I don't know what the hell is going on in this comment section right now, but addressing the substance of this post: as a liberal, I'm torn, and I feel guilty/dirty about it.
I've seen the polls, read the studies, and done deep dives into the special election crosstabs; I know quite well how the coalitions have realigned so that most of the most reliable voting demographics are blue.
On the other hand, I have a genuine ideological commitment to low-barrier voting. And as a Canadian myself, I also know that any comparison of US Republican voter-suppression laws to the reasonable, neutral voter-ID laws of most other Western democracies is misleading if not outright dishonest.
In any other election in my lifetime, I would easily have chosen to be outraged by this article's suggestion that liberals should just shut up and take the free advantage. But in this election, I'm tempted to , and that makes me feel disgusting.
I get why you feel that way, but I strongly encourage you to stick with your morals on this topic. For as long as I've wanted democracy to improve in the US (and around the world), I've always kept in mind that it isn't a partisan pursuit that inherently advantages liberals.
The goal should be a better, more representative democracy, not a political advantage. I fully believe that the long-term results of a better democracy would be positive for everyone, even if there's some turbulence involved.
I'm in my 30s, but in my parents' voting lifetimes, they saw Republicans sweep elections in 1980, '84, and '88. This really isn't that long ago; many of Noah's readers are probably old enough to have voted in at least one of those elections. "Can this happen again?" was never a serious question; of course it can happen again. This should never be an argument against improving our democracy.
On the topic of voter IDs: I'm not opposed to them so long as people have easy access to getting valid identification, and I suspect this is how the vast majority of Democratic voters feel as well. The history of voter ID laws in the US suggests that past iterations are easily exploitable to disenfranchise people. This problem needs to be solved, I think, in order for a lot of people on the left to support voter ID laws.
RFK advocates for an interesting solution here: require ID to vote, but have the federal government issue every US citizen a passport for free. I'd like to hear experts weigh in on this proposal, but it sounds great to me at face value.
The goal should be keeping anyone in the current Republican Party besides Liz, Mitt, and Adam and anyone who voted for them permanently from anywhere near the halls of power. Supporting Trump should be a permanent disqualifier. Democracy be damned, these people are traitors. Enemy combatants.
I don’t feel torn at all about it, it’s the same position I have on free speech: I support it even if it makes things harder in the short term because it makes things better in the long run. I will just be very amused when everyone pivots, and Republicans are screaming about Jim Eagle while Democrats are try to bring New England voting restrictions back to Virginia.
(I look forward to the Republican version of the Civil Rights Act that demands that New York State get reapproval for all their BS voting restrictions).
Does it really worsen democracy if voters without a strong preference for an outcome do not vote? The essence of a functional democracy is compromise, which means that you concede on issues on which you lack strong preferences. Pushing people to make a binary choice enforces polarization.
I think there are two different ways liberals might take advantage -- allowing laws that create barriers to voting bring passed and simply not affirmitively working hard to increase turnout.
I see nothing at all wrong with the later. Indeed, one of the nice things about non-mandatory voting is that it favors groups who really really care about an issue and would come out to vote if a canidate announced a policy that the majority kinda vaguely approves of.
As far as the former, I think in the long run any particular level of barrier is less important than reaching a stable requirement that can't be manipulated as coalitions change. At a national bill that settled this once and for all would be one thing.
But, I think what Noah misses is that when it comes to bills in individual states they may not be choosen randomly and the particular restrictions may not be to the democrat's benefit. So maybe the solution is to push for a one time federal deal with republicans to set some standard in stone.
After all, changing requirements are a much greater barrier. A permanent national standard will mean that over time almost everyone will eventually meet it and it may create much less harm than letting municipalities purge voting roles or play other tricks which they decide on after knowing how it will influence voting.
If more people are participating, government is more representative of the population and it should lead to net-positive outcomes so long as the population is educated enough. Low-information voters can be turned into more informed voters. Someone who lazily votes once might make voting a habit and do more research in future elections.
I'm not strictly talking about increasing voter turnout within our current election laws, I'm talking about pushing towards a democratic system where the vast majority of people feel like they actually have a choice that mostly represents them. Furthermore, we should strive to keep improving our system until the options and issues we handle via direct democracy (i.e. ballot initiatives) are relevant to voters often enough that they feel like the system gives them real control over their lives.
I want a multi-party system where voting access is secure but universal, where we invest in improving our education system including by teaching civic engagement throughout school to equip our population with the tools to make informed decisions, and where we encourage experimentation of new ideas throughout local, state, and federal governments.
If we do all of this and someone still doesn't care to vote, that's fine. The issues begin when people aren't voting because they feel apathetic, overwhelmed, unrepresented, hopeless, or demoralized, and these are problems we should want to solve.
We ended gerrymandering in the state via a ballot initiative that never would've gotten passed through the legislature, and we did so by a 22.6% margin. I suspect every major campaign finance or electoral reform we'll pass in Michigan will be done through ballot initiatives, and this is the issue I care the most about by far.
If the California Supreme Court decided to interpret the state's constitution to extend some existing civil rights to gay marriage, yes I would've.
If the state Supreme Court instead concluded that the constitution's scope of equality doesn't include gay marriage, I would support an amendment to broaden whatever clauses pertain to equality including gay marriage.
If the California Supreme Court decided that the constitution's scope of equality excludes gay marriage and an amendment effort failed, I would support a lawsuit pushed to the SCOTUS to resolve the question of if equality extends to gay marriage.
A central principle (one that certainly needs updating with the times) of our national constitution is to provide equal protection of the law to all and to strike down any legislation that violates that principle as a means of protecting minorities against the tyranny of the majority. If our laws allow for marriages as civil contracts, then they should apply to all consensual marriages, including gay marriages.
Good observation.... I have often thought that thinking of the two parties in ideological terms is not really correct. Rather, the basic construction of the two-party system sets up both parties as a sort of empty containers who try to hoover up enough support from the electorate to be relevant. Over time and with subtle shifts, the basic orientation of the parties can change quite significantly. It appears the parties have flipped ideologies since the civil war.
Is this good ? not clear... however, the system seems to be setup to avoid dominance by one party...which I guess is good.
This is what happens when you rely on kids as your base voting demographic. We've seen it backfire in spectacular fashion in 1972 by McGovern. Seems like Democrats will have to relearn all that again.
Even though I don't agree with Ruy Teixara on all things, I think he makes the best explanation in describing the peril of modern Democrats. He argues that the Democratic elites are increasingly urbanites who are out of touch with Middle America and likely assume that California and New York politics somehow applies to the rest of the country.
2014 and 2018 was really the peak of this progressive Democratic coalition. 2014 for the legalization of gay marriage and 2018 for the Blue Wave elections. Since then, it's been a long road to the Middle for Democrats.
Democrats need to take a playbook from its center-left party neighbors in Canada, France, and the UK.
The term “middle America“ is pretty ambiguous. It could mean the median voter, the most typical geographical location, the most typical occupation, who knows?
I mean, maybe they want to stand for what they (the activists and high-level party members) believe in, not for "working class" (Ruy Teixeira's framing) and its (perceived) ignorance?
Or they should stop believe in fairtytale utopias of open borders, abolished police and biological sex and instead craft a rational, sensible, reality/science based center left agenda. That party would dominate US politics. Dump the overly woke stuff and uphold law and order, keep the rest of the agenda intact.
I want everyone, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. to be treated with respect and to have equal rights and opportunities, but I disagree with the extreme woke fringe and I think it’s counterproductive to be all “every white person is racist.”
I want law and order, applied both to immigration and to crime.
Other than that, I’m pretty lefty; I want to help the poor and fight climate change.
But I’m just one person and I can’t change the Democratic Party by myself, and I’ve got nowhere else to go. I will never support the party of the Orange God King.
Mst Democrats in real life feel this way. It's just chronically online and low information people who have created a strawman that Democrats only care about "woke" sruff as a baseline based on vibes or the loudest voices on social media I think?
Those of us with college-age kids (well, mine are older, but I have friends with college-age kids) have to put up with a LOT of "blah blah blah colonialism blah blah using the wrong pronouns should be illegal blah blah Queers for Palestine" stuff. It's not just the online world. They sit in the living room and say it.
My experience is the same as yours, but what you’re describing is a generation gap within a specific socioeconomic demographic. Most college age kids are not college students and are not particularly woke.
I don't know mate. I would say real life but I'm not sure... Too many people thinks social media is > real life interactions. And that perception becomes reality.
Saying that people should stop believe in something is often technically correct but never helpful. Also, except for the police thing where they eventually had to, you know, relent, it is not obvious that their beliefs are object-level wrong (and then again, many object-level-wrong beliefs are very popular).
That's normally admirable, but in the zero sum game that is a presidential election they'd benefit from taking a page out of the Republicans' playbook and downplaying their stances that voters dislike. Especially voters who are on the fence and live in swing states.
Well, they have to balance that against not breaking their coalition (which in this two-party game would destroy all the divided parts). Ironically, Biden's age may have saved him in 2020: he was basically allowed to run a moderate (as Democrats go) message because "you can't teach an old dog new tricks".
This article makes an excellent point about voter ID laws, but I am concerned about Republican voter suppression efforts that specifically target people in Democratic areas.
Varana, a disabled Georgia veteran, got in line to vote in the 2020 general election a little after 9 am. She had to wait in line for 8 hours in order to vote. I bet she lived in a Democratic neighborhood. I bet people in Republican neighborhoods didn't have to wait that long.
This happened even before Georgia Republicans passed the infamous voter suppression law that made it illegal to give water to someone waiting in line to vote.
It simply might be that Democrats and progressives simply have a greater affinity to what’s right irrespective of self interest and in what promotes democracy.
There is nothing about the 2024 election that is "politics as usual".
A Trump administration and Project 2025 would mean an END to American democracy. THIS IS NOT HYPERBOLE. A vote for Joe Biden and ALL Democrats on the ticket is a vote to save this country and our freedoms. Period.
Trump claims to know nothing about Project 2025, nor anyone who wrote it, in spite of the fact that they nearly all worked for him, and part of the plan is for him to hire them all again, along with tens of thousands of other loyalists!
Here’s something for the underinformed: "The People’s Guide to Project 2025" 👇
There should be a public debate on this topic that a Trump victory would mean the end of America. The debate should be between two public intellectuals, not the candidates.
While broadly accurate, the post ignores a crucial issue: Control of the Senate will come down to Blue incumbents winning in Red and Purple States, e.g., Rosen, Baldwin, Casey, Brown etc. Nevada has more registered Democrats than Republicans. Getting them out to vote will be important for Rosen. And control of the House may depend on Democrats winning or holding seats in New York and elsewhere. Same for control of state legislatures and governorships in swing states. In some cases, coming out to vote for a specific down-ballot candidate can impact the Presidential choice.
This is especially important in key suburbs where even strong anti-Trump voters might vote for a Republican in a local election. Many still view themselves as Republicans whose party has been hijacked by Trump, and many Republican candidates in these areas keep a low profile with respect to Trump. Getting every Democrat out to vote will be crucial.
The election will be tight and political control at every level of government, will be dependent on the specifics of key states and counties. A strong GOTV campaign in purple states, especially among low-propensity voters in communities of color, and a strong effort to register young people can make all the difference. Broad brush analysis is insufficient.
I question how effective targeting is. Like, I can maybe see that case for GOTV in a black neighborhood. But for voter id or felon disenfranchisement, those reforms apply to the entire state. Social media gotv also applies broadly. With felon disenfranchisement, yes felons are disproportionately black men. But in absolute numbers, felons are mostly white non-college men, which is trump’s core demographic. So, permissive felon voting is net pro trump.
I love watching ideologues from both political tribes scramble to change their rationalization. Someday, perhaps they will step back and realize how unhealthy and absurd this tribalism is. Or not.
My gut feeling is that when you "rock the vote," all the Democrats who turn out are in blue states anyway. It produces a popular vote more in favour of Dems, but an ELECTORAL vote more in favour of fascists... er, I mean, Republicans.
It's the electoral college system that keeps fucking us, and Dems are still pursuing popular vote campaigns while promoting a bullshit "end the electoral college" initiative that will never ever ever work. We need to leverage the rules AS THEY STAND and get those electoral votes. There are valid progressive initiatives that appeal to middle America, we just need to go there and talk about them.
One other comment - the comments section seems to be getting a lot nastier in replies these days - not quite twitter/facebook land - but a lot more strident. Up to all of you of course and Noah, but I came here because of good intelligent discussions on complex topics. Yes, I can just stop commenting, but sad to see things degrade.
Or maybe Noah's column is now getting bot trolls ?? I did read all the comments - most are still excellent - so just need to ignore the ones that aren't.....
This post is fine but if the conclusion is at all reflective of most people’s thinking, it’s troubling for the future of our country. Civic participation is a good unto itself, and if more people prefer Trump then so be it. The way to avoid that outcome is to pressure the extremely weak candidate that is Joe Biden out and make a stronger case to voters in the media & through local outreach.
Trying to suppress the vote tactically (and other electioneering) on either side is a morally bankrupt tactic that ultimately weakens people’s trust in our system.
Trust is weakened by making voting too easy. If you bring in marginal and disengaged voters, you bring in people who don’t understand how the system works. So, they vote expecting big changes, without understanding what Congress or the president does or what the state, federal or local governments do. When the system doesn’t change as fast as they expect, they become disillusioned and cynical and maybe even turn to conspiracy theories.
Thanks for the reply. I don’t agree - there will always be conspiracy theorists, but these people are at least somewhat politically engaged already. The idea that getting more civically disengaged people to vote a few times will turn them into active extremists seems… extreme, and unsubstantiated. I think the likeliest outcome for those those feeling the way you mentioned is a return to disengagement, which leaves us no worse off then before, but hopefully with a few more people positively engaged in civic society as well.
I sort of agree with this, sort of don’t, but it’s also funny, because this is exactly the way we progressives will talk ourselves into a 180 switch on voting rules in the upcoming years. The two parties are going to switch sides on early and non-in person voting without either side commenting on the switch, just like the countries at war in 1984
This was interesting, thx. I have long suspected that Trump, love him or hate him, is a voter turnout machine. People turn out in droves to vote for him or against him. As soon as he finally goes away I wonder if voting trends will revert to the pre Trump baseline.
Also I'm not sure this piece adequately covered how a lot of voter suppression efforts are quite clearly targeted at black communities which are highly Democratic.
Yes, Dems have been engaging in voter fraud since the days of Tammany Hall. However, in recent years, especially 2020, they've had to expand it to brazen levels rather then merely using it to swing legitimately close elections.
Also, this article does a good job at identifying the tension between things like ideology, civic mindedness and things like self or partisan interest. Democrats today are all-in for expanding the franchise and making voting easier. This commitment is rooted in their historical interest in protecting their black or lower-class vote. Since then, they’ve bought into higher-minded ideas like civil engagement or the inherent goodness of maximal democracy. But now, easy voting cuts against the democrats’ partisan interests. They can concede this fact. But they can’t drop the ideology because of changed facts/interests alone. They need a new ideology, a new story about why voting restrictions are good, not just for individual democrats or their party, but more abstractly good for the country (and not just instrumentally so to achieve better policy but that the restrictions are good as an end in themselves). From my perspective, changing partisan interest merely opens the door to ideological change. The audience is primed and would be receptive to a new story once one is offered. But, to see the democrats endorse voting restrictions, we need a successor ideology. No one wants to see themselves as mean or cold or bad. Everyone has to have a story about how they’re the hero.
The new ideology doesn’t have to be logically or empirically perfect. But it does have to be emotionally or narratively compelling. It can’t be merely instrumental. A couple ideas: (a) restrictions capture preference intensity or certainty of everyone more fairly. Marginal voters don’t really care and don’t have much at stake, or have fleeting preferences. (B) marginal voters haven’t done their homework, so are making bad decisions that harm themselves. (C) relatedly, marginal voters are more likely to be cynical or become cynical due to their non-engagement and likely misunderstanding of division between legislative and executive or federal, local and state power. Restrictions protect voters from Over promise (take candidates too literally), under deliver. (D) marginal voters are chaotic or bored (poor planner, low executive function) and thus anti-system. Their desires are self-destructive even from their own perspective. Maybe voting restrictions are therapeutic in the sense that the marginal voter has time to cool down, get treated and then reassess, before doing something self-destructive?
With democrats, it’s hard to tell a story about why voting restrictions are good. It has to be something about why restrictions are fair or why restrictions protect the little guy, even though the little guy and the marginal voter arguably overlap.
2020 Georgia senate election is an outlier. Trump told his supporters to stay home. Stupid, but thats what happened. I would also argue that voters are likely to stay engaged until the political climate settles down and that will support the GOP on presidential election cycles but the mid terms and special elections could see continued Dem success. When people start to say that the nation is "on the right track" then voter engagement will diminish and less people will vote. Perhaps Dems will then start to outperform as the likely voters. We should all look forward to this future development because it will likely mean that we have moved past our fiscal crisis and hopefully moved beyond a likely major war.
I don't know what the hell is going on in this comment section right now, but addressing the substance of this post: as a liberal, I'm torn, and I feel guilty/dirty about it.
I've seen the polls, read the studies, and done deep dives into the special election crosstabs; I know quite well how the coalitions have realigned so that most of the most reliable voting demographics are blue.
On the other hand, I have a genuine ideological commitment to low-barrier voting. And as a Canadian myself, I also know that any comparison of US Republican voter-suppression laws to the reasonable, neutral voter-ID laws of most other Western democracies is misleading if not outright dishonest.
In any other election in my lifetime, I would easily have chosen to be outraged by this article's suggestion that liberals should just shut up and take the free advantage. But in this election, I'm tempted to , and that makes me feel disgusting.
I get why you feel that way, but I strongly encourage you to stick with your morals on this topic. For as long as I've wanted democracy to improve in the US (and around the world), I've always kept in mind that it isn't a partisan pursuit that inherently advantages liberals.
The goal should be a better, more representative democracy, not a political advantage. I fully believe that the long-term results of a better democracy would be positive for everyone, even if there's some turbulence involved.
I'm in my 30s, but in my parents' voting lifetimes, they saw Republicans sweep elections in 1980, '84, and '88. This really isn't that long ago; many of Noah's readers are probably old enough to have voted in at least one of those elections. "Can this happen again?" was never a serious question; of course it can happen again. This should never be an argument against improving our democracy.
On the topic of voter IDs: I'm not opposed to them so long as people have easy access to getting valid identification, and I suspect this is how the vast majority of Democratic voters feel as well. The history of voter ID laws in the US suggests that past iterations are easily exploitable to disenfranchise people. This problem needs to be solved, I think, in order for a lot of people on the left to support voter ID laws.
RFK advocates for an interesting solution here: require ID to vote, but have the federal government issue every US citizen a passport for free. I'd like to hear experts weigh in on this proposal, but it sounds great to me at face value.
The goal should be keeping anyone in the current Republican Party besides Liz, Mitt, and Adam and anyone who voted for them permanently from anywhere near the halls of power. Supporting Trump should be a permanent disqualifier. Democracy be damned, these people are traitors. Enemy combatants.
i don't think they're enemy combatants, though. they can have constitutional rights. the rest, no.
I don’t feel torn at all about it, it’s the same position I have on free speech: I support it even if it makes things harder in the short term because it makes things better in the long run. I will just be very amused when everyone pivots, and Republicans are screaming about Jim Eagle while Democrats are try to bring New England voting restrictions back to Virginia.
(I look forward to the Republican version of the Civil Rights Act that demands that New York State get reapproval for all their BS voting restrictions).
Does it really worsen democracy if voters without a strong preference for an outcome do not vote? The essence of a functional democracy is compromise, which means that you concede on issues on which you lack strong preferences. Pushing people to make a binary choice enforces polarization.
I think there are two different ways liberals might take advantage -- allowing laws that create barriers to voting bring passed and simply not affirmitively working hard to increase turnout.
I see nothing at all wrong with the later. Indeed, one of the nice things about non-mandatory voting is that it favors groups who really really care about an issue and would come out to vote if a canidate announced a policy that the majority kinda vaguely approves of.
As far as the former, I think in the long run any particular level of barrier is less important than reaching a stable requirement that can't be manipulated as coalitions change. At a national bill that settled this once and for all would be one thing.
But, I think what Noah misses is that when it comes to bills in individual states they may not be choosen randomly and the particular restrictions may not be to the democrat's benefit. So maybe the solution is to push for a one time federal deal with republicans to set some standard in stone.
After all, changing requirements are a much greater barrier. A permanent national standard will mean that over time almost everyone will eventually meet it and it may create much less harm than letting municipalities purge voting roles or play other tricks which they decide on after knowing how it will influence voting.
GET THE FUCK OUT OF OUR POLITICS
Lauren Southern, Gavin McInnes, Steven Crowder: ALL HORRIBLE LEAFS
If more people are participating, government is more representative of the population and it should lead to net-positive outcomes so long as the population is educated enough. Low-information voters can be turned into more informed voters. Someone who lazily votes once might make voting a habit and do more research in future elections.
I'm not strictly talking about increasing voter turnout within our current election laws, I'm talking about pushing towards a democratic system where the vast majority of people feel like they actually have a choice that mostly represents them. Furthermore, we should strive to keep improving our system until the options and issues we handle via direct democracy (i.e. ballot initiatives) are relevant to voters often enough that they feel like the system gives them real control over their lives.
I want a multi-party system where voting access is secure but universal, where we invest in improving our education system including by teaching civic engagement throughout school to equip our population with the tools to make informed decisions, and where we encourage experimentation of new ideas throughout local, state, and federal governments.
If we do all of this and someone still doesn't care to vote, that's fine. The issues begin when people aren't voting because they feel apathetic, overwhelmed, unrepresented, hopeless, or demoralized, and these are problems we should want to solve.
I was 16 and in Michigan at the time, so no.
Here's what sold me on it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Michigan_Proposal_2
We ended gerrymandering in the state via a ballot initiative that never would've gotten passed through the legislature, and we did so by a 22.6% margin. I suspect every major campaign finance or electoral reform we'll pass in Michigan will be done through ballot initiatives, and this is the issue I care the most about by far.
If the California Supreme Court decided to interpret the state's constitution to extend some existing civil rights to gay marriage, yes I would've.
If the state Supreme Court instead concluded that the constitution's scope of equality doesn't include gay marriage, I would support an amendment to broaden whatever clauses pertain to equality including gay marriage.
If the California Supreme Court decided that the constitution's scope of equality excludes gay marriage and an amendment effort failed, I would support a lawsuit pushed to the SCOTUS to resolve the question of if equality extends to gay marriage.
A central principle (one that certainly needs updating with the times) of our national constitution is to provide equal protection of the law to all and to strike down any legislation that violates that principle as a means of protecting minorities against the tyranny of the majority. If our laws allow for marriages as civil contracts, then they should apply to all consensual marriages, including gay marriages.
Good observation.... I have often thought that thinking of the two parties in ideological terms is not really correct. Rather, the basic construction of the two-party system sets up both parties as a sort of empty containers who try to hoover up enough support from the electorate to be relevant. Over time and with subtle shifts, the basic orientation of the parties can change quite significantly. It appears the parties have flipped ideologies since the civil war.
Is this good ? not clear... however, the system seems to be setup to avoid dominance by one party...which I guess is good.
I noticed that post-civil war flip. Curious.
Naw, it was the Republicans that successfully overturned the election in 2000.
Nonsense. Did Katherine Harris author these studies?
"Ya, they only did" STOP YOU FUCKING APE. YOU WANNABE McVEIGH. YOU PROTO LANZA.
The Dems are overtly trying to stop you. That's why I'm voting for them. Cry about it to Alex Jones.
al gore won florida
This is what happens when you rely on kids as your base voting demographic. We've seen it backfire in spectacular fashion in 1972 by McGovern. Seems like Democrats will have to relearn all that again.
Even though I don't agree with Ruy Teixara on all things, I think he makes the best explanation in describing the peril of modern Democrats. He argues that the Democratic elites are increasingly urbanites who are out of touch with Middle America and likely assume that California and New York politics somehow applies to the rest of the country.
2014 and 2018 was really the peak of this progressive Democratic coalition. 2014 for the legalization of gay marriage and 2018 for the Blue Wave elections. Since then, it's been a long road to the Middle for Democrats.
Democrats need to take a playbook from its center-left party neighbors in Canada, France, and the UK.
Suburbanites are middle America, and they are increasingly democrats.
The term “middle America“ is pretty ambiguous. It could mean the median voter, the most typical geographical location, the most typical occupation, who knows?
I mean, maybe they want to stand for what they (the activists and high-level party members) believe in, not for "working class" (Ruy Teixeira's framing) and its (perceived) ignorance?
Or they should stop believe in fairtytale utopias of open borders, abolished police and biological sex and instead craft a rational, sensible, reality/science based center left agenda. That party would dominate US politics. Dump the overly woke stuff and uphold law and order, keep the rest of the agenda intact.
That’s… basically me?
I want everyone, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. to be treated with respect and to have equal rights and opportunities, but I disagree with the extreme woke fringe and I think it’s counterproductive to be all “every white person is racist.”
I want law and order, applied both to immigration and to crime.
Other than that, I’m pretty lefty; I want to help the poor and fight climate change.
But I’m just one person and I can’t change the Democratic Party by myself, and I’ve got nowhere else to go. I will never support the party of the Orange God King.
Mst Democrats in real life feel this way. It's just chronically online and low information people who have created a strawman that Democrats only care about "woke" sruff as a baseline based on vibes or the loudest voices on social media I think?
Those of us with college-age kids (well, mine are older, but I have friends with college-age kids) have to put up with a LOT of "blah blah blah colonialism blah blah using the wrong pronouns should be illegal blah blah Queers for Palestine" stuff. It's not just the online world. They sit in the living room and say it.
My experience is the same as yours, but what you’re describing is a generation gap within a specific socioeconomic demographic. Most college age kids are not college students and are not particularly woke.
Why do I care whether or not most Democratic voters believe in it? It's not a straw man. It's what I get when Democrats win, so I don't vote for them.
Makes sense, but then, how do you convince low information people that that's not what mainstream Democrats are like?
I don't know mate. I would say real life but I'm not sure... Too many people thinks social media is > real life interactions. And that perception becomes reality.
Saying that people should stop believe in something is often technically correct but never helpful. Also, except for the police thing where they eventually had to, you know, relent, it is not obvious that their beliefs are object-level wrong (and then again, many object-level-wrong beliefs are very popular).
That's normally admirable, but in the zero sum game that is a presidential election they'd benefit from taking a page out of the Republicans' playbook and downplaying their stances that voters dislike. Especially voters who are on the fence and live in swing states.
Well, they have to balance that against not breaking their coalition (which in this two-party game would destroy all the divided parts). Ironically, Biden's age may have saved him in 2020: he was basically allowed to run a moderate (as Democrats go) message because "you can't teach an old dog new tricks".
For the millionth time, the national popular vote doesn’t matter. Dems need to win purple states in the heartland.
THE POPULAR VOTE MATTERS IN 50 OUT OF 50 STATES, SHUT THE FUCK UP
This article makes an excellent point about voter ID laws, but I am concerned about Republican voter suppression efforts that specifically target people in Democratic areas.
Varana, a disabled Georgia veteran, got in line to vote in the 2020 general election a little after 9 am. She had to wait in line for 8 hours in order to vote. I bet she lived in a Democratic neighborhood. I bet people in Republican neighborhoods didn't have to wait that long.
This happened even before Georgia Republicans passed the infamous voter suppression law that made it illegal to give water to someone waiting in line to vote.
For videos from Varana and other voters, see https://www.myvotingstory.com/stories/
Also, for a song in the public domain about the Georgia voter suppression law, see https://drive.google.com/file/d/1p5P2wO_IYX9_cBwkurWEqgmLMN2FnBuC/view
It simply might be that Democrats and progressives simply have a greater affinity to what’s right irrespective of self interest and in what promotes democracy.
You sound like a high official in the medieval church. What is a worthy end, in your certainty, justifies all means.
Keeping MAGA from power is an end that in fact does justify all means.
There is nothing about the 2024 election that is "politics as usual".
A Trump administration and Project 2025 would mean an END to American democracy. THIS IS NOT HYPERBOLE. A vote for Joe Biden and ALL Democrats on the ticket is a vote to save this country and our freedoms. Period.
Trump claims to know nothing about Project 2025, nor anyone who wrote it, in spite of the fact that they nearly all worked for him, and part of the plan is for him to hire them all again, along with tens of thousands of other loyalists!
Here’s something for the underinformed: "The People’s Guide to Project 2025" 👇
https://democracyforward.org/the-peoples-guide-to-project-2025/
This "Reject Project 2025" t-shirt is great too 👇
https://libtees-2.creator-spring.com/listing/reject25
Project 2025 needs more public exposure!
Pro tip: when you write "THIS IS NOT HYPERBOLE" in all caps, it sure seems like hyperbole.
You forgot to use the sarcasm font, but I still got it. Brilliant takedown of the gullibility of the average partisan, thank you!
A van filled with Heritage foundation stormtroopers just drove by my house. /s. 😂🤪 They’re coming for me!
They’re only coming for poors and commies so youll be fine
There should be a public debate on this topic that a Trump victory would mean the end of America. The debate should be between two public intellectuals, not the candidates.
ev is a brilliant prognosticator. Everyone can see it. Anyone who doubts this is in fact, a plum. We cherish ev. GOTV!
suckle upon my peen
Why don't you provide a link to it then?
Here it is:
https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf
While broadly accurate, the post ignores a crucial issue: Control of the Senate will come down to Blue incumbents winning in Red and Purple States, e.g., Rosen, Baldwin, Casey, Brown etc. Nevada has more registered Democrats than Republicans. Getting them out to vote will be important for Rosen. And control of the House may depend on Democrats winning or holding seats in New York and elsewhere. Same for control of state legislatures and governorships in swing states. In some cases, coming out to vote for a specific down-ballot candidate can impact the Presidential choice.
This is especially important in key suburbs where even strong anti-Trump voters might vote for a Republican in a local election. Many still view themselves as Republicans whose party has been hijacked by Trump, and many Republican candidates in these areas keep a low profile with respect to Trump. Getting every Democrat out to vote will be crucial.
The election will be tight and political control at every level of government, will be dependent on the specifics of key states and counties. A strong GOTV campaign in purple states, especially among low-propensity voters in communities of color, and a strong effort to register young people can make all the difference. Broad brush analysis is insufficient.
I question how effective targeting is. Like, I can maybe see that case for GOTV in a black neighborhood. But for voter id or felon disenfranchisement, those reforms apply to the entire state. Social media gotv also applies broadly. With felon disenfranchisement, yes felons are disproportionately black men. But in absolute numbers, felons are mostly white non-college men, which is trump’s core demographic. So, permissive felon voting is net pro trump.
I love watching ideologues from both political tribes scramble to change their rationalization. Someday, perhaps they will step back and realize how unhealthy and absurd this tribalism is. Or not.
We shouldn’t care about who people vote for. We should make voting safe, secure and easy.
*for Democrats. Voting for Trump should be a permanent disqualifier, though (and should make you lose your citizenship)
My gut feeling is that when you "rock the vote," all the Democrats who turn out are in blue states anyway. It produces a popular vote more in favour of Dems, but an ELECTORAL vote more in favour of fascists... er, I mean, Republicans.
It's the electoral college system that keeps fucking us, and Dems are still pursuing popular vote campaigns while promoting a bullshit "end the electoral college" initiative that will never ever ever work. We need to leverage the rules AS THEY STAND and get those electoral votes. There are valid progressive initiatives that appeal to middle America, we just need to go there and talk about them.
Just out of curiosity, what did you think I meant when I said "get those electoral votes" up there? Sneak in and steal them?
One other comment - the comments section seems to be getting a lot nastier in replies these days - not quite twitter/facebook land - but a lot more strident. Up to all of you of course and Noah, but I came here because of good intelligent discussions on complex topics. Yes, I can just stop commenting, but sad to see things degrade.
Or maybe Noah's column is now getting bot trolls ?? I did read all the comments - most are still excellent - so just need to ignore the ones that aren't.....
This post is fine but if the conclusion is at all reflective of most people’s thinking, it’s troubling for the future of our country. Civic participation is a good unto itself, and if more people prefer Trump then so be it. The way to avoid that outcome is to pressure the extremely weak candidate that is Joe Biden out and make a stronger case to voters in the media & through local outreach.
Trying to suppress the vote tactically (and other electioneering) on either side is a morally bankrupt tactic that ultimately weakens people’s trust in our system.
Trust is weakened by making voting too easy. If you bring in marginal and disengaged voters, you bring in people who don’t understand how the system works. So, they vote expecting big changes, without understanding what Congress or the president does or what the state, federal or local governments do. When the system doesn’t change as fast as they expect, they become disillusioned and cynical and maybe even turn to conspiracy theories.
Thanks for the reply. I don’t agree - there will always be conspiracy theorists, but these people are at least somewhat politically engaged already. The idea that getting more civically disengaged people to vote a few times will turn them into active extremists seems… extreme, and unsubstantiated. I think the likeliest outcome for those those feeling the way you mentioned is a return to disengagement, which leaves us no worse off then before, but hopefully with a few more people positively engaged in civic society as well.
I sort of agree with this, sort of don’t, but it’s also funny, because this is exactly the way we progressives will talk ourselves into a 180 switch on voting rules in the upcoming years. The two parties are going to switch sides on early and non-in person voting without either side commenting on the switch, just like the countries at war in 1984
This was interesting, thx. I have long suspected that Trump, love him or hate him, is a voter turnout machine. People turn out in droves to vote for him or against him. As soon as he finally goes away I wonder if voting trends will revert to the pre Trump baseline.
Also I'm not sure this piece adequately covered how a lot of voter suppression efforts are quite clearly targeted at black communities which are highly Democratic.
Because at this point the Dems have to rely on voter fraud.
Yes, Dems have been engaging in voter fraud since the days of Tammany Hall. However, in recent years, especially 2020, they've had to expand it to brazen levels rather then merely using it to swing legitimately close elections.
Never trust the “thoughts” of a person who can’t spell. It’s Tammany instead of “Tammy”. Trump loves the uneducated.
He can’t even spell Eugene
You sound over-credentialed.
Wow, deleting your own comments and reposting them to avoid embarrassment.
Thanks for confirming my hypothesis.
which "brazen level" elections and which "legitimately close" elections have the Dems won?
Among recent ones 2020 was brazen fraud, 2012 and probably even 2008 were legitimately close.
Going further back, 1960 was infamously fraudulent and close.
Prove it.
Also, this article does a good job at identifying the tension between things like ideology, civic mindedness and things like self or partisan interest. Democrats today are all-in for expanding the franchise and making voting easier. This commitment is rooted in their historical interest in protecting their black or lower-class vote. Since then, they’ve bought into higher-minded ideas like civil engagement or the inherent goodness of maximal democracy. But now, easy voting cuts against the democrats’ partisan interests. They can concede this fact. But they can’t drop the ideology because of changed facts/interests alone. They need a new ideology, a new story about why voting restrictions are good, not just for individual democrats or their party, but more abstractly good for the country (and not just instrumentally so to achieve better policy but that the restrictions are good as an end in themselves). From my perspective, changing partisan interest merely opens the door to ideological change. The audience is primed and would be receptive to a new story once one is offered. But, to see the democrats endorse voting restrictions, we need a successor ideology. No one wants to see themselves as mean or cold or bad. Everyone has to have a story about how they’re the hero.
The new ideology doesn’t have to be logically or empirically perfect. But it does have to be emotionally or narratively compelling. It can’t be merely instrumental. A couple ideas: (a) restrictions capture preference intensity or certainty of everyone more fairly. Marginal voters don’t really care and don’t have much at stake, or have fleeting preferences. (B) marginal voters haven’t done their homework, so are making bad decisions that harm themselves. (C) relatedly, marginal voters are more likely to be cynical or become cynical due to their non-engagement and likely misunderstanding of division between legislative and executive or federal, local and state power. Restrictions protect voters from Over promise (take candidates too literally), under deliver. (D) marginal voters are chaotic or bored (poor planner, low executive function) and thus anti-system. Their desires are self-destructive even from their own perspective. Maybe voting restrictions are therapeutic in the sense that the marginal voter has time to cool down, get treated and then reassess, before doing something self-destructive?
With democrats, it’s hard to tell a story about why voting restrictions are good. It has to be something about why restrictions are fair or why restrictions protect the little guy, even though the little guy and the marginal voter arguably overlap.
Trump voters should permanently lose the franchise, easy peasy
2020 Georgia senate election is an outlier. Trump told his supporters to stay home. Stupid, but thats what happened. I would also argue that voters are likely to stay engaged until the political climate settles down and that will support the GOP on presidential election cycles but the mid terms and special elections could see continued Dem success. When people start to say that the nation is "on the right track" then voter engagement will diminish and less people will vote. Perhaps Dems will then start to outperform as the likely voters. We should all look forward to this future development because it will likely mean that we have moved past our fiscal crisis and hopefully moved beyond a likely major war.