Democrats say they are more worried that disillusioned Black voters, key to Biden's reelection bid, will sit it out in 2024 rather than defect to the Republicans.

Summary:

Democrats are becoming increasingly concerned about a possible drop in Black voter turnout for the 2024 presidential election, according to party insiders. The worries arise from a 10% decrease in Black voter turnout in the 2022 midterms compared to 2018, a more substantial decline than any other racial or ethnic group, as per a Washington Post analysis. The decline was particularly significant among younger and male Black voters in crucial states like Georgia, where Democrats aim to mobilize Black voter support for President Biden in 2024.

The Democratic party has acknowledged the need to bolster their outreach efforts to this demographic. W. Mondale Robinson, founder of the Black Male Voter Project, highlighted the need for Democrats to refocus their attention on Black male voters, who have shown lower levels of engagement. In response, Biden’s team has pledged to communicate more effectively about the benefits that the Black community has reaped under Biden’s administration, according to Cedric L. Richmond, a senior advisor at the Democratic National Committee.

However, Black voter advocates have identified deep-seated issues affecting Black voter turnout. Many Black men reportedly feel detached from the political process and uninspired by both parties’ policies. Terrance Woodbury, CEO of HIT Strategies, a polling firm, suggests that the Democratic party’s focus on countering Trump and Republican extremism doesn’t motivate younger Black men as much as arguments focused on policy benefits. Concerns are growing within the party that if they fail to address these issues, disenchanted Black voters might either abstain or, potentially, be swayed by Republican messaging on certain key issues.

  • ToriborAEnglish
    5510·
    1 year ago

    If Trump is elected do you think that his administration would be more friendly to unions than the Biden administration?

    If you’re mad about Biden forcibly ending the rail strike (which was honestly infuriating) you should know that his administration continued to work with the labor union afterward to negotiate a deal while also avoiding a disastrous economic shutdown that would have resulted from the strike. Could Biden have done more to get a deal without forcing an end to the strike? Maybe. Should he have let the economy collapse in order to support labor rights? Maybe, but I understand why he didn’t.

    Biden was basically my last choice of the field of democrats running in 2020 but I don’t know what anyone else would have done to achieve better results.

    • Khanzarate@lemmy.world
      2110·
      1 year ago

      I don’t disagree with most of what you said but there’s a real basic thing with the rail strike he could’ve done.

      If the government has the power to force a deal, he could’ve just given the workers the week off they asked for, forcing the companies to acquiesce instead of the people.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        253·
        1 year ago

        The federal government (executive branch) government did not have the power to force a deal. It had the power to break a strike

        Congress had the power to enforce the agreement as written, but could not pass a bill to do so.

        In early December, the House passed a bill to enforce the tentative September agreement. Interestingly, the House’s bill spun off a second bill to introduce seven days of paid sick leave into the contract.

        The first bill passed the Senate and got the president’s signature.

        The second bill failed in the Senate.

        The new contract’s provisions included pay raises through 2024 and immediate payouts to individual workers, Progressive Railroading reports. But there was little meaningful discussion of — let alone resolution to — workers’ calls for fairer attendance policies.

        https://uniontrack.com/blog/rail-unions