First of all, mail in ballots aren’t going away in 2024. In fact, many states expanded their vote-by-mail programs after 2020.
Second, Trump isn’t going to be able to campaign normally in 2024 either, due to the criminal trials he will be forced to attend.
Finally, there have been multiple special elections since 2020 and Democrats have consistently outperformed their pre-election polls. That’s good news for Democrats, regardless of how you try to spin it.
Special elections are a similar low turnout election to midterms, which gives the DNC the Liz Cheney Reagan voter bump post-Trump.
And Mike Johnson is house speaker no matter how you want to spin it. There’s a LOT of lefties like me who could have gotten to any of those 5 NYC suburbs for GOTY or donated or done basic oppo research on George Santos and changed that outcome in NY alone. But we didn’t. It’s possible you’re right and a presidential candidate with no constituency can win an election for a party with no base against a candidate with millions of slavish devotees and a party with a amped up base because they just won a 50-year victory for them, but I wouldn’t bet the farm on it.
No constituency? But I just heard that neo-liberals and suburbanites are the new Democratic constituency. And apparently that’s enough to win elections. Even against an amped up GOP base, one that is so amped up that they have already failed to stop Democrats because low turnout.
I’m sure there is a story that makes sense in there, in which leftists are surely the main characters.
This sneering neoliberal attitude is literally what I’m talking about the republicans not doing. You’re proving my point with every post more and more. When your refusal to ask for ANY accountability from the DNC leadership leads to 2016 again, much like in 2016, you will blame the left, which has no power in the DNC, not the party that failed you and lost because they insisted on running an unpopular candidate.
And you won’t care because you’re more interested in running interference for your “team” than any specific electoral or policy outcome. The DNC cannot fail; it can only be failed.
No, if Biden loses I will not blame the left. Just as I didn’t blame them when Dukakis lost, Gore lost, Kerry lost, or Clinton lost.
The left, unfortunately, are irrelevant. They are simply too unreliable to form the base of a coalition. It is like blaming the youth for low turnout: what did you expect?
Which is why Democrats nearly always pivot towards moderates/independents when trying to build a coalition. This strategy has worked for most elections but not all, and when it fails the candidate must take the ultimate blame.
Finally, I am certainly interested in policy outcomes. Probably most of the same policy outcomes as the left.
However, I don’t demand that the DNC do everything I want right away. Being in a successful coalition means accepting that you will only get some of what you want. It means understanding that durable change is slow and incremental, and not wavering when faced with disappointment.
Biden has done a couple things I wanted, but by no means as much as I wanted. Yet a couple is good enough to keep my support. Because I’m not the main character either.
“Young people and minorities don’t vote anyway” is my favorite piece of Biden dem copium. Name the last dem who won a presidential cycle with promises of centrism and no significant youth support?
Biden promised checks, HBCU loan forgiveness, a minimum wage increase, and expansion of the child tax credit and got 50% young voter turnout with an 80% bias and won
Hillary Clinton promised the neoliberal status quo and underperformed with youth voters by 5% versus Obama 2012 (roughly 50%) with a truly pathetic 55% bias, almost tying Trump, and lost
Obama 2008 promised card check, the most labor lefty lefty policy humanly possible and turned out an amazing 66% of all youth voters FOR him and won
Kerry 2004 promised literally nothing and only 47% of young voters showed up to vote at all and he lost
Please continue to tell me how centrism wins presidential elections for dems and the youth vote isn’t determinative… This is a fascinating work of political science fiction!
I never said you can (or can’t) rely on youth to prefer Democrats.
What I said was that you should expect youth turnout to be relatively low, in general. Which is true.
In 2004, youth (18-24) turnout was 42%. The national average was 58%. Over 65 was 69%.
In 2008, youth turnout was 44%. The national average was 58%. Over 65 was 68%.
In 2016, youth turnout was 39%. The national average was 56%. Over 65 was 68%.
In 2020, youth turnout was 48%. The national average was 61%. Over 65 was 72%.
Politicians don’t go to where votes might be. They go to where votes have been. And looking at those numbers, it is entirely rational to favor policy changes that affect over 65s, because they are more likely to vote. Hence policies like reducing drug prices by allowing imports from Canada.
Except older voters overwhelmingly break republican, so you can’t win an election with their votes as a democrat. Other than that your logic is impeccable.
You win elections by winning votes. You can equally improve your chances by increasing your margin by 5% or by reducing your opponents margin by 5%. So even if Biden doesn’t have a majority of over 65s, he still needs to appeal to them.
The only people he doesn’t need to worry about are those who don’t vote.
First of all, mail in ballots aren’t going away in 2024. In fact, many states expanded their vote-by-mail programs after 2020.
Second, Trump isn’t going to be able to campaign normally in 2024 either, due to the criminal trials he will be forced to attend.
Finally, there have been multiple special elections since 2020 and Democrats have consistently outperformed their pre-election polls. That’s good news for Democrats, regardless of how you try to spin it.
Special elections are a similar low turnout election to midterms, which gives the DNC the Liz Cheney Reagan voter bump post-Trump.
And Mike Johnson is house speaker no matter how you want to spin it. There’s a LOT of lefties like me who could have gotten to any of those 5 NYC suburbs for GOTY or donated or done basic oppo research on George Santos and changed that outcome in NY alone. But we didn’t. It’s possible you’re right and a presidential candidate with no constituency can win an election for a party with no base against a candidate with millions of slavish devotees and a party with a amped up base because they just won a 50-year victory for them, but I wouldn’t bet the farm on it.
No constituency? But I just heard that neo-liberals and suburbanites are the new Democratic constituency. And apparently that’s enough to win elections. Even against an amped up GOP base, one that is so amped up that they have already failed to stop Democrats because low turnout.
I’m sure there is a story that makes sense in there, in which leftists are surely the main characters.
This sneering neoliberal attitude is literally what I’m talking about the republicans not doing. You’re proving my point with every post more and more. When your refusal to ask for ANY accountability from the DNC leadership leads to 2016 again, much like in 2016, you will blame the left, which has no power in the DNC, not the party that failed you and lost because they insisted on running an unpopular candidate.
And you won’t care because you’re more interested in running interference for your “team” than any specific electoral or policy outcome. The DNC cannot fail; it can only be failed.
No, if Biden loses I will not blame the left. Just as I didn’t blame them when Dukakis lost, Gore lost, Kerry lost, or Clinton lost.
The left, unfortunately, are irrelevant. They are simply too unreliable to form the base of a coalition. It is like blaming the youth for low turnout: what did you expect?
Which is why Democrats nearly always pivot towards moderates/independents when trying to build a coalition. This strategy has worked for most elections but not all, and when it fails the candidate must take the ultimate blame.
Finally, I am certainly interested in policy outcomes. Probably most of the same policy outcomes as the left.
However, I don’t demand that the DNC do everything I want right away. Being in a successful coalition means accepting that you will only get some of what you want. It means understanding that durable change is slow and incremental, and not wavering when faced with disappointment.
Biden has done a couple things I wanted, but by no means as much as I wanted. Yet a couple is good enough to keep my support. Because I’m not the main character either.
“Young people and minorities don’t vote anyway” is my favorite piece of Biden dem copium. Name the last dem who won a presidential cycle with promises of centrism and no significant youth support?
Please continue to tell me how centrism wins presidential elections for dems and the youth vote isn’t determinative… This is a fascinating work of political science fiction!
I never said you can (or can’t) rely on youth to prefer Democrats.
What I said was that you should expect youth turnout to be relatively low, in general. Which is true.
In 2004, youth (18-24) turnout was 42%. The national average was 58%. Over 65 was 69%.
In 2008, youth turnout was 44%. The national average was 58%. Over 65 was 68%.
In 2016, youth turnout was 39%. The national average was 56%. Over 65 was 68%.
In 2020, youth turnout was 48%. The national average was 61%. Over 65 was 72%.
Politicians don’t go to where votes might be. They go to where votes have been. And looking at those numbers, it is entirely rational to favor policy changes that affect over 65s, because they are more likely to vote. Hence policies like reducing drug prices by allowing imports from Canada.
Except older voters overwhelmingly break republican, so you can’t win an election with their votes as a democrat. Other than that your logic is impeccable.
You win elections by winning votes. You can equally improve your chances by increasing your margin by 5% or by reducing your opponents margin by 5%. So even if Biden doesn’t have a majority of over 65s, he still needs to appeal to them.
The only people he doesn’t need to worry about are those who don’t vote.