“If the purges [of potential voters], challenges and ballot rejections were random, it wouldn’t matter. It’s anything but random. For example, an audit by the State of Washington found that a Black voter was 400% more likely than a white voter to have their mail-in ballot rejected. Rejection of Black in-person votes, according to a US Civil Rights Commission study in Florida, ran 14.3% or one in seven ballots cast.”
"[…] Democracy can win* despite the 2.3% suppression headwind.
And that’s our job as Americans: to end the purges, the vigilante challenges, the ballot rejections and the attitude that this is all somehow OK."
It’s always “funny” when people act like systemic racism is some reformable problem rather than a major foundation of the entire system.
So the new campaign is that the DNC did nothing wrong, they were just thwarted by voter suppression?
Couldn’t be they completely fucked up by campaigning to a center that doesn’t exist any more. The DLC’s triangulation bullshit is dead and needs to stay dead. Every Dem from the Clinton era needs to get that through their damn heads, they should have retired a decade ago anyway.
The Democrats have plenty of problems, but none of that compares to Republicans who are worse in every conceivable way. Propaganda, foreign interference, and domestic voter suppression won this for Trump and his goons.
I get the argument, but at this point, nobody is contemplating whether to vote Democrat or Republican. It’s between Democrat and apathy.
Comments like these sound as if during WWII the French were saying “well, the French army has plenty of problems, but Nazi German occupation is worse in every conceivable way, so there is no point criticising the French army”.
Everyone knows the Reps are Nazis. The problem with the Dems is not that they are not less bad than the literal Nazi party, but that they are unable to effectively fight the Nazi party. The problem is that Democrats fail to demonstrate that voting for them is better than not voting at all to a large part of the electorate.
The problem is that Democrats fail to demonstrate
And compounding that problem is people being angry at the Dems for this failure instead of trying to help.
“Clearly you’re not worth voting for because you can’t convince people to vote for you.” Great.
“Clearly you’re not worth voting for because you can’t convince people to vote for you.” Great.
But it’s not that. It’s “please do something because you’re abandoning wide swathes of people and are going to lose, and lose our best chance against the fascists this way”.
The problem is that Dems don’t like progressives’ help, they would rather get help from Cheney than Sanders.
abandoning wide swathes of people
Because forgiving college debt and giving you $50k towards your first house and bringing prescription drug prices down is abandoning you? Fixing our rail system is abandoning you? Repeatedly saying they’re going to tax billionaires is abandoning progressives?
It’s not like we give them enough to have the power to actually get big things done. When we do give them a little, they have to bring in the vice president to break ties in the Senate.
In this regard, it’s not like Republicans wield power any better. They couldn’t even repeal the ACA. It’s just that they get more credit. First, they get credit for every Dem initiative they stop (even if it’s not real). The reverse isn’t true. Second, everything the Republicans do get done tends to be negative and stings more than the positives.
I know you want to abandon billionaire money. You want Dems saying the right things to you, in a closet where nobody hears them. Because if you don’t have money, you lose elections. Period. That’s a big problem that needs to be solved, but it can’t be solved by people who lose elections.
The Dems absolutely could have tried to appeal to the progressives more instead of moderates. Clearly, in hindsight, it’d be worth trying something different. But I doubt it would have worked. People weren’t happy, and they were going to take it out on the incumbent party. And right now they’d be hearing “why didn’t they appeal to moderates?”
My point is that it’s more complicated than just “appeal to progressives instead of moderates”. The Dems have more realities to deal with than we give them credit for.
Because forgiving college debt and giving you $50k towards your first house and bringing prescription drug prices down is abandoning you? Fixing our rail system is abandoning you? Repeatedly saying they’re going to tax billionaires is abandoning progressives?
Tax billionaires how? Any concrete plans? Any proposed laws that were brought to the floor as much as repealing Obamacare was by the ghouls?
And trying to win by forgiving student debt that they themselves made undischargeable as recently as 2005 is good, but it’s just trying to clean up after themselves. Unsuccessfully.
And giving $50k towards a first house, when houses are nearing a million is not going to do anything other than drive housing prices even further up. How much public housing have they built? Have they even proposed putting a tax on large-scale corporate homeownership or price gouging, houses sitting empty?
I’m not even going to mention Gaza.
But the elephant in the room, Joe Biden could have nominated anyone, literally anyone for AG. He nominated known conservative Merrick Garland, who then proceeded to let Trump go after 34 felony convictions and who knows how many hundreds of actual felonies, to become US president.
In this regard, it’s not like Republicans wield power any better. They couldn’t even repeal the ACA.
At least they tried. How many times have Democrats brought a vote to tax billionaires or megacorps, even if it failed, just to keep it on the table?
I know you want to abandon billionaire money. You want Dems saying the right things to you, in a closet where nobody hears them. Because if you don’t have money, you lose elections. Period. That’s a big problem that needs to be solved, but it can’t be solved by people who lose elections.
If money is more important than getting votes in order to win an election, then the US is not and has not been a democracy. That said, the Dems got all the money ever this election. Where is the win then?
The Dems absolutely could have tried to appeal to the progressives more instead of moderates. Clearly, in hindsight, it’d be worth trying something different. But I doubt it would have worked. People weren’t happy, and they were going to take it out on the incumbent party. And right now they’d be hearing “why didn’t they appeal to moderates?”
Has that ever happened? Once? Or has it been dozens of elections in a row, always appealing to “moderates” - actually wealthy donors - and leaving progressives to rot. And then blaming progressives for the election loss. Damn, Lina Khan, the one woman who was arguably doing her job well was possibly on the chopping block. How do you get people to vote for this?
The Dems have been the perfect Weimar to Trump’s Hitler. May they be remembered as “fondly” as them.
Thank you for this, it’s speaking exactly the unending frustration I have with these lines of “thought”.
That said, the Dems got all the money ever this election. Where is the win then?
Why are you blatantly lying about this? Any chump can look at the wall of CEOs Trump has next to him for his victory speeches and see where the money was backing.
It’s a combination of everything, DNC has been spineless and bought out by corps, voter suppression techniques from Republicans skewed votes in their favor, white rural voters came out in droves to vote for trump, the Harris campaign failure to meaningfully address the genocide or get enough messaging out to address people’s financial troubles.
The genocide voters are idiots. Harris spent too much time trying to court “moderate” republicans.
Congrats, the dems passively let a decades old tradition of passively supporting Israel go mildly unchanged and the idiots let a genocide accelerationist into power. Not stopping a genocide is not the same as accelerating it.
For being a supposed liberal, you seem to have a hard problem accepting the validity of other people’s beliefs.
Voting is a cultural thing. People have different beliefs about voting. Your way is not the only way. Your way is not the “right” way simply because it is your way.
Some people, like yourself, vote looking forward. They pick which candidate they believe would be the best. They view voting as a job interview. Others vote looking backwards. They seek to hold their leaders accountable. They view voting as a performance review.
Which way is “correct?” Neither. There is no “correct” way to vote. And it’s extremely chauvinistic and close-minded to assume that your way is the only way.
In truth, any system or movement needs both types of voters. You need a balance of both types of voters, otherwise a political party is lost. You need forward-looking voters to win elections. You need backward-looking voters to ensure that winning elections actually does your party any good. If you only have backward-looking voters, you’ll never win an election. If you only have forward-looking voters, you’ll end up with leaders so ineffectual that they don’t accomplish anything even if they do win.
Stop shaming your brothers and sisters simply because they have a different voting culture than yourself. Your beliefs are just one side of a coin. Try to keep an open mind. Try to actually earn the title “liberal.”
This is why Kamala accepting the outcome “No matter what”, to prove she’s better than Trump…
Was the dumbest thing she could have done because it was just playing into the GOP’s hand.
The Republican game is “You go high, we go low, because low gets us elected and furthers our agenda.”
No one actually ever considered kamala might win. As soon as Biden dropped out, anyone that actually knew something knew Democrats had thrown in the towel.
Guess I don’t know shit then
Guess not
That’s absolutely not true. They had the best campaign since Obama and they did amazing job in that 3 weeks or so, and contrasting disaster of a shitshow that Trump put on made it even clearer.
In the end Americans turned out to be way worse people than predicted, but that was absolutely not obvious.Remember when I said “anyone that knew something.”
Sorry you didn’t fall in that group
Oh look election denialism
We can accept the outcome while still acknowledging the bullshit that occurred. Still, It’s in everyone’s best interest to be rid of the douche. I’ll be in support of anything that furthers just that.
Anything. Glad you’re honest
By “restrictive voting laws” do you mean voters having to show ID? Like every other country on the planet?
It’s not as difficult to get ID in many other countries
It’s not difficult in the US
It’s harder than it should be
Harder than going to the place that gives them out and asking for one? I’m not going to hold your hand
If only it were that easy!
It is, I’ve done it many times
I am very happy it has been easy for you. From what I have read that is not the case for many
Are you white? Are you not living in poverty?
Why don’t you ever try and actually meet the other side in good faith?
Opponents of voter ID have a very simple line of argumentation, and very clear issues that would need to be solved. Why do you think proponents of voter ID never attempt to solve these issues?
Why do proponents always insist that voter ID has to be implemented in a way that happens to hurt minority voters disproportionately?
Why don’t you ever try and actually meet the other side in good faith?
You first
Opponents of voter ID have a very simple line of argumentation, and very clear issues that would need to be solved.
Like?
Why do you think proponents of voter ID never attempt to solve these issues?
You don’t name them or they’re aren’t an actual issue
Why do proponents always insist that voter ID has to be implemented in a way that happens to hurt minority voters disproportionately?
They don’t
I SENTENCE THIS USER TO ONE HOUR ON THE CHAIR OF CHEER
I sentence you to a lifetime
Oh please. We had the same shit in 2020 and we had a record turn out.
Don’t put the blame on voter suppression when it’s American stupidity and apathy that’s the cause.
Did you read the article and everything the author listed out that happened additionally over the past 4 years? The changes to vote by mail alone were drastic.
FTA:
The crucial statistic is that not everyone’s ballot gets disqualified. One study done for the United States Civil Rights Commission found that a Black person, such as Maj. Turner, will be 900% more likely to have their mail-in or in-person ballot disqualified than a white voter.
Okay, I went into this expecting cope, and it’s an actually good article, worth a read or at least a skim. So, let’s do something about it.
The time to have done something about it was in November. But feel free to try.
Dem pols are always too afraid to exercise the power they have when they win. Always. When Biden won, DC and Puerto Rican statehood should have been the first things on the agenda.
The GOP is never afraid to exercise as much power as they can get away with.
Biden never had enough control of the whole government to get those things done without Republican buy-in.
A Republican controlled house won’t send a bill like that to the Senate. A Republican controlled Senate won’t send it to the President.
You can be upset at Biden, but we’ve rarely ever given a Democratic president a Democratic Congress to help him get anything done.
Uh, no. He had a Democratic congress the first half of his term. Part of why he lost them is Dems are so tepid with exercising the power the voters give them.
Nothing the Dems do, or even try to do, gin the base up into excitement. The base never feels inspired that the Dems are striving for the goals they claim to represent and want.
Biden never had the power. But Obama did. He squandered it imo but you’re welcome to disagree.
This article is in desperate need of citations and a public revelation of the calculations involved. It also has problems. I can’t speak to other states but where it does mention Pennsylvania, where I live, it omits critical information.
In Pennsylvania (19 electoral votes), the Poison Postcards wiped out 360,132 voters, three times Trump’s victory margin.
These don’t get sent out for fun. This is how the ordinary voter roll maintenance works. The cards are sent out after you fail to vote two consecutive federal elections, or when the department of state gets notified you moved or died through some other means, not for ‘targeting’ voters. You only actually get purged from the roll if you fail to respond to the card AND fail to vote for at least five consecutive years (This isn’t specified as far as I know, but a product of the timings involved). If you show up and vote in every presidential election, you do not get removed from the rolls even if you throw out the postcard. So if this:
According to the EAC data, before the 2024 election, 4,776,706 registrants were removed nationwide simply because they failed to return the postcard.
Includes Pennsylvania, it is simply false. You can read the actual law yourself, they are all online. It’s PA Title 25. Chapter 19 lays out the rules for removal.
Details on Pennsylvania specific mail-in ballots being cancelled, which is a real issue, are woefully absent. According to the Governor’s office only about 1% of the 2 million returned (about 20,000) mail in ballots were rejected.
Of the roughly 1% of mail ballots rejected in the 2024 general election, the most common reasons for rejection were:
receipt after the 8 p.m. deadline on Election Day (33%), incorrect or missing date (23%), lack of a signature (17%), and lack of a secrecy envelope (15%).
Harris lost by ~120,000 ish votes in PA. ‘Clerical errors’ are not even close to closing that gap.
It also mentions Secretaries of State being partisan hacks, but some odd reason fails to mention Pennsylvania’s Secretary of State was appointed by our Democratic governor who was not only a Democrat, obviously, but short listed for consideration as a running mate for Harris. Nevertheless, it is implied we should concerned about his Secretary of State targeting voters from her own party for removal in an election that could have had handed the governor his own path to the White House. Forgive me for my skepticism.
Voter suppression is a big deal, I’m sure there are elections it will swing at times. Heck, there is a fair chance it swung the senate race in PA since that one was only decided by ~15,000 votes, but based on what I already know, this article isn’t credible enough to be taken seriously in its current state.
I keep seeing a lot of arguments along the lines of “they can’t have done that, that’s against the law.”
**Republicans do not care about the rule of law. ** They loudly and repeatedly flaunt this at every opportunity. The entire reason we keep having to talk about this is because of how loudly and repeatedly they prove they are willing to break any law in order to win. The law does not matter, it is toilet paper, it does not stop them. That’s the whole REASON we are all up in arms about this in the FIRST place.
Your argument is a nonsensical one. You’ve illustrated the way the Poison Postcard is supposed to work, absolutely. But did it actually follow those rules? In some places like Texas and Georgia, that answer is a booming, resounding, FUCK NO they didn’t. So what about elsewhere then?
In some places like Texas and Georgia, that answer is a booming, resounding, FUCK NO they didn’t.
I can’t speak to other states but where it does mention Pennsylvania, where I live, it omits critical information.
I’m supposed to believe that hundreds of thousands of Democratic Pennsylvania voters were illegally unregistered and denied their right to vote while democratic county election officials, county attorneys, the governor’s office, the state attorney general’s office, the department of state and many civic/legal orgs all just sat on their hands because of an article whose demonstration of fact taps out at “Trust me bro, I did the math.”
But my argument that we need to see the sources and math is “nonsensical”?
Fuck off.
An award winng investigative journalist who has spent at least the last 25 years looking into this type of behaviour isn’t credible?
this article isn’t credible enough to be taken seriously in its current state.
