They need to stop campaigning on the issue of the presidency and start campaigning on the representatives and senators. People are overwhelmingly going to vote within party lines, and most young people who don’t vote do so because they falsely believe their votes don’t matter. This can be demonstrated to be untrue for congressional elections.
Let the DNC pick a candidate for the presidency who they think is good. The people don’t choose the president, the states do. The electoral college makes sure of that in all but 2 states. Let the people vote for the Congress that the president has to work with. If you only give publicity to the ONE elected role that isn’t really elected by the people, you’ll get more voter apathy.
They need to stop campaigning on the issue of the presidency
THEY NEVER LEARN THIS FUCKING LESSON, EVER.
2016 should have been about judges not “its her turn to be president, look look it’s a lady feller an gosh darnit shes going to be the first! Now be happy for her, shut up, and vote!”
I had to really think about what you are actually saying here. Congress campaigns every election, so nothing new there. And I presume we campaign on the nominee after they are selected.
So your idea boils down to Joe steps down without any clear successor and the party just picks someone at the last minute. The party who thought Hillary was a good idea in 2016 picks the candidate? In a race where Kamala is the clearest next choice?
You wind up with exactly what I was suggesting wouldn’t work in the first place, I’m pretty sure.
I’m saying that no matter who they choose for President, MOST people aren’t going to like it. Hillary WAS a good choice in 2016. Bernie would have been better, but Hillary was not a bad choice. Biden isn’t as strong of a choice as Hillary was. We don’t have ranked choice voting so there’s no clear solution to that issue, no matter who you pick.
So, to get the most turnout among Democrats, educate people on why they should care more about their congresspeople than their president. Get them to the polls by appealing to what they can influence, since the presidential candidate choice is moot. It’s a losing strategy to try to rally everyone behind that. Divert attention to all the incumbents with the highest chance of losing their seat, and the seats up for reelection in swing states. Change the strategy and choose who you want as the candidate. People are voting for “Not Trump” more than they’re really voting for “Biden” so they’re going to mark the (D) regardless of the name it’s attached to. We just have to get them to the polls.
I’ll definitely argue that Hillary was a terrible candidate in 2016, and I think the fact that she lost a race damn near anyone should’ve been able to win is evidence of that. I don’t think anyone but Hillary could’ve lost to Trump. But that’s not the point here, so I’ll leave that for another time.
So, to get the most turnout among Democrats, educate people on why they should care more about their congresspeople than their president.
So change the people? I really think that is an incredibly optimistic take. People don’t want to be educated. Look at how people use upvotes and downvotes here and on Reddit. The idea is to upvote valuable comments and downvote low quality whether or not you agree, but the reality is a lot of people use it as an agree/disagree button. So we can’t even educate Lemmy users about how to vote and you suggest educating the electorate? I just don’t think that’s going to work out.
the presidential candidate choice is moot. It’s a losing strategy to try to rally everyone behind that.
I feel like there is a couple hundred years of conclusive data that says you are wrong about this.
People are voting for “Not Trump” more than they’re really voting for “Biden” so they’re going to mark the (D) regardless of the name it’s attached to. We just have to get them to the polls.
I agree with this, I just think it’s very much not the whole picture.
I think you are looking at this from the perspective of a relatively politically interested person fairly aware of the issues, candidates, etm. I think you are missing the vast number of people that are barely politically aware and basically uninterested other than funny memes.
My wife shuts me down when I try to tell her about politics. She either doesn’t care or the news is awful enough and she’s already stressed enough about real shit in her life to worry about that shit as well.
Now she’s voting Dem based on women’s and queer rights, but there are a lot of people out there like her who just avoid thinking about politics as much as they can. A single candidate and a few soundbites are all they are willing/able to process. I just don’t think your strategy reaches anyone outside the base who like you said are going to vote Dem regardless.
I appreciate (and upvoted) your thinking outside the box and enthusiasm, but I just don’t know how much you’ve run into this abject apathy about politics, but it’s a big part of the electorate and honestly I think those people have been the key to Trump’s success. Sure, he has billionaires and racists and evangelicals, but I think what puts him over the top is people who vote based on memes. And I think if you make no attempt to even meet him on that level, it’s a blowout Trump victory.
They need to stop campaigning on the issue of the presidency and start campaigning on the representatives and senators. People are overwhelmingly going to vote within party lines, and most young people who don’t vote do so because they falsely believe their votes don’t matter. This can be demonstrated to be untrue for congressional elections.
Let the DNC pick a candidate for the presidency who they think is good. The people don’t choose the president, the states do. The electoral college makes sure of that in all but 2 states. Let the people vote for the Congress that the president has to work with. If you only give publicity to the ONE elected role that isn’t really elected by the people, you’ll get more voter apathy.
THEY NEVER LEARN THIS FUCKING LESSON, EVER.
2016 should have been about judges not “its her turn to be president, look look it’s a lady feller an gosh darnit shes going to be the first! Now be happy for her, shut up, and vote!”
I had to really think about what you are actually saying here. Congress campaigns every election, so nothing new there. And I presume we campaign on the nominee after they are selected.
So your idea boils down to Joe steps down without any clear successor and the party just picks someone at the last minute. The party who thought Hillary was a good idea in 2016 picks the candidate? In a race where Kamala is the clearest next choice?
You wind up with exactly what I was suggesting wouldn’t work in the first place, I’m pretty sure.
I’m saying that no matter who they choose for President, MOST people aren’t going to like it. Hillary WAS a good choice in 2016. Bernie would have been better, but Hillary was not a bad choice. Biden isn’t as strong of a choice as Hillary was. We don’t have ranked choice voting so there’s no clear solution to that issue, no matter who you pick.
So, to get the most turnout among Democrats, educate people on why they should care more about their congresspeople than their president. Get them to the polls by appealing to what they can influence, since the presidential candidate choice is moot. It’s a losing strategy to try to rally everyone behind that. Divert attention to all the incumbents with the highest chance of losing their seat, and the seats up for reelection in swing states. Change the strategy and choose who you want as the candidate. People are voting for “Not Trump” more than they’re really voting for “Biden” so they’re going to mark the (D) regardless of the name it’s attached to. We just have to get them to the polls.
I’ll definitely argue that Hillary was a terrible candidate in 2016, and I think the fact that she lost a race damn near anyone should’ve been able to win is evidence of that. I don’t think anyone but Hillary could’ve lost to Trump. But that’s not the point here, so I’ll leave that for another time.
So change the people? I really think that is an incredibly optimistic take. People don’t want to be educated. Look at how people use upvotes and downvotes here and on Reddit. The idea is to upvote valuable comments and downvote low quality whether or not you agree, but the reality is a lot of people use it as an agree/disagree button. So we can’t even educate Lemmy users about how to vote and you suggest educating the electorate? I just don’t think that’s going to work out.
I feel like there is a couple hundred years of conclusive data that says you are wrong about this.
I agree with this, I just think it’s very much not the whole picture.
I think you are looking at this from the perspective of a relatively politically interested person fairly aware of the issues, candidates, etm. I think you are missing the vast number of people that are barely politically aware and basically uninterested other than funny memes.
My wife shuts me down when I try to tell her about politics. She either doesn’t care or the news is awful enough and she’s already stressed enough about real shit in her life to worry about that shit as well.
Now she’s voting Dem based on women’s and queer rights, but there are a lot of people out there like her who just avoid thinking about politics as much as they can. A single candidate and a few soundbites are all they are willing/able to process. I just don’t think your strategy reaches anyone outside the base who like you said are going to vote Dem regardless.
I appreciate (and upvoted) your thinking outside the box and enthusiasm, but I just don’t know how much you’ve run into this abject apathy about politics, but it’s a big part of the electorate and honestly I think those people have been the key to Trump’s success. Sure, he has billionaires and racists and evangelicals, but I think what puts him over the top is people who vote based on memes. And I think if you make no attempt to even meet him on that level, it’s a blowout Trump victory.