Keep in mind that U.S. elections are not popular elections. You have to look at key swing states. Technically, none of the other 43~ states matter much because their outcomes are already statistically pre-determined. It doesn’t matter how much people like Biden in California or New York, if he loses key states. For instance, Hillary Clinton had twice as many popular votes in California as Trump in 2016. But those extra 4 million extra votes didn’t matter to the outcome because California is just one State.
For example, Michigan is a key electoral state. It is predominantly a red state. But Barak Obama won it two elections in a row because minorities from the densely populated areas, especially Wayne county, turned out for him. Those same minorities did not turn out when Hillary Clinton ran in 2016. They came back … just barely … when Biden ran with Harris as VP. This same story is repeated in Georgia and Wisconsin – both swing states that usually lean heavily Red.
So, to sum up. It doesn’t matter how much people in red states hate on Harris. Their election results have already been factored. What matters is how she is perceived in key swing states. While some red state voters won’t vote for Biden because they fear he might keel over, other swing state voters will … for exactly the same reason!
I think that no matter what, the younger voters will decide this time, but the old codgers that can barely walk better get up and do their share too. It doesn’t help that in some states they have made it very difficult for poor folks and minority neighborhoods to vote.
Never say never, but I don’t think it matters all that much, with Trump in jail. But to answer your question, incumbent changing their running mate seems tantamount to admitting failure and you want people to view your administration as successful.
That’s something you may think if you’re 5 y/o and going on vibes. Every decision you face not only has the consequences if you choose it, but also if you don’t.
A pure hypothetical to demonstrate the general principle on an extreme example (not a direct comparison): you have an election with two candidates: one runs on a promise of Holocaust 2.0 and the other will twist your ankle after he wins. Would you say you can’t choose because both are bad? Obviously you would under any case want to avoid the worse outcome. Because not doing anything is risking that bad outcome, even if the alternative is bad. The upcoming election is not that extreme, but my example should have demonstrated the principle: inaction in face of greater evil is wrong.
There is no absolute good in this world, and if you can’t choose between Kamala Harris and those horrible people you moral compass is out of whack. When you don’t vote, the choice is made for you. Whether something is good or bad has to be evaluated considering possible alternatives, you can’t just not choose and expect a miracle to happen.
I don’t vote because I believe voting is an immoral act, but for those that do vote, I think this is a significant comment. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil, and that may be a bridge too far for some.
By not voting, you’re abdicating your chance to vote against the destruction of the country. If a Republican wins and does what they’re promising, tens of millions of people will suffer in all sorts of ways, a full spectrum of ouch. A painbow, so to speak. COVID alone killed over a million people here when Trump was president, nevermind his disastrous impact on the country as a whole or his foreign policy (mostly because numbers are hard to come by for the Kurds and Afghanis we abandoned, but go ahead and get opinions on how the Taliban has been running the place).
If you don’t vote, the suffering and death is partially on you, because you could have tried to stop it. That’s the immoral act, regardless of how you feel about the system itself. Hold your nose if you have to, and do it.
Not “might”. Will. And voting is absolutely not tantamount to telling other people how to live their lives, it is rather a statement on the way you think things should be run. You have a right to that, because we live in a society together. If you think you can go be a hyperindividualist all by yourself, you will most likely die early, but more importantly you will never enrich anyone else’s life, or have your own enriched by others. We’re all individuals, but we are part of a greater whole.
And just to play this angle: if you won’t vote because you “won’t tell others how to live”, then you would equally stand by and let the evil harm the helpless, for the same reason. Get off your fence and stand for something.
Surprisingly, I haven’t died early. I just celebrated six decades of life last week. I guess if I pass in the next couple of years that might still be considered early.
I think you’d be surprised at the number of people who’s lives i have enriched over those years. I certainly am.
The debate shouldn’t be about voting for the lesser of two evils. The entire debate should be focused on opening up more options and the actual ability to vote for third party candidates without throwing your vote away, by implementing a different system, like ranked choice voting.
Continuing to focus on which Sith lord will blow up the country the least if elected is a losing play. We have to do better and focus our attention elsewhere if we have any chance of getting anything reformed.
Yeah, I used to think that when I was young and ignorant. There is a real difference, and if you don’t know that, you haven’t been paying attention at all.
Just say that you don’t care, don’t pretend to be on some moral high ground.
If you don’t vote, stay out of the conversation, because this has nothing to do with you. If you want to join and share your opinion, do some research and take some action.
I asked a friend this the other day and they didn’t know. In the last election Harris seemed to be set up to take over from Biden at the next election, but since then I’ve not heard anything about her or what she’s been up to as VP. What happened?
Bidens neural implant was successful so she wasn’t needed. But seriously. It’s frustrating if the DNC used any common sense they could snuff the Republicans for the next few elections after what just happened with Trump. But instead they just decided to use the opportunity to be slightly less of a bad choice than the Republicans. They have to skate that line, they cant just put in someone who would be actually liked by the people. They have to install someone who plays as far by their rules as they can get and will also keep the election close so we don’t swing to far to the left.
Biden’s approval rating is only 0.6% higher than Trump’s at the same time period. He’s not a popular president. The economy isn’t doing well which has a very high impact on election results.
I think Democrats are taking a big risk going with Biden again, although I guess they would be taking a big risk changing him out too. What a mess, honestly.
Not irrelevant. Remember 2016? The options were even worse and we ended up with the cheeto. Since the DNC decided to stick with the senile sock puppet I would bet money we end up with Pence. And they will keep turning this country into a religious state. The DNC is fine with that too, because at least pence will play by the rules and keep everyone’s doners happy. That is the only reason they hated Trump so badly. Had nothing to do with his actions, it was that he said the quiet parts out loud.