• GBU_28@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    1 I can’t believe. They were never gonna vote.

    2 I can. Good reply thanks.

    Overall it becomes its own little alarm fatigue if on every single post of this all top comments are the same.

    • Makeitstop@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      I’m a bit skeptical about the idea of people staying home in large numbers specifically because it was supposedly safe. But I think you can get to about the same place through an enthusiasm gap.

      People who might have been moved by a better candidate and/or campaign but weren’t very motivated by Clinton stayed home. It’s possible that some might have been swayed if the race was neck and neck since it would have helped drive home the stakes.

      Unfortunately, a lot of people are politically disengaged, and a large portion of the population votes on vibes more than reason and policy.

    • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      I lived in a solidly blue state in 2016. I voted for Jill Stein (I know, I know, this was before it was widely known that she is a Russian asset and is generally a shitty candidate across the board, and I regret my choice) because I really disliked–and still dislike–Clinton. If people do that in states that are solidly blue, where there’s not any significant risk of a red candidate winning, I’m not too worried. If people do that in swing states to ‘send a message’, then the message we’re going to have is that we’re fucked.

      And, TBH, I’ll be fine either way. I can pass as the ‘right’ kind of person if I have to. I know a lot of people that can’t though.