Elections are coming up

[Gen]

Thought this article might be worth discussing: 12 Young People on Why They Probably Won’t Vote

Small follow up I also read: Sorry, But it’s Hard to Argue with These Young Voters’ Reasons for Staying Home His discussion about posting a “who are you voting for” blog was interesting.

Personally, I do think it’s important to make registering, researching platforms, and voting as streamlined and simple as possible. Obviously the less barriers, the better, since evidently that’s stopping people. But I’m kind of aghast at people who have been raised computer literate, who say they struggle to get the info they need. Like...you were raised on Google and yet you need Snapchat filters to tell you to vote? The last dude was 29. He’s not a child, he may be a “young voter” but he’s not a helpless teen. I was pretty shocked reading people of that age acting like if they’re not spoonfed that it’s too hard.

Certainly there’s a strong argument that if you don’t care that much, you aren’t going to jump through hoops. And it should be on politicians to get people to care. And the girl saying it was easier to get a marijuana card was interesting to me. It seems like there are certainly systemic barriers for many, and I’ve read a lot about various voter suppressions that are hugely fucked up. But some of them acting like not having your hand held to the polls was a failure of democracy was...idk, disappointing.

In our last federal election I saw an interview with (our now PM) Justin Trudeau where he was asked about youth voting. He essentially said it’s a chicken-and-egg situation where youth don’t vote so politicians don’t Court the youth vote, and I think that’s very true. Pretty much all of our candidates stress “middle class families” because I assume they are a key voting demographic, and even their wealthier, older parents probably care about their interests. So I typically don’t feel well represented as a ~young voter~ but I personally can understand why they don’t bother with us much when we don’t bother with them.

 

[Bocefish]

Why?

What's the difference betweenwhat Kanye and Taylor are doing and you?
Aren't you trying to sway voters by posting on this board? I certainly am. You certainly have strong opinions and spend a fair amount of time expressing them.

Really?

Name one politician I have tried to sway voters toward?

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Really?

Name one politician I have tried to sway voters toward?

I have no idea what the hell Kayne is doing, and I'm not sure anybody konws. But Taylor Swift is trying to sway voters, especially in TN, same as you. I don't see her trying to influence politicians.

 

[Bocefish]

Taylor Swift is trying to sway voters, especially in TN, same as you.

Next time you see her, tell her I said hello.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

I have no idea what the hell Kayne is doing, and I'm not sure anybody konws. But Taylor Swift is trying to sway voters, especially in TN, same as you. I don't see her trying to influence politicians.

I think you misread his post. He is not attempting to sway politicians. He asked you which politician you think he is attempting to sway people
towards.

 

[dilligaf0]

I tend to look at celebrity endorsements as publicity seekers as much as people that are legitimately interested in our political situation.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

I think you misread his post. He is not attempting to sway politicians. He asked you which politician you think he is attempting to sway people
towards.

You're right. @Bocefish has consistently mocked Democrats and generally advocated conservative positions. If that includes, Trump I don't know. Which is fine I just don't see how what he is doing is different than a celebrity.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

You're right. @Bocefish has consistently mocked Democrats and generally advocated conservative positions. If that includes, Trump I don't know. Which is fine I just don't see how what he is doing is different than a celebrity.

The only difference is the size of the audience. That's the concern of some in why entertainers and others in the public eye get involved with politics. Again, comes down to each of us being responsible for our choices. But, some don't and rely on their "informed friends" to provide info such as has been stated by some here in various threads

 

[dilligaf0]

The only difference is the size of the audience. That's the concern of some in why entertainers and others in the public eye get involved with politics. Again, comes down to each of us being responsible for our choices. But, some don't and rely on their "informed friends" to provide info such as has been stated by some here in various threads

Any lines of entertainers being involved in politics went away starting with Reagan. Then Swarzenegger and now Trump. To me, when a candidate is (what is now considered) a celebrity then celebrity endorsements for and against candidates seem fine. Whether it's Swift, Oprah, Nugent, Kid Rock or others doesn't seem out of bounds.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

Any lines of entertainers being involved in politics went away starting with Reagan. Then Swarzenegger and now Trump. To me, when a candidate is (what is now considered) a celebrity then celebrity endorsements for and against candidates seem fine. Whether it's Swift, Oprah, Nugent, Kid Rock or others doesn't seem out of bounds.

To be honest, I don't have issues if a celebrity decides to run for office as I think anyone who is legally able to should have that opportunity. Many celebrities ran for office, whether it be federal, state or local, long before Reagan. I'm not saying I'm necessarily opposed to celebrities being able to support a candidate. I was stating that is the argument many have about them.

 

[AmberCutie]

Any lines of entertainers being involved in politics went away starting with Reagan. Then Swarzenegger and now Trump. To me, when a candidate is (what is now considered) a celebrity then celebrity endorsements for and against candidates seem fine. Whether it's Swift, Oprah, Nugent, Kid Rock or others doesn't seem out of bounds.

To be honest, I don't have issues if a celebrity decides to run for office as I think anyone who is legally able to should have that opportunity. Many celebrities ran for office, whether it be federal, state or local, long before Reagan. I'm not saying I'm necessarily opposed to celebrities being able to support a candidate. I was stating that is the argument many have about them.

Little bit of a sidestep from the conversation (maybe?) but the thing I feel is bad about a celebrity running for office is that politically uneducated people may vote due to the fame.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

Little bit of a sidestep from the conversation (maybe?) but the thing I feel is bad about a celebrity running for office is that politically uneducated people may vote due to the fame.

That is always the fear/issue, people vote for name recognition rather than based off information they've researched on the candidates.

 

[dilligaf0]

That is always the fear/issue, people vote for name recognition rather than based off information they've researched on the candidates.

That reverts back to the aspects of what I call "lazy voters".
They don't take the time to research candidates positions and previous acts (bills authored, bills passed and voting records).
They don't even pay attention as things happen.
They wait until election day and vote according to what they saw on campaign ads. (if they vote at all).

 

[Deleted member 37064]

That reverts back to the aspects of what I call "lazy voters".
They don't take the time to research candidates positions and previous acts (bills authored, bills passed and voting records).
They don't even pay attention as things happen.
They wait until election day and vote according to what they saw on campaign ads. (if they vote at all).

Yep. Lazy voters or uninformed voters. Or, other names that some will call them.

Some get all wrapped up that if they, or others, vote for different parties it will "give" a win to one specific party. If this is the case, so be it. But, then people are voting more truthfully. I personally would like to see any references to political parties, as well as incumbent being removed from the ballot.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

Interesting bit of info from The Hill. Not sure if they're just doing this to gain votes, and will fall back to partisan politics. I'm hoping not, as I'd like to see far more elected officials stand on their own and actually work towards bipartisan resolutions.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/414422-democrats-in-tough-races-throw-their-party-under-the-bus

Democrats in tough Senate races around the country are throwing their party under the bus as they seek to pull out victories in red states won just two years ago by President Trump.

Heitkamp, like the other Democrats, has sought to separate herself from her party. She slammed Clinton for saying that Democrats can’t be civil with Republicans until they are back in control of Congress. “That’s ridiculous,” Heitkamp responded. “I can’t imagine how you get anything done if you don’t bring civility back into politics.”


Democratic strategists say it’s a smart tactic because most of these candidates — with the exception of Rosen — are running in states that Trump overwhelmingly won, and Republicans are doing everything they can to tie them to the most liberal members of their party.

“You’re talking about senators that are running for reelection that [Trump] won their states by double digits. The Republican brand is strong in those states and the fact is that for these moderates to succeed, they need to reach out to not only their base but also to independents and Republicans who will put policy over partisanship,” said Rodell Mollineau, a Democratic strategist.


McCaskill distanced herself from liberal activists shortly before Trump was scheduled to visit her state on Thursday.

McCaskill later explained that when she referred to “crazy Democrats” she was thinking of the activists who have confronted Republican colleagues such as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) at restaurants during the Kavanaugh debate.

She also made a pointed effort to distance herself from Warren and Sanders during a Fox News interview, noting that Warren “sure went after me” after McCaskill proposed rolling back some banking regulations and that “I certainly disagree with Bernie Sanders on a bunch of stuff.”

Steven S. Smith, a professor of political science at Washington University in St. Louis, said Republicans have been working overtime to paint that Democratic Party as a bunch of wild-eyed radicals.

“The Republicans have been working hard to say that the Democrats have become radicalized and revolutionary and socialistic,” he said. “She’s clearly trying to respond to an element of criticism of the Democrats.

“She knows that pivotal voters in Missouri are getting that from the Republican side so she wants to deal with it,” he added of McCaskill. “If she’s worried that some middle-of-the-road voters are thinking that it’s the Democrats who are the radicals, then she needs to distance herself from them."

Smith said he’s not sure “it’s an effective strategy” before adding that “at this stage of the game it’s not possible for her to do much else.”


Now, if we could get others (Reps/Dems) to do the same, I think we'd start seeing some real progress if they maintain this if they get elected. Problem is, I'm afraid it's just a ploy to gain votes. Much like many Republicans did when the Tea Party movement was big.

 

[dilligaf0]

Interesting bit of info from The Hill. Not sure if they're just doing this to gain votes, and will fall back to partisan politics. I'm hoping not, as I'd like to see far more elected officials stand on their own and actually work towards bipartisan resolutions.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/414422-democrats-in-tough-races-throw-their-party-under-the-bus

Democrats in tough Senate races around the country are throwing their party under the bus as they seek to pull out victories in red states won just two years ago by President Trump.

Heitkamp, like the other Democrats, has sought to separate herself from her party. She slammed Clinton for saying that Democrats can’t be civil with Republicans until they are back in control of Congress. “That’s ridiculous,” Heitkamp responded. “I can’t imagine how you get anything done if you don’t bring civility back into politics.”


Democratic strategists say it’s a smart tactic because most of these candidates — with the exception of Rosen — are running in states that Trump overwhelmingly won, and Republicans are doing everything they can to tie them to the most liberal members of their party.

“You’re talking about senators that are running for reelection that [Trump] won their states by double digits. The Republican brand is strong in those states and the fact is that for these moderates to succeed, they need to reach out to not only their base but also to independents and Republicans who will put policy over partisanship,” said Rodell Mollineau, a Democratic strategist.


McCaskill distanced herself from liberal activists shortly before Trump was scheduled to visit her state on Thursday.

McCaskill later explained that when she referred to “crazy Democrats” she was thinking of the activists who have confronted Republican colleagues such as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) at restaurants during the Kavanaugh debate.

She also made a pointed effort to distance herself from Warren and Sanders during a Fox News interview, noting that Warren “sure went after me” after McCaskill proposed rolling back some banking regulations and that “I certainly disagree with Bernie Sanders on a bunch of stuff.”

Steven S. Smith, a professor of political science at Washington University in St. Louis, said Republicans have been working overtime to paint that Democratic Party as a bunch of wild-eyed radicals.

“The Republicans have been working hard to say that the Democrats have become radicalized and revolutionary and socialistic,” he said. “She’s clearly trying to respond to an element of criticism of the Democrats.

“She knows that pivotal voters in Missouri are getting that from the Republican side so she wants to deal with it,” he added of McCaskill. “If she’s worried that some middle-of-the-road voters are thinking that it’s the Democrats who are the radicals, then she needs to distance herself from them."

Smith said he’s not sure “it’s an effective strategy” before adding that “at this stage of the game it’s not possible for her to do much else.”


Now, if we could get others (Reps/Dems) to do the same, I think we'd start seeing some real progress if they maintain this if they get elected. Problem is, I'm afraid it's just a ploy to gain votes. Much like many Republicans did when the Tea Party movement was big.

I live in one of those states and it is true of our senator. He has always been that way. Here, people would elect a rock if there was a "R" after it.
Losing the tribalism would be nice.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

I live in one of those states and it is true of our senator. He has always been that way. Here, people would elect a rock if there was a "R" after it.
Losing the tribalism would be nice.

Sounds like where I am. But, it's blue and one of the Dukakis states. While there is a bit of a mix, most still vote blue because it's what their "family has done for generations".

 

[SMuser69]

Interesting bit of info from The Hill. Not sure if they're just doing this to gain votes, and will fall back to partisan politics. I'm hoping not, as I'd like to see far more elected officials stand on their own and actually work towards bipartisan resolutions.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/414422-democrats-in-tough-races-throw-their-party-under-the-bus

Democrats in tough Senate races around the country are throwing their party under the bus as they seek to pull out victories in red states won just two years ago by President Trump.

Heitkamp, like the other Democrats, has sought to separate herself from her party. She slammed Clinton for saying that Democrats can’t be civil with Republicans until they are back in control of Congress. “That’s ridiculous,” Heitkamp responded. “I can’t imagine how you get anything done if you don’t bring civility back into politics.”


Democratic strategists say it’s a smart tactic because most of these candidates — with the exception of Rosen — are running in states that Trump overwhelmingly won, and Republicans are doing everything they can to tie them to the most liberal members of their party.

“You’re talking about senators that are running for reelection that [Trump] won their states by double digits. The Republican brand is strong in those states and the fact is that for these moderates to succeed, they need to reach out to not only their base but also to independents and Republicans who will put policy over partisanship,” said Rodell Mollineau, a Democratic strategist.


McCaskill distanced herself from liberal activists shortly before Trump was scheduled to visit her state on Thursday.

McCaskill later explained that when she referred to “crazy Democrats” she was thinking of the activists who have confronted Republican colleagues such as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) at restaurants during the Kavanaugh debate.

She also made a pointed effort to distance herself from Warren and Sanders during a Fox News interview, noting that Warren “sure went after me” after McCaskill proposed rolling back some banking regulations and that “I certainly disagree with Bernie Sanders on a bunch of stuff.”

Steven S. Smith, a professor of political science at Washington University in St. Louis, said Republicans have been working overtime to paint that Democratic Party as a bunch of wild-eyed radicals.

“The Republicans have been working hard to say that the Democrats have become radicalized and revolutionary and socialistic,” he said. “She’s clearly trying to respond to an element of criticism of the Democrats.

“She knows that pivotal voters in Missouri are getting that from the Republican side so she wants to deal with it,” he added of McCaskill. “If she’s worried that some middle-of-the-road voters are thinking that it’s the Democrats who are the radicals, then she needs to distance herself from them."

Smith said he’s not sure “it’s an effective strategy” before adding that “at this stage of the game it’s not possible for her to do much else.”


Now, if we could get others (Reps/Dems) to do the same, I think we'd start seeing some real progress if they maintain this if they get elected. Problem is, I'm afraid it's just a ploy to gain votes. Much like many Republicans did when the Tea Party movement was big.

The tea party power really came at the primary level since they made up so much of the older conservative voting block. The problem was when they got their 'no compromise' candidates into positions and the candidate had no tools to compromise and just festered in the chair. You add the stopping of pork spending which made things worse since it used to be the main thing that allowed compromising to look good to constituents.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

The tea party power really came at the primary level since they made up so much of the older conservative voting block. The problem was when they got their 'no compromise' candidates into positions and the candidate had no tools to compromise and just festered in the chair. You add the stopping of pork spending which made things worse since it used to be the main thing that allowed compromising to look good to constituents.

I remember the original intent of the Tea Party was a grassroots type movement because there were so many who felt that the Republican party had disenfranchised them with the extreme right wing control and religion. It was intended to be more of a moderate group, at least that's how I saw it was supposed to be intended.

But, in Washington's current level of politics, when there's no compromise it doesn't work.

 

[JoleneBrody]

I know when it comes to the 2020 primaries I’ll be putting my support behind whoever shows the most willingness to cross the aisle and work WITH the other party for the best of all Americans, not just their base. I just hope that person can clinch the nomination in this climate. I feel like so many are tired of the hyper partisan shit... but so many are as equally angry and pearl clutch. *fingers crossed*
I’ll be pretty upset if it’s Elizabeth Warren. I like her but not for president.
She is kind of tainted. Fucking blood test... Jesus. You aren’t a gamer girl having to prove yourself online. You’re a politician giving into silly name calling bullies. That’s weak.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

Sadly, I think far too many just fall into their normal simplistic patterns of voting for one side or the other "because one vote for the other side..." based hatred.

Too far away for 2020 to even think about it. However, I see a few new people running for Senate now, will probably run for office in 2024 if they get elected.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

I remember the original intent of the Tea Party was a grassroots type movement because there were so many who felt that the Republican party had disenfranchised them with the extreme right wing control and religion. It was intended to be more of a moderate group, at least that's how I saw it was supposed to be intended.

But, in Washington's current level of politics, when there's no compromise it doesn't work.

Pretty much

The Tea party started by fiscal conservative upset with the Republican lawmaker spending like drunken sailors just like Democrats (e.g. Medicare part D, No Child left behind, and of course the wars). The big trigger was the TARP bailout. (It actually was good thing but that's another story). At some point the nationalist and racist and religion elements of the party co-opt the Tea Party and turned it into the extremist wing of the party. But that didn't happen until the Tea party had achieved some political success and the rage over the great recession had cooled down.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

shit... but so many are as equally angry and pearl clutch. *fingers crossed*
I’ll be pretty upset if it’s Elizabeth Warren. I like her but not for president.
She is kind of tainted. Fucking blood test... Jesus. You aren’t a gamer girl having to prove yourself online. You’re a politician giving into silly name calling bullies. That’s weak.

That's what I've been done for the 4th election in a row, I've voted for an equal number of Republicans and Democrats. It is not that hard, if you ignore labels. It is also easy when typically only one candidates is even 1/2 way qualified.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

That's what I've been done for the 4th election in a row, I've voted for an equal number of Republicans and Democrats. It is not that hard, if you ignore labels. It is also easy when typically only one candidates is even 1/2 way qualified.

Similar. I don't look at party labels when I research who I'm voting for. I look into who they are as a person, what their claimed stances are and what their actions prove/disprove. If they're a politician already, I look into their voting record. If not, what have they done in professional and personal life.