Hegar

Thank you this kind of comment is why I come here.

A fair point.

Yeah but presumably the parent in the M1 has a spouse operating a surveillance drone to provide real time fire child correction?

I agree that dems have cause for concern broadly, but I’m not sure that a 10% drop during an uncontested incumbent primary translates to a “10% drop in reliable D’s electoral engagement”.

Thierry’s district … is not a swing district. … Previously, Thierry had beaten a Libertarian candidate 87%-13%, with no Republican running in the race.

In case anyone thought this might have been a tactical ploy by a dem in a heavily republican area, it was not. Just a crazy person shooting themself in the foot with their own cruel thoughts.

The popular vote matters, proof that we’re not a democracy matters. Not a lot, probably not at all but maybe in the future it might form part of an argument for making things better.

Given the stakes I’m still going to put in the small effort for a likely doomed longshot. That’s about the most we can hope to achieve with electoral politics, but I still think it’s worth doing.

I’ve seen a number of polls that reiterate how strongly youth and democrats oppose israel’s actions and call it genocide. I don’t think it’s an echo chamber effect.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/642695/majority-disapprove-israeli-action-gaza.aspx

This poll from March shows 55/36 disapprove/approve.

Moreover, democrats disapprove at 75% vs 18% approve and independents disapprove at 60% to 29% approve. Sure, republicans approve at 64%, but ain’t no republicans switching to biden over gaza.

Those numbers are brutal for democrats, and getting worse. More obvious genocide from the israelis and feeble lies from biden isn’t going to reverse that trend.

I personally don’t think that fear of assassination is what’s driving biden and the democrats policy on this.

Given that netanyahu and gvir were almost certainly involved in killing yitzhak rabin I’m sure they’re capable, I just think the risk/reward is off. They can affect US policy without the risks inherent in killing an allied head of state.

I didn’t downvote. I don’t see you having any down votes. I don’t disagree with you, I just don’t feel that your comment addressed the specific point I was making.

I don’t disagree that states are devoid of any ethical capabilities, but they’re not cartoon supervillains. When states are cruel, it’s for specific reasons to achieve specific aims.

I don’t understand what the democrats think they are getting or avoiding with this. To me it looks lose/lose for them.

States just aren’t moral entities - there’s no reasonable moral ground for most anything an imperial power does. It’s almost always just about securing more power.

But I don’t understand how this makes sense for the democrats from even a realpolitik perspective.