this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2024
78 points (87.5% liked)

politics

19096 readers
3640 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
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Some think that if a candidate is doing well or poor enough they won't bother to vote because it won't matter. Kind of like when everyone assumes someone else called 911 when there's an emergency.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Do we have any evidence that that has ever happened, ever ever? Based on the exit polls, we didn't see that in 2016 (Democratic turnout was about what we expected it to be). And we know that people really like to play for the winning team, even if the team is already winning.

I am pretty confident I've heard that the opposite is true--that hopeless feeling like the other side is certain to win, and your vote will not change anything, can get people to stay home--but I haven't heard anything compelling suggesting that complacency can get people to sit out an election.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Yeah, do we have any evidence that people have stayed home because they thought everything was settled and there wasn't any need for them to vote?

This seems to be received wisdom, but this will be my sixth general presidential election, and in that entire time I haven't seen any news or studies or polls (or even any anecdotal stories) about it.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

If they exist, I don't want to share a planet with such an idiot.

I cling to my original hypothesis that they are just lazy, and never intended to.

(I'm obv not speaking of those who can't get off work, have an emergency, disability, etc. That's another discussion)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Around half of voters are going to vote for Trump. A decent portion of people voting for Harris are swing voters, meaning they at least consider voting for Trump. A significant portion of people are going to vote for Jill Stein, despite the fact that Trump winning is BAD for just about everything she cares about, and host of human rights she doesn't seem to care about.

Irrationally hopeful voters are at the bottom of my shit list.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Irrelevant to the topic of Democratic voters starting home from "complacency"

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If we're talking about objective impact, then I guess the shit list is Trump voters at the top, then Jill Stein voters and non-voters.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

My guy I'm straight up not discussing that lol