The problem is, the people who are swayed by this argument were already going to vote Blue no matter who.
To win the election, you need to convince voters who are still doubting between Trump and Biden. And they have definitely heard this argument before, so a different argument is needed.
While voter apathy is a big problem, it is likely that voter suppression targeted at the tie breaking areas has more of an effect on the overall outcomes. Suppression includes duscouraging engagement, leading to apathy.
Like I have voted in every election that I could, but my electoral college votes always went to the person I voted against. Even locally the vast, vast majority of my votes were for the losing party. It is really hard to not be apathetic, and for me voting is a breeze.
Agreed. And to your point, competitive states without voter suppression like Wisconsin and Michigan had turnout of around 75%, while Texas (which is most known for suppressing voters) only achieved 60% turnout.
Texas is mostly a cultural issue. The left in this state are a bunch of defeatist do-nothings who think Texas will always be red. I cannot tell you the number of times I’ve talked to a like minded person, asked them about voting, only for them to give some half-hearted excuse why they didn’t/won’t.
With the way early voting works here, suppression is hard to pull off. For 2 weeks you can show up at any polling place to vote, even the ones in the rich white neighborhoods. The last time I voted, it took all of 10 minutes. There’s no doubt some fuckery with voter registration, but you have plenty of opportunity to check your status online ahead of the election.
While voter apathy is a big problem, it is likely that voter suppression targeted at the tie breaking areas has more of an effect on the overall outcomes. Suppression includes duscouraging engagement, leading to apathy.
And Congress could have done something about it when Democrats had the majority in both houses. In one hand, they had the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, and in the other, they had the continued preservation of the Jim Crow Filibuster.
The problem is, the people who are swayed by this argument were already going to vote Blue no matter who.
To win the election, you need to convince voters who are still doubting between Trump and Biden. And they have definitely heard this argument before, so a different argument is needed.
No, the point of the argument is to convince the people who are not planning to vote at all to show up.
The last presidential election had ~60% turnout. That’s one of the highest turnouts EVER. People sitting at home are indeed the problem.
While voter apathy is a big problem, it is likely that voter suppression targeted at the tie breaking areas has more of an effect on the overall outcomes. Suppression includes duscouraging engagement, leading to apathy.
Like I have voted in every election that I could, but my electoral college votes always went to the person I voted against. Even locally the vast, vast majority of my votes were for the losing party. It is really hard to not be apathetic, and for me voting is a breeze.
Agreed. And to your point, competitive states without voter suppression like Wisconsin and Michigan had turnout of around 75%, while Texas (which is most known for suppressing voters) only achieved 60% turnout.
Texas is mostly a cultural issue. The left in this state are a bunch of defeatist do-nothings who think Texas will always be red. I cannot tell you the number of times I’ve talked to a like minded person, asked them about voting, only for them to give some half-hearted excuse why they didn’t/won’t.
With the way early voting works here, suppression is hard to pull off. For 2 weeks you can show up at any polling place to vote, even the ones in the rich white neighborhoods. The last time I voted, it took all of 10 minutes. There’s no doubt some fuckery with voter registration, but you have plenty of opportunity to check your status online ahead of the election.
I have read a lot of reports on how Texas doesn’t provide polling places in poorer, minority neighbourhoods, forcing them to travel far to vote.
And I have also heard reports of people who had to stand in line for hours to vote in Texas. Again, in poorer, minority neighbourhoods.
Are you saying those reports are not true?
they’re true and you’ll only see them the most in houston and san antonio and a little bit in a dallas and austin.
source: me, a poor brown man who used to live in texas and tried to vote there for 5 years.
Couple that with a state party that cuts funding to progressives because they’re not republican-adjacent enough.
And Congress could have done something about it when Democrats had the majority in both houses. In one hand, they had the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, and in the other, they had the continued preservation of the Jim Crow Filibuster.
Democrats chose to keep the filibuster.
So “Shut up, we’re not going to listen to your concerns, we are owed your vote” is sure to work!
The debate fallout has made the fence-sitters’ decision for them.
Dems need a parachute candidate pronto. Kamala would win, too.