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

[-] Riccosuave@lemmy.world 6 points 3 years ago

That's exactly what I meant when I said he bridged the gap. Every single person I knew from every walk of life in my state were Bernie supporters including a surprising number of rural voters, moderates, and younger conservatives as you said in your post. I have just never seen anyone who's messaging was so effective at bringing so many different people together over solution oriented propositions on the issues.

Nothing has ever jaded me as much politically as watching what the DNC did to Bernie. The amount of fear they had over a candidate who was able to muster legitimate support from a heterodox voter base was very telling, and it shaped my political views more than any other experience in my life.

[-] awkpen@lemmy.world 6 points 3 years ago

I think the bigger problem was that he was completely honest and showed that his message was consistent with his actions and votes over his career. Being smeared and pushed aside early on (see Rachel Maddow and all of the media trying to say Hilary had too many Delegates already pledged to her to overcome before the first primary vote did incredible damage that the "she got more votes than Bernie" group cleanly ignore had a huge effect, and that he still nearly won anyway shows how big the support really was that the Democratic party actively destroyed.

[-] prole@sh.itjust.works -1 points 3 years ago

If you're going to make an extraordinary claim like "Rachel Maddow's (objectively correct) reporting that the entire concept of superdelegates is bullshit, changed the outcome of the Democratic primary," you better cough up some extraordinary evidence.

What an absolutely absurd thing to claim. This kind of shit makes me question what your intentions here may be.

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

If you’re going to make an extraordinary claim like “Rachel Maddow’s (objectively correct) reporting that the entire concept of superdelegates is bullshit, changed the outcome of the Democratic primary,” you better cough up some extraordinary evidence.

If you have to badly fake a quote from apostr you are replying to, then you clearly don't have a legitimate arguement and need evidence to porove that your commments even have any merit at all. I clearly stated "see Rachel Maddow and all of the media trying to say Hilary had too many Delegates already pledged to her to overcome before the first primary vote did incredible damage"

Nothing there at all about the entire conecpt of superdelegates that you yourself self-inserted and shows that perhaps the truth may lie in you either believing completely in the lie to push away anyone who isn't a true blue Democrat from having any say in the party's direction, or you are one of those far right Trump supporting trolls who used this "I supported/voted for Bernie in the primary until Hilary won the DNC nomination" argument to pretend that they were actually on the side of Bernie supporters to get them to vote for Trump. Lies, gaslighting and pretending to be on the same side as the person they are arguing with tells me which side you are on and what YOUR intentions here are.

this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2023

527 points (95.0% liked)

politics

31323 readers

2643 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