NoneOfUrBusiness

You’re wrong that it didn’t impact the outcome. MI flipped to Trump directly because of the uncommitted movement.

I mean maybe (I haven’t seen the turnout numbers as opposed to protest/non-voters) but the point is that Harris lost before Michigan even finished counting. She could’ve won Michigan and she still wasn’t winning this, is the point.

Low turn out also directly impacted the results. PA is a different story, but low turn out was true there, too

I mean yeah, because the DNC pushed an unelectable candidate whose position was a mix of “nothing will fundamentally change”, wishy washy non-promises and right wing positions. I doubt even 10% of the 15 million in reduced turnout came from Uncommitted and similar movements. The DNC blew it; it’s that simple.

Before I start let me note that in the end this particular group of people didn’t affect the election. Harris is on the way to losing all swing states. Her failure is much deeper than Gaza policy. Blaming anti-genocide voters for this is just copium.

With that out of the way, you can divide people with this position into two groups: Arab Americans and everyone else. Arab Americans are people who are feeling the genocide firsthand. So, obviously, they tried to appeal to the Harris campaign and get them to move from Biden’s position on the topic. The result: They were either ignored or antagonized by Harris. That led to the abandon Harris campaign in Michigan and elsewhere. Harris considered those people acceptable casualties in her failure of a campaign, and so they were burnt out and the momentum behind the Uncommitted movement and others turned from “let’s save our Palestinian brothers” to “fuck us and Palestine (because let’s face it, that’s basically what Harris was saying)? Then fuck you too”. Harris thew them under the bus and was thrown under the bus in turn. Maybe not very logical, but a very predictable reaction. Harris treated Arab Americans with just that much contempt, and then she and her enablers had the gall to tell the people attending a funeral every other day to “shut up and vote for her”.

Now as for everyone else, it’s a more simple instance of taking a stand against a politician for doing something you cannot accept. Now there is a pragmatic idea here that if you allow the DNC to get away with this they’ll think supporting genocide actually wins elections, or that their electorate are such pussies that it doesn’t matter what they think. Add in the goal of pressuring Harris to drop that policy that was important at the start of the Harris campaign and of course the idea of not wanting to vote for genocide and this was the result.

Of course it’s not all 100% logical, but there is logic here beyond “omg bad guy I no vote”.

Worse maybe, but not for worse. That said that’s not really what I’m trying to say; my point is that people whose number one issue was Palestine overwhelmingly didn’t vote. Democrats went to vote despite Biden/Harris’s Israel policy, meaning they considered something else to be more important and so they wouldn’t answer this poll with “foreign policy”.

As easy as it is to blame voters, the American electorate didn’t want fascism. That’s just false. Harris dug her own grave by actively discouraging voters who didn’t want fascism. This electorate is the same one that elected Biden in 2020 and (mostly) the same one that elected Obama in 2008 and 2012. They just wanted a real candidate and Harris wasn’t that.

It’s more that Harris did such a terrible job that even the other side being literal Hitler didn’t save her.

Remember that people who considered foreign policy (aka Gaza) to be the most important didn’t vote. People who voted Harris did so because they either thought some other issue was more important or just didn’t care. I think you’ll get better insights from a “why didn’t you vote” survey. That said it’s definitely not the only reason Harris lost; it was her complete and utter failure at campaigning that allowed Trump to go around collecting swing states like they’re fucking MTG cards.

Harris seemed like a candidate that could stand against Trump in a way that Hillary Clinton never was.

How? Harris was/is the same centrist neoliberal “hold your nose and vote for her” slop Clinton was.

Setting aside whether she would’ve won had she been a white man, she could’ve made up for that handicap by appealing to the right people if she had actually been trying to win. Pinning it completely on her race and sex simply ignores her absolute failure of a campaign.

Until she woke up one day and thought she was Republican.

Exactly. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make, but that is exactly what happened.

It’s not just the “I don’t vote for genocide” camp; there’s also the “can’t this fucker at least campaign properly” camp and the “I’m not voting for this right wing nonsense” camp, among others. Harris was just that bad at this.

1-America imports smart people from all over the world.

2-Technical smarts and don’t-vote-for-fascism smarts are different.

It’s just straight percent of voters I think. Then they’re sorted left to right based on how important they were in 2020.

Adding to what the other two said, unions are supposed to be a way of the people to exert power, not just get better contracts. In less self-destructive countries unions organize for political causes all the time.

Just 5% of the population striking is enough to bring a country to its heels. That aside, if Americans were capable of this kind of collective action they wouldn’t be in this situation to begin with.

Edit: Oh, and also: It seems Trump is winning the popular vote this time around.

Without the evolutionary pressure to maintain high melanin levels in the skin, and possibly also from interbreeding with Neanderthaal, European people’s got paler.

But what’s the evolutionary pressure keeping melanin levels among ethnicities that stayed black? And why does it affect people in Central and South Africa but not in North Africa and the Middle East, when both regions are about equally hot?

is false.

How so? Hamas attacked a number of Israeli military bases and outposts on October 7th, which was along with taking hostages the goal of the attack. The Israeli narrative conveniently ignores that, painting the whole thing as one big act of barbarism.

still Hamas killing innocent people is not deserving of compassion albeit I understand their reason.

It’s not about compassion. They definitely committed a bunch of atrocities on October 7th, and that very much deserves condemnation, but ignoring the very real military goals behind the attacks helps no one but Israel. Nobody really talks about that anymore, but if you remember before it was overshadowed by the genocide in Gaza things like how much of Israeli accusations against Hamas was true, how many casualties were Israeli friendly fire, what Hamas’s goals behind the attack were, etc etc were still open questions. The world quite reasonably stopped focusing on these things because Israel kept one-upping themselves in genociding Gazans, but that had the side effect of cementing the Israeli narrative on them as reality in the minds of most pro-Palestinian Westerners. What I’m saying is: Condemning terror that happened during the attack and condemning the attack itself are a different things, and one of them invalidates many legitimate acts of resistance.

I mean okay but that’s how it reads like, especially because that myth is still alive and well.

What legitimacy do you see in Israeli Apartheid? Because, long story short, that’s what the Israeli side is selling.

Yes but that’s the implication when you say “the terririst attack that killed 1200 young Israelis”.