Harris purposely ignored and pushed away parts of her base that cared about Palestine.
because it’s primarily people under the age of 25. And a very small voter demographic, maybe arabic people also, but arabic people are decidedly biased against israel for obvious reasons.
She also refused to let a single Palestinian-American Democrat speak at the DNC.
i don’t know of any incidents regarding kamala, or her team publicly refusing the ability of a Palestinian to speak, but i could be wrong. If i had to guess, they prioritized big names and celebrities more than random people, which would generally track, following along with the general controversy surrounding the palestine issue, it’s probably the safest political bet they could make at the time.
That is prioritizing the genocide over the campaign
i don’t think this statement even makes sense in a semantic fashion, wouldn’t they stop promoting the campaign, and give like 300 billion dollars to israel instead?
they weren’t “pushing them away” the voter base was pulling away from the democratic base, if you aren’t aware of this because you don’t know any history prior to 2023, than you will be shocked to learn that the US has historically supported israel since it’s very creation. It’s literally an 80 year long history. The dems were doing nothing other than running on historical popular sentiment, which doesn’t seem to have changed significantly judging by the 75 million votes, and the additional polling that shows that support for palestine is mostly among the younger voters. (if they even vote at all) I’m also not convinced that it was a significant portion of the population to the point where you need to worry about explicitly including them. They didn’t specifically cosy up the black voter base, or hispanic voter base, they just ran on policy, and they still voted for them.
you can make that argument all you want, but at the end of the something as controversial as the israel palestine issue (which is definitionally controversial otherwise we would all be in agreement, and it wouldn’t be controversial at all.) is more than likely going to harm the voter turnout, especially among the older demographics who are more willing to support this kind of rhetoric anyway. They likely believed it was more worthwhile to target the existing, known reliable voter base as much as possible, over people who were between the ages of 20-25 and were in college.
And reminder here, they didn’t win, they knew they weren’t winning, they knew they needed more voters and they pushed people away anyway
by 2 million votes. Electorally is a different story, but that’s irrelevant, please show me these concrete figures you must be referencing demonstrating AT LEAST 2 million voters who would’ve reliably voted for kamala prior to the israel palestine issue (before kamala was even running in the first place) who wouldn’t vote for kamala, after the campaign.
I’m aware that there were like, at least 30 people in michigan who cared enough, but im pretty sure michigan went red anyway. I think there were like, 12 people in california that cared? Idk, california is weird. I literally only remember one instance of this being a concern ever, and it was with michigan voters. This really just doesn’t seem like a demographic problem to me at all.
you are literally engaging all three of your functionally capable brain cells to make this argument huh.
How do i explain this to you, in a way that you can understand.
So, there are primary effects, secondary effects, tertiary, etc, continues all the way down until you stop caring. An action like, going against 80 years of allyship and historical precedent could net you a 5% larger voter base for example.
Now there’s this funny concept where the secondary effect is that 70% of your voter base is less ok with this, so you might lose 7% of your voter base to another party instead, now you’ve gained a net -2% share of voters!
Oh, but wait. It’s more complicated than this, because the two primary candidates in this case were kamala, and trump, trump who is notoriously problematic in regards to this one issue, and kamala who has repeatedly stated that she wants to at least do something about it. Now if you’re a pro this issue supporter, if you don’t vote for kamala harris, even though her stance is moderate, not terrible, not great, but moderate. You have essentially given a direct boost to the alternate, who in this case is a great negative to the problem at hand.
Congratulations you’ve once again succeeded in making things worse! But now you get to pretend like it wasn’t your fault, wow look at that, isn’t that so cool. Crazy how you can just absolve yourself of all your wrongdoings and problems by pretending they weren’t because of you!
Oh but wait, maybe you voted third party, who would theoretically actually do something to stop this problem. OH WAIT, they’re a russian puppet, and if you voted for them, you’ve completely nullified your entire point by voting for someone who supports something opposed to what you support!
man i sure do love putting 3 minutes of thought into a problem, but you can continue living in schizo dream land where if only you circlejerked harder about whatever, people would’ve totally 100% cared, because trust me, i’m not the issue, it’s literally everybody else around me that’s the issue!
because it’s primarily people under the age of 25. And a very small voter demographic, maybe arabic people also, but arabic people are decidedly biased against israel for obvious reasons.
i don’t know of any incidents regarding kamala, or her team publicly refusing the ability of a Palestinian to speak, but i could be wrong. If i had to guess, they prioritized big names and celebrities more than random people, which would generally track, following along with the general controversy surrounding the palestine issue, it’s probably the safest political bet they could make at the time.
i don’t think this statement even makes sense in a semantic fashion, wouldn’t they stop promoting the campaign, and give like 300 billion dollars to israel instead?
Purposely pushing away any voters (especially parts of your base) during an election is a crazy choice if you want to win
And reminder here, they didn’t win, they knew they weren’t winning, they knew they needed more voters and they pushed people away anyway
they weren’t “pushing them away” the voter base was pulling away from the democratic base, if you aren’t aware of this because you don’t know any history prior to 2023, than you will be shocked to learn that the US has historically supported israel since it’s very creation. It’s literally an 80 year long history. The dems were doing nothing other than running on historical popular sentiment, which doesn’t seem to have changed significantly judging by the 75 million votes, and the additional polling that shows that support for palestine is mostly among the younger voters. (if they even vote at all) I’m also not convinced that it was a significant portion of the population to the point where you need to worry about explicitly including them. They didn’t specifically cosy up the black voter base, or hispanic voter base, they just ran on policy, and they still voted for them.
you can make that argument all you want, but at the end of the something as controversial as the israel palestine issue (which is definitionally controversial otherwise we would all be in agreement, and it wouldn’t be controversial at all.) is more than likely going to harm the voter turnout, especially among the older demographics who are more willing to support this kind of rhetoric anyway. They likely believed it was more worthwhile to target the existing, known reliable voter base as much as possible, over people who were between the ages of 20-25 and were in college.
by 2 million votes. Electorally is a different story, but that’s irrelevant, please show me these concrete figures you must be referencing demonstrating AT LEAST 2 million voters who would’ve reliably voted for kamala prior to the israel palestine issue (before kamala was even running in the first place) who wouldn’t vote for kamala, after the campaign.
I’m aware that there were like, at least 30 people in michigan who cared enough, but im pretty sure michigan went red anyway. I think there were like, 12 people in california that cared? Idk, california is weird. I literally only remember one instance of this being a concern ever, and it was with michigan voters. This really just doesn’t seem like a demographic problem to me at all.
Your right, the Democratic strategists knew what they were doing, they shouldn’t have tried to attract more voters
you are literally engaging all three of your functionally capable brain cells to make this argument huh.
How do i explain this to you, in a way that you can understand.
So, there are primary effects, secondary effects, tertiary, etc, continues all the way down until you stop caring. An action like, going against 80 years of allyship and historical precedent could net you a 5% larger voter base for example.
Now there’s this funny concept where the secondary effect is that 70% of your voter base is less ok with this, so you might lose 7% of your voter base to another party instead, now you’ve gained a net -2% share of voters!
Oh, but wait. It’s more complicated than this, because the two primary candidates in this case were kamala, and trump, trump who is notoriously problematic in regards to this one issue, and kamala who has repeatedly stated that she wants to at least do something about it. Now if you’re a pro this issue supporter, if you don’t vote for kamala harris, even though her stance is moderate, not terrible, not great, but moderate. You have essentially given a direct boost to the alternate, who in this case is a great negative to the problem at hand.
Congratulations you’ve once again succeeded in making things worse! But now you get to pretend like it wasn’t your fault, wow look at that, isn’t that so cool. Crazy how you can just absolve yourself of all your wrongdoings and problems by pretending they weren’t because of you!
Oh but wait, maybe you voted third party, who would theoretically actually do something to stop this problem. OH WAIT, they’re a russian puppet, and if you voted for them, you’ve completely nullified your entire point by voting for someone who supports something opposed to what you support!
man i sure do love putting 3 minutes of thought into a problem, but you can continue living in schizo dream land where if only you circlejerked harder about whatever, people would’ve totally 100% cared, because trust me, i’m not the issue, it’s literally everybody else around me that’s the issue!
I’ll never vote for someone facilitating a genocide. If those are the only options then this is an evil country that cannot be saved