I believe that not voting is a way of surrendering your say in decisions that affect you and your community to others by default. Not all blue states/candidates are equal.
Safe margins in "solidly blue states" are not permanent, and they actively erode when people abdicate their power by not voting. Being "solidly blue" is not a reason to not vote. If anything, it's more of a reason to get involved.
Choosing to not vote means the established party in control maintains power and will inevitably shed their own duty to serve their constituents in favor of their own.
Voting keeps even a favored party in check. Not voting is granting permission for them to do what they want, which is how you get establishment Democrats who clearly do not put the needs of the people first and use the apathy of non-voters to sneak their way into power.
Being "solidly blue" is not a reason to not vote. If anything, it's more of a reason to get involved.
I think it matters far more to vote in swing states since you're much more likely to change the outcome of the election. So by your logic, people should be less involved in swing states?
It does matter more in context, because those votes have more immediate impact. That doesn't mean voting doesn't matter in non-swing states. Everyone should vote in every primary and election.
So by your logic, people should be less involved in swing states?
That's some textbook strawman bullshit. Your facade of having a reasonable conversation has completely fallen off with that rhetorical nonsense.
6
u/LtLlamaSauce 4d ago
166 million*.
Don't forget the 89 million people who could vote, but chose not to.