So these imbeciles instead of voting for a representative that they could influence with some letters and phonecalls, decided that the guy that will give Bibi free hand to finish fast and violently the genocide is a better option!
weird and confusing comment? maybe missing the point which is that harris got “some letters and phonecalls” (a lot of them!) and fucking ignored them for the entire campaign. biden-harris are the imbeciles here. hope this clarifies :)
They gonna keep sending those letters to Trump-vance as they work on their denaturalizarion and deport those legal US immigrants to Palestine?
The Palenstine that Trump-vance will gleefully be helping Israel wipe from the earth? That will not be at all trying to stop Bibi from finishing his genocide?
You think that the contest is between Trump and Kamala, but the real contest is between voting and apathy.
And it turns out “weel keep the genocide on simmer” wasn’t the banger they thought it would be.
well put. election has been emotionally traumatic for many, but that’s never going to make me hold biden-harris blameless for their relentless tacking right in the past four-eight years. people in the comments section want me to throw up my hands and say “ah well she did her best” and thats just… remarkably unfair.
hold your leaders accountable, folks. fuck trump. but also fuck adopting trump’s own conservative values in failed attempts to win over his constituents. dems WILL NOT do better unless you MAKE them.
Removed by mod
No, the real contest was between diplomacy and brutality.
People think Biden-harris were doing nothing. Just wait until they watch Trump-vance not only do nothing, but dramatically increase the genocide.
They didn’t make a point to the DNC. They helped kill hundreds of thousands by waving the GOP in.
They didn’t act collectively.
They are a vast sea of individuals.
The DNCs job is supposed to be to appeal to them.
The DNC actively and publicly shamed them for expecting the DNC to go against any donor, ever.
The DNC ushered fascism in. They weren’t willing to throw the ring. They wanted the power.
They literally acted as a group, the so called “uncommited” movement. They were a huge reason Harris lost Michigan.
This was focused, concentrated action to make a point, and they did. They didn’t like the complexity of diplomacy, and so instead chose unmitigated genocide and mass deportation of their fellow americans back to Palenstine to die. Well, they got it.
So you’re claiming that all the people who didn’t vote were corresponding and planning their non votes?
Or intentionally misunderstanding the incredibly simple concept I’ve explained?
The candidates may represent something closer to diplomacy vs brutality, but the problem with the election this year appears to be a major lack of engagement by Democratic voters. So when you’re asking the question of what causes people who previously voted to not vote, apathy is pretty high on the list of possible explanations.
I am Canadian, I will sigh and vote for the leftist party that slightly reduces the flow rate of bullshit, because lesser evil blah blah. But it’s extremely easy to understand why that apathy permeates, and when parties allow that to fester by choosing not to address issues their voters clearly care deeply about, they are also to blame.
i think you lost the plot of the thread. post was simply about the party ignoring the communicated values of the electorate. you’re getting off on some other thing.
lots of emotions, so i understand your need to react with vigorous opposition but you’re simply talking to a made up idea of me rather than what im actually saying and communicating. have a good one :)
No, Im well on track with the thread. You want to blame the DNC for what’s about to happen to Palestine under the GOP that the “uncommited” voters just helped stroll into office.
Protest votes when genocide is on the line are just a vote for genocide, full stop. The moral outrage won’t feel great as the GOP goes 10x/100x in on death to Palestine and starts gleefully deporting legal Palestine immigrants in the hundreds of thousands back to their home land to die.
sorry my mouth isn’t big enough for all the words you are stuffing in there :)
In 2020, Biden got 80 million votes and Trump got 74 million.
In 2024, Harris got 68 million voted and Trump got 72 million.
My take is basically 10+ million people who voted for Biden stayed home rather than vote for Harris. For some reason they couldn’t bring themselves to vote for either. There was no reason that they cared about where one was better than the other.
This has already been debunked elsewhere. Swing state vote tallies are higher than 2020 and the numbers you’ve posted are likely due to slow counting in California and elsewhere but Trump didn’t win due to millions of Biden voters staying home (at least not more than in a normal election).
It’s true that there are still a lot of votes to be counted, but I am sceptical they a high enough portion will got to Harris to disprove my point.
There are about 158 million people voting this election and 140 million or so ballots have been counted so far. If a full 60% of the remaining votes go to Harris, Trump’s vote total would still be less than Biden’s in 2020.
More like these imbeciles who gave a genocidal madman who heads a government that spends 20% of its budget spying on us and funding their direct opponents 20 billion dollars refused to listen to a word their potential voters said about it for an entire year.
What’s the source for those stats?
Methodology: IMEU Policy Project and YouGov’s survey was conducted July 25-Aug. 9. 387 voters were surveyed in Arizona, with a margin of error of 5.7%. 374 voters were surveyed in Georgia, with a margin of error of 5.4%. 369 voters were surveyed in Pennsylvania, with a margin of error of 5.3%.
Thanks.
Institute for Middle East Understanding is a pro- Palestine organization. While I’m sympathetic to their cause, I kind of doubt the accuracy of this poll.
Even so, this was a poll of Dems and Independents only. It doesn’t really support the ideas that she would have won PA or AZ with this position.
we love a good cherry pick :) be sure to check out the pro-genocide pollsters for the real data
The challenge with this poll question is that it doesn’t ask whether this issue changes a potential voter from someone who wouldn’t have voted for Harris into someone who would have voted for Harris. It asks if they are more likely to vote for Harris.
For example, I was already highly likely to vote for Harris, but her being more emphatically against the genocide would still have made me even more likely to vote for her.
To make the case that she should have used this poll to change her position, you have to look at the pre-existing likelihood that someone would vote for her and see whether this issue brought them over that threshold. (For example, what fraction of the 35% voted in the primary and the midterm election? Were they already planning on voting? Who were they planning on voting for if not Harris?)
you’re absolutely correct in what ur saying but missing the point. the post isn’t trying to argue that the election could have been won by promising withholding weapons, it’s pointing out that it literally couldn’t hurt, and still didn’t happen.
the security that could have come from simply saying the words “no more weapons if we win” was essentially free for the taking, and yet biden-harris eschewed that opportunity in favor of courting conservatives—in a huge middle finger to pro-Palestinians. the post is about listening, or rather the lackthereof, to one’s voterbase.
again i appreciate your insight into the election dynamics but it’s just not the point here so i hope this clarifies. ❤️
First off, thanks for the discussion, and this is an important question to ask as Democrats unpack why they lost. It boils down to “does moving to the central position gain more voters in the end or not?”
The argument I’m making applies in reverse too. What if there was polling data that indicated that this issue shifted the seven percent who were las likely to vote for Harris into not voting for Harris or not voting at all?
If that’s the case, then their decision becomes more understandable.
It boils down to “does moving to the central position gain more voters in the end or not?”
I certainly don’t think it has to boil down to that. Your question is valid but there are plenty of other questions you could derive. One I like might be: “Does ignoring the voice of your voter base increase apathy or not?” or “How does apathy caused by unquestioning support for genocide interact with other alienations caused by democrats courting conservatives?” or really poignantly “Might not the ‘left’ adopting conservative framing and policies simply reaffirm conservative leaning swing voters in their decision to vote Republican?”
If she actually did this the right would start calling her a terrorist and she would lose any chance at winning over any right voters on the fence (who probably didn’t have strong opinions on the issue prior).
She didnt win over rightwingers anyway
how many right wing voters on the fence did she win with her own strategy? go ahead and look that up :)
