‘I was not voting before, now I am’: gen Z voters on what they think of Kamala Harris
‘I was not voting before, now I am’: gen Z voters on what they think of Kamala Harris
Young US voters weigh in on why they like or dislike the VP as a candidate and if they think she could beat Trump
American gen Z voters share how they feel about Kamala Harris’s presidential bid, why they like or dislike her as a candidate and whether they think she could beat Donald Trump, as the vice-president races towards winning the Democratic nomination for November’s election.
‘I think she’s just what we need’
“I think [Kamala Harris] is the only one that makes sense. She will get the votes Biden couldn’t. She could get the Black, Asian, Latino, women’s, LGBTQ+ and youth votes. She stands more for progress and equality than an old white dude and if she wins it will be historic. The Democrats need a bold move and I think she’s just what we need.
“I hope the Democrats realize what an opportunity this is for them.” Will, 22, construction worker from Portland, Oregon
…
You're viewing a single thread.
Good to hear, but if you weren’t voting to oppose obvious fascism before, you’re not a very good/informed citizen.
Most Americans aren't good citizens, so if you actually want to beat fascism, being able to win over disconnected voters is a huge deal.
Yes, most people are not informed. But they sit back and watch an old, crooked, politician call another dude an old, crooked, politician. It was a joke. And while us nerds sitting here in a political sub can say that's dumb, even though we know Biden wasn't ideal hes better than the other option, the truth is most people were just sitting back and laughing at how ridiculous the situation was.
I hope everyone gets that. I have voted every election for the last 20 years but I was struggling to get myself to vote for a guy that couldn't even talk. I was pretty pissed off at the DNC for trying so hard to hide his medical problems and just say "Well, at least he's not Trump! If you don't vote you're a fascist!" ". Taking action to correct it gets rid of that bitter taste in my mouth and I am sure it does for a LOT of people that were NEVER going to vote. While Kamala doesn't inspire huge waves of grassroots support, at least she isn't embarrassing and she returns legitimacy to the office.
Shaming people is an absolutely awful way to convince them to change their ways.
When the threat of fascism isn't enough -- what else is there?!
Recent events indicate that "better candidates" is the answer to your question.
Like progressives have been saying for years.
People want to vote FOR something, not against something. We want hope for a better future.
Just look at how popular Bernie Sanders and his policy proposals are. People were excited to vote for him, because he was proposing to actually help the average American.
And look how far that went. How Bernie was still unable to turn out massive numbers of young people.
It's absolutely incorrect to say that voters are blameless. Bernie had a platform that was the dream for young people, and they didn't show up -- and I say that as someone who was 24 at the time and did vote for him in the primary.
we did show up. They literally rigged it against him.
It's a question of priorities... is it more important to be right or to defeat fascism - if the later is your priority then shaming people for still being wrong makes the fascism more likely.
I mean most people shouldn’t be allowed to vote, like MAGA and people who planned to not vote against a fascist.
I do think only after passing a short multiple choice question should the vote count.
Are the USA…
a) a city b) a state c) a country
This is why they stopped teaching 'civics' in middle school.
Yeah really like who are these people who weren’t going to vote for Joe? Are they stupid?
uninformed/misguided apathetic "i don't care about politics" kids who saw nothing but ancient white men and can't/won't distinguish between them
And then vote because of gender and race and not politics.
It's another reason Harris would be crazy to go with anyone but Mark Kelly. You'll get people who never dreamed of voting to just vote for the novelty of an astronaut and fighter pilot.
I want science to win so that’s a good option anyway.
Mark Kelly would normally be a great choice but Andy Beshear is way better in this election. He balances the west/east and is not that fat from the east. Also he draws from the Appalachia/rust belt area that Baby face Vance was supposed to attract but was a horrible failure.
I love Beau of the Fifth Column, but I have to politely disagree with him here. I'm originally from rural Appalachia and I don't think you try to combat Vance by one-upping him with someone from that region. To me he makes less of a case for Beshear in this video and just more explains why JD Vance is a terrible pick, which I agree. Recognizing that much of the Presidential election ultimately comes down to a popularity contest, I think you go with the more flashy figure. For instance, I'm a pretty big political junkie and even I don't know much about Beshear. That's not to say he won't skyrocket in name-recognition if the announcement comes that he's her pick, but it's just an easier sell to the average voter: "Wow, Mark Kelly is an astronaut and navy fighter pilot veteran!" The mere novelty of that will draw people to vote for him. I think this is powerful enough to draw those same voters away from Vance in itself.
Having someone popular running as VP from a key battleground state is a plus, too. We have to realize that much of rust/bible-belt isn't particularly in play anyway. We have Whitmer who will help carry Michigan; and we have Shapiro who will help carry Pennsylvania. Seems like Tony Evers is doing well in Wisconsin. These are the three key battleground states while the likes of AZ and NV and so forth are more secondary battleground states.
Eh, don't be so harsh. We posters here are like sports fans following the team in the off season, watching every news drop to analyze and discuss with other fans.
Outside of here, Most of America just isn't that clued in to politics for a number of reasons. With the decline in consumption of print & broadcast news (and their inherent slant these days, let's be honest) you have to put in effort to find the story and follow what's going on. And that's for when the Algorithm hasn't otherwise distracted you with the latest celebrity scandal. For the younger demographic who have to work so damned hard to make a decent living or even just make ends meet, it's probably just demoralizing to watch two old men yelling at the clouds, and feel like their own concerns aren't even being discussed. And then you have to go looking watch a couple different takes on the same story (so many stories!) to see past the spin and get even a sense of what the fuck is ACTUALLY happening. People are busy, man.
I can't really blame them for just now getting interested, because at least now it is interesting. I hate the situation for what it is, myself, but here we are.
I can be a bit of a pot stirrer now and then, but I feel compassion makes me happier. Few people wake with the intent to make bad decisions.
It's because of those people that you now have another, better, more winnable option. You're welcome.
And for this I am very thankful!
On the other hand, if more people had turned out in 2016 we wouldn't be here.
Politics shouldn't be a popularity contest.
You could also say, if the Democrats had nominated a more likeable candidate in 2016, we wouldn't be here.
Clinton got less votes than Obama in 2012 and 2008, even though the population had grown during that time.
And it wasn't the Bernie bros who stayed home. Polling revealed that the Bernie bros showed up.
Blaming the voters is like having your bakery go bankrupt and trying to blame people for not buying your shitty cake.
First, bake a better cake.
"Where are all those advertisers I told to fuck off last year?"
What part of "I like soldiers who didn't get captured" and "grab them by the pussy" confused voters?
Count Dracula should have beaten Trump.
I totally blame the voters.
The voters are literally the ones who picked Biden though.
I know, but we were having a conversation about 2016 and the voters didn't pick Clinton then.
At least, not enough of them in certain swing states.
It also shouldn’t be a duopoly game but here we are.
The shorter election cycle is appreciated. This should be a thing. Say, on July 5th of an election year, then it begins.
Keep the primary results a secret until a couple of weeks before the convention. It'd also help the states with late primaries to not feel irrelevant.
We're celebrating the apparent increase in voters that aren't even following the duopoly policies enough to recognize literal fascism vs imperfect but generally good faith politicians.
If they're not informed enough to see the face eating leopard party for what it is, adding more parties to the mix won't improve anything.
I agree that ranked choice voting is desirable. But it won't help with these kinds of voters.
I don’t get that. I still have relatives trying to tell me trickle down economics works, that it is the way. Really? You think successful trickle down economics is why we all feel squeezed right now? You think that’s why Amazon workers go through hell while Bezos flies around in a penis rocket?
Reality isn’t tracking as reality. I’m not sure how one gets to that point where a confident person in a suit announces that x is the truth and so you just start repeating x is the truth and actually believing it.
"If wishes were horses then beggars would ride."
In a democracy. Politics is absolutely a popularity contest. The population votes. If you want better outcomes, do more for the population. When you don’t give the population what they want, you get totalitarianism which is the course we are on.
If more people had thought they were being listened to, perhaps they would have.
If you want politicians to listen to you, try voting in the primaries.
People need to educate themselves. Look at how Jerry Falwell and his 'Moral Majority' took over the GOP. They had one simple trck; if the local Republican clubhouse got 20 people at the regular meeting Falwell's folks would show up with fifty. They got the little jobs, like county clerk and sheriff, and then the bigger state positions and finally were in a position to control who got the white House.
If you want politicians to listen to you, try voting in the primaries.
Please don't gloat that the primaries have had a preordained winner for every presidential race since 2012. Particularly not when the most recent preordained winner had to step down, to the acclaim of the vast bulk of the party.
and BotH Sides aRe ThE SAme, right?
If you're going to tell people not to vote, try coming up with an actual alternative action.
I did not say that people should not vote, or that both sides are the same. You lost the argument and you're strawmanning. The shitty preordained candidate you wanted stepped down. We have a better candidate now.
No it's not. It's because of those people Trump still has a chance.
He had a chance. He's shaking in his shoes now because he knows she will wipe the goddamn floor with his shitty toupee/combover or whatever the hell that thing is. He thought he was going to have it easy against the old man. Now him and his whole party are fucked, scrambling to throw anything against the wall to see if it sticks, because they have nothing. Not even ancillary shit like Hunter's laptop.
Come sit down and watch, here's some popcorn 🍿.
Polls don't show that at all. Harris isn't ahead in swing states either. Don't start taking a victory.
Yes they are also #StopfacismVoteHarris