What are those positions?
2024 U.S. Elections | Trump wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
To be honest, forcing people to vote doesn't sound particularly free to me. I'm also not wild about the idea of millions of people who are so disengaged from the policitcal system, and likely ill-informed about it, being forced to turn up and vote.
The “progressive left” was more of an issue in 2020, and Trump still lost. I would argue that there is no big domestic issue these days as immigration/manufacturing in 2016, “wokeism” 2020 following the tragic killing of George Floyd, or the war in Iraq in 2008.
The U.S. economy is in a good shape: almost 5% growth annualized, which is twice the rate of 2019, less than 4% unemployment rate and the inflation rate is roughly 3%.
The election will come down to the age of Biden and whether enough young voters will stay home because of the current war in the ME.
The moderates didn’t like Trump in 2020? Why would they want him now after January 6, being four years older and 91 counts against him in four different jurisdictions?
This election is Biden’s to lose.
A) You aren't forced to vote. Just to show up.
B) I wouldn't let most people who would vote without encouragement to own sharp objects or park my car.
C) Many people vote because they are wildly ill-informed.
So I see no down side to people being encouraged to vote. The fine is small and is waived if you have a good excuse (e.g. you were overseas at the time and couldn't get a postal vote in time) but it does set an expectation and we have well over 90% participation. As for the free thing, you don't get to do what you want all of the time in society so why should this be any different?
Last edited:
Essentially Biden has done a pretty decent job on many of the metrics people care or purport to care about, yet the perception is he's doing badly.
Foreign affairs are low down in priorities, but in the last few weeks a couple of positions seem to have broadly metastasized due to Ukraine and ME. a) Those in the pro Israel camp feel democrats can't be trusted, and will vote R. (This is largely Jews and military veterans, so a relatively small number in absolutes, but if you overlay it into the 6 states that matter it's an issue). b) The number of pro Palestinian/Muslim voters who are simply saying they won't vote for Biden, no matter the consequence. (Again small in absolute terms but significant)
The economy you're right, but the prices are baked in from Trump era/Start of Ukraine inflation, and those are hurting perception. The fact he sometimes doesn't seem to be compis mentis plays into the idea he's clueless on the economy.
The R camp is R, the D/I camp is ambivalent on the left and moving R on the right.
Take Georgia for example; Biden carried it by just under 12k. with 250k Jews, 690K vets, and 460k muslims. Veterans vote around 60:40 R generally, and with Trump it's narrowed to 52:42 - I've not seen accurate polling of it, but if you're looking at an even 10% swing it's dangerous. 70% of Jews voted D, which you can expect to flip substantially. And of the 460k Muslims, the D vote was similar to Jews, at around 7:3 D. If even half stay at home then Biden is in real trouble.
As to the last question, nobody wants Trump. (except a few loons to the right of R.) But they want to punish Biden. And there's a burgeoning movement that says at least Trump is openly racist, whereas Biden/Obama types are more dangerous because he pretends not to be.
I think Biden would be toast if his opposition is not Trump. That's despite doing a decent job.
Biden won GA in 2020 with a higher % of the GA than Trump did in 2016, apart from Carter in 1976, 1964 was the previous time the Dem's won in GA, you're barking up the wrong tree here
Biden took 49.47% vs 49.24% in 2020. Trump took 50.38% in 2016. They also voted D for Clinton in 1992. (Maybe you mean Carter won a higher % of total but it's not relevant) So no. GA is demographically purple with a blue tint. It's Bidens to win. Regardless, these factors could depress D turnout and boost R and that's on the Democrats.
Last edited:
Im in the opposite camp. I would not allow everybody to vote. You would need to earn the right. Maybe an exam on the political programs? or a basic exam on politics. You can't star calling democrats communists FFS
You want to drive? you have a test drive? You have a politics test. to be renewed every 8-12 years. At least it would be people with a bit more engagement and a bit more educated
I'll put it a different way. If 20% of the voting pop of any of these 3 groups stay at home (abstain) and everything else remains the same as 2020 Biden loses Georgia. If 5% of a combination stay at home, Biden loses GA.
a) Jews (24.7k/123.6k)
b) Vets (bigger*)
c) Muslims (bigger)
*Eligible voters of group near 100%. Assume 35% voted D compared to 42.3% nationally due to demographics)
a) Jews (24.7k/123.6k)
b) Vets (bigger*)
c) Muslims (bigger)
*Eligible voters of group near 100%. Assume 35% voted D compared to 42.3% nationally due to demographics)
My mistake on 2016 but GA maybe be purple now but for a long time it's been red
Yeah that would mean the Dems winning pretty much all the time
So we’ve reached the commoners shouldn’t be allowed to vote period of the American election. Guess Biden polling must be dog shit.
That probably mean R and D out and a third party in. Thats what education in politics would do. But thats what it should be. A vote of a political uneducated person should not worth the same as an educated one
Aye. It's even arguable whether it's truly purple or just pink and very 'anti Trump' and that R has fielded poor candidates - A lot has been said about the big black shift, and against Trump, Biden should win Georgia again [I think for biden vs trump describing it as purple with a blue tint is accurate], but the dynamics above can change things. I could make graphics for the other 'competitive' states too; it's a sticky situation (even the Afghanistan withdrawal) and you have to feel a bit sorry for him.
I see we go supremacist very easily given some polls show something we don't like.
Coming from a country that had compulsory vote, went voluntary about 15 years ago and then recently reverted it in a very dumb political struggle with disastrous results, I say compulsory vote isn't worth it. It doesn't get better results, it's unpopular, difficult to implement, imposible to supervise and in fact it gives a new reason for people to detach from politics. If you want people to get more in touch with politics you have to actually offer them something. Even Trump understood that.
IMO it's gonna be Trump vs. Biden, Biden will win (mainly thanks to Trumps' felonies) and Trump is gonna spend the rest of his life struggling with several court cases. The election turnout is crucial though, and I think the danger is coming more from vote supression in key states (specially GA) than in Biden suddenly losing votes from small, usually high voting and well informed groups who pretty much know what's at stake.
Coming from a country that had compulsory vote, went voluntary about 15 years ago and then recently reverted it in a very dumb political struggle with disastrous results, I say compulsory vote isn't worth it. It doesn't get better results, it's unpopular, difficult to implement, imposible to supervise and in fact it gives a new reason for people to detach from politics. If you want people to get more in touch with politics you have to actually offer them something. Even Trump understood that.
IMO it's gonna be Trump vs. Biden, Biden will win (mainly thanks to Trumps' felonies) and Trump is gonna spend the rest of his life struggling with several court cases. The election turnout is crucial though, and I think the danger is coming more from vote supression in key states (specially GA) than in Biden suddenly losing votes from small, usually high voting and well informed groups who pretty much know what's at stake.
My idea is not a literacy test. Or level of education as it would not be fair because not everybody would have access to certain levels. Should be something simple political related. Same difficulty as a test drive. No one dispute that those are necessary and the future of country is more important than driving.
I say as lifelong democrat, pretty hard liberal: it would be very on brand for the current democratic party to let Donald Trump win an election because of a purity contest.
The majority of science into human psychology concurs that as a species we're predisposed to negativity being more attractive than positivity. And the media exists to feed this, and it's getting worse and worse with silo'd bubbles and the sheer pervasiveness of bad news. People being polled today are all claiming things are simply worse than they used to be, across just about every area, even ones that are demonstrably better. That's an extremely hard thing for an incumbent to combat, politically.
Personally I believe the two largest issues facing the US today are wealth inequality and climate change. Any voter that believes a second Trump term is better for the long-term viability of our ecosystem is simply too deliberately ignorant to even talk. Yes, Biden has passed a few bills that are not universally positive for the environment. Trump would burn down literally anything for a quick buck. But I know democrat voters who still say 'they're basically the same' purely based on the artic pipeline.
On wealth inequality - which for me drives a good chunk of societal issues at the moment - I again cannot fathom someone who believes Donald Trump will do more for them, in the 99.9%, than a second Joe Biden term. There's literally nothing that suggests this.
And the recent discussion around Palestine is broadly similar for me. The anger around the issue is pushing formerly democrat voters to 'punish' Biden for not doing what they want. That's fine, logical, understandable. But refusing to the work of: me not voting for Biden means installing Trump isn't purity, it's laziness and shows a lack of accountability. If you honestly believe that Trump will be better for the Palestinian cause, fine, then vote that way, but I'd love to see literally ANYTHING that leads to that conclusion. And refusing to vote for Biden makes it more likely that this current escalation will extend into a Trump/Netanyahu partnership. That's what you want?
Biden is not a perfect candidate. He has failed in many areas as President, and has been a senator through many bad events in US history. But he's done a pretty good job in the past 3 years, and the alternative could literally end democracy in the most powerful nation on Earth. I simply do not understand the nihilism required to make that choice. If we want a better future, willfully burning everything down in the hope that what comes out of the ashes is better isn't a plan, it's derelection of duty.
The majority of science into human psychology concurs that as a species we're predisposed to negativity being more attractive than positivity. And the media exists to feed this, and it's getting worse and worse with silo'd bubbles and the sheer pervasiveness of bad news. People being polled today are all claiming things are simply worse than they used to be, across just about every area, even ones that are demonstrably better. That's an extremely hard thing for an incumbent to combat, politically.
Personally I believe the two largest issues facing the US today are wealth inequality and climate change. Any voter that believes a second Trump term is better for the long-term viability of our ecosystem is simply too deliberately ignorant to even talk. Yes, Biden has passed a few bills that are not universally positive for the environment. Trump would burn down literally anything for a quick buck. But I know democrat voters who still say 'they're basically the same' purely based on the artic pipeline.
On wealth inequality - which for me drives a good chunk of societal issues at the moment - I again cannot fathom someone who believes Donald Trump will do more for them, in the 99.9%, than a second Joe Biden term. There's literally nothing that suggests this.
And the recent discussion around Palestine is broadly similar for me. The anger around the issue is pushing formerly democrat voters to 'punish' Biden for not doing what they want. That's fine, logical, understandable. But refusing to the work of: me not voting for Biden means installing Trump isn't purity, it's laziness and shows a lack of accountability. If you honestly believe that Trump will be better for the Palestinian cause, fine, then vote that way, but I'd love to see literally ANYTHING that leads to that conclusion. And refusing to vote for Biden makes it more likely that this current escalation will extend into a Trump/Netanyahu partnership. That's what you want?
Biden is not a perfect candidate. He has failed in many areas as President, and has been a senator through many bad events in US history. But he's done a pretty good job in the past 3 years, and the alternative could literally end democracy in the most powerful nation on Earth. I simply do not understand the nihilism required to make that choice. If we want a better future, willfully burning everything down in the hope that what comes out of the ashes is better isn't a plan, it's derelection of duty.
Wouldn't say it would be on brand at all, basically every election after 2016, dems have dropped purity tests for general elections and just voted blue.
People always complain, doesn't mean much, i reckon dems who sit out next years election vs Trump will be a rather small percentage.
People always complain, doesn't mean much, i reckon dems who sit out next years election vs Trump will be a rather small percentage.
Having non-senile candidate for president surely isn't a big ask though.
Voter suppression has been a feature of democracies for a long time. Finally a method I can support!
Mike Johnson, the Republican Speaker of the House, 'helped lead efforts to overthrow the 2020 election.'
Here is a photo of him holding hands with the Democratic Senate Majority Leader and the Democratic Minority Leader at a rally for bombing Gaza.
That is what nihilism actually looks like.
The Democratic Party and its friendly press spent weeks putting out stories about how dangerous Mike Johnson is to democracy.
A few weeks later, Democratic leadership participates in a "March for Israel" with Johnson, hold hands with him, and pledge unequivocal support to Israel.
Taken together, these acts convey a clear message: supporting Israel is more important than defending democracy.
A few weeks later, Democratic leadership participates in a "March for Israel" with Johnson, hold hands with him, and pledge unequivocal support to Israel.
Taken together, these acts convey a clear message: supporting Israel is more important than defending democracy.
Mike Johnson doesn't even really care about Israel, otherwise he wouldn't be playing politics over a deal with aid to Israel.
He knows what he proposed(cuts to the IRS) won't pass, but he did it anyway.
He knows what he proposed(cuts to the IRS) won't pass, but he did it anyway.
Clearly you'd be what's called a single issue voter. That's fine. But if your single issue is Palestinian rights, please provide a compelling list why we should believe a Trump administration would benefit your issue.
I also think you'd be more likely to find happiness if you'd not refer to a pro-Israel event as a bomb Gaza one. Having literally been at a pro-Palestine event yesterday, I must have missed the rebranding of it Hamas-should-finish-the-job rally, I probably wouldn't have gone.
Personally I think this is a horrible idea from a moral perspective. Every citizen should have the right to vote.
But leaving the morality of this position aside, pragmatically I don't think it has any chance of working how you imagine. It would be anything but a simple test. Republicans would fight tooth and nail to make the test be as biased to their worldview as possible. I doubt the two parties in their current state would ever be able to agree on what the test should be so it would likely just get stuck permanently with one side filibustering it.
But if somehow a version did pass it would have zero chance of creating a third party or pushing out the Dems and Reps as you imagine. The two party system and money in politics today is a self-reinforcing loop. A test couldn't change that. In fact, I bet one of the only questions both D and R would agree on would be some variation of "why is a two party system better for US democracy than a European style parliamentary system?"
So even morality aside, it's just an unworkable idea pragmatically.
This is ridiculous. If there is any party that is moving extreme, it’s the GOP. I don’t even understand how this can be up for debate.
Yes, that's absurd. How is it possible to look at the language of Trump, DeSantis, Vivek, etc. and conclude that "no, it's the Democrats who are extreme"?
@Beachryan @Morty_
For some reason, I see a very potentially dangerous parallel between the upcoming 2024 election and the 1968 election. A number of people in 1968 were angry with the way the Vietnam War was going and thus ended up voting for Richard Nixon as a way to "punish" the Democrats, even though Hubert Humphrey vowed to continue Lyndon Johnson's war on poverty and to support the civil rights movement. In the aftermath, Nixon ended up making things worse both in Vietnam and at home, on top of being a corrosive force against standards of democracy in the US (Watergate, the prosecution against the Washington Post about the Pentagon Papers, etc.).
If people vote against Joe Biden mainly because they don't like his approach in the current Israel/Hamas conflict (an approach which could be the reason why hostages are being released right now), it might well be a much greater mistake than giving the 1968 election on a golden plate for Richard Nixon. History might well repeat itself and then be exponentially worse, especially with 1968 being a precedent.
For some reason, I see a very potentially dangerous parallel between the upcoming 2024 election and the 1968 election. A number of people in 1968 were angry with the way the Vietnam War was going and thus ended up voting for Richard Nixon as a way to "punish" the Democrats, even though Hubert Humphrey vowed to continue Lyndon Johnson's war on poverty and to support the civil rights movement. In the aftermath, Nixon ended up making things worse both in Vietnam and at home, on top of being a corrosive force against standards of democracy in the US (Watergate, the prosecution against the Washington Post about the Pentagon Papers, etc.).
If people vote against Joe Biden mainly because they don't like his approach in the current Israel/Hamas conflict (an approach which could be the reason why hostages are being released right now), it might well be a much greater mistake than giving the 1968 election on a golden plate for Richard Nixon. History might well repeat itself and then be exponentially worse, especially with 1968 being a precedent.
I'm not going to answer that because I don't believe a Trump administration would be better.
But I don't think it matters much, I'll just quote what I said earlier:
While I get what you are saying, the politics of the current Israel / Hamas war are infinitesimal smaller than the politics of Vietnam vis a vis those directly affected by the conflict. Other than being an armed conflict, there really aren't many similarities between the two, the most important difference being we haven't lost a life in the conflict.
All politics is local. There will be more pressing political realities within our borders that will broadly sway the Dem electorate; all the Israel / Hamas war will do is chip away at the edges. This could be enough to away the election, no doubt, but there will be many other issues that trump it (pun intended).
I think this is a terrible idea. As much as the frustration with politics is understandable these kind of simplistic answers are also part of the problem.
In a country like the US can you imagine how politicized that test would become? Who sets questions, who decides what the right answers are, how often do we retest, what is the pass rate, who gets to resit the exam???
The states can't agree on what books children get to read in school.
If you don't answer that democrats want to kill babies then you don't get to vote. Progress indeed.
Of course the GOP would contest the results of tests!
Republicans lurching right at both state and national level [egged on by dark money] is both evident and evidenced. They are able to do this because a) they have a solid core b) D/I voters in some groups feel they cannot vote D, so will either abstain or go R.
ps. We're in primary [crazy] season vs trump. R prospects either talk crazy or go home, but it'll be Trump anyway. If Democrats faced even a slightly less crazy version like Haley, Biden would be toast.
D are hemorrhaging badly. R aren't. There are reasons for this.
Besides polling, what is the evidence for this? The most recent elections haven't exactly been uniformly Republican wins.
Polling is the closest to evidence you'll find mid cycle. The anecdotal from thanksgiving was pretty heavy though; Most Muslims/Arabs were simply saying they won't vote Biden, no matter the consequence. (It's anecdotal but seems widespread.) You have similar from the Jewish and Veteran communities, the first who feel they are under attack from the left and the latter generally in the soft left camp anyway who supported Bidens initial action but see him as 'too old' to stay steadfast and vulnerable to the left flank.
The GOP will have their reckoning too; some of the stuff trump is coming out with lately is batshit, but the Democrats are governing right now, so its on them. The problem I see is they are alienating previously reliable groups, and that if Trump does get it, those groups (largely muslims/jews) will be 'blamed' for it, and that will be empowered by Trump.
Currently he's trying to steer a little left, but it's not enough to get the Muslim vote back in numbers enough to overcome the ones he'll lose. But if he steers right, he could encourage too much voter apathy. (My personal opinion is he should steer a little right whilst championing abortion and the economy, because those on the left will vote anyway once they realise how crazy the GOP is and reality is staring them in the face.) This isn't about generating 'new' D voters, but keeping the current ones.
I agree with you both, don't get me wrong. In reality, I find the idea completely unworkable and impossible to implement as you both point out it would be heavily politicized. At all your questions @Don't Kill Bill , I do not have an answer and they are all key questions.
But I truly think that they are many rights that you have to earn that right also. As mentioned, the right to drive, also the right to bear arms, the right of being a judge, etc. Everybody has the right of them, but you need to earn that right.
For the sake of discussing: One simple option would be that if you go to the booth to vote, they ask you 10 random easy questions about the program of the party that you want to vote and if you don't get a decided percentage, you can't vote? AI generated questions? maybe an external commission that oversee the elections decides the questions?
I think that some people don't even know what they are voting for. Maybe it would not change much, but marginally could have an effect
But yes, will never happen and definitely there are many concerns that it could be a pervasive system, but maybe less pervasive than the current bipartidism system
Imagine the reaction if Trump said that when re-elected President, he'd introduce a test for people to pass before they could vote in the 2028 election.
As much as people should educate themselves on politics, everyone should always have a vote not matter what.
As much as people should educate themselves on politics, everyone should always have a vote not matter what.