She said to vote straight Dem ticket while at a really meant to bring out support for Harris. This article is intended to sow division instead of report in an accurate context.
Thank you for your service! This makes perfect sense. I was wondering if this was similar to Uncommitted’s non-endorsement of Harris, where they declined to explicitly endorse her due to Gaza but basically said everyone needs to out and vote for her anyways - and you answered this for me.
Whilst I respect her view on the situation in Gaza, is this not cutting your nose off to spite your face? There will be NO ability to influence a Trump and more broadly Republican government unlike a Democrat one. In fact under Trump you will see more overt support for Israel and even worse a contraction of US involvement in the situation to temper aggression. Also, given Trump’s war like provaclivity in the past, with authorising a strike in Iran, it is likely going increase the likelihood of escalation and a more widespread conflict.
Only if you think you are going to get what you are going to need with Democrats. And we have Democrats. And we’re not getting what we need.
Sometimes you have to do things the hard way. Rashida’s job depends on her extolling the will of her constituents. Her job is to represent them not a brand called the DNC. If the DNC can’t be in the right on this matter, it truly is their problem.
I think after this cycle we see the progressive block moving back to being ‘independents’, since Democrats have proven to be an unreliable/ worthless caucus member. Which is fine. There is probably more power on the outside right now.
I think after this cycle we see the progressive block moving back to being ‘independents’
The thing is, we need to start jockeying for position immediately. Don’t wait until presidential campaigns start rolling around in 3 years before signalling a departure. These things take years to pick up steam.
Isn’t that what this article is signalling? This is Talib breaking, imo, in the strongest manner possible with the party.
Talib is a Democrat not endorsing the Democrat for president. This might be Talib doing what Talib thinks she needs to do to hold her seat.
Progressives need to start campaigning for the 2028 primaries as soon as possible. We cannot let the genocide wing of the party claim to have a mandate.
It’s a bold move. I suppose if you let in the guy who 100% supports the genocide and they go through in full with it, then you no longer have the problem 🤷♂️
Every Palestinian American who has lost a cousin to an American bomb after reading your comment:
I get it. I get it that you are intentionally trying to not understand what is happening right now. But your lack of understanding doesn’t change what is hapening.
The thing about voting for Harris is that if she wins while endorsing genocide it signals to the DNC that their constituents are either pushovers who can’t make demands of their elites or okay with genocide. There’s a very real argument that setting this precedent is going to be worse for America than four years of Trump with a Democrat Senate (assuming democrat voters don’t drop the ball on Senate elections) that’s doing opposition instead of cheering on the genocide. If the Dems know they can ignore their constituents and win, they’ll pander a lot more to Republicans and hasten the decay of American democracy.
Note: I say genocide because this is the most important issue to Muslim voters, but it could be immigration, the lack of a primary, or any other DNC nonsense this election cycle.
The thing about voting for Harris is that if she wins while endorsing genocide it signals to the DNC that their constituents are either pushovers who can’t make demands of their elites or okay with genocide.
Centrists know this. They’re angry because progressives are not pushovers who are ok with genocide.
We need a competitive primary in 2028. We didn’t get one this year.
No, centrists who are against the genocide are over here thinking, you’re cutting off your nose to spite your face. The president isn’t a dictator, the country isn’t a monolith, and you don’t understand how the three chambers of US government works.
But hey maybe that’s the point, you’d rather destroy the system and get a dictator. I love having the freedom I have and it’s served me pretty well these years. I support the cause, but I’m not willing to walk with you if it means the end of democracy.
Chance of Harris getting tough on Israel? Maybe 30%
Chance of Trump getting tough on Israel? 0%. Maybe even a negative % because he basically already gave them pointers on having a quieter genocide.
Chance of Harris getting tough on Israel? Maybe 30%
I have seen nothing that indicates that this number is that high. Or nonzero.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/25/politics/harris-netanyahu-israel-hamas-ceasefire
She somewhat reversed course on this since then but I hope that’s due to the shitty reality of AIPAC and other Jewish and Israeli lobbying groups being a powerful group to mess with in an election year.
Expressing “serious concern” and continuing the brutal status quo is no different from Biden’s current stance.
We need a party that can say no to genocide. If that can’t be the Democrats, then so be it. I’m not sure where this goes, but the American political landscape is forever changed after this election.
The problem is this:
Democrats want a peaceful solution to the Genocide.
Republicans want a faster, more complete genocide.
One of those two parties is going to lead for the next four years.
Since when has a genocide ever ended peacefully?
This is provably a lie.
They can end the genocide right now. Implying that they can’t is trying (and failing) to provide them cover for committing a genocide. And yes, continuing to provide weapons to the grunts doing the work doesn’t absolve them of the moral responsibility for it, nor does it provide them enough cover to pretend that genocide isn’t the outcome they want.
No, they can’t, because they aren’t engaging in the genocide and Israel doesn’t need our help to commit it.
Just because someone presents something as if there are a limited number of possibilities or outcomes, its important to keep in mind, this is often just a result of their framing. Its often more reflective of their incomplete thinking on a situation than it is reality, and cynically, its a kind of rhetorical slight of hand often used to keep a narrative structured in such a way that only certain outcomes are possible.
Democrats, and more importantly, their voters, have proven to be cowards in the face of doing the right thing. Demanding little and less from a party as weak as the Democrats has left a lane wide open. I think we’ll see that lane taken over the next couple of years.
Its often more reflective of their incomplete thinking on a situation than it is reality, and cynically, its a kind of rhetorical slight of hand often used to keep a narrative structured in such a way that only certain outcomes are possible.
Nobody is saying that another outcome isn’t possible, but no other outcome than Trump or Harris in this election is remotely plausible.
So my good faith question to you is, what do you think should be done in this election that plausibly leads to a better outcome than a Harris vote? Open-ended question, no barriers.
Let me frame it this way then… in my lifetime, more electoral college votes have been awarded ACCIDENTALLY than have been won by a third party. That’s an absolute fact:
https://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2016/12/enduring-mystery-america-s-last-faithless-elector/
The best shot a 3rd party had was with Ross Perot in 1992, how did that work out?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_presidential_election
Clinton - 44,909,889 - 43.0% - 370 EC
Bush - 39,104,550 - 37.4% - 168
Perot - 19,743,821 - 18.9% - 0
No other 3rd party run has even been close.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_presidential_election
Clinton - 47,401,185 - 49.2% - 379
Dole - 39,197,469 - 40.7% - 159
Perot - 8,085,294 - 8.4% - 0
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_United_States_presidential_election
Reagan - 43,903,230 - 50.7% - 489
Carter - 35,481,115 - 41.0% - 49
Anderson - 5,719,850 - 6.6% - 0
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election
Bush - 50,456,002 - 47.9% - 271*
Gore - 50,999,897 - 48.4% - 266*
Nader - 2,882,955 - 2.74% - 0
* It was found, after Bush’s inauguration, that any correct re-counting of Florida would have awarded it to Gore.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jan/29/uselections2000.usa
She’s gonna love president Trump when there’s no Palestine left
