#not just a popular vote win like hillary but like actually win. bc he was ‘drastic’ (still globally pretty centrist but i digress)

[bitterblued]

how is it eight years later and we still haven’t learned anything from the 2016 election like WHY did you keep going further right. the way to oppose extremism isn’t to follow them it’s to swing hard in the opposite direction

[wizardpartier]

okay hmmm. This post might not be coherent, I'm on the bus and it just occurred to me and I haven't thought it out very thoroughly. But I listen to a lot of Knowledge Fight, which is a podcast where the hosts listen to Infowars and explain and analyze what Alex Jones says there. It's a good way to keep up with what's going on with the conspiracy far right without having to actually consume it yourself.

This space still believes that the 2020 election is stolen and that Democrats are going to also steal the 2024 election. Alex Jones is constantly telling people to vote for Trump with the logic that, even though Democrats are going to try to steal the election again, if Trump wins by a large enough majority they won't be able to deny him the win. There's a slightly more convoluted logic to this that I won't get into now, but overall it's almost as dumb a plan as it sounds. If the "globalists" are as all powerful as Alex claims and have that much power over the election, how could that work? His catchphrase has been "too big to rig", but why can they steal the election if Trump wins by 2% but not if he wins by 50%?

If I were a far right conspiracy theorist, I would feel like I was being bullshitted right now by Alex because, come on dude! The globalists are all powerful, if they're planning on stealing the election then the election is already stolen!

I feel a similar way when I see "vote blue no matter who" posts on here. The one that inspired this post was one that made me especially upset was one that said, "if people had been voting for the last 20 years, we would have had Al Gore, Obama, Hillary, and Biden". Which is intensely frustrating because people DID vote for all these candidates! All of these candidates won the popular vote!

Anyway, "your vote only matters if you're in a swing state" is not a radical thought, it's something we've all probably heard our entire lives so I'm not going to hound on the flaws of the electoral college here. But it feels so victim-blamey to be constantly told that we just need to keep voting to keep Trump from winning!!! When we already did! People DID vote for Hillary in 2016, and she lost anyway because our electoral system is trash!

Obviously these two situations are very different in that the far right's victim complex is based on a fictional narrative of a stolen election, while the past 24 years have shown us that our electoral system is genuinely biased against popular opinion. However, I think the fact that the slogan "too big to rig" could apply to both sides is telling. The underlying logic for both is that, if we just keep voting in large enough numbers maybe we can beat the odds!

I guess I don't know where I'm going with this other than to say, aren't you tired? Aren't you tired of yelling into the abyss to try and convince randos that their vote matters when, for the majority of people in the US, that's demonstrably untrue? I know that, living in a blue state and a blue city, I'm tired of hearing it, and I'm sure I would be even more tired of hearing it if I was living in a swing state where I was the direct target of these posts!

Anyway I'm glad I only have like, 5 followers who regularly interact with my posts bc if I had any sort of audience on here I'm pretty sure the notes on this post would force me to deactivate. Which would probably be for the better lmao 🤪

[coldasyou]

I'm *still* quite confused about the electoral college? Like.... the popular vote votes for the people who make up for the electoral college, who vote for the president? But then why would a democrat electoral college member vote for Trump? Or how did he possible win if Hilary won the popular vote? Idk, maybe none of this is accurate, I'm still so confused (also, I'm not US) (also, I have tried to google it but I need someone to explain it to me like I'm 5)

anon I’m american, practically have my BA in history, and I still don’t fully understand it! it is...insanely confusing and I hate it but I’ll try and do my best to explain it. 

when the united states founders were first framing the constitution (yes we have to go back this far for context) there was a lot of disagreement over the role of big states vs small states. you can see this with the debate over whether or not states representation in congress should be equal across the board (the new jeresey plan) or based on the population (virginia plan). a compromise was reached and that’s why in the US we have two branches in congress; the senate (where each state gets two senators no matter the size) and the house of representatives (where the number of reps a state has is determined by population). 

that same anxiety surrounding how much power big states would have is one of the reasons we have the electoral college. another reason is a lot of the founders just genuinely didn’t trust average citizens to be smart enough to vote (remember, originally only white, property owning men could vote) and didn’t want a pure popular vote to decide a winner but we don’t like to talk about that in this country! so the electoral college is basically a process that works like this: each state gets a certain number of electors, determined by their total representation in congress (the number of reps + the two senators. for example, ohio has 18 votes, 16 for our representatives, 2 for our senators. DC also gets 3 electoral votes despite not actually being a state.). there are currently 538 electors in total and a candidate needs 270 to win. what qualifies a person to be an elector varies by state (bc this process needs to be MORE convoluted) but in general it’s high ranking members of the specific candidates political party. when you vote for a specific candidate, you’re actually voting for their electors (either democrat, or republican).to take 2016 as an example, both trump and clinton had their own set of electors chosen by their respective parties, but the only ones who actually got to vote where the electors of the party that won the state (so in california, the democratic electors picked clinton bc she won the most votes, in texas, the republican electors picked trump bc he won the most votes). every state besides maine and nebraska has a “winner take all” system, where whichever candidate gets the most votes in the state gets all of the electors. this is supposed to be kind of an “honor code thing.” technically, an elector could vote for whoever they want (and some do, they’re called faithless electors) but like 99% of electors vote for their parties candidate.  (source, source)

normally, the electoral college matches up with what the popular vote was (so the candidate with the most electors also got the most votes) but there have been five elections in US history where a candidate who got the MOST votes lost bc they still didn’t get the MOST electors. the first 3 were in the 19th century but it has happened twice in the past 20 years already; bush vs gore in 2000 and trump vs clinton in 2016. this can happen bc of the winner take all system: to quote pew research, “This mismatch between the electoral and popular votes came about because Trump won several large states (such as Florida, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin) by very narrow margins, gaining all their electoral votes in the process, even as Clinton claimed other large states (such as California, Illinois and New York) by much wider margins.” (source) and to quote the times: “Today, in every state except Nebraska and Maine, whichever candidate wins the most votes in a state wins all the electors from that state, no matter what the margin of victory. Just look at the impact this system had on the 2016 race: Donald Trump won Pennsylvania and Florida by a combined margin of about 200,000 votes to earn 49 electoral votes. Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, won Massachusetts by almost a million votes but earned only 11 electoral votes.” (source). on average, states with a high population and high urban density (where democrats are more popular) are underrepresented in the electoral college, while more rural states with a lower population  (where republicans are more popular) are over represented in the electoral college, and that’s why we’ve seen two democrats win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote in the past two decades.

swing states (states that historically have gone both republican and democrat) also come in to play. they can change based on political trends, but generally include most of the midwest as well as flordia, nevada, pennsylvania, and virginia. one of the reasons trump was able to win the electoral college is he did REALLY well in swing states, particularly in the midwest and rust belt, and he was able to grab a lot of electors from there. 

confusing? yes. personally, I am very anti electoral college for reasons that are summarized a lot better here and here and also bc I LIVE in a swing state and the constant political attack ads are horrible. 

finally, here’s a graphic that really helps me understand how the divide between popular and electoral vote can occur. (source)

[thebreakfastgenie]

I'm curious, how exactly do you think elections are won? Voting does, in fact, change the outcome of elections. In 2016, a few more votes in key states would have elected Hillary Clinton president. To call Trump's victory "something voting would not have done away with" is simply factually incorrect.

I'm curious what you think gerrymandering is. Gerrymandering refers to drawing congressional and legislative districts in a way that benefits one group. This is usually accomplished by either "cracking," that is, spreading out Democratic voters across several districts so they're outnumbered in each one, or "packing," that is forcing Democratic voters into as few districts as possible. It's worth noting Democratic voters tend to live in more densely populated cities, so to some extent packing also happens naturally, and is exaggerated by gerrymandering.

Gerrymandering does not affect presidential or statewide elections. It affects congressional and legislative elections, which are both very important. Gerrymandering is difficult to combat, but there are ways of influencing how districts are drawn (they're redrawn every ten years after the census).

Clarence Thomas was appointed by George H. W. Bush, who won the popular vote. John Roberts and Samuel Alito were appointed by George W. Bush, who did lose the popular vote in 2000, but won in 2004. It's true he probably would not have been elected in 2004 if he hadn't won in 2000, but we're getting too far into hypotheticals at that point. In 2000, a very small margin of votes in Florida would have made Al Gore president. If Gore had won New Hampshire, he wouldn't have needed Florida. The number of people who voted for Ralph Nader in New Hampshire was larger than the margin Gore lost by. Once again, voting was important, as it usually is where elections are concerned.

Of course Republicans have been trying to overturn Roe for more than six years. Six years ago was our last chance to stop them and we knew it.

Nowhere in this post do I suggest voting is the "be-all and end-all of political action." In fact, I said voting is just one of the things we can do to deal with the consequences of handing the Supreme Court to the right.

#idk how anyone can see trump not winning the popular vote and thinking#he still won bc of nonvoters#like the entire election system is designed to swing conservative at the slightest impulse and thats what happened in 2016#the gerrymandering that split blue votes has been happening for decades if not close to/more than a century

I already address most of this above, but I want to reiterate that Trump losing the popular vote does not in any way lessen the responsibility non-voters bear for allowing him to be elected.

"Gerrymandering" has actually been around for more than two centuries. The term originated in 1812. "Blue votes," on the other hand, is a term that has only existed for 22 years, as the entire concept of "red states and blue states" comes from the 2000 election (the parties did not have fixed colors before that). The modern party alignment dates to roughly the 1960s, so what we now call the "blue vote" has been around for less than a century.

I keep seeing this take (mostly on twitter) that goes roughly "well, we voted, and look what that got us!" I'm trying not to engage, but I need to say this once:

We are dealing with the consequences of not voting in 2016. I don't want to diminish the importance of 2018 and 2020 in any way, but those elections were never going to undo 2016. These consequences were incredibly easy to see coming, but because they're not immediate, people don't seem to comprehend the cause and effect. Before I stopped reading twitter, I saw a tweet that said this is happening under a Democratic administration. The fact that six of the Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Republicans, and three of those six were appointed by Trump, doesn't seem to mean anything.

Yes, you have to vote. This is WHY you have to vote. We said to vote in 2016 and people said it wouldn't be that bad. Now that it is they say, what's the point in voting? Well, we're probably about to enter an era where your state government decides whether you can get an abortion or not. If that's not a good reason to vote down ballot, I don't know what is.

We don't get a do-over for 2016. We didn't get one in 2020 and we're not getting one now. All we can do is try to deal with the consequences, which includes but is not limited to voting. I think people on twitter can't accept this because they can't deal with their part in it.

[ultralaser]

like let me clarify a point here - i see the sentiment still pretty regularly that if the democratic convention had backed bernie he would have 'beaten trump', or most commonly just, they ran the establishment candidate and hillary was deeply unpopular with a certain portion of the left, and that is why she lost and i just, i want to scream this from the mountain tops she didn't lose she got more votes, three million more, three mid sized cities more worth pulled for hillary and i understand that what ppl are really saying there (whether they even realize this or not) is, hillary and the dnc's fuckery turned off a lot of voters, and depressed left turnout even further than it would have normally been just after two terms in the winning corner and maybe that says 'hillary alienated the base' and maybe it says 'bernie bros split the vote' and maybe the fact that none of the left wing third party candidates got a significant percentage validates my ire and maybe it validates theirs but in either case we are burying the lede here, which is that by any nominal standard of how elections are supposed to work, hillary got more votes and she should be president now like they didn't even teach us about the electoral college in the 90s, because from 1880 to 2000 IT DID NOT MEAN ANYTHING it was literally a formality, for over a hundred years the popular and electoral totals did not deviate and then twice in the last twenty years, two of the last five elections, FORTY PERCENT of the last five presidents (or sixty if you wanna contest both of bush's wins, and the margins are close enough both times, so), suddenly the electoral college is, the deciding vote? and keeps tilting for the gop, huh, wierd so this archaic relic that literally comes out of the same root argument as the three-fifths compromise and was designed by the virginian slave-owning founding fathers to give them an outsized representation in the eary government despite their actual eligible-to-vote populatiom being way smaller (look at how many virginian presidents we had early on, oooops), that is so arcane it wasn't even explained in constitutional lessons in school, that hasn't meant anything for over a hundred years, is overruling the popular vote in election after election, even as the margin of popular vote victory keeps going up so did hillary alienate a bunch of bernie fans with her, tbh, not any worse than obama policies? probably, yeah. is that why she isn't the president? NO like if the best case scenario here is that the gop **has to cheat to win**, and hillary just failed to follow obama's example and tap into enough rage to overcome the gop's systemic fuckery? that trump is so bad he will bring in the mass turnout we need to win elections anymore after one term of awful segregationist policies instead of bush's two? then we have maybe lost sight of the real issue here bc say whatever you want about hillary clinton, trump's real legacy will be neil gorsuch. even a best case impeachment that takes pence with him won't unseat gorsuch from the bench

[alwayswriting123]

Are Young People Tuning In?

Youngsters don’t want to sit through either a 2 or 3 hour-long debate of old people arguing about why they deserve to sit their kiesters in one of the world's most powerful chairs ever. (Hmm, wonder if it’s a lazy boy... anyway) No, they’d rather sit around and vape or do the smart thing like the bird-box challenge and posting it online.

In fact, I bet if I asked a group of teenagers who Pete Buttigieg is, they’d reply with a vacuum cleaner salesman and I’m not kidding. I sat down with a group of teenagers and someone literally said he’s a vacuum cleaner salesman. I felt so bad for little Petie I continued to ask them questions on all of the current candidates. Their results? A D+. So I began to wonder, just how many teenagers aren’t tuning into the debates? And what’s the most efficient way of getting to these young voters? Through social media and other places of course! 

Well I mean, like, I don’t know about other people but I just don’t care about that kind of stuff. Like, I hear about politics a lot more in my household and stuff - it’s not that I don’t wanna learn it’s just that I feel afraid to contribute to the conversation, you know? Like I don’t wanna open my mouth and say something wrong. Trust me, I don’t like Donald Trump at all, I really don’t know why he won in the first place. That say’s a lot about America. Like a lot but, I really hope he doesn’t win again. I mean, I voted in the past.

Me: “That’s good you should keep doing that.” 

That’s why I feel bad because I didn’t vote in the last election. And it wasn’t because I didn’t like either candidate, I liked Hillary. But I just felt like my vote wouldn’t count. The electoral college is messed up! That **** is crazy and plain bananas. - Greg Soyer

Mmm, that **** was indeed crazy and bananas. (This **** is bananas- B-A-N-A-N-A-S!) But I still was hungry for answers. Why was the **** crazy? I needed to find out. So I did the opposite of what I did the first time and asked older and much wiser people.

Question 1. Why do you feel like young voters aren’t or are tuned in to the election?

I think young people starting out in life are very worried about one thing and that is what is going to happen to their future. The presidency affects not just the individual but also their entire existence. Though the argument can also be made that they also don’t tune in because they mistrust the government and at times think it’s corrupt. - Tucker White

No reliable news outlets. [There is] too much to sort through.- Anonymous

I feel like young voters don’t want to be involved or, the ones that are involved don’t pay attention to the policies. - Anonymouse

While I’m not sure if more young adults are tuned in are tuned in or not, I personally feel conflicted. On one hand, I’m invested because I want Trump & his administration out of office. On the other hand, I feel discouraged about who can be trusted to lead our nation next. It feels like the corruption never ends, regardless of who’s in office.- Elizabeth Adebayo

You know it’s funny that you bring that up because I asked my son if he was gonna vote and he said no. I asked him why not and he just responded with my vote won’t change anything. And you know, I feel bad. As a mother, you hear your kid telling you he has no control over what happens in his life? It made my heart almost break. I wanted to argue with him but... I couldn’t look him in the eye and tell him to vote because I’m not even sure if it’ll change anything with the last election.- Elizabeth DeTar.

I can speak for like late 20-somethings millennials. We’re too busy drowning in debt and trying to make it to care about a bunch of lackluster candidates who don’t seem to be inspiring - Anonymous

I soon realized a pattern in each responder's answers. They all felt betrayed. Violated by their government, concerned and scared about not only where their future would end up but, the next generations. I, for one, had hope that democracy wasn’t dead. And to prove it, I continued my search for some good ole’ fashioned teenage spirit, printed out a couple of headshots of each of the 2020 democratic candidates and headed to the one place where teenagers gather (sometimes in flocks) the mall.

First up was Bernie Sanders.

“Do you know who this guy is?”

Oh, of course, that’s Bernie Sanders. He’s one of the candidates. - Amanda Peters

Amanda got Pete, Sanders, Elizabeth, and Biden right, but when it came to Klobuchar... she got the short end of the stick.

Oh... yeah I don’t know, gee I guess I don’t know much about the candidates.

But that was just one person, right? Next, Tom Styer.

“Who is this guy, what do you think of him and do you know any of his policies?”

Oh shoot... I know the guy! I just can’t remember his name. Oh jeez, am I gonna get in trouble for this? 

"Okay, I believe you. Do you know any of his policies?”

I’m not even gonna lie, I haven’t even been to his page.

“Do you know who your gonna vote for in the 2020 elections?”

Oh, definitely Pete Buttigieg! I definitely have huge respect for him and his campaign. I mean to come out on national television as a gay man and give zero ***** about it? That takes huge balls. And he has a certain Obama swag about him. I’m not just voting for him because we're both gay, that’s the stupidest argument ever people try to make. I’m voting for him because he’s actually got great ideas. For example, his climate change policy is offering a National Catastrophic Disaster Insurance program that helps and provides stability to people like me. Our house was hit last year. - Ben Potemyer

Wow, now that’s somebody who knows their stuff! Also, he later told me to mention he highly recommends that people read up on his policies. So I invite all of you to look into him with me.

Question 2. Do you feel like most people are just tuning in more now than ever because they just want Donald Trump out of office or for other reasons? And if so, what are those reasons? 

In a way, Trump has awakened people who, otherwise, wouldn’t care to know what’s going on politically. I also think that he’s insighted a new era of people to at least watch his comedic politics to get their news. The Trevor Noah’s & Hasan Minhaj’s of the world have become more popular because people are trying to engage in polotics without boring themselves or feeling lost in the conversation. -  Elizabeth Adebayo

Yes, people are tuning into the news because of the recent impeachment trial. But I don’t feel like it’s just for seeing him removed from office. - Tucker White 

I think people are tuning in because of Trump. Because they see even though the president has checks and balances, he can still have a huge implication on other Americans and how those Americans treat other people. - Anonymous

I do believe it has to do with wanting Trump out, but I think that is because of a want for other types of social policies that Trump is against. - Anonymous

I don’t think more people are tuning in. I think we’re all transient bystanders watching the circus fire. - Anonymous

Another coincidence, among these people I interviewed, all of them said that they think young people aren't focused on this coming election. I wanted to try and find more people. All of this talk about generations got me thinking. What if there were people, who couldn’t even vote yet, had opinions? I met a powerful little 10 year old. And I’ll never forget what she said. 

I don’t think it’s because of either one of those things. I think people now see what they have done and who they’ve put in the oval office and they want to correct what they’ve done. Because deep down, we should all love each other. Love should always win.” - Ashley

Love should always win. Wise kid huh? 

Question 3. Who do you have your eye on in the race? What draws you to them?

I’m supportive of Bernie Sanders, as I was in the last race. His views seem to be less about solely taking care of the wealthy, but actually looking out for working-class people. I want a leader who cares about helping Americans create better lives for themselves through healthcare & employment v.s focusing solely on our external affairs. I’m also interested in Elizabeth Warren, but I need to do more research on her political decisions. -  Elizabeth Adebayo

I have my eye on three candidates, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren and, Bernie Sanders. Currently, I’m leaning towards Elizabeth Warren. Joe seems a little consertive and Bernie seems too progressive. Elizabeth has just the right balance. - Tucker White

Of all the candidates I would consider Gabbard, Yang, Biden or Trump. I lean center-right and see the U.S as doing pretty well right now. I do find Gabbard and Yang appealing because they seem very genuine and tell it like it is, similar to Bernie. - Anonymous

I don’t really have anyone I’m drawn to right now if anything, Bernie Sanders but I don’t know everything about him either. - Anonymous

No one. - Anonymous

Question 4. Why are all the big named candidates like Pete Buttigieg, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, and Amy Klobuchar popular in the news? 

Honestly, I don’t know. - Elizabeth Adebayo

I feel like these names are in the news the most because they are the mainstream and more established friendly.  - Anonymous

I suppose they pop up bc they’re campaigning and doing they’re part to try to spread their message. - Anonymous

I think the simplest way of saying it is because they have the money and resources to be able to.  - Tucker White

Mayor Pete appeals the common man, Bernie has a wonderful grassroots base, Joe Biden was/is associated with Obama and, Elizabeth Warren is supposed to appeal to women(?) I don’t know about that last one. I expect they make a splash because either A: they have clout and social media following or B: they have the money to appear like they have clout. You forgot Yang! (This person is referring to Yang being a big named candidate.) - Anonymous

Question 5. Who do you feel has the most successful chance of being president? 

At this point, I don’t know. For better or for worse, Trumps election has changed the expectation of what we view as a suitible leader to run our nation, so I can’t even say. I do think that we, as Americans, are over the smoke & mirrors of politics. - Elizabeth Adebayo 

I think Trump either gets re-elected or Bernie or Biden gets elected. Warren isin’t as strong as Sanders in my eyes. Anonymous

I feel like maybe Elizabeth Warren or Joe Biden. Maybe even Bernie. - Anonymous

I’d say Elizabeth Warren would be the best canidate for the job. - Tucker White - 

I don’t know, maybe Warren. I honestly think our country sucks enough that we’re about to elect Donald Trump again. - Anonymous

Question 6. What are the biggest flaws amping these candidates and what could help improve their chances?

I just want a politician that’s real that cares about actual people and isn’t the “Better of two evils” bull. - Anonymous

The thing that’s hurting all these campaigns is easily that they’re just playing to their bases instead of trying to sway moderates and voters on the other side. - Anonymous

To face not just the Democrats but also the Republicans. - Tucker White

Bernie and Biden feel like familiar territory to me, so with the exception of Warren, the other candidates haven’t built enough of a rapport with the country to solidify their chances. -  Elizabeth Adebayo

Question 7. How do you feel about Pete Buttigieg? Do you think him being gay will hurt him or do you think we, as a country have gotten over that hurdle?

I’d say he’s a pretty good alternative to Biden. From what I hear he doesn’t have very good support in the south, where Biden does, but he can be seen as a strong candidate to religious voters. - Anonymous

As a country, I don’t think we’ve gotten over that hurdle, despite what the media portrays, but if he could speak to the needs of working/middle-class Americans by talking about the things that matter most to them, he might have a chance. - Elizabeth Adebayo

[Buttigieg] Sounds like a solid candidate. I like what I’ve heard about him so far. As for his chances, America is still super “Christian”. And that’s a large chunk of the voting base that isn't ready for a gay president. So no, we suck at getting over that hurdle.- Anonymous

Question 8. And finally, do you think young voters are just affiliating themselves with their parents/ close friends same party? 

I want to say that more conservative voters may be doing that because they focus a lot on the idea of the collective through their moral or religious values. Liberals, on the other hand seem to think more individually, but are more heavily influenced by their friends. - Elizabeth  Adebayo

Ergh, maybe younger ones. In my experience with mid to late twenty-somethings, we’re diametrically opposed to family members voting wise-- to the point where it’s awkward at family reuinions. - Anonymous

I would like to thank everyone who participated in this very long post about what everyday Americans thought about the candidates so far. For the most part,  I say young people/first-time voters are clearly in desperate need of just a little education on each of the candidates and the power - the drive to get engaged. But most of all, to not be afraid. To all my readers, thank you.