The biggest Democratic victory in recent history was 2008, when there was a charismatic black candidate to vote for, a history-making guy. (Of course, Bush and his cronies were very much a legacy to vote against. So that election was a combination of D’s both voting for something and against something.)
In 2020, there was very high D turnout, and it wasn’t because Biden was a magnificent guy, it was because Trump was awful. So that was Ds motivated to vote against something. But in 2024, the Democratic turnout dissipated a lot and the Ds lost, yet Trump was just as awful as ever - in fact, arguably a lot more awful than he was four to eight years earlier. So despite having the most clear-cut case of someone to vote against, the Ds failed to turn out. (Also, of course, in 2016, the Ds didn’t turn out for Hillary even though Trump was still awful.)
So what is the formula for turning out D voters? Give them someone or something brilliant to vote for? Or having a horrible villain to vote against? Voting against something seems to be a mixed bag (2016 vs 2020 vs 2024), but it’s hard to produce an Obama for each election.
As a voter who generally votes democrat, there’s not much for me to vote for. I don’t have any faith that the democratic party will actually do anything meaningful to change the balance of power in this country between the rich and everyone else. The only democrats that would excite me are the people who the party fights against harder than they fight against republicans.
I’m left with voting for things to vote against. I can’t vote to improve things, I can only hope to slow down how fast they’re getting worse.
Part of the electorate swapped when Trump won in 2016, so the comparison is difficult. Some of the people who voted for Obama in 2008 (let’s call them Tulsi Gabbard or John Fetterman Democrats), are now voters who vote for Trump. Which means that as compared to 2008, Democrats are now more reliant on the voters who voted against Bush Jr rather than for Obama (yes, I know technically McCain was the name on the ballot). So those folks vote against Republicans when they are the incumbent, but four years later they’ve forgotten, and they stay home.
This. It’s not that Democratic voters don’t want things; it’s just that they are very unlikely to ever actually be offered anything they want to vote for. So they vote against, because that’s all that’s left to them. For generations now it’s been voting reduced to just damage control as the nation slides inexorably towards permanent fascism.
My thinking goes back and forth on this issue. On the one hand, my impression is that Democrats on the national level really are trying to make things better, but have fallen victim to Republican obstructionism. IIRC the most recent time Democrats actually had the ability to enact their agenda without worrying about the Republicans was back when LBJ was POTUS (with the exception of a month or two during Obama’s first term just before Ted Kennedy died).
On the other hand, if Democrats were really going full speed ahead with an agenda of making things better for regular people, then Bernie Sanders would be a Democrat. Not because of any change in Bernie’s positions, but because the other Democratic senators and representatives would have positions more like Bernie’s rather than, say, Chuck Schumer. The same holds true for POTUSs, in that if Democrats really wanted to, they could have nominated modern day LBJs rather than Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, or Joe Biden.
On the third hand, the reason for this can’t be laid entirely at the feet of the elected officials. The 2016 primary is the clearest example that shows that a large majority of Democratic voters really do prefer middle of the road Clinton style neo-liberalism to the progressive agenda of Bernie Sanders.
Are we distinguishing between voting for or against something and voting for or against someone?
It’s easier to get people to vote based partly or wholly on emotional appeal, and it’s easier to get people to feel emotional about a person than about a policy or political issue. And it’s easier to get people to vote for someone, because voting for someone feels like making a connection or being part of something. Practically speaking, one person’s vote isn’t going to make a difference by itself, especially at the national level, so if it’s just a matter of avoiding something bad, people are more likely to stay home.
This is the unfortunate fact, though I might label it as more of a substantial majority. But regardless the United States is just a less progressive space than, say, western and northern Europe. Europe has plenty of right-wing elements as well, but the polarization is more multi-factorial since you don’t usually have a dominating two-party system. The result is a more robust (or fragmented if you prefer) choice of who to vote for and voting for things is more likely to be a goal. In the U.S. if you’re even the tiniest bit pragmatic the only reasonable choice is between the bitter, poisonous gruel or the bland gruel. I go with bland not because I like it, but because it is better than puking.
At my most cynical, this is pretty much it. I vote to minimize harm and roll it back in some superficial way here and there. To be fair I don’t think it is practically possible to enact some of my views in the United States. They are to whatever degree a little antithetical to majority American political thought - the only way to get there quickly would be antidemocratic. So you shrug your shoulders and do what you can. Push the Overton Window back a mm here and there. No point being bitter and angry about it (too often). Practically speaking it just is what it is in the U.S. system.
American society is probably overall a little better than it was when I was born and significantly worse than it was ten years ago. Three steps forward, two steps back and sideways sucks. Gotta just hope it doesn’t go eight or ten steps back.
Socially, yes. Economically no. And in fact I think this demonstrates our point. The democrats are willing to make progress on social issues because the rich don’t give a shit. The rich use homosexuality or transgenderism or other culture war issues as a way to divide us - as a way to manipulate poor people to do the rich’s bidding against their own interest - but they don’t actually give a shit. This is why social issues have been allowed to advance.
Even your own characterization quietly assumes that economy conditions for the average person can’t get better and you just sort of leave that out of the equation and focus on how social issues are better compared to 40 years ago (but not 10).
In a way, this is actually a mirror image of Obama’s (stupidly controversial) “scandal” where he said that conservatives don’t think that the government will meaningfully improve their lives so they cling to God and guns.
Fair. My own economic situation is “fine,” so I do tend to get complacent about how things have stagnated and declined at times. But you’re right it’s a lot worse than when I was a kid and my mother could afford to rent a reasonably decent apartment on an essentially minimum wage job (we needed food stamps to supplement, but still).
I can only speak for myself, and my first election was the 2016 election. I voted for Bernie but ever since then my only standard of voting has been to keep Trump out. I didn’t like Joe and I didn’t like Kamala but they shared the same thing, neither of them were Trump. I share the same sentiment that has already been expressed, that sometimes it feels like my only goal is to keep the evil away. I wish it was better but for true change to happen there needs to be a radical elected, will Trump make enough people realize how urgent this really is? I doubt it. The RW propaganda machine is just too effective and in full force.
Let’s be real, Trump only wins when he is against a woman. And discussing things with likeminded coworkers and the general public I get this answer more times than I want to admit, “I don’t like Trump but I can’t vote for a woman”/“Woman shouldn’t be in charge”. I have heard more than I have fingers and toes a variation of that sentence. The same people who would agree with me on virtually every issue, whether it be LGBTQ+ rights, environmental rights, taxing the rich, you name it. Yet for some bizarre reason they either didn’t vote or voted against their interests because ‘woman’. It’s sad to me that the American zeitgeist is this way and I try my hardest to change the hearts of people who feel this way.
No. So to clarify the people/coworkers near me (AZ, USA) that say things like that are men.
ETA: Actually yes but the woman I hear who say woman shouldn’t be in charge are either deeply religious or in deeply red areas (What’s the difference?). To which I keep personal interaction to a minimum.
I’m almost certain the vast majority of women would’ve preferred a winning male candidate over Trump like Biden over two women candidates who didn’t even advance the glass ceiling for women since they lost. Would be cool if we were advanced enough as a society that we weren’t still cavemen saying “WOMAN CHIEF? NO”, but we’re not.
I vote Democratic; we don’t register with a party here, we tell them which party ballot we want in primaries. I just got back from the range, having enjoyed poking holes in paper targets. I more strongly agree with concepts like a woman’s body is her own business, and the wealthy should be taxed at higher rates such as existed in the fifties and sixties.
I don’t prefer to vote for or against things. I would vote against banning abortion, I would vote for higher tax rates on the ridiculously wealthy.
I thought that when Biden gave in and Harris became the candidate that she would lose. I don’t understand the prejudice against woman candidates. I have worked for women and prefer them over working for men for the most part. Women, no matter how annoying and disagreeable, will discuss with you what she wants to do. Most men will just get into a pissing contest to show that they are superior to me.
It also helped that neither Obama nor Biden was popularly derided as “stiff” or “wooden” or “boring,” unlike at least one half of every Dem presidential ticket since 1992.
Honestly, I feel like a lot of people are just thinking with their chimpanzee brains. They don’t know they are doing it, but they are super-impressed with Figan when he bristles, drums on stuff, and makes a lot of noise, and they think it’s OK for Gigi to go hunting with the boys since she can’t have babies anyway, but of course she can’t be alpha male, it’s right there in the name.
That sounds more insulting than I mean it to be – we have millions of years of evolution telling us to gravitate to a big strong male who can protect us, and only about fifty years of sustained social conditioning (plus a few thousand more of sporadic examples of effective female leaders) to pull against it. It is honestly not surprising that a lot of people can’t override those instincts!
A good point. Perhaps females want a mate to protect them and their offspring, but we short guys steer clear of alpha males, and sure as hell don’t vote for them.