527

Democrats worry their most loyal voters won’t turn out for Biden in 2024 (www.washingtonpost.com)

submitted 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) by Upgrade2754@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

565 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] o_oli@lemmy.world 17 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago)

Maybe one that isn't older than average life expectancy already let alone after another term. Just an idea.

[-] DarkGamer@kbin.social 16 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago)

Cool, if that candidate showed up and won the Democratic primary in 2020 I would have voted for them. As things stand I'll go with the most viable one that's most likely to defeat fascism. That's the incumbent, Joe Biden. I don't care if he's elderly.

[-] o_oli@lemmy.world 10 points 3 years ago

I mean, I agree. If I were from the US I would also be voting for Biden. But it's a really sad state of affairs there isn't a better option. The system is ridiculous.

[-] QHC@lemmy.world 5 points 3 years ago

As an American, I'll be the first to talk about the inadequacies in our electoral system, especially for President. However, I don't think the tradition of incumbents getting the 'benefit of the doubt' and skipping a primary are a problem. They also aren't part of the 'system', that is entirely the choice of the DNC. Presidents are limited to two 4 year terms, so why not run back-to-back? It works most of the time.

The rest of the system is fucked.

[-] o_oli@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago

The DNC choosing the candidate is absolutely part of the overall system. If that's how it works, that's how it works.

Which, is ridiculous. Maybe it makes sense this term but the fact he ran last time also makes no sense to me.

A country of 300 million people and the senile are in charge, like dude there are far better people for that job, just retire already.

Is that ageist? Yes and I stand by it. People over 70 and certainly those over 80 are in mental decline. This is just the reality. Why have a leader in mental decline? Absolutely wild to me it really is.

[-] K1nsey6@lemmy.world -1 points 3 years ago

Can't defeat fascism with enablers of fascism.

this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2023

527 points (95.0% liked)

politics

31342 readers

3437 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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News