New polling from Gallup shows that Americans are increasingly identifying as political independents and rejecting the labels of the two major political parties.
Sure, but the fascists who aren’t in power might get into power if they realised there’s a lot more people who don’t vote, than there are people who vote third party or might switch votes from one party to the other, which seems to have been the strat for 30 years now.
you got this far in this text thread and you think I’m arguing for the democrats? Jfc I at least have the decency to present it as a question when I think someone is spouting nonsense.
Yeah man I’m totally for bourgeois democracy and I think the democratic party can be reformed and win and I think it’d be good if they did it by promising things and not doing them, that is definitely a rational conclusion to draw from my text in this thread.
Yeah but like I’d imagine at least one consultant would suggest to the Dems that they appeal to the majority who don’t vote. Could be good for a cycle right after midterms or something
Yeah it seems like there’s constant one-offs but never any wider institutional acknowledgement of the viability of that strategy. Yuck that was my most consultant sentence yet
I’d guess that they’d need to weigh up whether winning an election would be worth letting that particular cat out of the bag. I mean, if they plan to implement 90% of what the other team does, and roll back 0%, is it really so important that they win?
There’s more to gain by allowing the Overton window to resemble a letterbox, an Overton Fissure, than winning elections.
Sure, I understand the purpose of bourgeois democracy, but what I am surprised at is how the party machine manages to continue this uniformly with ignoring a potential massive resource, when it is otherwise plagued by factionalism and opportunists. I would imagine that people like AOC and her ilk would go harder on it, but they don’t, even though it would probably elevate their position within the party.
The only reason they do what they’re doing now is because it worked for slick willy. The reason he did it is because they weren’t doing it and it elevated him to a position of power. I’d imagine someone else would likewise make use of an unused viable strategy in order to jump the line and get into office.
Turnout for presidential elections is around 55%-60% with a bit of a trend up for elections since Trump won (last 4 were 54.9%, 55.7%, 62.8%, and 58.63%).
Midterms are generally lower, ranging from 35%-40% but with a similar trend up since 2016 (last 4 were 41%, 36.7%, 50%, and 46.8%).
Don’t less than half of Americans vote? I don’t understand why that’s never a bigger story
Most of them realize their material conditions remain the same despite which shade of fascism is running the government
Sure, but the fascists who aren’t in power might get into power if they realised there’s a lot more people who don’t vote, than there are people who vote third party or might switch votes from one party to the other, which seems to have been the strat for 30 years now.
So people should vote for politicians that do nothing to improve quality of life so we dont get a made up scenario
Yeah man I’m totally for bourgeois democracy and I think the democratic party can be reformed and win and I think it’d be good if they did it by promising things and not doing them, that is definitely a rational conclusion to draw from my text in this thread.
Goddamn the whole internet is twitter these days
That’s just freedom baby!
because who owns the media
Yeah but like I’d imagine at least one consultant would suggest to the Dems that they appeal to the majority who don’t vote. Could be good for a cycle right after midterms or something
that’s to some extent what mamdani’s campaign did and was a decent chunk of sanders’ appeal in 2016
Yeah it seems like there’s constant one-offs but never any wider institutional acknowledgement of the viability of that strategy. Yuck that was my most consultant sentence yet
Because the “base” of that party is
Yeah I know, but it’s still weird to me it never comes up during the two weeks of dissent that are allowed whenever the Dems eat shit
weren’t like 60% of new york non-voting as well?
I’d guess that they’d need to weigh up whether winning an election would be worth letting that particular cat out of the bag. I mean, if they plan to implement 90% of what the other team does, and roll back 0%, is it really so important that they win?
There’s more to gain by allowing the Overton window to resemble a letterbox, an Overton Fissure, than winning elections.
Sure, I understand the purpose of bourgeois democracy, but what I am surprised at is how the party machine manages to continue this uniformly with ignoring a potential massive resource, when it is otherwise plagued by factionalism and opportunists. I would imagine that people like AOC and her ilk would go harder on it, but they don’t, even though it would probably elevate their position within the party.
The only reason they do what they’re doing now is because it worked for slick willy. The reason he did it is because they weren’t doing it and it elevated him to a position of power. I’d imagine someone else would likewise make use of an unused viable strategy in order to jump the line and get into office.
Or maybe I just don’t notice it.
Turnout for presidential elections is around 55%-60% with a bit of a trend up for elections since Trump won (last 4 were 54.9%, 55.7%, 62.8%, and 58.63%).
Midterms are generally lower, ranging from 35%-40% but with a similar trend up since 2016 (last 4 were 41%, 36.7%, 50%, and 46.8%).
Seen another way:
2024 US Population: 340,000,000
2024 Election votes cast: 152,000,000
Number of Americans not counted: 188,000,000 (55%)
there is like 50 million kids hiding here