Serious statement: I don't understand the argument that not voting for Harris was the morally correct thing to do, because of Gaza. Why does anyone believe this?
Serious statement: I don't understand the argument that not voting for Harris was the morally correct thing to do, because of Gaza. Why does anyone believe this?
And I'm being serious. I feel like there might be an argument there, I just don't understand it. Can someone please "steelman" that argument for me?
You're viewing a single thread.
If Democrats knew they'd lose for supporting genocide,.they wouldn't have done it. It's precisely because blue-no-matter-who voters convinced them that they were invincible that they ended up losing. They thought they could bully the base into voting for them because enough of the base was willing to be bullied and proud of it.
On the other side, Trump is more likely to lose the war on Palestine.
They did know it had a serious impact on likely Dem voters, and likely Independent voters, in swing states, and they did it anyway.
... Unless you're going to tell me her campaign was somehow unaware of this fairly widely published IMEU poll.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/kamala-harris-israel
From July 25 through August 9, pollsters asked voters if and how the Democratic nominee pledging "to withhold more weapons to Israel for committing human rights abuses against Palestinian civilians" would impact their vote. In Arizona, 35% said they would be more likely to vote for her, versus 5% who said they would be less likely. The figures were similar in Georgia (39% versus 5%) and Pennsylvania (34% versus 7%).
Even bigger shares of voters said they would be more likely to support her in November if President Joe Biden—who dropped out of the race and passed the torch to Harris last month—secured a permanent cease-fire in Gaza. In Arizona, 41% said they would be more likely to vote for her, versus 2% who said they would be less likely. In both Georgia and Pennsylvania, it was 44% versus 2%.
...
Biden dropping out and being replaced with Kamala was an opportunity for Kamala to change the Dem stance on this.
Kamala would have stood a much better chance at winning if she massively broke with Biden and did an about face on Gaza, and there is basically no way her campaign did not know this.
… Unless you’re going to tell me her campaign was somehow unaware of this fairly widely published IMEU poll.
They were in a bubble of other blue-no-matter-who media and were assured by the consultants from Clinton's campaign and the Labour Party that they could ignore those polls.
So really, it would have taken a big enough push from the public that MSNBC became anti-genocide. Hypothetically it could have happened, but the Democratic base is too disorganized to pull that kind of bottom-up messaging coup off.
Nurse bursts in to OR
Doctor!
This new study show that there is a 30% chance the patient will die if you ignore this allergic reaction they may have if you keep pursuing your current treatment plan!
Doctor scoffs
It can't be that big a deal, if this was serious, the patient's family would have let me know by mailing me that study with appended handwritten notes from my favorite peer reviewers from JAMA, and a gold star sticker!
But Doctor! It's not the job of the family to know how to practice medicine, that's your job! And anyway, I have a copy of the study right here!
Pff, no appended notes, no gold star, ignored.
Patient dies.
Huh, damn, things might have been different if the family had told me how to do my job in the exact, precise manner in which I accept advice. Oh well! Maybe the next patient's family will figure out the correct way to tell me how to do my job next time. After all, I can't be held responsible for not accepting information readily available to me... without a gold star sticker!
So how could she have broken with Biden as the current VP?
She sides with Palestine, so she supports Hamas? She doesn’t support Israel? She supports Iran too!?
That’s just the tip of the media iceberg that would have been thrown at her.
Let’s say she does that. Do you think with the numbers that DJT turned out that she’d have gained so much more than she would have lost that it would have made a difference?
Let’s further say that she did, and it was, and she won the election. She’s now thrown a long-term, strategic ally under the bus on the world stage. Not only that, she’ll have to forcibly disarm them, potentially feeding them to the wolves in the Middle East.
How does she politically recover from that? ALL of that?
And please don’t mention “genocide” in your reply. That’s already a know variable in play.
Can you (or anyone) provide a politically viable path through the above ‘top level’ landmines which would have gotten her into the White House and into a position where she could take direct action to stop the genocide?
So how could she have broken with Biden as the current VP?
If elected, I vow to cease all offensive arms and munitions shipments and funding for such to the State of Israel on day one.
What Hamas did on Oct 7th was an outrageous act of terrorism committed against a civilian population, but the response from the Netanyahu administration has caused orders of magnitude more death and destruction against innocent residents of Gaza, and this over zealous military response has enflamed tensions in the region and risks escalation into a much broader conflict.
I will still supply the Israelis with defensive funds for their Iron Dome, we will send them Patriot missile intercept systems, but we will no longer send artillery shells, bombs, ammunition, anything that can be used to further their wildly mismanaged offensive operations.
Further, I will actually commit to setting up and operating a temporary harbor for food and medical supplies to enter Gaza.
... Something like that, blah blah blah, make it clear that all sides in this have some level of culpability for wrong actions and that she will do what she can to minimize the harm the US is culpable for.
Let’s say she does that. Do you think with the numbers that DJT turned out that she’d have gained so much more than she would have lost that it would have made a difference?
IMEU polls in July and August showed roughly that 30% to 40% of likely Dem and Indp voters in multiple swing states would be more likely to vote for a Dem candidate if they did what they could to halt the Gaza genocide.
Would this turn off likely Republicans voters from her? Basically no more than they already were turned off from her. But she would have gained a whole bunch of Dem voters who specifically could not bring themselves to vote for a candidate complicit with genocide.
Let’s further say that she did, and it was, and she won the election. She’s now thrown a long-term, strategic ally under the bus on the world stage. Not only that, she’ll have to forcibly disarm them, potentially feeding them to the wolves in the Middle East.
Nope. You can stop enabling offensive action by ceasing to supply offensive systems and munitions, and still maintain your commitment to Israel's defense by giving them defensive supplies.
You don't need to totally disarm the IDF. That would involve going into a ground invasion war against our ally which is obviously insane.
This would not be throwing an ally under the bus. It would be stomping your foot down and reigning in an ally that's gone on a mad rampage with bombs you have given them.
And please don’t mention “genocide” in your reply. That’s already a know variable in play.
Nah, I'll use that word, because it is an accurate descriptor. I am not sorry at all if this somehow offends your sensibilities.
That’s a very workable plan. Thank you.
I mean we literally just saw the same kind of thing play out with Ukraine.
The West spent a long time giving them weaponry that could either only or mainly be used defensively, and then slowly over time gave them more and more potent weapons.
Its not like this is some revolutionary new idea.
The US could have started doing this after like month two or three of Israel carpet bombing Gaza, shooting up UN food/aid convoys...
But nope.