Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   Democrats want you to know that they would have totally won Florida if only all of their voters hadn't stayed home that day. Yeah, that's actually a pretty big part of "losing," guys   (npr.org) divider line
    More: Dumbass, Democracy, Voting, Voter turnout, Elections, Florida Republicans, Election, third-party groups, Minnesota  
•       •       •

1508 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Nov 2022 at 9:50 AM (8 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



605 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2022-11-28 9:30:24 AM  
Maybe don't run f*cking Republicans as Democrats.
 
2022-11-28 9:32:10 AM  
Well then there's your problem.
 
2022-11-28 9:51:52 AM  

puffy999: Maybe don't run f*cking Republicans as Democrats.


And we're done here. Running a guy who has changed party affiliation more times in the last 15 years than some people have changed vehicles is a terrible strategy. And the affect it had on the rest of the down-ballot races is evident.
 
2022-11-28 9:52:22 AM  
Have they considered...you know....actually running good candidates that get people out to vote?
 
2022-11-28 9:53:30 AM  
Oh man... this thread is going to be a 💩📽

🍿🍿🍿🍿
 
2022-11-28 9:55:01 AM  

iheartscotch: Have they considered...you know....actually running good candidates that get people out to vote?


The last time Democrats had a candidate like that they kneecapped his agenda as soon as he won a landslide election, leading directly to Trump winning once that great candidate could no longer run.
 
2022-11-28 9:55:07 AM  
Sounds like a whole heap of excuses to me. Sure DeSantis' electoral map/redistricting was stilted in Republicans' favor -- but c'mon -- either say that or pipe down.

Cudda, wudda, shudda isn't going to cut it.
 
2022-11-28 9:55:09 AM  

make me some tea: Well then there's your problem.


...which will then be blamed on Democrats by those too lazy to vote and the press.
 
2022-11-28 9:55:34 AM  
I don't care how much the candidate sucks. If you don't vote and you're able to then you suck as a citizen and have no right to complain. Congratulations on being part of the problem.
 
2022-11-28 9:56:19 AM  
Groups who rely on $$ flooding in to their coffers from donors are telling people not to stop giving them money.

quell surprise.
 
2022-11-28 9:56:50 AM  
DeSantis won his reelection by almost 20 percentage points. Up and down the ballot, other Republicans did almost just as well.
Joshua Karp, a Democratic strategist, said he's skeptical that this amounts to a huge political victory led by DeSantis though.


In a related story, Karp announced that he has accepted a position as spokesman for the Russian defense ministry.
 
2022-11-28 9:57:08 AM  
Could it be that Democratic candidates suck and nobody wants to vote for them because they won't address the issues that are important to them?

Could it be that Democratic candidates believe you owe them your vote without needing to earn it?

Could it be that Democrats have betrayed the working class and instead tend to the cogs of capitalism?

...
......
..........

No, surely it must be because some unknown and unproven amount of people stayed home, nevermind that staying home is a perfectly valid thing to do in a voluntary democracy and that withholding your vote for someone who clearly won't address your issues is 100% the right thing to do.
 
2022-11-28 9:57:18 AM  
I think they have a misunderstanding of what "voter" means.  If they stayed home, they aren't your voters.
 
2022-11-28 9:57:56 AM  

jayphat: puffy999: Maybe don't run f*cking Republicans as Democrats.

And we're done here. Running a guy who has changed party affiliation more times in the last 15 years than some people have changed vehicles is a terrible strategy. And the affect it had on the rest of the down-ballot races is evident.


iheartscotch: Have they considered...you know....actually running good candidates that get people out to vote?



You guys do know that there are no "kingmakers" who decide who the candidates are, right?

There are just people that run, and then there are primaries, and you end up with lousy candidates sometimes.

Beto was a bad candidate, too. He has good policies, but doesn't really give a good stump speech.
 
2022-11-28 9:58:17 AM  

NuclearPenguins: I don't care how much the candidate sucks. If you don't vote and you're able to then you suck as a citizen and have no right to complain. Congratulations on being part of the problem.


What undemocratic tripe.

Go back and retake middle school civics.

Voters hold the power. You need them. They don't need you.
 
2022-11-28 9:58:30 AM  
Nobody knows why Florida democrats stayed home. It's a big headscratcher. They might never figure it out.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-11-28 9:58:52 AM  

iheartscotch: Have they considered...you know....actually running good candidates that get people out to vote?


No no, I'm sure this is all the progressives' fault somehow. We are supposed to vote blue no matter who, and if we don't do that for a candidate who is a Republican in a thin coat of blue paint, then it is entirely our fault and not at all the fault of the Democratic party for putting up sh*tty candidates!

I have been assured of this many many times on this site.
 
2022-11-28 10:00:06 AM  

bluejeansonfire: NuclearPenguins: I don't care how much the candidate sucks. If you don't vote and you're able to then you suck as a citizen and have no right to complain. Congratulations on being part of the problem.

What undemocratic tripe.

Go back and retake middle school civics.

Voters hold the power. You need them. They don't need you.


Voting "none of the above" is a perfectly rational option when the only other choices are running on a platform of opposing everything you want.
 
2022-11-28 10:00:24 AM  

NuclearPenguins: I don't care how much the candidate sucks. If you don't vote and you're able to then you suck as a citizen and have no right to complain. Congratulations on being part of the problem.


I don't care how much the candidate promises to fix things. If their party has a proven track record of betraying the working class and favoring capital over wellbeing, and you go and vote for them anyway despite being perfectly able to withhold votes from unworthy representatives, then you suck as a citizen and have no right to complain. Congratulations on being part of the problem.
 
2022-11-28 10:01:00 AM  
I hate Florida.

Some day I'll sit down and figure out which order the states should be ranked with my hatred but for this thread assume Florida has always been at the top of states I hate the most.

Hate them all for some reason.  Well, except Delaware.   I just hate Delaware for no farking reason.  assholes.
 
2022-11-28 10:01:14 AM  

bluejeansonfire: NuclearPenguins: I don't care how much the candidate sucks. If you don't vote and you're able to then you suck as a citizen and have no right to complain. Congratulations on being part of the problem.

I don't care how much the candidate promises to fix things. If their party has a proven track record of betraying the working class and favoring capital over wellbeing, and you go and vote for them anyway despite being perfectly able to withhold votes from unworthy representatives, then you suck as a citizen and have no right to complain. Congratulations on being part of the problem.


i.imgflip.comView Full Size
 
2022-11-28 10:01:34 AM  

brainlordmesomorph: jayphat: puffy999: Maybe don't run f*cking Republicans as Democrats.

And we're done here. Running a guy who has changed party affiliation more times in the last 15 years than some people have changed vehicles is a terrible strategy. And the affect it had on the rest of the down-ballot races is evident.

iheartscotch: Have they considered...you know....actually running good candidates that get people out to vote?


You guys do know that there are no "kingmakers" who decide who the candidates are, right?


Hahahaaaaaaaaa.

You're funny.
 
2022-11-28 10:01:52 AM  
If you want people who aren't voting to vote, you have to find out why they're not voting and address that, whatever it is. If you're not willing to do that, then you're not going to gain their votes. It's pretty f*cking simple.
 
2022-11-28 10:02:21 AM  
I remember an autopsy back in 2016 where Florida democrats were asked why Florida was slipping away and it was so clear they had nothing.

We just need more money, said the state given the most money by the campaign arms and related wings.

I'm tired of pissing money away in Florida that could be used expanding the map in the rust belt
 
2022-11-28 10:02:25 AM  
Oh geez, this thread has already gone full Bro. You never go full Bro.
 
2022-11-28 10:02:46 AM  

NuclearPenguins: bluejeansonfire: NuclearPenguins: I don't care how much the candidate sucks. If you don't vote and you're able to then you suck as a citizen and have no right to complain. Congratulations on being part of the problem.

I don't care how much the candidate promises to fix things. If their party has a proven track record of betraying the working class and favoring capital over wellbeing, and you go and vote for them anyway despite being perfectly able to withhold votes from unworthy representatives, then you suck as a citizen and have no right to complain. Congratulations on being part of the problem.

[i.imgflip.com image 426x454]


Plenty more, actually!

What do you think a vote is? What is its purpose?

Your answer to this question will illuminate a fair bit about you and your politics.
 
2022-11-28 10:02:51 AM  

austerity101: If you want people who aren't voting to vote, you have to find out why they're not voting and address that, whatever it is. If you're not willing to do that, then you're not going to gain their votes. It's pretty f*cking simple.


THIS RIGHT HERE!

You're not going to get more people to vote by insulting them for not voting and then running candidates who oppose everything those non-voters need to survive in this shiathole country.
 
2022-11-28 10:03:03 AM  

brainlordmesomorph: You guys do know that there are no "kingmakers" who decide who the candidates are, right?

There are just people that run, and then there are primaries, and you end up with lousy candidates sometimes.


Yes indeed. It is always the best candidate that gets through the primaries. Not the one with the richest friends, not the one who gets the most money from the party establishment, not the one who can afford the most air time. All candidates are on a level playing field and it is solely up to the voters to choose the best one, with NO other factors at all affecting which candidates are presented to the voters.

Right?
 
2022-11-28 10:03:50 AM  
Let's stop with this myopic notion that non voters are a bunch of budding liberals that are simply too lazy to go to the polls.

No, non-voters are simply apathetic and lazy overall - and the main ones that are prone to misinformation and lies. They'd probably be more likely to vote for the right wingers if push came to shove.

Also, Florida is simply electoral fool's gold for Democrats. Every two years we hear about "If D's can win FL in (insert race here), then..." while R's have increased their MOV steadily since 2012. Give up the ghost of turning Florida blue, and invest in AZ, NC, GA, NV, and VA.
 
2022-11-28 10:03:58 AM  

AdmirableSnackbar: iheartscotch: Have they considered...you know....actually running good candidates that get people out to vote?

The last time Democrats had a candidate like that they kneecapped his agenda as soon as he won a landslide election, leading directly to Trump winning once that great candidate could no longer run.


Who was that?

(Not trolling, really asking)
 
2022-11-28 10:04:26 AM  

NuclearPenguins: Oh geez, this thread has already gone full Bro. You never go full Bro.


Guess what? There are no bro's. They don't exist, and the person who coined the term wrote a whole essay on why they hate that they ever thought it up.  You should go read it. :)
 
2022-11-28 10:05:19 AM  

bluejeansonfire: NuclearPenguins: I don't care how much the candidate sucks. If you don't vote and you're able to then you suck as a citizen and have no right to complain. Congratulations on being part of the problem.

What undemocratic tripe.

Go back and retake middle school civics.

Voters hold the power. You need them. They don't need you.



So your position is "If they hurt my feefees I will punish them by refusing to vote in my own best interest and the best interest of the country!" !?!?!?
 
2022-11-28 10:07:13 AM  

AdmirableSnackbar: bluejeansonfire: NuclearPenguins: I don't care how much the candidate sucks. If you don't vote and you're able to then you suck as a citizen and have no right to complain. Congratulations on being part of the problem.

What undemocratic tripe.

Go back and retake middle school civics.

Voters hold the power. You need them. They don't need you.

Voting "none of the above" is a perfectly rational option when the only other choices are running on a platform of opposing everything you want.


Sitting it out entirely is not having a voice. It's having a tantrum.

If there is one side that is even a little better than the other then supporting it is the only logical choice. If everybody did that every time things would migrate in the right direction.

A giant leap in the exact direction you want is not going to happen.
It's pretty much impossible even if I agree with what you want. (I think I mostly do)
 
2022-11-28 10:08:23 AM  

SpectroBoy: AdmirableSnackbar: iheartscotch: Have they considered...you know....actually running good candidates that get people out to vote?

The last time Democrats had a candidate like that they kneecapped his agenda as soon as he won a landslide election, leading directly to Trump winning once that great candidate could no longer run.

Who was that?

(Not trolling, really asking)


I'm pretty sure they are referring to President Obama. I don't know if mid-term elections count as "as soon as he won", but the big loss in 2010 was due to moderate Democrats distancing themselves from President Obama and his very popular policies, in an attempt to woo the "center" while ignoring and discouraging the left.
 
2022-11-28 10:08:41 AM  

NuclearPenguins: I don't care how much the candidate sucks. If you don't vote and you're able to then you suck as a citizen and have no right to complain. Congratulations on being part of the problem.


Unfortunately, even with current collapse of civil, voting, and reproductive rights, it barely energized the Dem base to hold on by their skin teeth.

If that wasn't enough to apathetic voters off their asses, nothing will.
 
2022-11-28 10:08:47 AM  

AdmirableSnackbar: austerity101: If you want people who aren't voting to vote, you have to find out why they're not voting and address that, whatever it is. If you're not willing to do that, then you're not going to gain their votes. It's pretty f*cking simple.

THIS RIGHT HERE!

You're not going to get more people to vote by insulting them for not voting and then running candidates who oppose everything those non-voters need to survive in this shiathole country.


Then some OTHER block stops voting.
That's how purity tests work, or rather don't work.
 
2022-11-28 10:09:01 AM  

bluejeansonfire: NuclearPenguins: Oh geez, this thread has already gone full Bro. You never go full Bro.

Guess what? There are no bro's. They don't exist, and the person who coined the term wrote a whole essay on why they hate that they ever thought it up.  You should go read it. :)


you're suggesting an assay about the coining of the term "bro" to people who don't even RTFA?

bruv.
 
2022-11-28 10:09:21 AM  

NuclearPenguins: Oh geez, this thread has already gone full Bro. You never go full Bro.


Who stopped all the "real" Democrats from running for office?

Oh wait, now I remember. The DNC was supposed to magically click its heels together, wish upon a star, and the Progressive Candidate Fairy would instantiate some highly charismatic and popular candidates that are born with strong community support that will transport them to victory on a flying carpet. It's the DNC's fault for not doing exactly that.
 
2022-11-28 10:13:10 AM  

bluejeansonfire: NuclearPenguins: I don't care how much the candidate sucks. If you don't vote and you're able to then you suck as a citizen and have no right to complain. Congratulations on being part of the problem.

What undemocratic tripe.

Go back and retake middle school civics.

Voters hold the power. You need them. They don't need you.


Voters hold the power. Nonvoters, less so.
 
2022-11-28 10:13:39 AM  

mamoru: brainlordmesomorph: You guys do know that there are no "kingmakers" who decide who the candidates are, right?

There are just people that run, and then there are primaries, and you end up with lousy candidates sometimes.

Yes indeed. It is always the best candidate that gets through the primaries. Not the one with the richest friends, not the one who gets the most money from the party establishment, not the one who can afford the most air time. All candidates are on a level playing field and it is solely up to the voters to choose the best one, with NO other factors at all affecting which candidates are presented to the voters.

Right?


More an observation that the Democrats are stuck with whoever the voters nominate in the primary.
 
2022-11-28 10:14:16 AM  
Something about leading a horse to water and can't make it drink. Democrats can't make apathetic voters get off their ass, apathetic voters can't make democrats run a candidate that gets them interested. One of these is easier to solve than the other
 
2022-11-28 10:14:23 AM  

mamoru: SpectroBoy: AdmirableSnackbar: iheartscotch: Have they considered...you know....actually running good candidates that get people out to vote?

The last time Democrats had a candidate like that they kneecapped his agenda as soon as he won a landslide election, leading directly to Trump winning once that great candidate could no longer run.

Who was that?

(Not trolling, really asking)

I'm pretty sure they are referring to President Obama. I don't know if mid-term elections count as "as soon as he won", but the big loss in 2010 was due to moderate Democrats distancing themselves from President Obama and his very popular policies, in an attempt to woo the "center" while ignoring and discouraging the left.


Like I said in another thread, it's idiotic that so many Farkers will fully acknowledge the problem of money in politics, but then turn around and scoff at the idea that some Democrats are bought and paid for.
 
2022-11-28 10:14:55 AM  

wademh: NuclearPenguins: Oh geez, this thread has already gone full Bro. You never go full Bro.

Who stopped all the "real" Democrats from running for office?

Oh wait, now I remember. The DNC was supposed to magically click its heels together, wish upon a star, and the Progressive Candidate Fairy would instantiate some highly charismatic and popular candidates that are born with strong community support that will transport them to victory on a flying carpet. It's the DNC's fault for not doing exactly that.


Now you've got it.
 
2022-11-28 10:15:01 AM  

SpectroBoy: Sitting it out entirely is not having a voice. It's having a tantrum.


That is your perspective. It works for you, it doesn't work for everyone. The sooner you and your friends start to understand that people you're shiatting on here have bigger problems than your opinion of them, and your attitude here only drives them further and further away from seeing you as someone interested in making anything better. Indeed, from my perspective - and I vote in every election - you're only gatekeeping who should and should not be served by our government, which only creates more non-voters as more and more people get excluded from the process while you berate them for being excluded and the cycle continues. Maybe stop doing what doesn't work.

If there is one side that is even a little better than the other then supporting it is the only logical choice. If everybody did that every time things would migrate in the right direction.

This is a very, very privileged take on our politics. It ignores the fact that the "a little better" side is actively harmful because they try to appeal to the worse side more than they try to appeal to the people who are harmed by this country's far-right policies, obsolete systems, and corrupt institutions that the "little better" side refuses to address.

A giant leap in the exact direction you want is not going to happen.

Of course it isn't, giant leaps are only possible in this country when they're giant leaps to the right. But it's nice to see you once again arguing against what you claim to support, that's always fun.

I agree with what you want.

Try voting for it for a change.
 
2022-11-28 10:15:21 AM  

SpectroBoy: bluejeansonfire: NuclearPenguins: I don't care how much the candidate sucks. If you don't vote and you're able to then you suck as a citizen and have no right to complain. Congratulations on being part of the problem.

What undemocratic tripe.

Go back and retake middle school civics.

Voters hold the power. You need them. They don't need you.


So your position is "If they hurt my feefees I will punish them by refusing to vote in my own best interest and the best interest of the country!" !?!?!?


Yes. Because they need my vote. They need to adjust to my positions. That's how it works. :)

I'm not voting in my "best interest" by voting for capitalists who want nothing but to chain everyone like me to the machines that make them rich.

Go re-learn civics.
 
2022-11-28 10:16:13 AM  

SpectroBoy: AdmirableSnackbar: austerity101: If you want people who aren't voting to vote, you have to find out why they're not voting and address that, whatever it is. If you're not willing to do that, then you're not going to gain their votes. It's pretty f*cking simple.

THIS RIGHT HERE!

You're not going to get more people to vote by insulting them for not voting and then running candidates who oppose everything those non-voters need to survive in this shiathole country.

Then some OTHER block stops voting.
That's how purity tests work, or rather don't work.


Again I will point you towards Obama winning record vote totals while that OTHER block ended up voting directly for McCain in 2008. You're scared of something happening that will actually benefit what you claim to want. You're acting like Reek.
 
2022-11-28 10:16:14 AM  

bluejeansonfire: SpectroBoy: bluejeansonfire: NuclearPenguins: I don't care how much the candidate sucks. If you don't vote and you're able to then you suck as a citizen and have no right to complain. Congratulations on being part of the problem.

What undemocratic tripe.

Go back and retake middle school civics.

Voters hold the power. You need them. They don't need you.


So your position is "If they hurt my feefees I will punish them by refusing to vote in my own best interest and the best interest of the country!" !?!?!?

Yes. Because they need my vote. They need to adjust to my positions. That's how it works. :)

I'm not voting in my "best interest" by voting for capitalists who want nothing but to chain everyone like me to the machines that make them rich.

Go re-learn civics.


lol. Such a child-like view of the world.
 
2022-11-28 10:17:45 AM  

qorkfiend: mamoru: brainlordmesomorph: You guys do know that there are no "kingmakers" who decide who the candidates are, right?

There are just people that run, and then there are primaries, and you end up with lousy candidates sometimes.

Yes indeed. It is always the best candidate that gets through the primaries. Not the one with the richest friends, not the one who gets the most money from the party establishment, not the one who can afford the most air time. All candidates are on a level playing field and it is solely up to the voters to choose the best one, with NO other factors at all affecting which candidates are presented to the voters.

Right?

More an observation that the Democrats are stuck with whoever the voters nominate in the primary.


And you think that itself is a level playing field and not due to who has the most money to get their names out in front of voters in order to even be nominated? Are you really naive enough to believe that established money and power play no role in that and it is entirely the fault of the voters for not putting up candidates that aren't sh*tty sycophants to the status quo?

And people say progressives have no idea how the real world works!
 
2022-11-28 10:18:01 AM  

bluejeansonfire: Could it be that Democratic candidates suck and nobody wants to vote for them because they won't address the issues that are important to them?

Could it be that Democratic candidates believe you owe them your vote without needing to earn it?

Could it be that Democrats have betrayed the working class and instead tend to the cogs of capitalism?

...
......
..........

No, surely it must be because some unknown and unproven amount of people stayed home, nevermind that staying home is a perfectly valid thing to do in a voluntary democracy and that withholding your vote for someone who clearly won't address your issues is 100% the right thing to do.


The Democratic candidate doesn't align with all your issues, so allow the GOPnik candidate to completely destroy those issues you allegedly care about.
//is an infertilized egg a person?
 
2022-11-28 10:18:15 AM  
I'm just glad the Republicans are in charge again.  Now I'll get that $2,000 check.
 
Displayed 50 of 605 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.