First of all, mail in ballots aren’t going away in 2024. In fact, many states expanded their vote-by-mail programs after 2020.
Second, Trump isn’t going to be able to campaign normally in 2024 either, due to the criminal trials he will be forced to attend.
Finally, there have been multiple special elections since 2020 and Democrats have consistently outperformed their pre-election polls. That’s good news for Democrats, regardless of how you try to spin it.
No constituency? But I just heard that neo-liberals and suburbanites are the new Democratic constituency. And apparently that’s enough to win elections. Even against an amped up GOP base, one that is so amped up that they have already failed to stop Democrats because low turnout.
I’m sure there is a story that makes sense in there, in which leftists are surely the main characters.
No, if Biden loses I will not blame the left. Just as I didn’t blame them when Dukakis lost, Gore lost, Kerry lost, or Clinton lost.
The left, unfortunately, are irrelevant. They are simply too unreliable to form the base of a coalition. It is like blaming the youth for low turnout: what did you expect?
Which is why Democrats nearly always pivot towards moderates/independents when trying to build a coalition. This strategy has worked for most elections but not all, and when it fails the candidate must take the ultimate blame.
Finally, I am certainly interested in policy outcomes. Probably most of the same policy outcomes as the left.
However, I don’t demand that the DNC do everything I want right away. Being in a successful coalition means accepting that you will only get some of what you want. It means understanding that durable change is slow and incremental, and not wavering when faced with disappointment.
Biden has done a couple things I wanted, but by no means as much as I wanted. Yet a couple is good enough to keep my support. Because I’m not the main character either.
I never said you can (or can’t) rely on youth to prefer Democrats.
What I said was that you should expect youth turnout to be relatively low, in general. Which is true.
In 2004, youth (18-24) turnout was 42%. The national average was 58%. Over 65 was 69%.
In 2008, youth turnout was 44%. The national average was 58%. Over 65 was 68%.
In 2016, youth turnout was 39%. The national average was 56%. Over 65 was 68%.
In 2020, youth turnout was 48%. The national average was 61%. Over 65 was 72%.
Politicians don’t go to where votes might be. They go to where votes have been. And looking at those numbers, it is entirely rational to favor policy changes that affect over 65s, because they are more likely to vote. Hence policies like reducing drug prices by allowing imports from Canada.
You win elections by winning votes. You can equally improve your chances by increasing your margin by 5% or by reducing your opponents margin by 5%. So even if Biden doesn’t have a majority of over 65s, he still needs to appeal to them.
The only people he doesn’t need to worry about are those who don’t vote.
First of all, mail in ballots aren’t going away in 2024. In fact, many states expanded their vote-by-mail programs after 2020.
Second, Trump isn’t going to be able to campaign normally in 2024 either, due to the criminal trials he will be forced to attend.
Finally, there have been multiple special elections since 2020 and Democrats have consistently outperformed their pre-election polls. That’s good news for Democrats, regardless of how you try to spin it.
deleted by creator
No constituency? But I just heard that neo-liberals and suburbanites are the new Democratic constituency. And apparently that’s enough to win elections. Even against an amped up GOP base, one that is so amped up that they have already failed to stop Democrats because low turnout.
I’m sure there is a story that makes sense in there, in which leftists are surely the main characters.
deleted by creator
No, if Biden loses I will not blame the left. Just as I didn’t blame them when Dukakis lost, Gore lost, Kerry lost, or Clinton lost.
The left, unfortunately, are irrelevant. They are simply too unreliable to form the base of a coalition. It is like blaming the youth for low turnout: what did you expect?
Which is why Democrats nearly always pivot towards moderates/independents when trying to build a coalition. This strategy has worked for most elections but not all, and when it fails the candidate must take the ultimate blame.
Finally, I am certainly interested in policy outcomes. Probably most of the same policy outcomes as the left.
However, I don’t demand that the DNC do everything I want right away. Being in a successful coalition means accepting that you will only get some of what you want. It means understanding that durable change is slow and incremental, and not wavering when faced with disappointment.
Biden has done a couple things I wanted, but by no means as much as I wanted. Yet a couple is good enough to keep my support. Because I’m not the main character either.
deleted by creator
I never said you can (or can’t) rely on youth to prefer Democrats.
What I said was that you should expect youth turnout to be relatively low, in general. Which is true.
In 2004, youth (18-24) turnout was 42%. The national average was 58%. Over 65 was 69%.
In 2008, youth turnout was 44%. The national average was 58%. Over 65 was 68%.
In 2016, youth turnout was 39%. The national average was 56%. Over 65 was 68%.
In 2020, youth turnout was 48%. The national average was 61%. Over 65 was 72%.
Politicians don’t go to where votes might be. They go to where votes have been. And looking at those numbers, it is entirely rational to favor policy changes that affect over 65s, because they are more likely to vote. Hence policies like reducing drug prices by allowing imports from Canada.
deleted by creator
You win elections by winning votes. You can equally improve your chances by increasing your margin by 5% or by reducing your opponents margin by 5%. So even if Biden doesn’t have a majority of over 65s, he still needs to appeal to them.
The only people he doesn’t need to worry about are those who don’t vote.