Mega-Thread: 2020 United States General Election

[Felya]

No one in this thread will say Trump is the correct choice or the better choice. Maybe it’s time the discorce became what it actually is... what are you going to do about it?

[Thepersona]

Yeah, I've heard that before, it didn't work out too well last time.

Chance; as in, statistically speaking he could win Florida. Sanders does not have that chance. Sadly, the Cuban-American voting bloc is still going strong in that state.

- - - Updated - - -

Said the guy claiming he will fly to US, to vote for Trump. I don’t know, seeing how active Trump supporters are in demanding people not vote, it gives me hope that your fear is justified.

I mean, I know that Biden is not the candidate that many would have chosen given a magic wand. But this is reality. And in reality everyone should understand that having a president who hears experts is extremely important.

[Machismo]

No, it is a privilege for many folks. It's a Constitutional right, but that doesn't mean that said right is equally available to all. (because it's not and historically has really never been)

They work hourly jobs that often do not have sick/vacation time. So that day they take off to vote is a day they don't get paid, which hurts a lot of folks.

Going before or after work? What if you're working multiple shifts that day? What if you show up 3 hours early to vote, and 3 hours later you're still waiting in line and need to get to work? What if you go immediately after work and you're stuck in line for 7 hours waiting to vote because there's not enough machines or locations to vote at?

The issues have been heavily covered over the years, and the generally tend to crop up more when Republicans control the voting in the state (curious ain't it?!), and primarily target lower income people who have less flexibility and time to wait in extremely long lines to vote.

For a great many of us, yes, we are privileged to live in a state that allows no-question absentee voting. We're privileged to work salaried jobs with paid vacation/sick leave where we can safely take a day off without worrying. We're privileged because we live in areas where there are likely more voting locations and machines so we don't have to make the decision whether or not to wait in line for 5+ hours to place our vote.

At some point, people need to prioritize their lives. I get that it's not equally as easy for everyone, but almost all of that can be mitigated. No, you shouldn't need a car to vote, and voting should be as easy as possible. There's no need for long lines, or undue burden on those who seek to vote.

[Edge-]

No, you shouldn't need a car to vote, and voting should be as easy as possible. There's no need for long lines, or undue burden on those who seek to vote.

This is true, but unfortunately isn't reflective of the current reality. People still do need transportation to get to voting locations, which is why we see churches often shuttle folks around, and the 5+ hour long lines remain.

Until these problems are address, voting will remain a privilege of the lucky right now. Because we don't have to make hard choices about whether or not upending our life for a day is worth it or not.

[Machismo]

I have said that I hope Biden wins. A number of times. I'm not lying, I think Biden will be better than Trump.

I however also think Biden, Clinton, Pelosi, and others are as much to blame for the current state of economic gap between the rich and poor that hurts Americans. I refuse to support the ones who say the right words, but vote the wrong way.

I also never said it was "your fucking fault", I simply provided evidence, (something you claim to care about), that shows the rich and those with more privileged tend to more active voters.

People who are more wealthy are more likely to vote. But, as we've seen, plenty of people "see no point" ion voting, so it's not really that their income is what is preventing them from voting. Anyone with any semblance of a decent job (or no job at all) can vote with relative ease. So, that doesn't explain why someone who is making $150k is so much more likely to vote than someone making $125k a year. At the end of the day, participation is voluntary.

- - - Updated - - -

This is true, but unfortunately isn't reflective of the current reality. People still do need transportation to get to voting locations, which is why we see churches often shuttle folks around, and the 5+ hour long lines remain.

Until these problems are address, voting will remain a privilege of the lucky right now. Because we don't have to make hard choices about whether or not upending our life for a day is worth it or not.

Then take the bus. Have mail-in voting (many states do). Ask for a ride from someone else. Hell, there's cab companies that will take people for free on election day.

I will absolutely agree that voting should be easier. But, voting really isn't that difficult, either.

This does not include Florida, they always fuck everything up.

[Edge-]

Then take the bus.

Because everyone has easy access to public transportation that takes them to their voting location? Dude, that's why alternative transportation has been necessary, because the current options don't work.

Have mail-in voting (many states do).

Works great for the states that allow it. Unfortunately, many don't allow it without specific exceptions.

Ask for a ride from someone else.

Not everyone has friends with cars that may also have the day off to drive them.

Hell, there's cab companies that will take people for free on election day.

Sweet! That's not a solution though.

I will absolutely agree that voting should be easier. But, voting really isn't that difficult, either.

Again, if you're privileged, no, it's not. Do I need to start linking the bi-annual stories people overcoming huge hurdles to get out and vote? Folks who show up and wait in 8+ hour lines? People who walk miles on foot to get to the voting booths? People who work to arrange transportation for elderly voters who can't get there on their own?

Good lord, dude. Just because some of us have an easy time of it doesn't mean that everyone does.

[Machismo]

Because everyone has easy access to public transportation that takes them to their voting location? Dude, that's why alternative transportation has been necessary, because the current options don't work.



Works great for the states that allow it. Unfortunately, many don't allow it without specific exceptions.



Not everyone has friends with cars that may also have the day off to drive them.



Sweet! That's not a solution though.



Again, if you're privileged, no, it's not. Do I need to start linking the bi-annual stories people overcoming huge hurdles to get out and vote? Folks who show up and wait in 8+ hour lines? People who walk miles on foot to get to the voting booths? People who work to arrange transportation for elderly voters who can't get there on their own?

Good lord, dude. Just because some of us have an easy time of it doesn't mean that everyone does.

Here's the thing, trying to find ways why you cannot do something, is the problem.

The lines should never happen. I completely agree.

They should open up more places to vote, completely agree.

Voting by mail should be available in every state (it is).

As has been pointed out, that doesn't explain why people who make $125k a year are less likely to vote than those who make $150k a year (per the graph). Anyone making that kind of money can easily overcome any small obstacle, like transportation. I'm simply pointing out that the number who are actually "disenfranchised" is relatively small, and most of this is largely built on ambivalence and apathy... as we have seen in this very thread.

https://ballotpedia.org/Absentee_voting

[Edge-]

As has been pointed out, that doesn't explain why people who make $125k a year are less likely to vote than those who make $150k a year (per the graph).

https://econofact.org/voting-and-income

That one? The overall thrust seems to be on-point, but I'm struggling to find any sourcing for that chart which apparently is sourced to "Current Population Survey" whatever the hell that means. Is there a difference even amongst higher income demographics? Most likely. Would it be attributed to the same reasons? Very likely not.

[Machismo]

https://econofact.org/voting-and-income

That one? The overall thrust seems to be on-point, but I'm struggling to find any sourcing for that chart which apparently is sourced to "Current Population Survey" whatever the hell that means. Is there a difference even amongst higher income demographics? Most likely. Would it be attributed to the same reasons? Very likely not.

Yeah, it's not my graph, I was simply using it to speak with him.

I can think of no reason why someone making $150k a year can find a way to vote, but someone making $125k cannot. At the end of the day, people who make more money tend to have less to actually worry about when it comes to being able to do something, and so they will have different priorities. In the end, it seems like voting falls down that list of priorities for people who make less money.

[Felya]

I mean, I know that Biden is not the candidate that many would have chosen given a magic wand. But this is reality. And in reality everyone should understand that having a president who hears experts is extremely important.

I just don’t understand how one can support a politician, where your best bet is to disenfranchise the opponent. When someone tells you not to vote, because of one candidate. The more people tell you not to vote, the more you need to question their motives.

- - - Updated - - -

I can think of no reason why someone making $150k a year can find a way to vote, but someone making $125k cannot.

The thing making it even stranger, it’s the same tax bracket.

[Zaktar]

Yeah, it's not my graph, I was simply using it to speak with him.

I can think of no reason why someone making $150k a year can find a way to vote, but someone making $125k cannot. At the end of the day, people who make more money tend to have less to actually worry about when it comes to being able to do something, and so they will have different priorities. In the end, it seems like voting falls down that list of priorities for people who make less money.

I think part of the issue is that you're comparing 125 to 150. Okay, maybe there isn't likely to be a huge difference, but that graph isn't looking at single point incomes, it's looking at ranges, and representing them with a midpoint average (if I'm reading correctly, working fast as this is a short break). From that point it becomes about probability, what is the probability of a more flexible job in the 150 range than in the 125 range? Can it account for a 5ish percent difference in voting behavior? It's plausible. Some of it may have to do with the mindset of people in different salary ranges, maybe that is plausible too, but when we're talking about a large population, individualist arguments like "you could just do X" start falling apart. Maybe most people could "just do X" but a small percentage couldn't, and in a slightly higher income bracket they have slightly more options, and that's where we see our difference. There are a lot of potential explanations but when I see systemic differences in output I look for systemic differences in input.

[Masark]

That one? The overall thrust seems to be on-point, but I'm struggling to find any sourcing for that chart which apparently is sourced to "Current Population Survey" whatever the hell that means.

The current population survey is a monthly survey done by the US census bureau. It's used for, among other things, coming up with unemployment figures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_Population_Survey

[PACOX]

No, it is a privilege for many folks. It's a Constitutional right, but that doesn't mean that said right is equally available to all. (because it's not and historically has really never been)

They work hourly jobs that often do not have sick/vacation time. So that day they take off to vote is a day they don't get paid, which hurts a lot of folks.

Going before or after work? What if you're working multiple shifts that day? What if you show up 3 hours early to vote, and 3 hours later you're still waiting in line and need to get to work? What if you go immediately after work and you're stuck in line for 7 hours waiting to vote because there's not enough machines or locations to vote at?

The issues have been heavily covered over the years, and the generally tend to crop up more when Republicans control the voting in the state (curious ain't it?!), and primarily target lower income people who have less flexibility and time to wait in extremely long lines to vote.

For a great many of us, yes, we are privileged to live in a state that allows no-question absentee voting. We're privileged to work salaried jobs with paid vacation/sick leave where we can safely take a day off without worrying. We're privileged because we live in areas where there are likely more voting locations and machines so we don't have to make the decision whether or not to wait in line for 5+ hours to place our vote.

Didn't a number of people call out these issues during the DNC primaries, some of the issues being prevalent in solid blue states, and attacked for bring it up?

[Machismo]

I think part of the issue is that you're comparing 125 to 150. Okay, maybe there isn't likely to be a huge difference, but that graph isn't looking at single point incomes, it's looking at ranges, and representing them with a midpoint average (if I'm reading correctly, working fast as this is a short break). From that point it becomes about probability, what is the probability of a more flexible job in the 150 range than in the 125 range? Can it account for a 5ish percent difference in voting behavior? It's plausible. Some of it may have to do with the mindset of people in different salary ranges, maybe that is plausible too, but when we're talking about a large population, individualist arguments like "you could just do X" start falling apart. Maybe most people could "just do X" but a small percentage couldn't, and in a slightly higher income bracket they have slightly more options, and that's where we see our difference. There are a lot of potential explanations but when I see systemic differences in output I look for systemic differences in input.

That's pretty much my point, i see no real obstacle that can be solved by someone making $150k versus someone making $125k. But, as we see, there is a difference in how often they vote.

In the end, it would seem a great deal of that discrepancy isn't about income, but about mentality and priorities.

[Edge-]

Didn't a number of people call out these issues during the DNC primaries, some of the issues being prevalent in solid blue states, and attacked for bring it up?

Not that I remember, at least not as you say it unfolded.

If memory serves, it was people alleging intentional voter suppression, specifically targeting college students, on Democrats. Which there's no info to back up. The failure to have enough polling locations etc. is absolutely worthy of criticism, they can and should do better. But framing it as an intentional effort to harm Sanders, rather than just an ongoing failure of leadership, was wrong IMO.

[Zaktar]

That's pretty much my point, i see no real obstacle that can be solved by someone making $150k versus someone making $125k. But, as we see, there is a difference in how often they vote.

In the end, it would seem a great deal of that discrepancy isn't about income, but about mentality and priorities.

In the end that's not clear at all based on that graph. It doesn't give us much information at all except that there are differences in behavior between people of different income brackets.

My point is that in a range around 125 and a range around 150, there are plausible reasons related to income or more precisely job that can explain a tiny (5ish percent by my eyeball) difference in voting behavior. The graph itself suggests that most of the difference will be accounted for by the bottom of the graph, and a person earning ~100k a year is more likely to be a middle manager who has less control over their work environment than a person making ~200k a year (more likely to be an executive). Are most people in the 125 range more restricted than people in the 150 range? Of course not, and the graph reflects that. We're most likely looking at the difference between the two extreme ends of each of those ranges.

[PACOX]

Not that I remember, at least not as you say it unfolded.

If memory serves, it was people alleging intentional voter suppression, specifically targeting college students, on Democrats. Which there's no info to back up. The failure to have enough polling locations etc. is absolutely worthy of criticism, they can and should do better. But framing it as an intentional effort to harm Sanders, rather than just an ongoing failure of leadership, was wrong IMO.

I don't care if Sanders is on the ballot or if it's Shaka Zulu

Why do we need more polling places?

So people who can't afford to talk time off, drive across the city, waiting in line for six hours can vote.

People affected a not able to exercise their [right to vote as well as others. Their vote is essentially being suppressed. Whether you actively remove polling places or you play a deaf ear to playing saying "hey I can't vote because it takes me 9 hours and my have kids to at home to feed" it's all suppression. Both dissuade people from voting thus making voting a privilege and not a right.

Furthermore when Johnny Red Hat or Tony Blue Tie only care about those people voting after the math for the candidate does not add up in more privileged areas those people stop giving a damn what noble referendum they are asked to vote for. They want to knew where Johnny and Tony were a week ago.

[TexasRules]

NYT op ed byLinda Hirshman, author of a book called “Reckoning: The Epic Battle Against Sexual Abuse and Harassment”

All major Democratic Party figures have indicated they’re not budging on the presumptive nominee, and the transaction costs of replacing him would be suicidal. Barring some miracle, it’s going to be Mr. Biden.

So what is the greatest good or the greatest harm? Mr. Biden, and the Democrats he may carry with him into government, are likely to do more good for women and the nation than his competition, the worst president in the history of the Republic. Compared with the good Mr. Biden can do, the cost of dismissing Tara Reade — and, worse, weakening the voices of future survivors — is worth it.

It was never about sexual assault. Moreover proving that democrats never really cared about Ford, just opposing Kavanaugh.

What happens if Joe Biden loses and they lose not just an election but all credibility? I already know the answer, most of you do not care. Party over principles is what you always claimed about Republicans....it was never just Republicans.

[Thepersona]

NYT op ed byLinda Hirshman, author of a book called “Reckoning: The Epic Battle Against Sexual Abuse and Harassment”




It was never about sexual assault. Moreover proving that democrats never really cared about Ford, just opposing Kavanaugh.

What happens if Joe Biden loses and they lose not just an election but all credibility? I already know the answer, most of you do not care. Party over principles is what you always claimed about Republicans....it was never just Republicans.

Dude, the allegation already has multiple flaws. This is not Kavanaugh. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

[Felya]

It was never about sexual assault. Moreover proving that democrats never really cared about Ford, just opposing Kavanaugh.

What happens if Joe Biden loses and they lose not just an election but all credibility? I already know the answer, most of you do not care. Party over principles is what you always claimed about Republicans....it was never just Republicans.

GOP is blocking 1.6 billion to women persecuting people like Biden, while Biden cosponsored the bill and has it as his 100 day priority. The money allocated by Biden can then be used by all Biden and Trump accusers. Why is Biden not afraid?