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?
Morals and ethics are subjective and based on emotions. That’s why science doesn’t say what’s good or bad. I don’t think you can prove or disprove this argument. People who are strongly focused on Gaza and simply reject views that challenge their own.
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”.
Now that the election is out of the way, maybe I can continue talking about this. I held my tongue during the past months, but I think now is a good time to think about this result.
While the result is unfortunate and disappointing, there are sides to it that aren’t all that bad. They pushed towards the right, pandering, and now the voters told them that this isn’t a winning strategy. I think it helps setting them straight for the future.
I think you put it very aptly. Of course it would’ve been best if Harris had won, but at least now we can think about it from a neutral perspective: Had she won despite all the right-pandering and genocide-enabling stances, it would either send the message that pandering to the right works, and the progressives are, indeed, either too small a group to listen to in the future too, or too much of pussies to listen to in the future, too — they’ll toe the line no matter what kind of shitty positions you take.
At least now they know that a change is needed. It’s almost unthinkable to lose to such a weird fascist populist that barely behaves cohesively. They did, by ignoring the progressives. That means something. At least it ought to.
Things don’t often change unless things hurt. If doing shitty things keeps working, nothing changes. But when things hurt, it opens some eyes at least. Forces re-evaluation on everyone’s part.
But that being said, this fucking sucks. Despite all the reasoning we can do to make it feel a bit better, this really should not have happened.
You’re wrong that it didn’t impact the outcome. MI flipped to Trump directly because of the uncommitted movement. Slotkin won the senate race, but Trump won by a narrow margin. Independent votes and low turn out siphoned off enough to make that happen. Low turn out also directly impacted the results. PA is a different story, but low turn out was true there, too
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.
- Due to the failings of the electoral college system, my state was almost guarenteed to vote the same way as it has for the last 30 years
- I did not strongly agree with either party/candidate
- I dispise the current two party system that both major parties are incentivized to maintain
- Voting for a third party who is incentivised to push for change via ranked voting and other methods does aid them even if they don’t win
If my state was likely to be contested, I may have voted differently. Voting for a third party in my case however had a greater impact than fighting or joining the tide of my state
Voting third party is fine. Protest voting is acceptable, though this result still fucking sucks. Strategic voting doesn’t have to be the default choice.
Anybody that did NOT vote, thinking it would be any sort of protest, is completely idiotic. Self imposed disenfranchisement only forfeits your own ability to say anything about the results.
I know people who voted neither candidate because Trump was horrible and Harris was pro-choice. Single-issue voters are the death of democracy. Full stop.
I said months ago that we were going to “single issue” our way to Trump 2.0, and I’ve never ever wanted to be wrong more than when I said that.
nearly all the single-issue voters on the right vote in lock-step unison, and have for decades.
democrats and progressives seem to just toss in the towel if they aren’t getting everything they want, right now.
it takes time to build something great, it takes but a moment to destroy it all. welcome to total destruction.
Yep, to all that, and I’ve often grumbled the same things.
Radicals ruin everything.
Thing is you can actually be radical. In a healthy democracy you need some small fringes to exert pressure, e.g. civil right activist groups and so on so that the government isn’t able to just completely ignore portions of the population.
But to be effective as an activist you have to know when to put on pressure and when to unite. Malcolm X or Fred Hampton didn’t go vote for David Duke just because MLK was a pacifist.
This was the wrong time to pressure because as always activists dramatically misread the levels of actual support for their cause and dramatically underestimate how much support the general populace gives the opposition.
Most people don’t even agree on the very basic facts of reality or that such a thing can even exist, how tf are you gonna expect to convince them of anything? What you gonna write some long post on it? Good luck - they cannot read.
Humanity is just a dogshit species. To even agree that we shouldn’t stab ourselves in our proverbial balls with a proverbial milwaukee power drill - it takes like generations and most people are always for the status quo and the worst possible version of everything is the default we have to work from and with, it’s just a cruel joke and it would be more existentially comforting if progress was outright impossible.
Only a radical speaks in absolutes
Chatgpt translation of a french politician’s analysis on the matter :
Spoiler
In this election, the United States of America couldn’t choose the left because it simply wasn’t an option. Vice President Kamala Harris aligned herself with President Biden and thus approved everything he did—and everything he didn’t do, especially when it comes to the genocide in Gaza. Biden allowed it to continue in all its aspects, month after month, for over a year now. And today, he stands by as Lebanon is invaded and airstrikes occur in neighboring countries. Therefore, the Democrats are directly and personally responsible for this genocide, and it has sparked outrage around the world. How could such a powerful and wealthy country, a political model for so many, which funds and arms 70% of Netanyahu’s war, do nothing to stop this genocide? This heavily discouraged working-class voters and, more broadly, people with a strong humanitarian conscience sensitive to the suffering of others.
Trump won because Kamala Harris and this American “left” were unable to mobilize the popular electorate. One could even say they kept their distance from it to appeal to opposing voters. Yet, society showed its left-leaning pulse in referendums held alongside the presidential election. Even in states where Trump won, votes on reproductive rights resulted in victories for the “pro-choice” side. In states where referendums on wages or quality of life were held, left-leaning solutions often won. So we are witnessing a shift to the right in the United States, as in France, but it is driven by the political and media elite. The elites on both sides resemble one another, with their media outlets and pollsters, seeing society as more right-leaning than it actually is. This is devastating when the left fails to stand its ground: the right gains free rein, and the popular left demobilizes. There was no political expression available for those voting in favor of leftist measures in various states. The Harris presidential candidacy didn’t represent these views, so voters didn’t turn out. They gave up. Out of frustration, some may have even voted for Trump, but I believe this was minimal.
Harris tried to convince people that, since all the economic indicators were positive, their lives were therefore better. And here we touch on another dimension of this election’s outcome. In the U.S., as in France when President Macron boasted, we heard on all sides that things were improving: lower unemployment, rising income levels, and so on. But ordinary people, those who live by their labor, don’t see things that way. Most Americans know their wages haven’t improved. Most Americans see that they must work harder to maintain a lower quality of life, working more to earn more only to pay for things that cost increasingly more due to inflation, like food. But also the everyday essentials that go unmentioned! While we discuss taxes to denounce social security contributions, we never talk about “private taxes.” Profits and dividends are essentially private taxes on production, benefiting only a few, while public taxes benefit everyone. This is the reality. How many other costs are never counted in mandatory contributions? You’re required to insure your car, your home; you’re required to buy a certain number of things without which you could be penalized for not having. All these costs have risen!
[…] So, if you work more, maybe you earn more, but you live less comfortably and life becomes increasingly difficult. And ultimately, you live in an ocean of poverty. Even if you have a quiet home, which is your right, when you walk through the streets, you see people sleeping on the ground. You find all kinds of signs of human distress, which hurt you because you can’t pass by without noticing. Above all, you feel personally threatened by it. That’s why what just happened in the United States is a preview of what will happen in all democracies. Today, leaders shift further to the right, scapegoating immigrants, young people, and, broadly speaking, life itself, criticizing it and its risks. All while saying that people are ungrateful because things are supposedly getting better. These leaders will be increasingly punished at the polls. But the situation for those in power remains the same. Trump is a billionaire surrounded by billionaires. He still plans to cut taxes. He still plans to raise tariffs on imports, hoping to make it more attractive to produce things domestically. His form of protectionism is not the same as the protectionism we advocate for. We support “solidarity-based” protectionism, which aims to protect local production where it’s necessary. For instance, we need to protect local agriculture from imports. But in other areas, we must stop letting the market dictate everything as is happening now. We see factories closing one after another because they can’t compete globally against countries with cheaper social and environmental standards.
If Trump imposes the tariffs he has planned, prices in the U.S. will rise until domestic production fills the gaps. It’s simple: these goods will cost more. You can’t avoid them, and they aren’t made locally, so you’ll pay more. He hopes this will push Americans toward local products. Let’s hope there are any to turn to. Personally, I don’t believe the U.S. can rebuild a productive base strong enough to compete with “the world’s factory” in China and the rest of Asia. This goes for us in France, too.
Let’s draw some lessons from this. First, for democracy to thrive, there must be real debate on programs, not just on personalities. When all candidates say the same things, there’s no space for real discussion. This is why it all ends in insults and a pitiful spectacle, as we saw in the U.S. There must be genuine policy choices that engage society’s intelligence rather than relying on rejection, hatred, and the discrediting of others. Two worldviews are facing off, in the U.S. as elsewhere. And society understands this. Is it “everyone for themselves,” or is it “all together”? We need this discussion, but in the end, we need to make choices based on concrete, opposing options—not just endless repetition of the same ideas.
We must also draw a strategic lesson: society needs alternative choices. That’s why we’re fine with being called the “radical left.” It’s not how we, see ourselves, but at least people understand we are proposing something different. Otherwise, people turn away from voting or lean increasingly to the right, looking for scapegoats. The second lesson is that good or bad economic numbers alone don’t convince people to vote a certain way. When people are told the numbers look good, it’s really just a way of saying they have no choice but to vote to keep things the same. People know that under capitalism, their lives are unlikely to improve, but their environment could be entirely devastated. And for those with bad numbers, it’s a way to say nothing can change because of that, as we see in France. Good numbers, bad numbers—the conclusion is always the same. But if we keep things the same, we’re heading for disaster.
We can’t win against the “every man for himself” mindset unless we explain why “all together” is essential. An election should be a vision for the future. The world is entering a dangerous phase. At each step, we must reflect on what has just happened and learn from it. The next time challenges come, we must reflect and make informed choices.
Kamala Harris, like President Joe Biden, bears personal responsibility for the genocide against Palestinians. They armed those responsible and stood by when they had the means to stop this catastrophe. Harris and Biden are responsible for once again mocking the public, providing none of the answers that American workers expect from a Democratic Party that wants to be the U.S. left. Americans need to break free from this stifling two-party system that prevents progressive choices. I regret that Bernie Sanders and the left of the Democratic Party continued to carry water for Kamala Harris and that Party.
Everywhere, we need the courage of our convictions. We must stand firm. Even if we lose because we couldn’t convince others, at least we fought. The worst thing is to lose both our ideas and the elections. That’s why we must learn a lesson from this. And broadly, everyone who wants to break with today’s system must take this lesson seriously—politically, socially, ecologically. We must all believe it’s crucial to stand firm, without compromising to seem more acceptable to our opponents, as Kamala Harris did. This world is unbearable for the majority. A different future must be possible for life to be bearable. And we must take this personally. We must act, not just let events unfold without doing anything, shedding tears before and after—tears of fear, then tears for what we’ve lost.
And the following are statements from before Nov 5th, before the election results:
Spoiler
When both candidates say the same thing, it creates a stifling environment. It becomes impossible to discuss topics that neither candidate has brought up—such as the ongoing genocide against the Palestinian population and the invasion against the Lebanese people. This is an issue that provokes a reaction and deep thought globally. But in the United States, whether it’s Trump or Harris, both support the genocide. The current Biden administration, being Democratic, provides weapons and financial backing to Netanyahu, supplying nearly 70% of Israel’s arms. Occasionally, they make hypocritical statements about ensuring humanitarian aid access, while funding the genocide and destruction.
Trump and Harris both support the genocide and give unconditional, if differently worded, support to Netanyahu’s government. They also agree on handling capitalism, with neither willing to tax windfall profits of corporations. They both avoid addressing public health issues, among other critical matters. Although Democrats at least recognize environmental issues, Harris has boasted about the strong oil industry performance under Biden’s administration. There’s little space to discuss anything outside a narrow range of topics, which is why U.S. election campaigns inevitably become personality battles and insult matches.
There’s a lot here that we recognize because we see it at home, too. I find it amusing when the media says U.S. campaigns are “too personality-driven,” or that “the arguments are rudimentary,” or that polling institutes are always wrong! Isn’t that also the case here? We have dominant narratives that are just as basic, comparable to Trump’s anti-immigration rhetoric. We also have racist discourses that rival Trump’s, and our polling institutes are often off the mark, misleading the public about voter intentions. There is a reflection of the American system in the French system: Kamala Harris and the Democrats resemble the Socialist Party and Le Monde, while Trump is like the National Rally, Eric Ciotti, and Le Figaro.
Right now, we’re being cornered to take a position on the U.S. election. Recently, I watched the morning news with two French left-wing representatives. Both were asked to choose between Trump and Harris. But let’s remember: we are not U.S. voters. If we take a position, it’s to clarify our general political priorities. What matters to us in this election? The campaign has been reduced to very little, offering no choice on major issues impacting North Americans’ daily lives or those of people living under U.S. dominance. These issues, tied to critiques of capitalism, are unaddressed. Inflation erodes the income of the poorest Americans as much as it does in Europe or France, yet this is never discussed. Nor is anything said about what will be done for industrial areas where factories have closed and everyone has been laid off. What will come next? No one knows, except that both Trump and Harris favor tariffs to revive their industry—a strategy unlikely to bring them to a competitive market position with China, which is why both are anti-China. A Democratic leader went so far as to admit, “There’s no market solution to compete with China.” In other words, both support war.
I’ve just outlined how both candidates agree on key issues that we strongly oppose. I read that Harris is “the lesser evil” compared to Trump. I reject that notion. The lesser evil is still evil. As Hannah Arendt said, “Those who choose the lesser evil forget that they chose evil.” I’d add that Harris, by being complicit in genocide and pro-capitalist policies, has alienated working-class voters in swing states.
There is, however, a crucial difference between them on an individual liberty: Trump opposes the right to abortion, while Harris supports it. This is a fundamental difference—not a minor detail—since it affects the personal freedom of half of humanity: all women. If I were in the U.S., this would weigh heavily in my voting decision. They are similar but not identical. One might wish for a Harris victory, though it would not bring substantial change. However, a Trump loss would stir greater turmoil in the U.S., as he would not accept defeat. For us, that might be positive. A divided U.S. might reduce its global interference, including support for regimes like Netanyahu’s and others, especially in the Asia-Pacific.
If I were a voter in a swing state, I would vote Democrat. But in a Democratic state where their majority is assured, adding more votes wouldn’t increase the Democratic electoral college count. In such a case, breaking the stranglehold might be worthwhile, and I would consider my options. If in a solidly Democratic state, I’d vote for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, because their platform closely aligns with our goals here.
Let’s briefly review the American Greens’ proposals, which neither Harris nor Trump supports. They advocate for free public education throughout life. They propose abolishing student debt and medical debt, and strengthening a social security system that doesn’t exist there. They support heavy taxes on large fortunes and corporations—something we just voted for in our National Assembly. They call for a minimum wage indexed to inflation and productivity growth, which we push for at each parliamentary session, and a guaranteed income above the poverty line. They would make housing a human right, place the pharmaceutical industry under public ownership and democratic control, and replace the two-party exclusionary system with a multiparty democracy. This includes proportional representation in all legislative elections and the abolition of the death penalty. They also champion gender liberties and reducing migration pressures by ending crises that force people to migrate—a statement nearly word-for-word from our party.
[…] In any case, the United States is a far more fractured and disjointed country than it may appear from a distance. And if this country is fractured and disjointed, it’s not because of the crudeness of the campaign rhetoric. That crudeness is actually a result of the fact that, since the candidates say essentially the same things on major issues, they can only confront each other through personal attacks. They both say the same things because both defend the same global order, the same widespread presence of NATO, the same dominance over the world, and the same aggression toward anything that resists them. Why with such force and violence? Because they are defending a system that has torn apart American society. The American people are better than the political figures who represent them. Sooner or later, the collective spirit of grassroots America, as it manifests when mobilized for major causes, will reemerge.
But today, the American public is being deeply influenced by the far right, much like public opinion in Europe, especially in places where there is no way to express an alternative viewpoint outside the two-party system that dominates and blocks any broader perspective.
Since no one seems to be taking OP’s question seriously, I’ll take a stab at this. There are a variety of reasons.
Some people feel that voting is offering material support to a specific candidate or system, and they simply cannot bring themselves to do so given the horrors that that person or system is either supporting or failing to condemn.
Others may feel that strategically withholding their vote as a punishment may motivate democrats to take these types of issues more seriously in the future.
Or they may feel that their vote is more impactful in magnifying the voice and power of third parties who offer more meaningful solutions to end the killing, even if they won’t win.
Others still may believe that Trump’s incompetence will accelerate the end of America imperialism and lead to a better global political situation sometime in the future.
Finally, some people feel that voting won’t matter at all and is a distraction from efforts to directly slow or stop the war machine.
I don’t personally endorse any of these viewpoints, but some are relatively serious positions and others are not, in my opinion.
Others may feel that strategically withholding their vote as a punishment may motivate democrats to take these types of issues more seriously in the future.
They never learn though.
A lot of people did in fact set aside Gaza until Trump was stopped. As for those that didn’t, they should have listened to Bernie Sanders. I did months ago and went all-in on Dem support. There were multiple times when I wrote up an angry post about US support of Israel and then didn’t post it because I didn’t want to turn a voter into a non-voter or worse a Trump supporter.
I understand their position of never rewarding ethnic cleansing and war crimes though. They chose to make sure the Dems know they would never “settle” for the illegal killing of civilians. The support for Israel made it especially hard for Arab Americans to vote Dem. It’s difficult to support a party that has been in power during the whole conflict yet gives unconditional support for the internationally condemned murder of Arabs.
I’m sure a lot also felt disenfranchised by the bipartisan protest suppression and condemnation. Even in Dem states peaceful protesters were punished, and sometimes pro-Israeli protesters who attacked got away with it. Then there was the whole “vote with us or else” pressure that went on for months. Dissenters like the “uncommitted” voters were insulted by the party that wanted their unconditional support.
So it’s not like it’s completely insane. But as Sanders points out that position only makes things worse and has done so.
- the world doesn’t owe you at least one morally correct choice. They can also just all be morally bad choices. (hello classical greek drama btw)
- morals depend on your point of view what correct behavior is and on the social group you want to be respected and accepted by.
- because of that, morals are subjective, made up, and can be whatever anyone wants.
So xyz being “morally correct” and saying that, is just that person’s point of view, and if you have a different point of view, it’s just a difference of opinion.
Those are people who are unable or unwilling to see the forest for the trees.
Like you. :-)
Russian bots mostly, but also privileged people who think that a Trump presidency won’t affect them
Don’t underestimate the pissed off poor. The Dems kept telling them that things weren’t so bad while the Reps said they’d change things.
The changes will of course be worse, but if things are clearly shit, and someone keeps telling you that it’s not that bad, you start to despise those people even if they’re the better choice.
Don’t underestimate the pissed off poor. The Dems kept telling them that things weren’t so bad while the Reps said they’d change things.
Okay, but those aren’t the single-issue Gaza voters OP was asking about.
Frankly, they should’ve been what OP was asking about though, because they were a way bigger factor (and always are, in every election, despite the Democrats abject refusal to acknowledge it).
Do you have any examples of Dems telling people things werent bad? The closest things I can think of is dems saying we know things are bad but we are working on them and they are getting better. It feels like a republican talking point that dems think things are good.
“Bidenomics” and “Economy is doing great” and anything and everything involving the word “GDP”
Sure, Russian bots. But Hasbara likely played a significant role too.
The best argument I came across went something like this: if we show the Democratic Party that we’ll accept something as horrible as genocide as long as the Republicans are worse, then we’ve completely surrendered our agency as voters.
Powerful statement. It was the most coherent, rational, well thought out explanation I’d seen. It didn’t come off as a condescending lecture on morality, either. I actually considered their argument for a couple days, but ultimately, I decided it wasn’t strong enough to risk another Trump administration.
It is a stupid fucking statement. “If you aren’t perfect on every single issue, then we won’t vote for you.”
Honestly for a portion of the ones here online, I don’t think they actually care that much about Gaza except as a convenient tool to attack Americans. It’s academic to them. I don’t expect it’ll stop once Trump is in, they’ll just switch to criticizing Americans overall. They’re mostly leftist agitators, and I honestly think they hate moderate progressives the most, since we’re trying to improve capitalism which makes it harder to undermine and destroy.
For people that actually do care, it’s a personal, emotional argument about not being able to feel good about it, which I understand. It’s a sort of trolley problem. If they don’t vote, they kinda just walk away and the trolley runs over a bunch of people, but they don’t have to watch and bear a sense of personal responsibility at that emotional level for being a part of it. It doesn’t actually benefit Gaza, but there’s only so much they could really do anyway.
If you have a particular ideological hang up revolving around the difference between explicit and implicit consent to be governed…
You can view yourself as morally correct for not voting for anyone whom you do not fully support.
Thus you have not given explicit consent to either candidate, or the voting system itself.
Its basically ‘Don’t blame me, I didn’t vote, therefore I am not responsible.’
Its the trolley problem, but you just walk away from both tracks and the lever, and then claim that you did not consciously act to cause any harm, therefore you are guiltless.
…
Unfortunately by this logic it does also mean that you give implicit consent to literally everything your government does if you do not speak out against everything it does that you don’t like, or take some explicit action to countermand.
…
It’s an extremely sophomoric, cowardly and irresponsible stance to take in a situation like this, but there is an underlying logic to it… its just that this logic is ridiculous and absurd.
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.
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?
… 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!
Only if you don’t recognize that Trump would be much, much, much worse. And what we see from the election, many can’t seem to see that (in any way).
