Democrats worry their most loyal voters won’t turn out for Biden in 2024
Democrats worry their most loyal voters won’t turn out for Biden in 2024
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're viewing part of a thread.
The support for Bernie wasn't even just in the Democratic party. Young moderates and even a few conservatives I knew were excited about him.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, many of whom went on to vote for Donald Trump in the general election.
It's "great" that he had so much "moderate" support, but if it had anything whatsoever to do with his actual policy views, so many of them wouldn't have stayed home or voted Trump.
They just shifted that excitement from Bernie to Trump, because it has nothing to do with policy. They ultimately made things worse by poisoning the well against Hillary.
These aren't the kind of people you want to court.
I disagree. If he had won the primary, those would have been voters for him instead of Trump, and I truly believe he would have won, or at least been more competitive than Hillary. People misjudged the mood of the voters badly prior to that election.