CORRECTION: A previous version of this article misstated that this poll had a likely voter screen. Democrats have a 57%-40% lead among men ages 18-30 who say they’re the most determined to vote.
CORRECTION: A previous version of this article misstated that this poll had a likely voter screen. Democrats have a 57%-40% lead among men ages 18-30 who say they’re the most determined to vote.
Now is the perfect time to tell them the BotH sIDes ARe thE sAMe!
If they aren’t likely to vote GOP let’s make sure they don’t vote at all!
I hate to reignite the thing, but if the ones who aren’t going to vote GOP and are willing to listen to you don’t vote, you do realize that’s a shoe-in in many places for the GOP candidate. I know, the other is trash too, but have we really gotten to the point where the GOP still has a locked in vote because every election the other side’s voters always fight with each other and ruin the potential sweep they had? IS this how the left works now? Seems like it. How do you fix that when the ones who are (understandable) pissed off keep turning away votes that DON’T get the right holding power? Circling the drain with this logic.
Basically, it’s up to all of us to educate people whenever we get the chance.
Here are three stories I have been repeating for years.
Back in 1968, old school Communists and anarchists, the folks who’d actually gone to Spain to fight Franco and been blacklisted, were telling people to vote for Humphrey. To a lot of young voters then Humphrey looked as bad as Nixon. To the oldtimers, Nixon was one of the people who’d helped kill Ethel Rosenberg. They knew Nixon was evil, and they were proved right.
Second. A lot of people point to Martin Luther King as a saint. They don’t look past the public persona and see that he was a shrewd political operator who strategically timed his actions. Rosa Parks wasn’t the first woman to refuse to give up her seat on a public bus, but she was the one they chose to rally around. One of King’s top aides was Bayard Ruskin, a gay man. King knew about the raw deal LGBTQ+ people had, but he also knew that America wasn’t ready for that conversation.
Third. Frederick Douglas was an escaped slave. His speeches and books had made him famous. He had a chance to back a candidate who was storng for Abolition. Instead, Douglas backed Lincoln, who was more committed to saving the Union. Douglas gambled that it was better to win and be at the table than it was to lose and have no influence at all.
More recent and maybe as pivotal was the move to get Ralph Nader in 2000. They knew he wouldn’t win, but the line I remember was that if the Green Party got 5% of the vote then they’d get a lot more funding next election. The right idea in trying to break the two party system, but the wrong approach, and who knows how things would have branched with an easy Gore win instead of the mess we got. “They’re both the same” - maybe in some ways, and that’s its own fight, but in other ways they are absolutely not.