554

Democrats worry their most loyal voters won’t turn out for Biden in 2024 (www.washingtonpost.com)

submitted 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) by Upgrade2754@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

626 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Summary:

Democrats are becoming increasingly concerned about a possible drop in Black voter turnout for the 2024 presidential election, according to party insiders. The worries arise from a 10% decrease in Black voter turnout in the 2022 midterms compared to 2018, a more substantial decline than any other racial or ethnic group, as per a Washington Post analysis. The decline was particularly significant among younger and male Black voters in crucial states like Georgia, where Democrats aim to mobilize Black voter support for President Biden in 2024.

The Democratic party has acknowledged the need to bolster their outreach efforts to this demographic. W. Mondale Robinson, founder of the Black Male Voter Project, highlighted the need for Democrats to refocus their attention on Black male voters, who have shown lower levels of engagement. In response, Biden's team has pledged to communicate more effectively about the benefits that the Black community has reaped under Biden's administration, according to Cedric L. Richmond, a senior advisor at the Democratic National Committee.

However, Black voter advocates have identified deep-seated issues affecting Black voter turnout. Many Black men reportedly feel detached from the political process and uninspired by both parties' policies. Terrance Woodbury, CEO of HIT Strategies, a polling firm, suggests that the Democratic party's focus on countering Trump and Republican extremism doesn't motivate younger Black men as much as arguments focused on policy benefits. Concerns are growing within the party that if they fail to address these issues, disenchanted Black voters might either abstain or, potentially, be swayed by Republican messaging on certain key issues.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Toribor@corndog.social 55 points 3 years ago

If Trump is elected do you think that his administration would be more friendly to unions than the Biden administration?

If you're mad about Biden forcibly ending the rail strike (which was honestly infuriating) you should know that his administration continued to work with the labor union afterward to negotiate a deal while also avoiding a disastrous economic shutdown that would have resulted from the strike. Could Biden have done more to get a deal without forcing an end to the strike? Maybe. Should he have let the economy collapse in order to support labor rights? Maybe, but I understand why he didn't.

Biden was basically my last choice of the field of democrats running in 2020 but I don't know what anyone else would have done to achieve better results.

[-] Khanzarate@lemmy.world 21 points 3 years ago

I don't disagree with most of what you said but there's a real basic thing with the rail strike he could've done.

If the government has the power to force a deal, he could've just given the workers the week off they asked for, forcing the companies to acquiesce instead of the people.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 25 points 3 years ago

The federal government (executive branch) government did not have the power to force a deal. It had the power to break a strike

Congress had the power to enforce the agreement as written, but could not pass a bill to do so.

In early December, the House passed a bill to enforce the tentative September agreement. Interestingly, the House’s bill spun off a second bill to introduce seven days of paid sick leave into the contract.

The first bill passed the Senate and got the president’s signature.

The second bill failed in the Senate.

The new contract’s provisions included pay raises through 2024 and immediate payouts to individual workers, Progressive Railroading reports. But there was little meaningful discussion of — let alone resolution to — workers’ calls for fairer attendance policies.

https://uniontrack.com/blog/rail-unions

this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2023

554 points (100.0% liked)

politics

30930 readers

1622 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News