Harris campaign ordered organizers to ignore voters who asked about Gaza.
Harris campaign ordered organizers to ignore voters who asked about Gaza.
43 comments
-
At what point do Democratic voters get to sue Biden / Harris for gross professional neglegence? Setting aside the morality of supporting genocide, the level of sheer political incompetence and mismanagement that led us to this result is mind boggling.
Remember this the next time the Democrats tell us that a real primary isn't needed, or the next time they put a thumb on the scale to push a particular nomination. The Democratic establishment is entirely unworthy of their positions.
-
The sad thing is that this is the perfect time to set up a progressive third party.
AOC and Bernie, maybe even Katie Porter for good measure. If they announced they were leaving the DNC to form a progressive party, I might even quit my job and join them.
And don't give me the "BuT tHeY wIlL sPliT tHe VoTe!" Bull shit.
The DNC is splitting the vote.
-
I keep giving actual IRL examples of a populist 3rd party breaking a duopoly in other countries, and people are still downvoting me on c/Politics for such an insane and radical idea.
I'm disappointed the progressives within the Democratic party haven't contemplated this, because they still feel as if they can fix the party from within, as if their own primaries aren't rigged every election season.
Like yes there is a big chance you won't win a majority the next election, but it sets you up as a proper competitor to the system, and soon supporters of both Democrats and Republicans will switch sides en masse after they experience the results and realize there is a better alternative.
-
I wish it were bullshit. It's just math and some pretty basic political science. There is no way to get even the majority of the Democratic voters base to switch at the same time, and if the shift is gradual the vote is split (whomever you want to say is splitting it) and we lose everything.
It's also a juvenile fantasy - the dream of just starting from scratch and getting right this time. There are tens of thousands of elected seats in state and federal government - nevermind local. For a party to threaten the Democrats, they would need a large percentage of those offices. State government runs elections and decides who gets on the ballot. You can't just bypass it. The moment you are a threat, ballot access will be pulled out of reach.
Assuming you could put together a large enough coalition to overcome these obstacles, you are going to have a hell of a time keeping the same corrupting forces from taking over. How many times have we elected politicians with progressive rhetoric only to see them turn on us once elected?
Anyone who has the clout to build a party from scratch, keep it on target, and displace one of two ruling parties would be more than capable of taking a party over, and would do so much more easily with a lot less risk.
-
-
-
We'd rather lose than have to reduce our support for genocide.
-
Pretty much.
During negotiations with the DNC and the Harris campaign, we were repeatedly told by interlocutors that Harris couldn’t meet any of our basic requests (a policy shift from Biden, a Palestinian speaker at the DNC, a statement distinguishing herself from Trump on Israel, or even a meeting with Michigan families who lost loved ones to Israeli bombs) because of AIPAC-aligned politicians like Fetterman, who might take to TV, rile up suburban white and Jewish voters, and fracture the party’s coalition in a swing state.
That political calculus alienated a key voting bloc, although likely not large enough to have shifted the ultimate election outcomes, that should be part of a durable Democratic majority. But few will ever be held accountable for that choice.
A Fetterman staffer condemning Uncommitted for not advocating for Palestinians 'the right way' is like an arsonist scolding the fire department for using the wrong hose.
-
-
damn... and !unsubscribe did nothing.
-
Let's consider the counterfactual: is it possible that this was a calculated decision about a complex topic and that abdicating led to a more positive outcome than not?
The subtext of this post seems to be: if only harris hadn't ignored the Gaza problem! And I reject that as a premise
By the way, let's consider another counterfactual: is it possible that Harris (the sitting VP) was privy to more information about the conflict than voters were?
-
If this is the case, they have to publish the polling data that led them to believe it. Otherwise there's no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt.
-
On what planet do you think that American politicians "have to" do anything? They regularly break the law. It's a bicameral system and until you riot or DDD it won't change.
Also, your statement makes the assumption that the complexity lies solely in polling and voting, but politics is more complex than that. Israel is a nuclear power. For all we (civilians) know, they can be a regular destabilizing threat actor for the West, have damning blackmail that threatens the DNC, or has enough high powered offensive hacking actors that the US sees its alliance as more important than its ethics
By the way, this entire system of incentives illustrates the complexity of politics in a way that ought to dismiss any kind of black-or-white argument about really any political topic, including the (in my limited opinion, valid) condemnation of Trump.
-
-
Occam's razor still applies. Your alternative explanations require additional and sometimes obscure factors, whereas the direct experience of the Uncommitted folks (actual Democrats! With previous Democratic campaign experience!) already gives an explanation that hasn't been shot down by Harris campaign insiders either.
-
Genocide is a complex topic?
What positive outcome pray tell? Losing some voters for good and depressing turnout? I thought Trump was a threat to democracy, why did Harris allow him to win?
A far simpler explanation is that AIPAC bought politicians of both sides.
You are clearly a genocide denier if you are merely referring to it as a "problem".
-
Well they got their ass kicked so you know..
-
By the way, let’s consider another counterfactual: is it possible that Harris (the sitting VP) was privy to more information about the conflict than voters were?
No. Not possible.
That "America overall" is pro zionist because they are told to, does mean that Netanyahu embarassing Biden/Sullivan by refusing the ceasefires he agreed to, denouncing him to walk back settler sanctions, and denouncing him to walk back 2000lb bomb supply delays is Netanyahu picking Trump as president. Zionist hedge fund managers getting media access to complain about "rising anti semitism" in America, because Biden didn't Kent State University anti-genocide protests, to shower Trump with money, doesn't mean the few zionists who kept supporting DNC were paying it to win.
The calculation that more democrats support Israel than oppose genocide is what "DNC/Harris knew". DNC is a zionist first organization. Liberalism is a talking point, not their ideology. Americans have always been programmed to be on the same side. That doesn't mean Harris as VP has greater information on what virtue means.
-
43 comments