159
Biden turns 81 as questions about age continue to dominate 2024 race
(abcnews.go.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023
159 points (85.0% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2067 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Would they be successful if we were consistently getting out the vote to deny them majority control? Would they be successful if we were actively participating in primaries to put forward more progressive candidates? How do you justify blaming Democrats for not doing enough to block Republicans when voters keep enabling Republican majorities? How are we not reaping the consequences of our voting patterns?
I'm going to give you a real example as someone who lives in West Virginia. Let's take the 2020 primary season.
I tried to vote for Bernie Sanders. I did vote for him in the end, but my vote did not matter because by the time the primary had already rolled around to my state, Bernie Sanders has dropped out of the race. That can only happen because we don't have same day primaries all throughout the country. We allow for this fundraising attrition to let the capitalists pick who our candidate is.
So, whatever, we still have a chance at a Democrat, so I go to vote on Election Day in the general election. Here's the problem. I live in Ruby Red West Virginia, so my vote actually does not matter. I can't swing things in Biden's favor. I sure did vote for him, but it's not like my vote was goning to matter. It doesn't matter how many Republicans vote because there are always going to be enough of them to a voted for Trump. So where did I get any say in the Democratic process in this entire exchange?
But much like one of the other posters in this thread, not you, you've been quite pleasant, by the way, he just doesn't see states like West Virginia as a mattering whatsoever. Democrats don't see West Virginia as a mattering whatsoever.
And then we wonder why so many people feel disenfranchised and apathetic. It feels like there's absolutely nothing I can do to affect the country based on my geography.
Is it because there aren't as many Democrats voting in West Virginia, or because Democrats have given up voting in West Virginia? It's a chicken-or-the-egg problem: if West Virginia is a reliably Republican-voting state, should the DNC spend money to sway elections there when they could focus more on swing states?
Now, a case can (and should) be made that the DNC should focus more on grassroots level elections. They should do what Republicans did and focus more on local and regional elections rather than primarily national level elections. Obama bucked the DNC's policies and ran a fifty-state campaign, and that helped him win. But -- and I feel this is where the disconnect probably lies -- the DNC is not the Democratic Party. The DNC is the fundraising and electoral strategy arm of the Democratic Party. Disagreeing with their electoral strategies should not put the blame on the entire Democratic Party for not doing their part to block the rise of fascism.
The DNC doesn't have unlimited funds. For some odd reason, they don't typically get quite as much money from corporate interests as Republicans. They don't have as many dedicated donors as Republicans. Because Democrats still believe in a government for the people and by the people, which means taxing people who have more to help people who have less. So they have to decide how to best spend that money for the greatest effect. If that isn't enough for you to go out and vote, even though you live in a state dominated by Republicans, then I don't know what to tell you. If you're not willing to do your part, I'm not willing to listen to your complaints about how not enough is being done for you.
That's my point, though, I specifically said in that long string of text that I did go out and vote. I will go out and vote, but it sucks that it doesn't matter.
Because I think you fundamentally are misunderstanding what my problems with the Democrats are. I think they don't have any grassroots presence because they are so beholden to the capitalist class. So of course places like West Virginia, which objectively holds zero monetary value to Democrats, is going to be left behind.
West Virginia in particular was a strong Union state. Used to go blue every single election cycle. But that changed when Democrats adopted the new way view in the '90s.
So when both parties refuse to stand by the unions in any meaningful capacity, they're going to revert back to the culture war.
WV is a great example of how Democrats have failed their constituency.
Democratic losses are entirely at the hand of moderate neoliberal policy.
I agree, the Democrats need to change and return to progressive goals. But the initial comment I was replying to suggested that Democratic voters have no reason to go vote, or at least that's how I was reading it. If I misunderstood I apologize, but that's exactly the sort of sentiment that plays into right-wing electoral plans. Discouraging people from voting is their goal, particularly in Democratic strongholds. We need to do everything we can to resist that, not feed into it.
No, I specifically said that the Democratic vote does not matter in West Virginia. Unfortunately, our entire democracy hinges on a few purple states to get actual leadership in charge.