BI: AOC asked voters why they backed her candidacy and Trump's reelection. They said the economy and Gaza.
BI: AOC asked voters why they backed her candidacy and Trump's reelection. They said the economy and Gaza.
I've often assumed Harris didn't want to insult her boss by going against him, because I got the impression she was planning to give Netanyahu what for once she took over - especially with him escalating things further and further. Did anyone else get that vibe, or was it just wishful thinking on my part?
Despite the best economy in the world AND Netanyahu backing Trump.
The stupidity is off the charts.
The problem is the term.
Politicians and pundits talk about the economy referring to the stock market.
Citizens talk about the economy referring to the supermarket.
The US government can only directly affect the former, and most of our nation just can’t comprehend that.
Nixon attempted to freeze grocery prices for 90 days with an Executive Order. It resulted in emptying grocery stores and record inflation when the order expired. It was called the “Nixon Shock.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_shock
If you want the government to control the price of food, then you should probably move to a communist nation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/business/worldbusiness/07iht-controls.4.11735373.html
The cognitive dissonance required for the economy being both the "best " and yet also people can't afford bread is a privilege that people living pay check to paycheck simply can't afford. Child poverty hit its all time low under Biden. Then it doubled under Biden . More American's are living paycheck to paycheck than ever before: now a majority. Look at the memes and conversation happening in the memes here on lemmy. The struggle to afford basic goods and services is a constant theme.
When you gaslight people, telling them to ignore their lived experience and to "trust" an analysis of economy that clearly only serves billionaires: What do you expect that does to their trust in your rhetoric?
Just so everyone knows. Child poverty went down because Dems had enough power to expand the child tax credit as part of Bidens American rescue plan. The expanded credit then expired and Republicans have blocked passage of the renewed expansion. This is another thing where Republicans will do anything to harm Democrats including voting against extremely popular programs. I agree that it sucks the poverty went back up, but Dems reduced it and Republicans increased it.
Yes, but to be charitable to the people out there, they are specifically targeted by mega corporations to hole them up into a conservative-affirming digital content feed.
They are victims just as much as they are stupid.
Have people been keeping up on the news? Like privately Biden has been feuding with Netanyahu for months. It’s not like Biden is on board with what Netanyahu is doing. He’s been trying to change the course, but publicly attacking Netanyahu would have drawn a ton of fire from the right, which he was trying to avoid during the election season. It shocks me that people really think Biden is cheering this on.
Election season is over, why is he not going public?
So let me get this straight: I'm supposed to vote for someone who thinks it is too politically inconvenient to be publically against an ongoing genocide? Who is sending arms and aid to a nation committing genocide??
There were snipers on the roof of my college because of the pro Palestinian protesters. Pro Palestinian protesters get lumped in with antisemites due to just having human empathy. The voters needed something more than what we saw in the news: furrowed brows, hand wringing, and money sent for bombs. Palestinians die wretched deaths even if you feel real bad about it.
I can imagine the energy that we all could have felt if Harris/Biden had actually did the right thing.
I voted for Harris by the way. Not because I expected she'd end the genocide, but because Trump isn't a statesman and can't be trusted if we get dragged into war.
He’s been trying to change the course, but publicly attacking Netanyahu would have drawn a ton of fire from the right,
Thank goodness they avoided pissing off the right, else Trump might have won.
It shocks me that people really think Biden is cheering this on.
Probably because Biden's support of Israel is completely unconditional and not contingent in any way on their conduct. Yeah he may disapprove of their conduct, but this won't affect material American support at all - that would be antisimetic or whatever. Because of this Biden's tacit disapproval doesn't matter. It can be ignored which is what Netanyahu has been doing. Stop sending arms and Israel's government's dreams of conquest will collapse within a week, probably along with this government. But that's unspeakable, apparently, and the Israeli lobby in the US needs to keep it that way.
Now a government is about to take power that won't offer any disapproval and could probably be talked into direct military action in the region. I wouldn't be surprised if we see American aircraft bombing Gaza and the West Bank within 6 months. Embroiling the US even deeper into this is in Netanyahu's interest and the trump government won't mind going along .
People will believe what is convenient for them to believe.
Who is the fucking superpower here? The US could flex it's muscles and Israel would have to obey. Biden actively chooses not to.
Yeah because last time that went oh so well
We don't even have to think the dems are morally better overall and above supporting genocide. They just don't want a full on war with Iran and increased tensions with Saudi Arabia and for this reason would harden on Israel before letting them annex the west bank which will inevitability lead to regional war. Thing would not be going this way with Kamala as president. Anyone who did vote for her out of protest is very privileged not to live in the West Bank. It's time to call our representatives to push back on Trump expansionism in Israel. But I don't have much hope at all.
Biden continues to approve arms sales to Israel, in violation of both domestic & international law. And Harris openly declared her intent to commit the same crimes.
I don’t really give a shit if he privately wagged his finger at Netanyahu.
Why do people have this idea that the economy will do better under Trump? Where did this come from?
Peoples lived experiences under Trump turned out to be better than their current ones under Biden, pretty simple. It's all vibes.
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." -George Carlin
But people were freaking the fuck out about the Covid restrictions. Trump opposed them but also made them more necessary for longer. I guess that’s what the average person doesn’t understand.
I've read, oh, a dozen 'pretty simple' explanations that claimed to explain what has happened. All of them had merits.
I don't believe things are 'pretty simple' anymore.
Generations of propaganda that "Republican = good economy" is my guess.
I think whats missing from many analyses is the general unhappiness people have with the current system. People are suffering now under establishment politics and they don’t believe that more of the same will improve their lives (citing, justly, at least the past 16 years as an example). They are hungry for something radically different. Trump appeals to that sense of radical change on the right. The democrats have blocked their own left wing alternatives and stuck with running establishment candidates.
I don’t believe the economy will do better under trump. I don’t believe people will do better under trump. He is a fascist and his populism is all based on dangerous ideas and lies. However, I am also terminally online and politically engaged. I can easily imagine how someone less engaged can be duped by his lies. It is therefore essential that the democrats provide an alternative left-wing populist candidate that also promised genuine changes to the economic system. So that these voters have someone to turn to who isn’t trump or the inevitable future trump clones. But they’ll never allow that to happen. It threatens their donor class too much.
From propaganda and ignorance.
Trump inherited a great economy from Obama, but ran it into the ground. (His 2018 tax cuts, etc ..) Trump got out just as the consequences of his actions started to happen, just as Biden became president. This left Biden with a crashed economy which he worked hard to improve during his election (the US is considered the best and strongest economy after COVID).
Now, just because it's doing the best, it doesn't mean everyone is in the best shape. So people are just remembering that the economy on the surface looked better during Trump ) because of Obama) and looked worse during Biden (because of Trump) and assumed that the surface was the same underneath.
What will be really interesting is that the economy isn't as solid this time for Trump so he's most likely going to do even more economical damage to the US that will cause it to take even longer to fix for the next president(s).
That’s one of the bullshit things republicans have propagandized people about for decades. Wealthy people do better under them, and then generally republicans run some sort of scam that ends up in economic disaster and a bailout.
Apparently a multiple time bankrupt "billionaire" businessman knows more about finances than the average person.
This thought process really concerns me. We really are surrounded by some truly ass ignorant people.
At least they will suffer right along with the rest of us.
Or that Trump cares for the working class?
I'm skeptical she would have done anything differently than Biden in terms of Gaza. There was plenty of polling out saying that voters, especially potential Democratic voters, overwhelmingly would favor her more if she differentiated herself on Gaza. Once she got the nomination locked, there was nothing really stopping her from making some changes. Yeah, Biden would not have liked it, but what was he going to do, endorse Trump? Plus, he didn't actually spend that much time campaigning. And as unpopular as Biden was, his endorsement really didn't mean much.
My point is that Kamala had everything to gain and nothing to lose by changing her Gaza stance. She chose not to because she didn't want to offend some very wealthy conservative donors. In the end, it didn't matter. She still massively outspent Trump, just like Hillary did. What Democrats can't realize is that fundraising dollars are less important than actual appeals to voters. Yes, fundraising is critical. But passed a certain point, ads lose their effectiveness. Once you've already spent a billion dollars, everyone has already made up their mind. At that point, it's more about getting out your base. And the problem for Democrats is that the same policies that will make them very popular to wealthy donors also make them unpopular to the voters they actually need to win over to win at the national level.
Democrats should just focus on appealing to actual voters and forget the donor class entirely. They have proven that they can raise more than enough money in small-dollar donations to produce all the messaging they need.
Kamala wouldn't have changed Biden's positions because the only logical time to change your policies to appeal to voters is when you actually need to appeal to voters. I could see Kamala telling voters she'll confront Israel, then turning her back on that plan after the election to appease donors, but there's no reason she would change her policies after the point such a policy shift could actually help her. Donor dollars can come in at any time, but voters are only important during the campaign season.
What Democrats can’t realize is that fundraising dollars are less important than actual appeals to voters.
trump: "I'm going to fix everything for you and lower all you costs without any knock on consequences to you of the working class."
DNC: "It is not nearly that simply, but I'm going to do what I can to improve your lives"
A GOP lie is cheaper than a DNC truth.
Then you run on:
"I'm going to establish national single-payer healthcare!"
"I'm going to break up the big grocery stores that are responsible for all the inflation!"
"I'm going to reign in and break up big tech!"
"My opponent wants to exterminate the Palestinians, and I will save them!"
"My opponent is a trans porn addict and is obsessed with them because of this. That's why he's always talking about trans people! It's weird as fuck!"
As a politician, exaggeration and making promises you know are a stretch are fine. You are a politician, not a journalist. It's OK to claim things that are aspirational.
This is what's killing modern democrats. Trump is not afraid to state his ideal vision for the world and promise to fight for it, knowing full well he won't even achieve half of it. Meanwhile, Democrats come up with these convoluted, slimy, meek programs that are dense tomes of policy papers only a few beltway consultants know or understand.
I'm skeptical she would have done anything differently than Biden in terms of Gaza.
Likewise, but I also think there is a reason why we are seeing Israeli politicians talking about potentially annexing North Gaza and the West Bank now, after the election, and not 6 months ago.
Despite the multiple "lines in the sand" that have been crossed, I feel like Harris and Biden still had a breaking point with Israel, and maybe that breaking point could be moved closer to reason with continued pressure. I don't know, I hate working in maybes.
But there aren't even any maybes with Trump. He simply couldn't care less what Netanyahu wants to do. Had he not been elected, and had Israel felt their ongoing support was a bit more conditional, I'm not sure we'd have these same sorts of plans being made by them. At least not so overtly
Likewise, but I also think there is a reason why we are seeing Israeli politicians talking about potentially annexing North Gaza and the West Bank now, after the election, and not 6 months ago.
But they were openly talking about annexing North Gaza and the West Bank 6 months ago
You can be skeptical all you want, the votes speak for themselves and are all publicly available for you to look at. Biden was an anomaly going against his party.
I wonder if it would have been better for her to step down as VP when accepting the nomination. As a VP she couldn’t distinguish herself at all.
Sure she could have. VP cant be fired by the president and has no official duties beyond tie breaking in the senate. She didnt need to follow Bidens directions at all. Worst thing that could happen is that Biden could mean-girl it and ask some of his donors not to fund her. Thats about it.
I see a lot of comments that basically summarize the constituent feedback as "well I guess they're just stupid then, can't wait til the leopards eat your face."
First, keep alienating these voters, sure. See how far that gets you in the next election. We need to be listening to and understanding these voters now more than ever if we are ever going to get out of this. Whether you like it or not, their vote carries as much weight as yours (maybe more depending on what state you're in).
Second, responding to economy concerns with "well actshually, the economy is amazing. What you mean is inflation" is about the worst response you can give. It's incredibly dismissive. When someone is scared that they can't afford a house, can't see retirement, can't buy groceries, they don't care about GDP or stock market numbers. Whatever Biden tried to do to alleviate their concerns wasn't enough. Inflation stopped but wages didn't catch up enough. Trump promised to fix it. He is a charlatan but desperate people will cling to anyone who gives them hope. What they experience is a system so incredibly slow to respond to their needs that the "Fight for $15“ really should be the Fight for $30 at this point.
The reason Trump and AOC are popular is that they directly speak to these concerns, whether they have a plan to fix it or not. Both speak of systemic change to make it happen. Establishment candidates don't.
What this election has taught me is that until the Dems learn to actually prioritize working class needs over identity politics they will lose. Every time. Look at how even women's reproductive rights was not enough to get them to vote Harris, and yet on states Trump won where there were proposals to protect abortion access, those efforts were successful.
First, keep alienating these voters, sure.
Fuck 'em. What are they gonna do, elect a dictator?
Being the loudest dickheads in the room has been the maga brand since at least 2017 if not slightly earlier. The fuck your feelings party. The party full of the folks no one wants to spend a family get together with or talk to about anything of substance because of their unmitigated ignorant racist and bigoted bullshit.
I'm getting a little sick of being told we need to mollycoddle them while they continue jamming their fingers in everyone's eye at every opportunity.
Edit-
Yes, amen, thank you. Abortion beat Harris by 20 points in my state! Clearly there are a lot of Trump voters who are with us on some things and we need to find to common ground to build a bridge and connect us so we can fix this. That common ground is pretty freaking obvious since 99% of us have one thing in common. But Nancy Pelosi has already said no so you need to fall in line and do what she tells you.
Those voters are a lost cause.
Anyone who votes Trump is too stupid and brainwashed to ever be fixed.
Yelling at voters doesn't help, neither does educating them.
These things only affect individuals, and there's hundred of millions of voters out there, in a constantly shifting cohort.
You may as well try to bail out the rising tide with a teacup. You can expend unlimited resources on the task, and you'll achieve precisely dick.
It doesn't matter how wrong people are, how stupid people are, or how fucked-up their reactions to things are. You cannot effectively change that at scale, except via constant, persistent social engineering over years or even decades.
If the opposition is offering free pizza, then it doesn't matter how much healthier and better your free salad really is. Don't waste your time on trying to convince people, don't waste your energy on it, don't waste your emotions on it. People are going to choose the pizza, and you damn well know it.
If you want them to take your offering instead, you need to come up with something that hundreds of millions of people will think is tastier than pizza.
Now sure, you can try and sell people the idea that the pizza guy doesn't wash his hands after taking a shit. You can put up giant posters of the cockroaches crawling all over the stall, and sure you might make a dent.
But when the alternative looks like a bunch of dry bitter rabbit food to them, no matter how tasty it actually is, you're fucked.
You need to address the actual concerns of the voters (no matter how stupid), and you need to show them that you're addressing them, in a way they'll actually notice and appreciate.
Not 'ought to'. Will.
What it needs is some angry people who will get up on their hind legs and fight for the working classes. It needs people who are loudly and visibly sick of the status quo, tired of the bullshit and ready to rip the face off anyone who gets in their way.
Not the fucking charity-auction Moira Schitt ghouls schmoozing up to $LARGE_CORPORATION while laughing about the dirty poors, or smirking about how bombing Palestinian children is the only moral choice.
(Seriously, Trump ought to hire Matt Miller and Vedant Patel - they did more to undermine the Dem campaign than anyone else. The optics were an unmitigated disaster.)
No, I also felt like Harris felt she wasn't allowed to veer too far from Biden since she was his VP, but had plans to change course more once she took over.
I had the same suspicion, but I feel that's just as unreasonable as Trump voters saying, "I didn't think he would actually XYZ."
"We can't push policies that cause deflation! That will cause people to put off buying things and cause a economic recession, which will cause more deflation leading to a neverending ending spiral! Lets just hold inflation to 2% per year and hope people's jobs eventually given them raises."
We have been putting off buying things for years! Houses, cars, cloths, food - if the price goes down, no one will go 'oh, I'm going to wait a bit longer and see if it goes down more'. No, we will buy like crazy! Every administration that ruled over this inflation spike - be them left wing or right wing - has seen their electoral chances tumble. But god forbid we see even a hint of deflation.
Deflation just doesn't happen in a bubble though.
From my understanding the primary lever that can be pulled for this is the Fed interest rate. With a high interest rates you're trying to decrease the amount of money institutions spend and rather increase the amount that they invest/save. As it becomes easier to make money by buying bonds than by reinvesting into your business. This in effect removes money from the economy.
The problem here is this means businesses also spend less on salaries, thus triggering layoffs. This then also has a downward pressure on inflation as the working class ends of being layed off as unemployment rises. This puts more and more pressure on businesses to cut costs as more and more people have less disposable income to spend.
This is the downward spiral that's being referred to here.
In effect you can't create defationary policies without causing high unemployment, at least in a capitalist society.
Take a look at the history of the Great Depression and the New Deal that helped the U.S. get out of it. Effectively the government had to create jobs to stimulate the economy as businesses couldn't or wouldn't shoulder that cost but the government could. As disposable income rose, so did spending and in turn inflation turned positive again as unemployment fell.
The main problem is that people don't understand that the Vice President does not set monetary policy. Neither does the President. The Federal Reserve is supposed to be completely immune to political pressure. Fortunately, King Donald will do his best to put an end to that.
I happen to believe that the current policy was correct, and averted even worse problems - but that does not happen in a matter of months. If Trump somehow fails to fudge up the trajectory we are on, he will get to take credit for policies enacted during Biden's presidency (again, not by Biden, but nobody will care).
We really need AOC to step up and run in 2028, then pivot to the Senate for the rest of her political career.
There's nothing left for republicans to say about her that they haven't said about Hillary, Biden, or Kamala.
At least this way we actually energize our base and if we win we actually make progress. Keep up the momentum and we might finally be done with this shit show.
DNC in 2028: We’re finally ready to learn our lesson from 2016+2024 and listen to our base. We hear you loud and clear: “No more female candidates.” We will be reallocating AOC’s delegates to Chuck Schumer.
That was effectively the whisper campaign against Warren in 2020. Sure, she's popular, sure, she's pulling in plenty of money from small-dollar donors, and sure, she's literally leading in the primary (for a very short period), but every single newspaper and pundit suddenly wanted to JAQ off about whether a woman could win. The answers started off "of course", but if you ask people that question enough times, they'll start to think it's something they should be asking themselves.
No.
Giving Netanyahu 'what-for', in my understanding, would be ...
... stating that the US would immediately cease all further shipments of any military materiel and financial aid to Israel that can be used offensively (ie, not Patriot Systems or Iron Dome)...
... and that if Netanyahu does not cease his expansion into Lebanon, withdraw from it, withdraw from Gaza, allow food, medical aid and journalists into Gaza...
... and resign from his position as President and his dismiss his entire cabinet, and agree to face at least the numerous domestic charges of corruption against him in court, in Israel...
Those last two parts have a 60 day timeframe.
If those aren't met, cut off everything, freeze Netanyahu and high up Likkud party member's personal finances the way we did with Russia.
... Something like that would be giving Netanyahu what for.
That was obviously never on the table.
Kamala just would have continued running propaganda defense for Israel as Biden had done, watching more and more 'red lines' get blown through and giving some meaningless bs explanation why, if even acknowleding it at all.
Maybe she would be slightly more vocal about allowing aid in. She would not actually do anything to make that happen, but maybe she'd make a tiny bit of a show of it.
She said it herself. No meaningful differences from Biden's approach.
So yeah in that regard, you have ludicrously wishful thinking. You must not know very much about bog standard corporate mouthpiece flavored Democrats.
Would this have been better than Trump?
Yes. Despite his extremely dubious public claims to want to end wars, he will obviously greenlight even more military aid to Israel, probably directly provoke Iran publically, either conduct or help the Israelis conduct a wave of air assaults on Iranian nuclear infrastructure, probably more than that.
Basically he'll demand all the stuff we've given to Ukraine back, give it to Israel, and heavily pressure if not outright demand Ukraine surrender by the end of April.
The responses to Ocasio-Cortez from split-ticket voters included:
- "It's real simple… Trump and you care for the working class"
- "Trump is going to get us the money and lets men have a voice. You're brilliant and have amazing passion!"
- "I feel like Trump and you are both real."
- "I know people that did this and it was bc of Gaza."
- "You are focused on the real issues people care about. Similar to Trump populism in some ways."
- "Because of Gaza"
- "I voted Trump and dems because he reached out to Muslims"
How in the fucking hell did Trump reach out to muslims?
And now Gaza has a snowball chance in hell to continue to exist.
Either these people are ultra dumb, or they gave bullshit answers.
He met with Muslims group in Michigan. She refused to speak with undecided voters, allowed Israeli family on stage to speak about "October 7" and refused Palestinians family to speak about the war crimes in Gaza.
Either these people are ultra dumb, or they gave bullshit answers.
They purportedly voted for Trump and AOC, they're practically braindead. Ultimately though, that's the electorate we have.
The final days and weeks the Trump campaign hit the swing districts saying all the things people had been asking Biden and Harris to say.
Biden made sure there was no question there would be 0% chance of course change. Trump, being Trump, could shrug his shoulders one day and decide to change course. Higher than 0% but still probably 0%.
Dishonest politics, but that's how campaigns use issues to win elections. It sucks and we're all in for the very preventable ride now.
Why did they think Trump is going to help Palestine? He'll give Israel a black cheque to end Palestine completely.
They don't think that at all. It's Trump by default and Harris has to convince to switch. It's an unfair emotional battle. All of these opinions were "Harris not good enough, therefore Trump", and Trump never had to clear the 'good enough' bar.
Harris not good enough, therefore Trump
For many people it was never trump, but it was a choice between Harris or leaving the presidential vote section blank, or voting third party. Just because you (@Randelung) equate any lack of vote for Harris as a vote for trump doesnt mean the rest of us think like that.
I don't know why anyone thought Harris would change course on Israel beyond mere wishful thinking. She made it abundantly clear numerous times that she was going to stay the course.
Lucky they got Trump then. Much better.
Sadly i had the same wishful thinking. Not that it matters mind you. Because she said she sided with Isreal, and wether she meant it or not at this point is moot.
So Trump was the obvious choice. Smart.
Lovely, well as far as I know, the genocide in palestine will stop under Trump...
...when all the palestinians have been wiped out
I've often assumed Harris didn't want to insult her boss by going against him, because I got the impression she was planning to give Netanyahu what for once she took over - especially with him escalating things further and further. Did anyone else get that vibe, or was it just wishful thinking on my part?
Wishful thinking. There’s no guarantee this happens. You would have just removed the most powerful motivator for her to do something about gaza while simultaneously demonstrating to her that she had no reason to do so. All the while AIPAC and the ADL are breathing down her back and offering her bribes not to. It would be like expecting me to build you a house after randomly sending 1 million dollars into my bank account. Why would I? I have the money now and have given you no guarantee that I would do so in the past. You’ll just see me chilling in the Bahamas.
You mean she wouldn’t want a next term?
If she could win without budging on gaza then she would have just learned that she doesn’t need the antigenocide vote for her re-election campaign. The issue would most likely be completely dead to her.
I don't think people answering a question on AOC's Instagram account is a fair sampling of her constituents. Even though there are clearly idiots among her followers based on example responses, they're still going to be skewed toward voters who are more interested in politics on average.
This doesn't really tell us much.
Why the hell would you expect Harris to do a 180 on Israel once elected? Pure wishful thinking. If she won by toeing the party line, why would President Harris govern any differently? She could have gone maverick, knowing that there would be no time to replace her as the dem candidate, but the truth is she is perfectly happy with US policy towards Israel.
It's cool that these people who care so much about Gaza absolutely led to its annihilation by electing Trump. 🙄 Good job, shit piles.
Does Gaza mean they liked it so much they wanted to see it on steroids?
I got the same vibe but it seems the ambiguity was a large enough liability.
Wishful thinking. Presidencies are always doing less than promised, never more.
Them she should have said that
Harris is an empty suit candidate. She has no consistent policy positions. She has never stuck her neck out for anything. Harris has ever won a presidential primary and lost to Andrew Yang (lmao).
She was selected behind closed doors, presumably by donors and horse trading with party insiders. She is exactly the kind of candidate you would expect from that: someone that caters to donors, punches left, tries to embrace "never Trumpers" as the main campaign strategy. Left policies are directly against donors' interests.
She is not your friend and not a good person, and is definitely not on your team. These people don't care about you and they don't care about things like whether they "insult their boss". Also, the president is not the boss of the VP, the VP can do whatever they want and the only consequences would be partu fallout. Distancing herself from Biden, both around the Democrats' embrace of genocide and the objective degradation in conditions due to a reduction in real wages, was the obvious way to actually try to win. And to be clear, as empty suits serving donor interests, ahe could have done both of those things in eords only and then done their bidding once in office. That is how beholden she is to donor interesrs: she couldn't even play the false promise game that every Dem uses to get elected.
Harris has only ever indicated unwavering support for the genocide and the the wider ethnosupremacist apartheid settler colony that is Israel. This is entirely consistent with being a vehicle for donor interests, who are all wrapped up in the petrodollar and investments in Israel. There is no reason to think there was some kind of plan to hurt her election chances by demotivating the base and to then do the popular thing once in office. The tendency is to do the exact opposite of that.
And if they convinced you to tolerate genocide for this, take a real hard look at yourself.
.
Your boss can still fire you or make your life miserable if you openly trash the job (s)he’s doing.
Yeah, but her boss is Biden...
The worst that would happen is some journalist reports he mumbled something under his breathe.
If he wouldn't do more about Bibi and Republicans, why would he do more if he didn't like what Kamala said?
I am a huge AOC fan and always have been, but after this election, I'm not voting for women in the primaries. Tens of millions of people just made up excuses to stay home. The media will obsess over any flaw, whether it exists or not, and people will fixate on it.
Maybe AOC will be the first woman president, but it'll take America 20 years at least to change their tune on the issue.
The entire democratic party lost. The house, the senate. Everything. Virtually every voting demographic (except one), and women voted less than during 2016 and 2020.
This sweeping 2024 loss across all areas is not because Kamala is female.
No, you're right, She absolutely was, and we dreaded what was coming for Israel with a Harris/Watlz victory and yet 80% of All American Jewish voters, voted for Harris/Waltz. 80%, Jews, overwhelmingly Zionist, were the strongest supporters by percentage of Harris/Waltz out of all white and ethnic groups in the United States besides African American Women.
Do you think roaming bands of Leftists, marching on main streets in ever major city in the US, and taking over university commons from coast to coast, in defense of Islamic Jihadi terrorists seeing to kill half the Jewish population in the world in Israel, while screaming "From The River To The Sea" scared the bejeesus out of just Middle America, or all of it?
But yeah, you're probably right, you should try to run a Leftist AntiIsrael ProJihadi Progressive in the next election. That's gonna work out great. You're gonna get so many votes from Dearborn Michigan, it's going to completely cancel out the other 95% of the country that votes against you. Brilliant.