Yeah, he says it's worse than not voting because it's soaking up votes that in absence of the third party would have gone to the "least worse" of the two actually viable parties. I was being generous and assuming OP wasn't going to vote for that party anyway.
his charcterization isn't scientific fact. it is opinion.
It is fact, actually. This is a result of basic game theory. First-past-the-post electoral systems inexorably develop into two-party systems because of the mechanism that he describes, in the same way that gas inexorably diffuses or water flows downhill.
Insisting that it won't happen because you feel like it shouldn't happen just causes you to fall into the traps CPG Grey described.
game theory assumes that we have rational actors acting in their own best interests. That's not what people do. game theory doesn't predict what people will do.
this is the crux of duverger's "law" which is not a law at all but actually a tautology.
that didn't happen here.
no, those can be calculated and predicted. the same isn't true for the rate at which political parties are created or dissolved.
In that case it's their parents faults for fucking.
It's not their parents fault they're incompetent corrupt pieces of shit. Or maybe it is a little bit, just not as much.