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.

  • prole@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 year ago

    Or maybe grow up and realize that political offices and the people that fill them shouldn’t be “exciting”. Maybe the problem is that we all want someone exciting… With no regard for competence.

    “I’d have a beer with him.” Who gives a fuck???

    • Elderos@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Problem is that you need to convince tens of millions of people to grow up. I think this chap here is merely suggesting we give the idiots what they want.

      • LetMeEatCake@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        Candidates that will the whole party will find exciting are basically a once in a generation event, if that. This generation’s such candidate was Obama. Democrats as a party are reliant on far too big of a tent to make this a viable strategy or thought process.

        A candidate that I, a far left progressive, would get excited about is a candidate that a lot of center-of-left or moderate voters would find boring. Even within wings of the party there’s not going to be lockstep excitement (go back to Dec 2019 and ask Sanders supporters how “excited” they’d be for a Warren candidacy!).

        This line of argument is consistently just people pining for candidates that more closely reflect our own ideological views, not a reflection of the reality available to us. There was no such candidate in 2016 or 2020 and won’t be for 2024. I’m not going to hold my breath for 2028 either. Maybe by 2032 we might see the next Obama, someone that excites the whole party.

        • Riccosuave@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I gave you an upvote because I agree with the spirit of your message. However, I would like to remind you that if the DNC hadn’t literally rigged the system against Bernie Sanders in 2016 that we more than likely would not be where we are today.

          There was a HUGE amount of grassroots support behind Bernie (the most in modern American history), and the Democrats burned a lot of goodwill with voters by shoe-horning Hillary in as the heir apparent. There has never been a candidate that bridged the gap the way Bernie did in my lifetime, and that one single decision did incalculable damage to the world.

          I will gladly vote for Biden because I know it is a moral imperative to do so, and I am not a moron. I am also not trying to take away from his legislative victories because I believe they warrant more merit than they have received. However, I will not easily forgive or forget the chicanery, underhanded closed door attempts at king-making, and generally coercive tactics utilized by the DNC that got us here.

            • Riccosuave@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s exactly what I meant when I said he bridged the gap. Every single person I knew from every walk of life in my state were Bernie supporters including a surprising number of rural voters, moderates, and younger conservatives as you said in your post. I have just never seen anyone who’s messaging was so effective at bringing so many different people together over solution oriented propositions on the issues.

              Nothing has ever jaded me as much politically as watching what the DNC did to Bernie. The amount of fear they had over a candidate who was able to muster legitimate support from a heterodox voter base was very telling, and it shaped my political views more than any other experience in my life.

              • awkpen@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

                I think the bigger problem was that he was completely honest and showed that his message was consistent with his actions and votes over his career. Being smeared and pushed aside early on (see Rachel Maddow and all of the media trying to say Hilary had too many Delegates already pledged to her to overcome before the first primary vote did incredible damage that the “she got more votes than Bernie” group cleanly ignore had a huge effect, and that he still nearly won anyway shows how big the support really was that the Democratic party actively destroyed.

                • prole@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  If you’re going to make an extraordinary claim like “Rachel Maddow’s (objectively correct) reporting that the entire concept of superdelegates is bullshit, changed the outcome of the Democratic primary,” you better cough up some extraordinary evidence.

                  What an absolutely absurd thing to claim. This kind of shit makes me question what your intentions here may be.

                  • awkpen@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    If you’re going to make an extraordinary claim like “Rachel Maddow’s (objectively correct) reporting that the entire concept of superdelegates is bullshit, changed the outcome of the Democratic primary,” you better cough up some extraordinary evidence.

                    If you have to badly fake a quote from apostr you are replying to, then you clearly don’t have a legitimate arguement and need evidence to porove that your commments even have any merit at all. I clearly stated “see Rachel Maddow and all of the media trying to say Hilary had too many Delegates already pledged to her to overcome before the first primary vote did incredible damage”

                    Nothing there at all about the entire conecpt of superdelegates that you yourself self-inserted and shows that perhaps the truth may lie in you either believing completely in the lie to push away anyone who isn’t a true blue Democrat from having any say in the party’s direction, or you are one of those far right Trump supporting trolls who used this “I supported/voted for Bernie in the primary until Hilary won the DNC nomination” argument to pretend that they were actually on the side of Bernie supporters to get them to vote for Trump. Lies, gaslighting and pretending to be on the same side as the person they are arguing with tells me which side you are on and what YOUR intentions here are.

            • prole@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yeah, many of whom went on to vote for Donald Trump in the general election.

              It’s “great” that he had so much “moderate” support, but if it had anything whatsoever to do with his actual policy views, so many of them wouldn’t have stayed home or voted Trump.

              They just shifted that excitement from Bernie to Trump, because it has nothing to do with policy. They ultimately made things worse by poisoning the well against Hillary.

              These aren’t the kind of people you want to court.

              • vagrantprodigy@lemmy.whynotdrs.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                I disagree. If he had won the primary, those would have been voters for him instead of Trump, and I truly believe he would have won, or at least been more competitive than Hillary. People misjudged the mood of the voters badly prior to that election.

          • prole@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Huge Bernie fan. Voted for him in the primary.

            But can we please stop pushing this bullshit agitprop designed to divide Democrats and progressives?

            Political parties aren’t government organizations, they’re private companies. Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat, and even though he often caucuses with them, he’s been very outspoken against the Democratic party. Why would anyone ever think that the DNC would do anything to promote him over Hillary?

            Even with all of that said, Bernie still came pretty damn close, and the DNC didn’t “shoe-horn” anyone in. Hillary got more votes, it’s time to get over it.

            • Riccosuave@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              But can we please stop pushing this bullshit agitprop designed to divide Democrats and progressives?

              I fail to see how you could misconstrue my comment as an attempt to divide the base? I specifically said that I would gladly vote for Biden. That does not mean that I am afraid to levy legitimate criticism against the inherently anti-democratic primary process that has continuously shown itself as a failed mechanism for protecting democracy as well as providing for the material well being of our fellow citizens.

              Political parties aren’t government organizations, they’re private companies. Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat, and even though he often caucuses with them, he’s been very outspoken against the Democratic party. Why would anyone ever think that the DNC would do anything to promote him over Hillary?

              Yes, this is a big problem, and at some point we are going to have to engage with this issue if we wish to move forward as a civilization. I agree that this election is not the time to break down or deconstruct this monster that has been created. I would think it should be self-evident that there are serious issues with this kind of monolithic architecture given the Republican Party has fully bent the knee while being almost fully taken over by fascist, christian-nationalist, authoritarians. If you think this is a problem that is just going to go away if we happen to preserve democracy for one more election cycle then I would implore you to listen to reason. The system that allowed this to happen is inherently a problem (amongst many others, I will grant you). Again, at some point we are going to have to wrestle that demon. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but it needs to be done while we still have the opportunity to do so…

              Even with all of that said, Bernie still came pretty damn close, and the DNC didn’t “shoe-horn” anyone in. Hillary got more votes, it’s time to get over it.

              Agree to disagree on that one. I think the results speak for themselves. Hillary was a historically unpopular candidate who followed a historically popular candidate. It was a losing proposition, and the apathy towards voting for her is exactly how we got here. You can continue to ignore the very real Kompromat that ultimately soured the electorate against her, as well as the tactical decisions by the DNC (via her dear friend and chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz) to both prop up Trump as a spoiler candidate and ignore the populist support behind Bernie in favor of continuing their structural consolidation of power. However, I am not so naïve, and so willing to forgive or forget as I said before. That does not mean that I will bury my head in the sand, and throw fuel on the fire by disengaging with the political system therefore doing my part in guaranteeing the downfall of democracy ™. Instead, I make it a point to engage locally as well as nationally so that I am practicing what I preach by supporting candidates who are attempting to reframe these issues in a way that is more constructive for future generations.

                • Riccosuave@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  That isn’t what I said. I was pointing out that while that may have been the case it wasn’t without controversy surrounding the less than democratic approach the DNC utilized in garnering that outcome. I’m not saying it didn’t happen, it did happen. However, that does not paint a nuanced picture of the procession of events that lead to that eventuality.

                  Edit: Since you seem so inclined on personally attacking me.

                  • I will point out that it is exactly this kind of behavior and ad hominem attack dogging that makes people afraid or unwilling to engage with politics in the first place, and we are all worse for that in my opinion.

                  • Secondly, I did not vote for Trump, and you attempting to paint me into that convenient corner to justify your vitriol because I disagree with you shows your true colors sir. I hope in the future you can aim to be better, and engage with less hostility.

                  • Lastly, I am no way inventing some new reality by pointing out issues with the primary process as a way to comfort myself or mentally masterbate. I fully accept the reality of the events as well as their outcomes. Where we differ is on the semantics of why they occurred. You can attack me all you want for wishing to engage with the problems as I see them within the primary system as it currently exists, but I will continue to raise my concerns regardless because I feel it is important to do so.

                  • prole@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    I didn’t personally attack you, I was describing a type of person and I said that’s how you’re coming off.

                    I’m questioning your motives, because you’re doing work in this thread and whining about a completely fair and straightforward election that happened nearly a decade ago. What kind of positive outcome do you think this accomplishes?

                    Keep bringing up DNC dirty laundry. That’ll show em. That’ll make the Democratic party progressive.