162
There's No "Progressive Foreign Policy" Without a Reckoning for Dems Who Supported Genocide
(theintercept.com)
this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2026
162 points (91.8% liked)
politics
28580 readers
2542 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You can't argue against my first point. We literally have the numbers. This isn't speculative. We measured this.
Stein (G): 862,049 votes,
Kennedy (I): 756,393
Oliver (L): 650,126
De La Cruz (S): 166,175
West (I): 82,664
In no state election would the greens have even come close to moving the results of that race. And if you argue that the green votes actually belong to the Democrats, you'd have to concede that both Kennedy's and Oliver's would belong to the Republicans. In which case Trumps victory would have been even more secure.
In the most charitable interpretation, third party votes in 2024 helped Democrats and hurt Trump. If we make some demographic assumptions and treat it like an instant run-off, reassigning third party votes would put Trump even further into the lead.
Third party votes in 2024 were historically low and had almost no impact on the outcome of the election.
How does your point in any way refute that voting for Democrats is the most beneficial thing for Palestine? Unless you’re trying to say that by voting for a third party you actually helped Democrats win more than you would have by voting for them?? Your point was a non sequitur.
So I responded by broadening the scope and looking at all third party voters. Its a classic trope for apologist Dems to blame third party, and the point is that third party voters were utterly meaningless, and if anything, actually helped Dems in 2024.
We are not, at all, nor ever have we been, nor ever will we be, talking about what any of us as individuals do. Neither your vote or my vote decided an election. The presentation that voters individually needed make different decisions is a dangerous and deceptive framing that political parties have used prop up deeply unpopular candidates and policies. No one voter decides the outcome of an election.
The 6 million votes that Harris left on the table lost the election. You are arguing against a strawman of your own creation, and what you think my personal choice would have been is utterly fucking irrelevant.
What we are discussing is how elections and electorates respond to candidates and the strategies those candidates use. The point that is now conclusive, is that there was one functional path to Harris winning the election: She needed to oppose the genocide in Gaza. There was no other way for her to win.
Nope. They were talking about an individual vote, their own. Again, you’re changing the subject.
And the point is: No, they're not.
The most beneficial thing they could have done would have been to make it clear to the campaign that they were going to lose if they didn't change their policy on Gaza, because their individual vote doesn't matter.
Why would the campaign care about their threat to withhold their single useless vote?