Withholding your vote until genocide is taken off the table pressures her to give in to their demands, though. There’s no universal constant saying we need to have a genocide. Either she loves genocide, or she’s supporting it because she’s worried she won’t get the votes without it. If it’s the second one, and I hope it is, then the Uncommitted movement is simply doing the same thing to establish their own power, and for a better reason: to save the lives of their friends, family, aid workers, doctors, and journalists.
Nah, holding your vote appears to be you just being another unmotivated democratic voter without regard to why. No one gets polled on why they didn’t vote 4 years prior. At best Harris barely wins and at worst Trump takes office and you get 4 years of genocide + Ukrainian subjugation + subjugation of women, minorities, and immigrants at home.
Kind of a no-brainer that you should vote for Harris here.
Okay thats all nice and such but you don’t vote for who you want to lose you vote for who matches your values. If people are so anti-genocide, should be very easy for a third party who is anti-war to win, if people voted for their values.
Its true it won’t happen in one election, I think even if the democrats win this year that they had a lot more pressure from groups they hadn’t before, and they were loud and clear and well represented.
I’m still concerned there will just be trump 2.0 next election and the democrats will continue moving towards the right as they go, and just continue this lose lose schoolyard fighting nonsense.
Not if it’s withheld as part of a wider movement or given to a third party. That’s why it’s being paired with protests and other campaigns letting them know what they have to do to get their vote back.
Harris barely winning but losing something like Michigan to spook her into actually doing something material to stop supporting Israel is probably my preferred scenario right now, but she already said no arms embargo is on the table and after an election she’s not really beholden to voters anymore, so doubt that will help, either.
“barely winning” is a dangerous game to play when the consequences of losing is getting much much much further away from your stated goals. if anything it is impossible to push Trump to an anti weapon sale stance (since his core supporters don’t care and Trump is where money and strongest lobbies will be) than Kamala whose core supporters actually care but are turning the other way for now due to the fear of losing to Trump.
so late into the elections it will only increase chances of Trump winning and will not convince her to change stance.
the risk of this is that you move even further away from your goals, practically to a place where it is impossible to do anything about genocide (since core supporters of Trump wont give a shit about and Trump himself for sure will be where money and strongest lobbies are).
this plan only makes sense if your perspective is “by diverting votes we let Trump win, everything goes to hell and then there is some sort of reform/revolution after he fucks up everything”. But given that maybe %30 of the country is still big time Trump supporters, we are likely looking at a civil war in that case.
You’re never going to be able to convince a lot of people to accept a genocide of their own people. It’s just not possible for some and I don’t blame them. A lot of Americans have never been attacked at home so they don’t understand. It’s a gamble the Administration is doing to keep up their rabid cheerleading of the Nazi-like side. Hopefully it doesn’t blow back on them.
what if realistically speaking the only current choice is between even a worse situation in middle east vs maybe slightly better than the status quo? I know it sucks but without changing how the elections in US works, you are not going to go from democrats vs republicans to a progressive major party in one election. In one election your only chance is to get slightly closer to it or quite further away.
