522
How can I vote for Kamala Harris if she supports Israel’s war? Here is my answer | Bernie Sanders
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
522 points (94.7% liked)
politics
19098 readers
4660 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well its clear that the "rhetoric only" approach isn't working and is insufficient. Bernies rhetoric here and in the video version are good. But its not any different than what we've been seeing, literally the entire time from other surrogates. It sums to "Trump worse".
And its not working. It hasn't moved the needle. Kamala has been declining in polling pretty precisely since she snubbed Muslim's at the DNC and then a week after that doubled down on it saying that "nothing would be different" in her administration relative to Biden's. Since then the scale and scope of Israels genocide have increased, and she's stayed the course to a continual decline in polling. Its not "the answer I want", its what the data have to say.
We're a week out from the election. You've convinced all the voters for whom "Trump worse" is a sufficient rhetorical approach.
Now what about the voters for whom that approach is insufficient. Is your plan to leave them on the table? Because it seems to me you aren't interested in getting their votes, and that puts the campaign in jeopardy.
There is a cohort that appears to be about 5% of voters for whom "Trump worse" is an ineffective argument. If not for a pivot on the part of Harris, what is your argument then to get those voters to show up and vote for her?
I don't know why we're assuming that she picks up more votes than she loses by making a pivot on Israel. Not only will she lose votes from other areas of the base, that pivot will drive turnout among the GOP base. 5% means nothing if they lose 5% from Christians/Jews and turn out all the Christian crazies for the GOP.
Unfortunately I think the Harris campaign is doing the right thing with Israel right now. If other people on the left think this issue is worth losing over, I simply disagree. I don't think there's a good answer where everyone is happy, just one with less dead Palestinians.
Because thats what the data have to say. That's why we think that.
What you need to recognize is that this is something YOU think the election is worth losing over. YOU are the one arguing to leave a sufficient block of voters on the table by not pivoting. That 1-3% of voters is what wins or loses all of these tight races.
This is an aspect that makes me irate. People will say that its pure electoral pragmatism to support Israel, but how is losing Michigan over it pragmatic? I have seen no convincing argument that an arms embargo would be more dangerous for her electorally than continuing to tripple down on supporting Israel. If its not taken as a given that genocide is a pragmatic approach, then it seems obvious that the choice that leads to less genocide is correct, but Harris won't take it.
Christ, right? If anything, the data we have suggest a pivot gets her back to being a candidate that had momentum and was increasing their share of likely voters.
There is nothing pragmatic about supporting a policy which is deeply unpopular with your base. This is a turn out election. You have to turn your base out, not off.
It doesn't even have to be that! She can just make a vague statement about considering conditioning arms sales.