86,519,347 Have chosen none of the above in the races so far

[hellofromreddit]

Data

Average turnout: 27.3%

Total eligible voters so far: 119,008,730

It seems that the negative campaigning and demolition of people's characters is failing to energize most voters.

Honestly, I think one of the worst features around this place is ignore. I realize that it's certainly convenient to shut out people who are constantly inciting anger for anger's sake, but it looks as if pro-whatever people have all filtered out the anti-whatever people and there are two kinds of discussions in here: stuff posted by pro-Hillary folks seems to get almost exclusively pro-Hillary responses, stuff posted by pro-Bernie folks seems to get almost exclusively pro-Bernie responses. It leaves little room for any actual discussion that may either educate people or change minds. Instead it's a torrent of hit pieces and accusations.

But it is a nice (in a way) microcosm of what's happening in the real world: two increasingly insular groups are inspiring fewer and fewer voters. Those voters genuinely don't care who started it--they just see angry people shouting and lying, so turnout is abysmal.

I'd suggest you take a couple of steps: clear out your ignore lists and start critically reading what your 'enemies' post, and strive to write your own posts that are worth reading. Think of it as practice for the real world. You can safely try and fail here with zero consequences since what happens on an internet discussion board is irrelevant.

Then you'll be ready to go out and fix the fundamental problem of living in a democracy where nobody gives a damn. If you can fix that then the other issues become trivial.

[Agnosticsherbet]

1. Which shows a lot of voters dpn't give a damn.

Some will vote in November.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. Those are excellent suggestions.

But I'm afraid you're wasting your energy.

I hope you'll stick around and continue to observe and comment on our behavior, without getting sucked into the drama. Objective observations are nearly always useful, esp. when the observer is impartial, as you seem to be.

[hellofromreddit]

15. Thanks!

But I'm afraid you're wasting your energy.

Nah, practice is practice. The best people I've known are often the only ones around to tackle thankless work.

[artislife]

3. No...there are some vile posters on my ignore list

It would make me want to practice Santoria.

[Agschmid]

19. There was a post the other day which threatened physical harm!

It was way over the top IMO!

It was really bad because it wished harm upon A candidates supporters, and their children.

DU should be better than this.

[MineralMan]

4. Or, that many have decided to leave the decision to others.

By not voting, that is what they are doing. Let's select well, for their sake. That's my suggestion.

[pdsimdars]

5. I have heard a lot of arguments about how lousey the media is these days.

They talk about how it no longer tries to get to the truth but only reports that this side said this and that side said that, and that is all. For instance they would report that some climate scientists say that global warming is real.. others say it is not . . . . and they leave it there, as if each of those things has equal weight and therefore cancel each other out in some way. But that is not the case, 97% of climate scientists are on one side and a few others who are paid by oil companies to raise doubt. There IS a truth about it, but the current media philosophy is either incompetent or unwilling to dig down to the truth.

This seems to be what you are saying. But in all honestly, it is nonsense.
President Obama has leaned over backwards trying to get the Republicans to agree to any number of things. A number of times he has even agreed to THEIR suggestions, and as soon as he agrees, they refuse to act on their own suggestion. Like this latest Supreme Court nomination. He was originally someone the Republican had suggested. And when Obama nominated him, they are against him. You cannot reason with the unreasonable.

If there were two rational, reasonable parties who were looking for a the truth, your idea is reasonable. But since there is not, spending effort on trying to reason with the unreasonable is a total waste of time. When one side has shown itself to be unreasonable, there is nothing that can be done.

I am relatively new here and was hoping to have some real discussions on the issues. What I found is that there is a whole group who don't want to touch an issue with a 10 foot pole. I was surprised by this.

I saw Bernie supporters putting up articles with actual data in them, or in depth articles by people from the security sector explaining the whole "private server" situation. It is very enlightening to hear a professional explain the situation rather than the endless opinions of what laymen "think" about it.

All I have ever seen from the Hillary supporters in response it dismissal, deflection or attack the messenger. I have never seen a reasonable, rational counter to the issue.

In contrast, the articles you see from the Clinton side are about taking some obscure passage out of context and twisting it into the opposite. Or simply outright lies or smears. Every week it is these same tactics. . . taking something out of context to obfuscate, taking one small part of some larger body and extrapolating it into the opposite of what is actually portrayed.
It is pretty much that clear a difference. For example Hillary made the claim many times that Bernie voted against the auto bailout. It is actually false. Even Fortune Magazine called her out on it. But she kept right on saying it.

And now, there is this latest meme. . . . why are we all so mean, why can't we get along. Very similar to the right wing calling on Obama for being so divisive. All day, every day, they are on ratio and TV causing division and hatred and they blame it on Obama. They have been the ones causing hate and division using Obama as their target and then they blame him for the divisions they created. What can Obama do? How can he get them to stop creating hatred and division in his name? It is not his fault. Should President Obama abandon his principles, stop fighting for them, in the name of 'unity'?

This is what I think you suggest even though you may not understand that. And I totally disagree with that stance. No one should ever bow or give in to something that is wrong, just to make peace with someone. You must adhere to your principles and if someone is totally unreasonable and unwilling to engage or change, you cannot simply give in to the unreasonable.

This seems to be the same situation here. Every day, every week there is some new meme, some new way to twist Bernie's record or words and point the finger at his supporters, and then they blame Bernie and his supporters for it.

If you do not have the perspective or knowledge to see this then you should not be saying what you are.

There is no equivalency of sides here.

[hellofromreddit]

12. No.

I'm not saying to abandon what you stand for--I'm saying to sharpen your wits so that you can better defend what you stand for. To do that, you have to build some tolerance for vile people.

After all, nobody ever sharpened a knife with a pillow. Body builders don't pick up light things. Athletes don't avoid sweat. None of it is a waste of time. I canvassed for Obama in some horribly racist areas and while I'm confident that I changed no votes, it was still good practice.

I saw Bernie supporters putting up articles with actual data in them, or in depth articles by people from the security sector

And that's how it's done. You're right when you complain about the Hillary people posting heaps of trash--many of them do. But that doesn't require that you or anyone else do the same.

And now, there is this latest meme. . . . why are we all so mean, why can't we get along.

I'm pro-Sanders. I've made it clear several times now. But this is directed at everyone since I see garbage from all over.

Learn from Sanders' own example. He could certainly drop to the level of the other candidates: accepting PACs, pandering to big contributors, and going after the characters of others, but he doesn't. And the very reason that he doesn't is because of how much he hates all that shit. Running his campaign as he has is putting him at a disadvantage, but he endures it because it strengthens his platform even when it doesn't strengthen him.

So when people around here post smear after smear, and if you get pissed seeing it all over the board, then it's clearly not something you wish to be a part of. So don't do it. You mention people posting well-supported arguments and links to research--do that. Practice making solid arguments and maximize the contrast between your posts and all the shitposts. Fill the board with enough quality that those who'd post trash are too embarrassed to do it. Or at least try.

Don't fall into the trap of believing that the other side is a single entity. Even if there is a huge amount of noise from that side, they have their own rational people and those people are worth talking to and hearing from. I've read multiple posts in the Hillary Clinton group form Hillary supporters complaining about the horrible tone.

Everyone you disagree with now is a potential ally.

[pdsimdars]

17. Your part about sharpening your knife, etc was good.

But I don't think some of the other things were actually what you said in your first post, maybe it's what you meant but I didn't get that.
You were talking about not ignoring people. That is not the same thing you were saying here.
I have not really seen many articles from Bernie people smearing Hillary. I have seen many Hillary articles that are nothing but misrepresentation of Bernie. There is no equivalency. It is night and day. I don't know if I have ever seen an actual Hillary supporter putting up an article of substance defending her. Not one that has proven to be the truth.
And I also don't recall the articles of Bernie supporters who are just meant to smear Hillary. I think the Bernie people are, for the most part, following his example. I don't see article that are just posted to smear Hillary.
And if I see someone who posts nonsense after nonsense, I don't want to be part of it. Just what I said, when someone has shown that all they are there to do is be annoying . . .I ignore them. . . just as you said in THIS post, don't participate. In your original post you were against that. I don't see any reason for me to read their posts day after day when it's always the same.
I let everyone have their chance, but when all they say is pushing the latest anti-Bernie meme, I'm not interested. I don't see how it makes me a better person to keep listening to loud noise when I can turn it off.

[hellofromreddit]

24. I advocate two things

I was advocating two things: listening and posting.

The second part is very important.

And I also don't recall the articles of Bernie supporters who are just meant to smear Hillary.

The stuff about the emails. Maybe something will come of it, maybe it won't. And while it is an important issue since people in power clearly follow a very different set of rules, it's being posted repeatedly without constructive explanation. It's just a lot of, "Look, she fucked this up!"

I know it feels like a good point, but it's veering away from, "This is indicative of poor judgement or ignorance of technology, here's a candidate that can avoid these situations" and more towards "That dumbass thinks she can get away with murder, why do so many idiots support her?" That is going to piss off Hillary people and nothing more. Proof: that's what it does every time. They try to deflect it as RW propaganda, but they're doing that because they're pissed off.

If you want to change a person's mind you have to get in there. If you've got to hold your tongue while you do it, then hold your tongue.

That's not to say the issue can't be discussed, but it needs to actually be discussed. And when the negative response hits (which it will), the ensuing discussion should be geared towards clarifying things instead of egging everyone on. For example: "LOL. Good one. Oh. Wait. You're serious. Sorry. My bad," presses the discussion the wrong way.

But I don't think some of the other things were actually what you said in your first post, maybe it's what you meant but I didn't get that.

That is exactly why it's so important to talk to people you disagree with. Communication is never perfect and I've got to feel out my readers as I go. That's just the way it goes.

[onenote]

6. One problem with the OP: Turnout is actually on the high side, not the low side

The highest recorded primary turnout was in 1972 when it hit 30.9 percent. The next highest was 2008, when it hit 30.3 percent. In between those dates there have been eight election cycles and turn out exceeded this year's 27.3 percent (to date) exactly once: 1976 (when it was 29.6).

So I wouldn't read a lot into the numbers.
http://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Voter-Turnout-in-Presidential-Primaries-and-Caucuses_Patterson.pdf

[hellofromreddit]

14. 30.3% is also abysmal

[onenote]

16. Maybe so, but the notion that there is something unusual happening this year

because of negative campaigning or whatever is simply bogus.

[hellofromreddit]

22. I did not claim that it was unusual

Campaigns are negative every election and voters are duly disheartened.

Arguing that a bad situation is tolerable because it has been bad before doesn't make any sense. Most of us would like to see the tone change and there's no time like the present.

[onenote]

23. I don't think the facts bear that out

the tone has gotten worse over time. I don't know how old you are by I'm old enough to remember (and have participated in) every one of the primaries since 1972.

Turnout in the Democratic primaries is lower this go around than it was in 2008 when the campaign between Obama and Clinton was arguably more negative than the Sanders-Clinton campaign

And turnout in the repub primaries is Yuge. And there hasn't been anything more negative, ever.

So your hypothesis doesn't withstand scrutiny.

[hellofromreddit]

25. What is my hypothesis as you see it?

So your hypothesis doesn't withstand scrutiny.

[onenote]

27. Your hypothesis as you state it:

"It seems that the negative campaigning and demolition of people's characters is failing to energize most voters."
"two increasingly insular groups are inspiring fewer and fewer voters."

[hellofromreddit]

29. I see.

Maybe I should have written "two increasingly insular groups are inspiring few voters."

[imagine2015]

7. I haven't put anyone on ignore and won't. That's an undemocratic thing to do.

As you say, it doesn't encourage free debate and discussion at all.

[Karma13612]

9. I just started using the ignore feature since I have had some head-banging

conversations with some posters on this forum who I am beginning to suspect are just picking fights and stirring up stuff to get a rise out of some of us.

It took me a lot to take this action, but now I can get down to having some substantive conversations with those who want to actually converse.

It's done wonders to my mood as well.
It isn't undemocratic, the people I have ignored can still voice their opinions. I just won't have to read their Right Wing saturated crap any longer.

[pdsimdars]

18. This is my position exactly.

Does it make someone a better person to keep walking past the house where they spit at you every day? Or is it just a sign of intelligence to walk another way?
I don't think submitting yourself to constant abuse is intelligent in any way.

[cantbeserious]

26. Close To 250 On Ignore Now - DU Is A Much Nicer Space - Added 10 More Today

eom

[Jenny_92808]

8. OP, Heck No!

I am not clearing out my ignore list as you suggested. There are some vile, baiting posters on my ignore list.

[Karma13612]

10. Yup, agree 100% eom

[Blue_In_AK]

11. Nope, not clearing out my ignore list.

I've just started using the feature since the "amnesty" and am finding my time at DU so much more pleasant as a result.

[PowerToThePeople]

13. No

They are as bad or worse than Republicans. I will keep them on ignore. Thanks for your concern.

[pdsimdars]

20. And I see many more agree with me.

This isn't a good or smart idea.
Hey, don't we all think that the person who stays with their abuser is being stupid or weak? The smart thing to do is get out of an abusive relationship, P E R I O D

[Contrary1]

21. I cleared out my ignore list before the primaries...

I mainly had folks on there that were rude, no matter what their comments were about.

And then, I started filling it up again... with those making asinine remarks, and others who believe that just posting on comments shows their superior intelligence.

Guess what? Most of them were the ones I had on Ignore earlier.

[brooklynite]

28. Or maybe 86,519,347 have chosen "any of the above"...or "I don't care".

[noamnety]

30. Voter suppression seems to be a big factor.

I say that because looking at your linked data, it's clear that the caucus states have an exceptionally low turnout - mostly in the single digits, while primary states are closer to 30%. It's clear that making people sit in cramped gyms for hours on end and lose a day of work (or potentially their entire job) in order to just cast a vote is a recipe for disenfranchisement. Gotta wonder why the DNC supports that.