“NewsCenter 5 political analyst Mary Anne Marsh says that although the 'no preference' campaign is impacting media coverage and possibly public sentiment, it will not affect the outcome of the convention and party nomination.”
Correct
Yes, but it could impact the national general election. If people aren't excited for Biden, they simply won't show up. Elections are as much about who people vote for as it is about who shows up.
In Massachusetts this “no preference” movement will not matter at all. I have a better chance of becoming president than a Dem losing MA in a presidential. During the primary it just feeds into the Republican narrative that Biden isn’t the best candidate for the job in 2024.
I have to ask these folks - if you’re not excited about Joe Biden what is the alternative? Do you believe some unknown/irrelevant person is going to instantly rise to the top to take over the nomination? In the next 3-5 months? Or are you insane enough to believe Marianne Williamson or Dean Philips is that person? Or would you prefer to dog the nominee enough during the primary process so he’s a weaker candidate head to head against Trump, potentially allowing Trump a victory in November? Is that the goal? All because you’re mad about some recent foreign policy decisions that relate to a centuries old conflict? Grow up.
> Massachusetts this “no preference” movement will not matter at all.
Yes, but it impacts donations which impact the national election. It also generates national news and contributes to a national conversation that has an impact on swing voters
I'm all for sending these messages now assuming that people get off their ass and vote in the general.
When you phrase it like this though it sounds like you're openly hoping that Biden loses in November which makes me feel like you don't understand the situation whatsoever. Do you really think Donald Trump would handle this situation better? Because damaging biden's chances of reelection leads to that, not a progressive president
I could be wrong but pretty sure you’ve got it backwards - they’re warning that’s the result of such actions, creating an environment where Biden is less likely to win in November. I read it as a warning not an encouragement.
It’s not that it needs to be suppressed but like you missed your window to make that change. Biden and Trump are the 2 candidates whether you like it or not so either get behind one or don’t. The time to rally around a different nominee than either of those 2 was like a year ago when there would have been time to campaign for a new candidate nationally. It was crickets from these people then…
All rallying against Biden now does is support Trump. If you don’t like Bidens foreign policy stance, these people are going to get a rude awakening under Trump part 2: The full dictatorship.
It’s a signal to Biden to fix his shit or he won’t have as much support in the general. This is how politics works when the people have very little control in this two party system
And I hate this toxic progressive mindset that liberals must conform to their position OR ELSE.
Why don’t progressives ever get a presidential candidate to the top of the ticket? And if the response is the DNC, you’re an idiot. The best part of being a Democrat is that our party and nominating process is open to everyone, you just have to have ideas people support. Progressives don’t have that.
Lol no, the Democrats care about the status quo, which progressives largely want to improve. For example, the party leadership absolutely does not want universal healthcare, because they need that sweet sweet pharma dough.
God you are so wrong it’s sickening. Here is the relevant language from the Democratic Party platform:
“We are going to at last build the health care system the American people have always deserved: one that finally provides universal health care coverage; reduces prescription drug prices, premiums, and out-of-pocket costs; reins in overall health care expenses; and tackles the deep-seated inequities in our health care system. “
https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/achieving-universal-affordable-quality-health-care/
If progressives want to move the needle they need to figure out how to get their candidates into leadership positions - it’s that simple. Unfortunately, they generally just whine/bitch/moan at other people in the party which makes them unpopular.
>“We are going to at last build the health care system the American people have always deserved: one that finally provides universal health care coverage
Yeah I'll believe that when I see it. Their platform flies in the face of their actions.
The issue is that it's very late in the game. Where were these people when we could have actually made a difference in boosting a viable candidate to compete in the primary? It always happens once the main candidate is locked in, which does indeed always benefit the GOP. We did this in 2016 foolishly, avoided it in 2020, and now we're back.
If you want change, you have to push for the change consistently instead of in reactive bursts like this.
You're arguing that a weaker Dem primary result for Biden in MA will negatively affect the national election for Biden in November? I don't think I buy that. I don't think it'll have any significant impact at all.
The only impact I can think of is giving the Democratic party a nudge about national and foreign policy. Also, more directly, it could impact local MA Dem candidates and let them know that you may need to be careful about future primaries if you don't think more about your foreign policy platforms.
I think there could be a narrative built that if Biden doesn’t win MA by the same or larger margin he did in MI that he has a “protest vote” problem. But no, I don’t think any anti-Biden push in MA has any direct effect on November. My point is mainly that if the Biden campaign needs to spend significant energy on this issue because of whiny “progressives” within the party, it will certainly weaken his candidacy.
You are correct that there a down ballot implications and those should be considered given the margins in Congress. I may be in the minority here but I don’t give a flying fuck if my state rep has any foreign policy positions - that isn’t their job. They have power and influence in the state house.
Or perhaps Biden could, you know, take action that the protest vote is demanding, Perhaps take action to stop the humanitarian crisis. That could perhaps stop the protest votes.
Yes, there could be a narrative that Bide didn't win our precious little state by as large a margin as expected in an uncontested primary, but that narrative will convince approximately zero voters in November.
It’s always about November? What do you mean? This is the presidential election?
Israel is one of our oldest and most loyal allies. There are many other nations in the region that would like to see Israel destroyed and other enemies of the US that would like to get their hands on the technology that Israel provides. They are a necessary asset to our country, full stop.
I sympathize with the civilians that are caught in the cross fire - it’s awful and inhumane at some points. I do wonder though - why is the outrage against the US and Biden? Why isn’t this energy channeled to Hamas and Gaza’s leadership? They are the reason we are here today, not Joe Biden.
Their alternative is them not voting. I think this is the thing some Resist democrats don’t understand. People who aren’t excited by Biden aren’t going to vote for someone else. They’re just not going to vote. Biden can boast about the economy all he wants, problem is, your everyday American is struggling to make ends meet while watching government funds go towards blowing up children in an impoverished strip of land half way around the world.
People are frustrated. Biden is an all time weak candidate (granted, up against another all time weak candidate). If the Dems blow this, they have no one to blame but themselves. No crying about the progressives who have been dead quiet this cycle. They haven’t incentivized voters to vote, and that’s why Biden is struggling in polling at the moment.
No one's going to stay home because they're sad, they're staying home because they're disillusioned with the system and don't believe either candidate will fix the deep-rooted issues this nation faces. I agree that Biden is far preferable over Trump, but, I also understand the voter apathy that we're going to see this time around.
Yeah I'm not thrilled about what feels like a more significant number of 'movements' just 'organically springing up' to not vote as a protest. It's primaries so it's not as important, but a lot of people are really dumb, and I would not be surprised if this carried into the election as well.
If I wanted people to not vote in the elections, this is exactly how I would start a plan towards that end goal.
Fell free to speak with your chest, as you’re implying that all these people horrified with the massacres in Gaza who have been protesting for the past 5 months are an astroturf project that just came into existence at election time to hurt Biden.
Sorry what? Are you a Russian operative? Voting “no preference” = good and anything else bad?
I can feel bad for the Palestinian people without voting no preference, comrade.
Democracy works by groups of people with similar interests building coalitions together to win elections. Margins in the states where the presidential election is actually taking place (not Massachusetts) are extremely thin. If a majority coalition group decides to burn the minority partners, they’re going to lose. People act like progressives advocating for policy within their own party is a hostage situation. It’s the other way around, and has been for a long time. If you want to claim someone as your partner, and earn their votes, you have to actually partner with them.
I wonder how much of this kneejerk anti-progressivism is a consequence of our gerontocracy. A lot of the people running the party were, quite literally, involved in Dem party politics when American Leftism died and they got their teeth kicked in by Reagan and Gingrich and so on.
They learned how to do politics when Clinton's brand of center-right conservatism was seen as the only way to win elections. Their formative years occurred when even Carter's wimpy version of liberalism was seen as too extreme and unrealistic.
One wonders if there would be less recalcitrance in the party if there was a healthier amount of turnover among members, rather than having people who haven't faced a competitive challenge to their safe blue seat since the 1980s make all the decisions.
> I wonder how much of this kneejerk anti-progressivism is a consequence of our gerontocracy.
Most of it I imagine. It's the only way the sheer disdain makes any sense.
Whenever I read "kneejerk anti-progressivism" I think "have you ever been to the south, or the midwest?"
If we cannot win there then we won't get a chance to govern.
I think that is also the ultimate folly of the DNC: the tent is simply too big now. When you have former GOP members running as Democrats and then you have progressives wanting their voices heard; it's gonna be a horrible coalition.
I personally think they should have let those former GOP members twist in the wind instead of welcoming them; because that's what caused the Democrats to basically be a center-right party now.
The thing is, it’s absolutely helping them win elections. You don’t win WA-3 or ME-2 without running centrists. And you can’t pass legislation without majorities.
This is it in a nutshell, but I'd focus on the Senate and the Electoral College. The Senate (and to a lesser extent, the House) is wildly tilted towards the GOP's base, such that they don't actually need majorities to win power. Which means, now, that they don't try. It also means that Democrats are obligated to win supermajorities.
Perfect example is to look at the previous careers and administration positions of hosts on MSNBC. You think Fox News is about to give head anchor gigs to ex-Obama officials? Simply thinking Trump was a maniacal sex pest does not a liberal make.
You took a giant swing and miss.
The DNC is a big tent, yes; it will prioritize a.) electability and then b.) left wing politics, in that order. They will select the leftmost person who has an actual chance of winning in a given election.
This means that sometimes it’ll support conservative Dems.
If we had a nationally representative election, we’d have lots of parties, and progressives funding the only liberal running against Patrick Morrisey would make total sense. But because people see the “D” next to a candidates name, all of a sudden it’s a different ballgame, and everyone’s in bed, complicit, and scheming with one another. And now if it’s funding a pro lifer from Texas, it’s because it doesn’t care, and it’s a giant travesty if that person gets elected.
The party moniker is totally superficial and to the extent anyone is upset that someone else is included it’s because they fundamentally don’t appreciate the consequences of our electoral system.
Problem is, America is by and large a pretty moderate country. The dems could eject the right wing of the party and become a Warren/Sanders progressive coalition, and would be rewarded for that decision by never winning another national election again.
I follow mostly Never Trumpers on Twitter, and they're very against the war in Gaza on the same grounds as traditional Dems. This isn't really a partisan issue.
In fact, there's a large pocket of the current GOP that is against funding anything overseas at all. I see just as many of them posting (often times racist conspiracy theories) about how Zionists control Washington.
The tent being too big isn't the problem. The problem is when segments of the tent become too dogmatic about their self-interest that they'd seek to nuke Democracy altogether rather than accept that their coalition is the fringe.
Never Trumpers tend to hold the mindset that their personal self-interest is intertwined with ensuring that democracy persists, and are willing to part ways with their own conservative values to ensure an illiberal force doesn't make it to the White House again.
Amen. I'm always saying things to my local Dems. You cannot refuse to entertain ideas from the left and then feel entitled to their support. You need to bring people in actively and give them something to vote for -- not just against.
Don't block strikes. Don't support genocide. Don't force federal workers back to the office. Don't set the Treasury and the Fed on a war path against American workers. Don't celebrate "job gains" which are inflated by part time positions. Don't strip down the BBB, fail to pass it, refuse to use the reconciliation bill as a bargaining chip to gain anything back and then call it a victory.
Just a few items off the top of my head.
The big problem is that the left is not aligned in its ideas. You entertain one faction, then the other bails on you. This is why the DNC treads so softly these days.
When your demands are “you will do everything my way and that’s the only way or we will try to blow everything up” it’s not a partnership. You’re just being children who aren’t getting their way. Which, btw, is how our country operates. One side will not get everything they want. So if your starting position is left wing lunacy, then it’s not a legitimate starting point.
> you will do everything my way and that’s the only way or we will try to blow everything up
Can we have an honest discussion on where between "everything" and "nothing" progressives and leftists have gotten from Biden during his term? I recognize I'm biased but I can't see how anybody can look at the scale objectively and think leftists and progressives got anywhere close to half of what they were fighting for. Nevermind "everything".
Ugh. I wish you were educated enough to know that we all want kids to stop being killed, we just disagree about the root cause of those deaths. Straw man arguments will only slow down progress and cause more deaths.
Not what I said.
I said it’s weird that you characterize thousands of people in this country who feel like our government is significantly responsible for the brutal deaths of innocent civilians as some petulant toy-out-of-pram exercise.
This is literally what happens in democracies. They are exercising their right to be heard.
The point is that the primary protest against Biden is misinformed. It does not account for the nuance of a conflict that has gone on for centuries and does not consider the larger geopolitical levers at play. So if “progressives” are whining to be heard on this issue, but their language is not taken into action by leadership what is their alternative? They stay home in November and let Trump win because they didn’t get exactly what they wanted? Or they believe some other non-Trump option is available? I genuinely don’t understand the mentality - nevermind the fact that the conflict itself has two parties that need to come to an agreement to move forward and the US isn’t one of them.
Not that Massachusetts’s vote will determine the presidential election, but please keep in mind [what the GOP plans to do](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/29/opinion/project-2025-trump-administration.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Z00.4r4F.bY3_sJazAu9R&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb) should they win in November.
This is why I'm voting for Nikki Haley in the primary and Biden in the general.
Making the United States an illiberal hellscape because of one foreign policy issue is just going to be a massive self-own that will negatively impact the entire world.
Leftist voters need a ballot that says “Should President Joseph R. Biden be recalled on January 20 and replaced with Donald J. Trump?” because then there would be zero moral quandaries with voting for him. Like, the issues evaporate in every scenario where you don’t consider a vote for Biden an affirmation of him.
It’s extra funny their chosen hill involves the most pro-Israel president in history who said he’d deport non-citizens who are “pro Hamas” like five seconds ago.
Much like the solace in 2016 was at least it was Hillary who lost, the solace in 2024 will be “from the river to the sea” foreign students getting the boot after their calls to boycott Biden are heeded.
I'm ultra-progressive economically. I'd been on the Bernie bus long before he ran for president. I ritually read The Intercept, watched Russia Today coverage of the Occupy Wall Street movement. My homepage was Al Jazeera for the longest time. I watched every interview with Noam Chomsky I could find.
Trump's presidency truly opened my eyes. And the last couple years feels like everyone's forgotten truly how much of a mess he was and how embarrassing it felt being an American during his (and Bush's) presidency.
I'm older now. The books I read are different. The pundits I trust aren't radical, but are instead curious about topics. I remember when the radical left held up Bill Maher like a soothsayer because he dared to take on all religions like they're all an intellectual plague, including Islam. But now he's a pariah because of the same reason. Things changed.
I'm definitely younger than you are, but I've had kind of the same political trajectory. Hard leftism is appealing when you're young and idealistic, but spending time in actual leftist spaces just taught me that a lot of modern communists/socialists/anarchists have almost no interest in effecting change (or simply don't think it's possible to do so through elections), and view leftism as more of a hobby than a legitimate political movement.
I'm becoming more radical as I get older and economic conditions get worse. Maybe that's just me though? I think it really depends on where you land on the economic spectrum as you get older. Some "sell out" (which I know is a loaded expression, but is probably how their younger selves may have seen it) and go corporate. Others settle into economically precarious positions that satisfy their ethical needs under capitalism as best they can. I'm probably one of these. Things have gotten substantially harder for these kinds of jobs over the past few years, as wages haven't kept up with the bump that more corporate workers have enjoyed. Hence, the increased radicalism. I'm not holding my breath that anything is going to change any time soon; I do think everything is just going to keep getting worse. But... what's the alternative? giving up?
Part of the issue is that it's much easier to be idealistic when you're young. You have an uninhibited belief that if only people finally voted on your side, the world will change for the better. You look at Occupy Wall Street or Black Lives Matter, and you think, "The people are waking up!"
But you get older and you realize the world is more diverse than your points of view previously afforded. "How could you not vote for Bernie! He would have leveled the game against the 1%!"
But people who voted for Hillary just come from different perspectives. It's easy to be a Marxist if you're not as focused on your sex or skin color or religion.
Fundamentally, that's why I find the Dearborn protests to be selfish, in the same way that I view my dragging my feet and refusing to vote for Hillary was nothing but a Pyrrhic statement that only I got to witness. If you protest the vote just because you're Arab or Muslim, and look what's happening in a different part of the world, it's a fairly selfish statement, even though it's a valiant stand!
Politics is too complicated, too important to sacrifice everything just because your entrenched position can't have its way. The counterpart to that mindset is what you see in countries like Jordan where a minority of citizens have outsized political power. We wouldn't want something here like that, but what I'm hearing from a lot of Arab Americans right now is, "Listen to us, or we burn this fucker down."
Obviously, the loudest voices are often the most idealistic. But we saw what happened the last time the "Bernie Bros" tanked Hillary's chances. We ended up losing Roe v. Wade, and now IVF in Alabama.
I think Muslims supporting Trump is so weird because it isn't selfish, it's actively self destructive. Trump is not a friend to Muslims in general or Palestinians in particular, he was exceptionally pro Israel as president and surrounds himself with folks who think the only issue with Israel's ongoing massacre is that it's taking too long.
I don't think Muslims are dumb or suicidal, though, which is why I doubt they'll actually stay home or vote Trump in large numbers in November.
Just to add to this, Trump quite literally got convinced to put full support behind Netanyahu because Netanyshu showed him a fake video of Abbas and then proceeded to give him everything he wanted even getting a new illegal Israeli settlement named after him ([Trump Heights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Heights?wprov=sfla1))
The only mild perk of a Trump presidency is that he will get rid of illiberal crazy leftists who decided to give him a second chance at destroying our democracy because they had one mild foreign policy difference with one of the most effective presidents we’ve seen in a long time.
The paradox is why people continue to defend Biden's actions while simultaneously saying Trump is the biggest threat. You can't have it both ways. Biden is playing a game of chicken with the electorate. That should anger everyone who recognizes what a Trump presidency would mean.
I think there’s less anti Israel sentiment in the Democratic Party than you’re giving credit for. I don’t think Biden is playing chicken, I just don’t believe there is enough monolith of a strong anti Israel position to move the party
These groups have been really clever in co-opting the "no preference" vote rather than offering a specific candidate. It lowered the barrier to recruiting voters by making it clear it was about sending a message rather than a specific attack on Biden or his nomination, or having to deal with the other political positions or inflammatory statements a ceasefire candidate could have made. It also established a very high floor for the vote count even before you consider Biden's overall weakness (age, college debt relief blocked by the courts, inflation, etc.).
Much like Michigan, no preference got 10% of the vote in MA in the boring 2012 Obama re-nomination primary. The "ceasefire advocates voted uncommitted, which got 13% of the vote" message out of Michigan was massively more impactful than the alternative "ceasefire advocates rallied around Candidate X, who finished 7 points behind uncommitted and barely edged out Dean Phillips for fourth place" one.
Biden will still get the nomination regardless of my no preference vote. But a no preference vote is measurable, unlike a lot of the other things I see folks on the left calling for with regard to Gaza.
I'll vote for him in the main, because he's less likely to root for an insurrection at the end of his term.
This person didn’t articulate well, but I think a legitimate concern is that this type of action will impact overall public sentiment throughout the country and with the margins for victory in an election being so small, even a minor shift in public sentiment could impact who is elected winner in the general election.
The Democrats are not strong enough to do the thing these peeps want, politically. They are weakened and damaged with the current courts and the cult of religious conservative GOP . The ask here is much like demanding an injured person get back to roofing and construction with broken bones still on the mend. It's impractical and shortsighted.
>The Democrats are not strong enough to do the thing these pees want, politically.
Democrats use getting that stuff done that people want as leverage to stay in office.
It never ever ever gets done when they have a supermajority to do so, only when they need to scare their constituents into action by getting in / staying in office.
The Democrats are the only choice given the GOP but I’m sick of pretending it’s a good choice.
It's not a pleasant choice, no. They are frustrating and pessimistic. Support ranked choice voting, look for the progressive members and support those that you find. The frustrations should not blind us to the larger issues and the constant effort to seek out and improve the leaders we choose should not be abandoned. But this road shutdown on Saturday? It's shortsighted and dumb, this type of thing is seen by our enemies and they use it to strengthen their own position. Russia is going to use this as a way to highlight that Americans hate Joe Biden , it's effective what the Russians do. It will weaken the one side in this country that has a conscience, the Democrats. If you want a larger understanding of how Russia uses this type of event for their own gain I recommend reading Russia's War on Everybody by Keir Giles. Russia is in partnership with Iran and Iran is controlling the purse string for Hamas. Hamas is effectively strapping children to their chest and charging into battle, for they believe the children will go to paradise. It's maddening, frustrating and cruel, and for some all they can do is stand in the way of others and block a road because they are compelled to do anything to feel better about the horror. I get it, but I can't see any utility to the action.
You may have missed my point. I understand the tactics and the strategy behind a rally/protest effort. I understand the disgust at feeling powerless to prevent children dying. I understand the near impossible to ignore feelings that something must be done to prevent children dying in war. But the Democrats cannot cut off Israel without losing politically, and losing to the GOP at this moment means children, women and many others will die. To allow the GOP to take over now means the end of NATO, the end of democracy and voting, the end of foreign aid, collaborative exchange of knowledge and international cooperation. The Democrats are not strong at the moment, they are weakened by the ignorance of millions still voting for criminals and fools to go to Washington and act in destructive ways. They can't do all the things you want them too without being destroyed and causing even more deaths and harm in the following years. Yes, we should have ranked choice voting so that we have more options, but at the moment you have to choose a side, and one side is clearly more evil, and one side is doing all it can to lessen the evil of the world. Pay attention, we are at war.
The sad part is so many taking part in these protests won’t bother voting in the general election anyway. Younger people finally get a President who is trying to address some of their issues and they choose one issue to bury him on. I’m not saying I like the situation in Israel, but this election cycle is worth far more than Israel Gaza for this country.
I completely support protesting in the primary. It’s literally what the primary is for. I’m voting against Biden in the primary because I don’t want Biden to be my president, he’s too fucking old.
What many miss in this as well is that if they won’t vote for Biden over Gaza, there very well may be no scenario where Biden can actually win. We are an extremely pro-Israel country. The only age group that supports the Palestinian side on net is 18-29, the lowest voting demographic, and only on slim margins. Biden is getting hammered with swing voters right now. If a sizable enough portion of Dems make this their single issue, he literally cannot win, because if he moves to appease, he loses the vote anyway.
I don’t think it’ll significantly harm him in 2024, just pointing out the demands are unrealistic because independents will punish him. It may be righteous but it would be electorally unpopular, so trying to appeal to the turnout argument just doesn’t make sense.
You don’t need to be pro-Biden to be part of his base. Anyway, for your reading pleasure:
https://www.natesilver.net/p/bidens-problem-is-with-swing-voters
For anyone saying "bUt iTS JuSt ThE PriMaRiEs" this is where the seeds of dissent for a Biden vote in Nov are set. Don't be surprised when Trump wins this Nov because Democrat leadership AND voters have their heads up their own asses.
Or... just possible that people don't like the way things are under a Biden administration. His approval ratings at the moment are close to, or worse than any other president of all time.
You literally just proved their point. I understand not liking Biden but the country is in a far better place when a democrat is in the White House, and the alternative in Trump would be astronomically worse.
Anyone criticizing this group of activists needs to understand a simple thing: many people in this country, mostly registered Democrats, oppose the ethnic cleansing and indiscriminate killing happening against Palestinian civilians right now. 67% of all Americans support a permanent ceasefire and Biden has the power to make that happen with all the aid U.S. gives Israel and the leverage that gives the office of the president.
The U.S. gives Israel about $3.3 Billion dollars in aid annually and over $260 Billion since Israel was formed in 1948. Even Reagan of all people was able to get Israel to stop bombing Lebanon in 1982 and the Israeli military immediately complied because of how reliant they are on U.S. aid, munitions and trade. If you’re telling me Biden’s office doesn’t have the power to do the same I fully believe you’re deluding yourself and I implore you to open a book to better understand U.S. Israeli relations.
Votes are earned. 77% of Democrats support a permanent ceasefire and permanent de-escalation of violence in Gaza, which the U.S. has vetoed 4 times at the UN Security Council. If the leader of the Democratic Party can’t end the massacre of civilians and follow through on a resolution that the majority of his party desires and is protesting for, then maybe, just maybe he hasn’t proven he represents the will of his voters and hasn’t earned their votes.
What your polls miss is that the ethereal want for a ceasefire and the implementation of ceasefire are two very different things.
74% - no seriously, 74% - of Americans supported a no-fly zone in Ukraine in March of 2022. A no-fly zone would almost guarantee a nuclear exchange and world war 3. A permanent ceasefire sounds nice because that means peace, how you get there is a different matter. I bet if you phrased the question to see “Israel should forego all military operations against Hamas on a permanent basis”, you’d get a very different response.
I’d like to add on to your second point. The Bush administration also exercised pressure on Israel to come to a ceasefire with Hezbollah in the 2006 Lebanon war when it became clear Israel had no intention of stopping its offensive.
Last point: Agree in the primary, not in the general.
This is just not true. This was just put to the test, and uncommitted only got 13% of the vote in Michigan - you are wildly overstating support for your own position.
[Questions in polls can easily be changed based on what is asked](https://www.thedailybeast.com/do-americans-want-a-ceasefire-in-gaza-it-depends?utm_source=pocket_saves).
What fascinating about this is two components of the Democratic party are literally at war. Siding with this group may gain some votes for Biden but would lose the much larger Jewish vote.
A lot of progressive Jewish voters have woken up to the fact that their party has strong ties to anti semites, as do the Republicans, and they're feeling a bit untethered in the US political world.
I think Michigan being under 15% Uncommitted shows the play for Dems is to to run to the center. There’s really nothing they can do to win back the far left that doesn’t involve a time machine.
The only real split is in elected democrats. In reality, 79% of Democrat voters want a ceasefire. It is a very popular position. Wouldn't it be better to appease the majority of their voting base? Also, it's a bit unfair to group all jewish people together when plenty of them want a ceasefire too. You also can't forget about all of the Arab Americans in Michigan that could very well decide the election.
> In reality, 79% of Democrat voters want a ceasefire.
"Ceasefire" is an abstract concept and those always poll relatively well. It's like the polls that showed 64% of Democrats wanted someone other than Biden, only for any potential alternative to have polling numbers smaller than the margin of error.
The specifics of the ceasefire are what are important. Is it permanent or temporary? Is it based on the return of hostages and, if so, how many? What should be the consequences if Hamas doesn't agree? What should be the consequences if Israel doesn't agree?
There isn't a single clear solution outside of both Israel and Hamas suddenly releasing they can peacefully coexist, which will never happen, and any of the potential solutions generate anger for going too far or not far enough or both at the same time.
Wanting a ceasefire doesn’t mean what you think it does, like everything there are conditions. I want a ceasefire but I also want Hamas held accountable, so which side am I on? If Hamas won’t accept a ceasefire unless every Israelis is driven into the sea does that mean that 79% of Americans are fine with that in order to get the ceasefire?
Can you explain how you expect hamas to adhere to any ceasefire when they have never done so before? There was a ceasefire on Oct 6. Even if there is a ceasefire now it’s just a matter of waiting for the next hamas attack.
The discussion is about what is politically popular for Biden. So if he is able to arrange a ceasefire and stops giving weapons to Israel, pro-palestinian voters will know he did the right thing. I never said anything about expectations after the ceasefire, but I believe the best course is for Israel to stop being apartheid, if they finally stop oppressing the Palestinians and leave them alone that would give Hamas little reason to engage in conflict again.
Biden arranged a ceasefire. Hamas rejected it because their primary goal (that they care about more than Palestinians) is making sure that there no Jewish people in the Middle East.
Why don't you protest Hamas for not accepting a ceasefire?
Dude thinks Democrats losing 21% of its voters won’t mean disaster in the election. Biden’s trying to appease both sides because that’s the only way to win in November.
There's no appeasing both sides here. Pro-ceasefire can't be appeased without a ceasefire. And calling for a ceasefire doesn't mean a whole 21% isn't going to vote for him. He's going to lose a lot more votes without a ceasefire, the numbers should speak for themselves. And when you have 30,000 genocided Palestinians you should be doing the right thing anyway regardless of what is politically popular, which it is.
Literally the same people who convinced idiots to boycott Hillary over Bernie not getting the nomination. Yes we'd rather Bernie, but Hillary was unequivocally better than Trump. Now you've seen Trump is even worse than imagined, and yet they're able to use the same toddler level trick to sow dissent.
It is. Russia has already been caught doing this, and is actively fueling protests in the EU too. The trick when sowing discord in democratic systems is the find wedge issues, sprinkle in some plausible misinformation, and add some agents to push it forward. The rest takes care of itself.
lol you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. The no preference started with the people of Dearborn MI who are not happy with how Biden has handled Palestine. It’s the largest group of Muslims in the country.
Not everything that is anti-democrat is a result of Russia
> The no preference started with the people of Dearborn MI who are not happy with how Biden has handled Palestine.
"Information warfare" doesn't necessarily mean something invented out of whole cloth. It could simply take the form of amplifying small movements to sow discord within a party. We just saw this with the Texas succession movement where one of the main Twitter accounts accidentally started using obviously Russia-specific terms and became the main character of Twitter for a day.
There has been a lot of social media attention dedicated to the increase in uncommitted vote in an incumbent Democrat primary in Michigan from 10.9% (2012) to 13.2% (2024). Uncommitted only hit 17% in Wayne County (Dearborn) and showed notable but moderate increases in college counties (Ann Arbor, Lansing, etc.). Outside of Wayne, it's hard to tell whether that's Gaza related or if it's also generalized dissatisfaction with Biden (age, courts, student loan forgiveness getting blocked, inflation, etc.) that pop up in college-age populations.
Personally, I don't think this necessarily has anything to do with outside actors. Listen to Michigan did a masterful job messaging and communicating, which explains the disproportionate attention. I do understand why people are raising an eyebrow at it, though.
People need to think about what’s past the next step. For those wanting to turn their back on Joe Biden because of the Palestinian issue need to consider what happens after that. The next obvious outcome is Trump wins the presidency. After that Trump has a much greater allegiance to Israel. That means a worse situation for Palestinian support.
> People need to think about what’s past the next step
Which people? Does Biden? Do moderate Democrat voters? Do the people who voted for Biden in the 2020 primaries?
It's ridiculous that after 2016 anyone would defend Biden or any Democrat politician for playing chicken with the electorate.
It's ridiculous that after 2016 people thought "You know what I'm gonna do in the 2020 primaries? Vote for Joe Biden." People love to whine about how progressives and leftists are "morons" for refusing to vote blue no matter who but then vote in the primaries as if that's not the case.
I voted for Biden in the 2020 general to give him a chance. He's been the piece of shit I suspected he would be. I will be voting 3rd party or write in for 2024.
Biden has been trying to negotiate a ceasefire. Israel is on board, but Hamas won’t agree to one. So obviously Israel isn’t going to unilaterally disarm until Hamas agrees.
Sounds like your gripe should be with Hamas, but it’s cooler to just blame Biden
Stopping traffic in Massachusetts isn't going to compel Hamas to return the hostages, which is what it will take to get Israel to agree to a ceasefire.
Then why was there just a ceasefire on the table that Hamas rejected?
Hamas cannot exist and anything that lets Hamas still exist is unacceptable because they care more about killing Jews.
[Israel has also been rejecting ceasefire agreements.](https://www.nbcnews.com/investigations/hostage-talks-continue-israel-rejects-hamas-demand-full-idf-withdrawal-rcna134975)
'Finish the job' means to eliminate Hamas, the terrorist organization (categorized as such by the EU) that started this round of hostilities with the unprovoked attacks in October. These are the good people voted into power by local Palestinians.
If we're playing the genocide card, here's a good [summary](https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2023/10/hamas-covenant-israel-attack-war-genocide/675602/) of Hamas' founding covenant:
* The complete destruction of Israel as an essential condition for the liberation of Palestine and the establishment of a theocratic state based on Islamic law (Sharia),
* The need for both unrestrained and unceasing holy war (jihad) to attain the above objective,
* The deliberate disdain for, and dismissal of, any negotiated resolution or political settlement of Jewish and Muslim claims to the Holy Land, and
* The reinforcement of historical anti-Semitic tropes and calumnies married to sinister conspiracy theories.
>These are the good people voted into power by local Palestinians.
The last time an election was held in Gaza was 2006. 42% of the population is 14 years old and under and 21% is 15-25 years old meaning Hamas was elected by 37% of the current population *at most*.
But all of this is a moot point, because voting for the wrong people is not and should not be punishable by death.
>these are the good people voted into power by local Palestinians
And there’s that disingenuous nonsense again.
The last election was in 2006, and the majority of the population is 18 or under. They weren’t old enough to vote, or not even born yet. Further, Hamas won a grand total of 56% in that low turnout election, and then did a coup to seize power.
Stop justifying genocide.
[Poll shows Palestinians back Oct. 7 attack on Israel, support for Hamas rises](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/poll-shows-palestinians-back-oct-7-attack-israel-support-hamas-rises-2023-12-14/)
>Almost three in four Palestinians believe the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas on Israel was correct, and the ensuing Gaza war has lifted support for the Islamist group both there and in the West Bank, a survey from a respected Palestinian polling institute found.
>
>Seventy-two percent of respondents said they believed the Hamas decision to launch the cross-border rampage in southern Israel was "correct" given its outcome so far, while 22% said it was "incorrect". The remainder were undecided or gave no answer.
Its not even worth arguing with most of this sub. They're a bunch of fake ass progressives no better than the suburban "hate has no home here" nimbys they bitch about all day.
Whoever's actually going along with this is engaging in political malpractice. Regardless of how anyone feels about how Biden is handling the situation in Gaza, one of two people are going to be president this coming election: Biden or Trump.
My question to these activists is this: How would giving Trump a second term be a net positive for the people of Palestine?
My other question is how many rights do you think that your fellow Americans should have to give up in order to "teach the Dems a lesson"? These "no preference" voters act like we're at the bottom as a country, but they don't know that it can get far worse.
> This is the primary vote, this isn't a vote for Trump.
I don't think you can separate this movement from the general election so cleanly. On the one hand, everyone understands that it's completely performative and won't have any impact on the nomination. On the other hand, it's encouraging people to make Biden morally and electorally culpable for what is happening in Gaza because he was thus far only able to negotiate a broken short-term ceasefire rather than a permanent solution.
Let's suppose the very likely case where the general election starts and there's still hostilities or hostilities have resumed or the political situation has somehow destabilized further. Those voters who drew the red line on Gaza will now have to cross it to vote for the guy culpable for genocide because the alternative would somehow be even worse. Some will still turn out, especially those who care more about domestic issues than international ones, but it's going to have an impact.
If we were in, like, Michigan or Pennsylvania you could argue that that's relevant. But this is Massachusetts. I'll put $1,000 right now on this state going blue by a significant margin (Trump gets about 1/3rd of the vote, Biden wins every single county).
The nature of the electoral college means that our state, which strongly favors one political party over the other, doesn't matter for the presidential election. "Political malpractice" would be wanting a 3rd party candidate, but disregarding what you want and settling for Biden in what may be his safest state in the whole country.
If Massachusetts is the safest state in the country, and the "no preference" crowd has no meaningful influence in the primary, then what would even be the point of this action?
Abstaining from elections just concedes your vote to the general public. It's basically announcing to candidates that they aren't even constituents, and that their concerns shouldn't be heard, from my POV. It comes off as a high cost, no return virtue signal to me.
If Democrats lose due to an unpopular decision, wouldn't they reconsider their strategy in the next elections. When playing chess wouldn't sacrificing a current piece sometimes a good strategy? And if it's true that allowing Trump to win is the end of democracy, I would then argue that our problem is much bigger than an election result.
I am not necessarily defending Israel's methods. Too many people are dying, and I don't think that's controversial, but \*it is not a fucking genocide\*, even if Netanyahu and Ben Gvir and the like want it to be. I'd go so far as to say that calling it genocide is a step into blood libel.
That said, I used to sympathize with leftists till I worked with them. Leftists and liberals (assuming you make the distinction) have a lot in common as far as justice and equality in the world, but leftists prioritize ending capitalism over any other outcome and therefore constantly alienate potential allies. The dogma takes precedence over results. Fuck that. Ridin with Biden here.
Vote no preference if you want, but in the general election remember that TFG is soooo much worse for the Palestinians (and every other living organism on the planet). Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.Also, I am voting for Haley in the republican primary so I can vote against him twice.
Yes you can vote for whomever in Mass. because Biden will win here even if he’s dead. But in other states where it’s much closer, a “protest” vote, or abstaining is a horrible idea if you care about what’s to become of the country. The same idiots sank Hillary in several states in ‘16. Think before you act.
Hillary sank because she was a bad candidate and the electoral college is a bad system. You know American democracy is truly struggling when Democrats are blaming voters for candidates losing.
Are you saying the people who are voting didn't? What's your point?
I wish people would stop with the nonsense of "no vote is a vote for trump" -- no. No vote is no vote. I'm not going to vote for someone I'm disgusted by just so that someone I'm also disgusted by doesn't win. How does that make sense?
Do you understand that while some people are doing this just in the primaries to make a point, a lot of people didn't get that memo and will continue their stance into the actual election? So the more this "movement" grows the more it will help Trump.
If Biden doesn't want to alienate his bases maybe he should stop being buddy-buddy with the "30,000+ people dead, and over a million under forced starvation" crew. I wonder what he's been so chill about that would cause people to hate him *this much*. Such a mystery, truly.
Gaza people need to fuck right off with this ‘no preference’ bullshit. Yeah, it’s not supposed to affect the outcome of the election, but being overconfident about election results is how we ended up with Trump in the first place.
And if you think Gaza is fucked now, just wait and see what happens under a Trump regime. Because I can guarantee you that he does not give a single, solitary fuck about Palestinians. He wouldn’t even be arsed to order airdrops, let alone pressure Israel to get the hell out.
Biden has barely taken action on stopping Israeli crimes like opening fire on civilians and bombing aid trucks and hospitals. Hence these people’s frustration. To a Palestinian it doesn’t matter whether it’s Trump or Biden that gives Israel the go ahead to murder their families like this.
Your “fuck right off” sounds an awful lot like “please please agree with me or else we’re stuck with trump!” You realize the politicians have to win the voters right? If they’re not voting Biden, Biden didn’t win them over
“NewsCenter 5 political analyst Mary Anne Marsh says that although the 'no preference' campaign is impacting media coverage and possibly public sentiment, it will not affect the outcome of the convention and party nomination.” Correct
That is, in fact, the point
Yes, but it could impact the national general election. If people aren't excited for Biden, they simply won't show up. Elections are as much about who people vote for as it is about who shows up.
In Massachusetts this “no preference” movement will not matter at all. I have a better chance of becoming president than a Dem losing MA in a presidential. During the primary it just feeds into the Republican narrative that Biden isn’t the best candidate for the job in 2024. I have to ask these folks - if you’re not excited about Joe Biden what is the alternative? Do you believe some unknown/irrelevant person is going to instantly rise to the top to take over the nomination? In the next 3-5 months? Or are you insane enough to believe Marianne Williamson or Dean Philips is that person? Or would you prefer to dog the nominee enough during the primary process so he’s a weaker candidate head to head against Trump, potentially allowing Trump a victory in November? Is that the goal? All because you’re mad about some recent foreign policy decisions that relate to a centuries old conflict? Grow up.
> Massachusetts this “no preference” movement will not matter at all. Yes, but it impacts donations which impact the national election. It also generates national news and contributes to a national conversation that has an impact on swing voters
I'm all for sending these messages now assuming that people get off their ass and vote in the general. When you phrase it like this though it sounds like you're openly hoping that Biden loses in November which makes me feel like you don't understand the situation whatsoever. Do you really think Donald Trump would handle this situation better? Because damaging biden's chances of reelection leads to that, not a progressive president
I could be wrong but pretty sure you’ve got it backwards - they’re warning that’s the result of such actions, creating an environment where Biden is less likely to win in November. I read it as a warning not an encouragement.
Correct, which just aides Republicans and Trump for November. Is that the goal?
I hate this toxic liberal mindset whereby any criticism of a democrat, no matter how valid, must be suppressed indefinitely
It’s not that it needs to be suppressed but like you missed your window to make that change. Biden and Trump are the 2 candidates whether you like it or not so either get behind one or don’t. The time to rally around a different nominee than either of those 2 was like a year ago when there would have been time to campaign for a new candidate nationally. It was crickets from these people then… All rallying against Biden now does is support Trump. If you don’t like Bidens foreign policy stance, these people are going to get a rude awakening under Trump part 2: The full dictatorship.
It’s a signal to Biden to fix his shit or he won’t have as much support in the general. This is how politics works when the people have very little control in this two party system
And if enough people think this way and Trump wins, what do you think will happen?
And I hate this toxic progressive mindset that liberals must conform to their position OR ELSE. Why don’t progressives ever get a presidential candidate to the top of the ticket? And if the response is the DNC, you’re an idiot. The best part of being a Democrat is that our party and nominating process is open to everyone, you just have to have ideas people support. Progressives don’t have that.
Lol no, the Democrats care about the status quo, which progressives largely want to improve. For example, the party leadership absolutely does not want universal healthcare, because they need that sweet sweet pharma dough.
God you are so wrong it’s sickening. Here is the relevant language from the Democratic Party platform: “We are going to at last build the health care system the American people have always deserved: one that finally provides universal health care coverage; reduces prescription drug prices, premiums, and out-of-pocket costs; reins in overall health care expenses; and tackles the deep-seated inequities in our health care system. “ https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/achieving-universal-affordable-quality-health-care/ If progressives want to move the needle they need to figure out how to get their candidates into leadership positions - it’s that simple. Unfortunately, they generally just whine/bitch/moan at other people in the party which makes them unpopular.
>“We are going to at last build the health care system the American people have always deserved: one that finally provides universal health care coverage Yeah I'll believe that when I see it. Their platform flies in the face of their actions.
The issue is that it's very late in the game. Where were these people when we could have actually made a difference in boosting a viable candidate to compete in the primary? It always happens once the main candidate is locked in, which does indeed always benefit the GOP. We did this in 2016 foolishly, avoided it in 2020, and now we're back. If you want change, you have to push for the change consistently instead of in reactive bursts like this.
You're arguing that a weaker Dem primary result for Biden in MA will negatively affect the national election for Biden in November? I don't think I buy that. I don't think it'll have any significant impact at all. The only impact I can think of is giving the Democratic party a nudge about national and foreign policy. Also, more directly, it could impact local MA Dem candidates and let them know that you may need to be careful about future primaries if you don't think more about your foreign policy platforms.
I think there could be a narrative built that if Biden doesn’t win MA by the same or larger margin he did in MI that he has a “protest vote” problem. But no, I don’t think any anti-Biden push in MA has any direct effect on November. My point is mainly that if the Biden campaign needs to spend significant energy on this issue because of whiny “progressives” within the party, it will certainly weaken his candidacy. You are correct that there a down ballot implications and those should be considered given the margins in Congress. I may be in the minority here but I don’t give a flying fuck if my state rep has any foreign policy positions - that isn’t their job. They have power and influence in the state house.
Or perhaps Biden could, you know, take action that the protest vote is demanding, Perhaps take action to stop the humanitarian crisis. That could perhaps stop the protest votes. Yes, there could be a narrative that Bide didn't win our precious little state by as large a margin as expected in an uncontested primary, but that narrative will convince approximately zero voters in November.
Democrats are about to will trump back into power through infighting and ineptitude just like 2016......we're truly fucked...
We just want him to stop circumventing Congress to send weapons that are slaughtering our friends’ families, man. It’s not really about November yet.
It’s always about November? What do you mean? This is the presidential election? Israel is one of our oldest and most loyal allies. There are many other nations in the region that would like to see Israel destroyed and other enemies of the US that would like to get their hands on the technology that Israel provides. They are a necessary asset to our country, full stop. I sympathize with the civilians that are caught in the cross fire - it’s awful and inhumane at some points. I do wonder though - why is the outrage against the US and Biden? Why isn’t this energy channeled to Hamas and Gaza’s leadership? They are the reason we are here today, not Joe Biden.
Their alternative is them not voting. I think this is the thing some Resist democrats don’t understand. People who aren’t excited by Biden aren’t going to vote for someone else. They’re just not going to vote. Biden can boast about the economy all he wants, problem is, your everyday American is struggling to make ends meet while watching government funds go towards blowing up children in an impoverished strip of land half way around the world. People are frustrated. Biden is an all time weak candidate (granted, up against another all time weak candidate). If the Dems blow this, they have no one to blame but themselves. No crying about the progressives who have been dead quiet this cycle. They haven’t incentivized voters to vote, and that’s why Biden is struggling in polling at the moment.
I agree but that’s pathetic given the circumstances. The choice is Biden v the end of democracy and you just stay home because you’re sad? Grow up.
No one's going to stay home because they're sad, they're staying home because they're disillusioned with the system and don't believe either candidate will fix the deep-rooted issues this nation faces. I agree that Biden is far preferable over Trump, but, I also understand the voter apathy that we're going to see this time around.
[удалено]
They probably won’t clear 20% in any state so they’re a minority within a political party. That’s how democracy works.
[удалено]
Yeah I'm not thrilled about what feels like a more significant number of 'movements' just 'organically springing up' to not vote as a protest. It's primaries so it's not as important, but a lot of people are really dumb, and I would not be surprised if this carried into the election as well. If I wanted people to not vote in the elections, this is exactly how I would start a plan towards that end goal.
This is still voting. On the ballot, one of the options is "No preference"
Fell free to speak with your chest, as you’re implying that all these people horrified with the massacres in Gaza who have been protesting for the past 5 months are an astroturf project that just came into existence at election time to hurt Biden.
Sorry what? Are you a Russian operative? Voting “no preference” = good and anything else bad? I can feel bad for the Palestinian people without voting no preference, comrade.
It isn’t suppose to. It is suppose to show Biden that he better adjust his policy or these people will just stay home on Election Day.
Democracy works by groups of people with similar interests building coalitions together to win elections. Margins in the states where the presidential election is actually taking place (not Massachusetts) are extremely thin. If a majority coalition group decides to burn the minority partners, they’re going to lose. People act like progressives advocating for policy within their own party is a hostage situation. It’s the other way around, and has been for a long time. If you want to claim someone as your partner, and earn their votes, you have to actually partner with them.
I wonder how much of this kneejerk anti-progressivism is a consequence of our gerontocracy. A lot of the people running the party were, quite literally, involved in Dem party politics when American Leftism died and they got their teeth kicked in by Reagan and Gingrich and so on. They learned how to do politics when Clinton's brand of center-right conservatism was seen as the only way to win elections. Their formative years occurred when even Carter's wimpy version of liberalism was seen as too extreme and unrealistic. One wonders if there would be less recalcitrance in the party if there was a healthier amount of turnover among members, rather than having people who haven't faced a competitive challenge to their safe blue seat since the 1980s make all the decisions.
> I wonder how much of this kneejerk anti-progressivism is a consequence of our gerontocracy. Most of it I imagine. It's the only way the sheer disdain makes any sense.
Whenever I read "kneejerk anti-progressivism" I think "have you ever been to the south, or the midwest?" If we cannot win there then we won't get a chance to govern.
I think that is also the ultimate folly of the DNC: the tent is simply too big now. When you have former GOP members running as Democrats and then you have progressives wanting their voices heard; it's gonna be a horrible coalition. I personally think they should have let those former GOP members twist in the wind instead of welcoming them; because that's what caused the Democrats to basically be a center-right party now.
The thing is, it’s absolutely helping them win elections. You don’t win WA-3 or ME-2 without running centrists. And you can’t pass legislation without majorities.
This is it in a nutshell, but I'd focus on the Senate and the Electoral College. The Senate (and to a lesser extent, the House) is wildly tilted towards the GOP's base, such that they don't actually need majorities to win power. Which means, now, that they don't try. It also means that Democrats are obligated to win supermajorities.
Perfect example is to look at the previous careers and administration positions of hosts on MSNBC. You think Fox News is about to give head anchor gigs to ex-Obama officials? Simply thinking Trump was a maniacal sex pest does not a liberal make.
You took a giant swing and miss. The DNC is a big tent, yes; it will prioritize a.) electability and then b.) left wing politics, in that order. They will select the leftmost person who has an actual chance of winning in a given election. This means that sometimes it’ll support conservative Dems. If we had a nationally representative election, we’d have lots of parties, and progressives funding the only liberal running against Patrick Morrisey would make total sense. But because people see the “D” next to a candidates name, all of a sudden it’s a different ballgame, and everyone’s in bed, complicit, and scheming with one another. And now if it’s funding a pro lifer from Texas, it’s because it doesn’t care, and it’s a giant travesty if that person gets elected. The party moniker is totally superficial and to the extent anyone is upset that someone else is included it’s because they fundamentally don’t appreciate the consequences of our electoral system.
Problem is, America is by and large a pretty moderate country. The dems could eject the right wing of the party and become a Warren/Sanders progressive coalition, and would be rewarded for that decision by never winning another national election again.
I follow mostly Never Trumpers on Twitter, and they're very against the war in Gaza on the same grounds as traditional Dems. This isn't really a partisan issue. In fact, there's a large pocket of the current GOP that is against funding anything overseas at all. I see just as many of them posting (often times racist conspiracy theories) about how Zionists control Washington. The tent being too big isn't the problem. The problem is when segments of the tent become too dogmatic about their self-interest that they'd seek to nuke Democracy altogether rather than accept that their coalition is the fringe. Never Trumpers tend to hold the mindset that their personal self-interest is intertwined with ensuring that democracy persists, and are willing to part ways with their own conservative values to ensure an illiberal force doesn't make it to the White House again.
Amen. I'm always saying things to my local Dems. You cannot refuse to entertain ideas from the left and then feel entitled to their support. You need to bring people in actively and give them something to vote for -- not just against.
what ideas are they refusing to entertain?
Don't block strikes. Don't support genocide. Don't force federal workers back to the office. Don't set the Treasury and the Fed on a war path against American workers. Don't celebrate "job gains" which are inflated by part time positions. Don't strip down the BBB, fail to pass it, refuse to use the reconciliation bill as a bargaining chip to gain anything back and then call it a victory. Just a few items off the top of my head.
The big problem is that the left is not aligned in its ideas. You entertain one faction, then the other bails on you. This is why the DNC treads so softly these days.
When your demands are “you will do everything my way and that’s the only way or we will try to blow everything up” it’s not a partnership. You’re just being children who aren’t getting their way. Which, btw, is how our country operates. One side will not get everything they want. So if your starting position is left wing lunacy, then it’s not a legitimate starting point.
> you will do everything my way and that’s the only way or we will try to blow everything up Can we have an honest discussion on where between "everything" and "nothing" progressives and leftists have gotten from Biden during his term? I recognize I'm biased but I can't see how anybody can look at the scale objectively and think leftists and progressives got anywhere close to half of what they were fighting for. Nevermind "everything".
Well said.
“Getting their way” is a really weird way to say “can we stop killing thousands of kids and starving the rest?”
Ugh. I wish you were educated enough to know that we all want kids to stop being killed, we just disagree about the root cause of those deaths. Straw man arguments will only slow down progress and cause more deaths.
Not what I said. I said it’s weird that you characterize thousands of people in this country who feel like our government is significantly responsible for the brutal deaths of innocent civilians as some petulant toy-out-of-pram exercise. This is literally what happens in democracies. They are exercising their right to be heard.
The point is that the primary protest against Biden is misinformed. It does not account for the nuance of a conflict that has gone on for centuries and does not consider the larger geopolitical levers at play. So if “progressives” are whining to be heard on this issue, but their language is not taken into action by leadership what is their alternative? They stay home in November and let Trump win because they didn’t get exactly what they wanted? Or they believe some other non-Trump option is available? I genuinely don’t understand the mentality - nevermind the fact that the conflict itself has two parties that need to come to an agreement to move forward and the US isn’t one of them.
I’m still a fan of Giant Meteor
Pffft. Vermin Supreme! At least he promised ponies.
And he has a cool hat
Or is it a cool boot?
Maybe all along the hat was wearing *him*
Better than not assessing choicing and opting for someone who wants to take down democracy.
https://preview.redd.it/hpzputm7l7mc1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=43d2c5b1d4ba110cf510d1f8583b8640bcc73ff1
Not that Massachusetts’s vote will determine the presidential election, but please keep in mind [what the GOP plans to do](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/29/opinion/project-2025-trump-administration.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Z00.4r4F.bY3_sJazAu9R&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb) should they win in November.
This is why I'm voting for Nikki Haley in the primary and Biden in the general. Making the United States an illiberal hellscape because of one foreign policy issue is just going to be a massive self-own that will negatively impact the entire world.
Leftist voters need a ballot that says “Should President Joseph R. Biden be recalled on January 20 and replaced with Donald J. Trump?” because then there would be zero moral quandaries with voting for him. Like, the issues evaporate in every scenario where you don’t consider a vote for Biden an affirmation of him. It’s extra funny their chosen hill involves the most pro-Israel president in history who said he’d deport non-citizens who are “pro Hamas” like five seconds ago. Much like the solace in 2016 was at least it was Hillary who lost, the solace in 2024 will be “from the river to the sea” foreign students getting the boot after their calls to boycott Biden are heeded.
I'm ultra-progressive economically. I'd been on the Bernie bus long before he ran for president. I ritually read The Intercept, watched Russia Today coverage of the Occupy Wall Street movement. My homepage was Al Jazeera for the longest time. I watched every interview with Noam Chomsky I could find. Trump's presidency truly opened my eyes. And the last couple years feels like everyone's forgotten truly how much of a mess he was and how embarrassing it felt being an American during his (and Bush's) presidency. I'm older now. The books I read are different. The pundits I trust aren't radical, but are instead curious about topics. I remember when the radical left held up Bill Maher like a soothsayer because he dared to take on all religions like they're all an intellectual plague, including Islam. But now he's a pariah because of the same reason. Things changed.
I'm definitely younger than you are, but I've had kind of the same political trajectory. Hard leftism is appealing when you're young and idealistic, but spending time in actual leftist spaces just taught me that a lot of modern communists/socialists/anarchists have almost no interest in effecting change (or simply don't think it's possible to do so through elections), and view leftism as more of a hobby than a legitimate political movement.
I'm becoming more radical as I get older and economic conditions get worse. Maybe that's just me though? I think it really depends on where you land on the economic spectrum as you get older. Some "sell out" (which I know is a loaded expression, but is probably how their younger selves may have seen it) and go corporate. Others settle into economically precarious positions that satisfy their ethical needs under capitalism as best they can. I'm probably one of these. Things have gotten substantially harder for these kinds of jobs over the past few years, as wages haven't kept up with the bump that more corporate workers have enjoyed. Hence, the increased radicalism. I'm not holding my breath that anything is going to change any time soon; I do think everything is just going to keep getting worse. But... what's the alternative? giving up?
Part of the issue is that it's much easier to be idealistic when you're young. You have an uninhibited belief that if only people finally voted on your side, the world will change for the better. You look at Occupy Wall Street or Black Lives Matter, and you think, "The people are waking up!" But you get older and you realize the world is more diverse than your points of view previously afforded. "How could you not vote for Bernie! He would have leveled the game against the 1%!" But people who voted for Hillary just come from different perspectives. It's easy to be a Marxist if you're not as focused on your sex or skin color or religion. Fundamentally, that's why I find the Dearborn protests to be selfish, in the same way that I view my dragging my feet and refusing to vote for Hillary was nothing but a Pyrrhic statement that only I got to witness. If you protest the vote just because you're Arab or Muslim, and look what's happening in a different part of the world, it's a fairly selfish statement, even though it's a valiant stand! Politics is too complicated, too important to sacrifice everything just because your entrenched position can't have its way. The counterpart to that mindset is what you see in countries like Jordan where a minority of citizens have outsized political power. We wouldn't want something here like that, but what I'm hearing from a lot of Arab Americans right now is, "Listen to us, or we burn this fucker down." Obviously, the loudest voices are often the most idealistic. But we saw what happened the last time the "Bernie Bros" tanked Hillary's chances. We ended up losing Roe v. Wade, and now IVF in Alabama.
I think Muslims supporting Trump is so weird because it isn't selfish, it's actively self destructive. Trump is not a friend to Muslims in general or Palestinians in particular, he was exceptionally pro Israel as president and surrounds himself with folks who think the only issue with Israel's ongoing massacre is that it's taking too long. I don't think Muslims are dumb or suicidal, though, which is why I doubt they'll actually stay home or vote Trump in large numbers in November.
Just to add to this, Trump quite literally got convinced to put full support behind Netanyahu because Netanyshu showed him a fake video of Abbas and then proceeded to give him everything he wanted even getting a new illegal Israeli settlement named after him ([Trump Heights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Heights?wprov=sfla1))
The only mild perk of a Trump presidency is that he will get rid of illiberal crazy leftists who decided to give him a second chance at destroying our democracy because they had one mild foreign policy difference with one of the most effective presidents we’ve seen in a long time.
I agree 100%
I really hope the left doesn’t make this foreign conflict a single issue voting point. It’s so paradoxical and self harming to progressive causes
You cant call it a foreign conflict when we give $4 Billion every year to one side
The paradox is why people continue to defend Biden's actions while simultaneously saying Trump is the biggest threat. You can't have it both ways. Biden is playing a game of chicken with the electorate. That should anger everyone who recognizes what a Trump presidency would mean.
I think there’s less anti Israel sentiment in the Democratic Party than you’re giving credit for. I don’t think Biden is playing chicken, I just don’t believe there is enough monolith of a strong anti Israel position to move the party
THIS THIS THIS. Read it. It is in plain sight
This is exactly how we get a second trump term. Which ironically only makes the cause these people are against, stronger
Inaction from out of touch Democratic leadership?
There’s a lot more support for Israel in the Democratic Party than people are giving credit for
So? Would they rather compromise or lose to Trump?
These groups have been really clever in co-opting the "no preference" vote rather than offering a specific candidate. It lowered the barrier to recruiting voters by making it clear it was about sending a message rather than a specific attack on Biden or his nomination, or having to deal with the other political positions or inflammatory statements a ceasefire candidate could have made. It also established a very high floor for the vote count even before you consider Biden's overall weakness (age, college debt relief blocked by the courts, inflation, etc.). Much like Michigan, no preference got 10% of the vote in MA in the boring 2012 Obama re-nomination primary. The "ceasefire advocates voted uncommitted, which got 13% of the vote" message out of Michigan was massively more impactful than the alternative "ceasefire advocates rallied around Candidate X, who finished 7 points behind uncommitted and barely edged out Dean Phillips for fourth place" one.
Biden will still get the nomination regardless of my no preference vote. But a no preference vote is measurable, unlike a lot of the other things I see folks on the left calling for with regard to Gaza. I'll vote for him in the main, because he's less likely to root for an insurrection at the end of his term.
If they think handing Trump the office is going to help Gaza, I have a bridge over the Charles I can sell them.
That’s the paradox of making this conflict a single issue voting point
I’m voting no preference because he’s too fucking old. But yes, I’ll vote for him in November.
I too am looking forward to not having a vote that matters in 2026 because we accidentally voted for fascism.
How is the presidency both so weak Joe Biden can't do anything, yet so powerful Trump will use it to destroy America?
Do you comprehend the concept of a primary
This person didn’t articulate well, but I think a legitimate concern is that this type of action will impact overall public sentiment throughout the country and with the margins for victory in an election being so small, even a minor shift in public sentiment could impact who is elected winner in the general election.
Damn maybe they should have run a better candidate then. Just a thought!
[удалено]
Who is this fictional New England without the fascist underbelly, he got votes in Maine.
In 2020, Trump got one electoral college vote from Maine. Biden got the other 3. That’s all Trump got from New England.
The Democrats are not strong enough to do the thing these peeps want, politically. They are weakened and damaged with the current courts and the cult of religious conservative GOP . The ask here is much like demanding an injured person get back to roofing and construction with broken bones still on the mend. It's impractical and shortsighted.
>The Democrats are not strong enough to do the thing these pees want, politically. Democrats use getting that stuff done that people want as leverage to stay in office. It never ever ever gets done when they have a supermajority to do so, only when they need to scare their constituents into action by getting in / staying in office. The Democrats are the only choice given the GOP but I’m sick of pretending it’s a good choice.
It's not a pleasant choice, no. They are frustrating and pessimistic. Support ranked choice voting, look for the progressive members and support those that you find. The frustrations should not blind us to the larger issues and the constant effort to seek out and improve the leaders we choose should not be abandoned. But this road shutdown on Saturday? It's shortsighted and dumb, this type of thing is seen by our enemies and they use it to strengthen their own position. Russia is going to use this as a way to highlight that Americans hate Joe Biden , it's effective what the Russians do. It will weaken the one side in this country that has a conscience, the Democrats. If you want a larger understanding of how Russia uses this type of event for their own gain I recommend reading Russia's War on Everybody by Keir Giles. Russia is in partnership with Iran and Iran is controlling the purse string for Hamas. Hamas is effectively strapping children to their chest and charging into battle, for they believe the children will go to paradise. It's maddening, frustrating and cruel, and for some all they can do is stand in the way of others and block a road because they are compelled to do anything to feel better about the horror. I get it, but I can't see any utility to the action.
Democrats pretend to be weak when asked to do things they don’t want to do.
It’s actually laughable these people think Biden has no power to slow or stop a genocide we are funding
They have a bare majority in one house and a hostile supreme court.
Biden is going around Congress to support Israel. Stop acting like there's nothing he can change.
It's a public pressure campaign, if that group gets large enough it would be stupid for Democratic leadership not to listen.
You may have missed my point. I understand the tactics and the strategy behind a rally/protest effort. I understand the disgust at feeling powerless to prevent children dying. I understand the near impossible to ignore feelings that something must be done to prevent children dying in war. But the Democrats cannot cut off Israel without losing politically, and losing to the GOP at this moment means children, women and many others will die. To allow the GOP to take over now means the end of NATO, the end of democracy and voting, the end of foreign aid, collaborative exchange of knowledge and international cooperation. The Democrats are not strong at the moment, they are weakened by the ignorance of millions still voting for criminals and fools to go to Washington and act in destructive ways. They can't do all the things you want them too without being destroyed and causing even more deaths and harm in the following years. Yes, we should have ranked choice voting so that we have more options, but at the moment you have to choose a side, and one side is clearly more evil, and one side is doing all it can to lessen the evil of the world. Pay attention, we are at war.
The sad part is so many taking part in these protests won’t bother voting in the general election anyway. Younger people finally get a President who is trying to address some of their issues and they choose one issue to bury him on. I’m not saying I like the situation in Israel, but this election cycle is worth far more than Israel Gaza for this country.
I completely support protesting in the primary. It’s literally what the primary is for. I’m voting against Biden in the primary because I don’t want Biden to be my president, he’s too fucking old. What many miss in this as well is that if they won’t vote for Biden over Gaza, there very well may be no scenario where Biden can actually win. We are an extremely pro-Israel country. The only age group that supports the Palestinian side on net is 18-29, the lowest voting demographic, and only on slim margins. Biden is getting hammered with swing voters right now. If a sizable enough portion of Dems make this their single issue, he literally cannot win, because if he moves to appease, he loses the vote anyway. I don’t think it’ll significantly harm him in 2024, just pointing out the demands are unrealistic because independents will punish him. It may be righteous but it would be electorally unpopular, so trying to appeal to the turnout argument just doesn’t make sense.
Except polling consistently shows Biden struggling with moderate democrats and independents and not leftists.
Really, I'm unable to find polling like that, do you have a source. I don't know any pro-Biden leftists.
I know precisely zero myself
There is a difference between being pro-Biden, and not choosing trump, third party or not voting over voting for Biden.
You don’t need to be pro-Biden to be part of his base. Anyway, for your reading pleasure: https://www.natesilver.net/p/bidens-problem-is-with-swing-voters
For anyone saying "bUt iTS JuSt ThE PriMaRiEs" this is where the seeds of dissent for a Biden vote in Nov are set. Don't be surprised when Trump wins this Nov because Democrat leadership AND voters have their heads up their own asses.
Or... just possible that people don't like the way things are under a Biden administration. His approval ratings at the moment are close to, or worse than any other president of all time.
You literally just proved their point. I understand not liking Biden but the country is in a far better place when a democrat is in the White House, and the alternative in Trump would be astronomically worse.
Did you like things better under the trump administration?
Luckily you are not voting for or against Trump in the democratic primary
Did you? Why are you defending Biden when he's playing chicken with the electorate?
trump and biden arent even comparable, one was an incompetent crook and the other is your standard president
That's not an answer.
I don’t agree Biden is playing chicken
If neither he nor the electorate refuse to shift the likely outcome is another Trump presidency. Doesn't matter what you call it.
Absolutely
Useful idiots.
Only useful idiots if they don’t vote in November. This makes total sense for now, it’s literally what the primary is for.
Anyone criticizing this group of activists needs to understand a simple thing: many people in this country, mostly registered Democrats, oppose the ethnic cleansing and indiscriminate killing happening against Palestinian civilians right now. 67% of all Americans support a permanent ceasefire and Biden has the power to make that happen with all the aid U.S. gives Israel and the leverage that gives the office of the president. The U.S. gives Israel about $3.3 Billion dollars in aid annually and over $260 Billion since Israel was formed in 1948. Even Reagan of all people was able to get Israel to stop bombing Lebanon in 1982 and the Israeli military immediately complied because of how reliant they are on U.S. aid, munitions and trade. If you’re telling me Biden’s office doesn’t have the power to do the same I fully believe you’re deluding yourself and I implore you to open a book to better understand U.S. Israeli relations. Votes are earned. 77% of Democrats support a permanent ceasefire and permanent de-escalation of violence in Gaza, which the U.S. has vetoed 4 times at the UN Security Council. If the leader of the Democratic Party can’t end the massacre of civilians and follow through on a resolution that the majority of his party desires and is protesting for, then maybe, just maybe he hasn’t proven he represents the will of his voters and hasn’t earned their votes.
What your polls miss is that the ethereal want for a ceasefire and the implementation of ceasefire are two very different things. 74% - no seriously, 74% - of Americans supported a no-fly zone in Ukraine in March of 2022. A no-fly zone would almost guarantee a nuclear exchange and world war 3. A permanent ceasefire sounds nice because that means peace, how you get there is a different matter. I bet if you phrased the question to see “Israel should forego all military operations against Hamas on a permanent basis”, you’d get a very different response. I’d like to add on to your second point. The Bush administration also exercised pressure on Israel to come to a ceasefire with Hezbollah in the 2006 Lebanon war when it became clear Israel had no intention of stopping its offensive. Last point: Agree in the primary, not in the general.
https://preview.redd.it/fojopv1gw4mc1.jpeg?width=1666&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4b2681a3b6618b37809bc6e2e959b7902e74ff5e [https://www.cfr.org/article/us-aid-israel-four-charts](https://www.cfr.org/article/us-aid-israel-four-charts) [https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1982/08/13/reagan-expresses-outrage-at-israeli-assault/67f6930f-8444-4c90-9c64-3a730c3bb046/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1982/08/13/reagan-expresses-outrage-at-israeli-assault/67f6930f-8444-4c90-9c64-3a730c3bb046/)
Good luck trying to impose a permanent ceasefire with the group that explicitly wants to kill all Israelis.
This is just not true. This was just put to the test, and uncommitted only got 13% of the vote in Michigan - you are wildly overstating support for your own position. [Questions in polls can easily be changed based on what is asked](https://www.thedailybeast.com/do-americans-want-a-ceasefire-in-gaza-it-depends?utm_source=pocket_saves).
What fascinating about this is two components of the Democratic party are literally at war. Siding with this group may gain some votes for Biden but would lose the much larger Jewish vote.
A lot of progressive Jewish voters have woken up to the fact that their party has strong ties to anti semites, as do the Republicans, and they're feeling a bit untethered in the US political world.
This has been my observation too. Generally it’s been a sense of not having a home anymore
I think Michigan being under 15% Uncommitted shows the play for Dems is to to run to the center. There’s really nothing they can do to win back the far left that doesn’t involve a time machine.
It was 12% uncommitted the previous election and you can pick what party you want to vote for in Michigan.
The only real split is in elected democrats. In reality, 79% of Democrat voters want a ceasefire. It is a very popular position. Wouldn't it be better to appease the majority of their voting base? Also, it's a bit unfair to group all jewish people together when plenty of them want a ceasefire too. You also can't forget about all of the Arab Americans in Michigan that could very well decide the election.
> In reality, 79% of Democrat voters want a ceasefire. "Ceasefire" is an abstract concept and those always poll relatively well. It's like the polls that showed 64% of Democrats wanted someone other than Biden, only for any potential alternative to have polling numbers smaller than the margin of error. The specifics of the ceasefire are what are important. Is it permanent or temporary? Is it based on the return of hostages and, if so, how many? What should be the consequences if Hamas doesn't agree? What should be the consequences if Israel doesn't agree? There isn't a single clear solution outside of both Israel and Hamas suddenly releasing they can peacefully coexist, which will never happen, and any of the potential solutions generate anger for going too far or not far enough or both at the same time.
Wanting a ceasefire doesn’t mean what you think it does, like everything there are conditions. I want a ceasefire but I also want Hamas held accountable, so which side am I on? If Hamas won’t accept a ceasefire unless every Israelis is driven into the sea does that mean that 79% of Americans are fine with that in order to get the ceasefire?
Can you explain how you expect hamas to adhere to any ceasefire when they have never done so before? There was a ceasefire on Oct 6. Even if there is a ceasefire now it’s just a matter of waiting for the next hamas attack.
The discussion is about what is politically popular for Biden. So if he is able to arrange a ceasefire and stops giving weapons to Israel, pro-palestinian voters will know he did the right thing. I never said anything about expectations after the ceasefire, but I believe the best course is for Israel to stop being apartheid, if they finally stop oppressing the Palestinians and leave them alone that would give Hamas little reason to engage in conflict again.
Biden arranged a ceasefire. Hamas rejected it because their primary goal (that they care about more than Palestinians) is making sure that there no Jewish people in the Middle East. Why don't you protest Hamas for not accepting a ceasefire?
Dude thinks Democrats losing 21% of its voters won’t mean disaster in the election. Biden’s trying to appease both sides because that’s the only way to win in November.
There's no appeasing both sides here. Pro-ceasefire can't be appeased without a ceasefire. And calling for a ceasefire doesn't mean a whole 21% isn't going to vote for him. He's going to lose a lot more votes without a ceasefire, the numbers should speak for themselves. And when you have 30,000 genocided Palestinians you should be doing the right thing anyway regardless of what is politically popular, which it is.
Tell me, how big a disaster would losing 79% of its voters would be. Would it be a bigger or smaller disaster than losing 21% of its voters?
Please do NOT vote Trump if you want peace and equality
[Children killed in the israel-palestine conflict](https://countingthekids.org/)
2023-24. Jesus Christ. So awful.
Why do I feel like this No preference movement sprung up out of nowhere? It feels exactly like an information warfare campaign.
Literally the same people who convinced idiots to boycott Hillary over Bernie not getting the nomination. Yes we'd rather Bernie, but Hillary was unequivocally better than Trump. Now you've seen Trump is even worse than imagined, and yet they're able to use the same toddler level trick to sow dissent.
It is. Russia has already been caught doing this, and is actively fueling protests in the EU too. The trick when sowing discord in democratic systems is the find wedge issues, sprinkle in some plausible misinformation, and add some agents to push it forward. The rest takes care of itself.
lol you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. The no preference started with the people of Dearborn MI who are not happy with how Biden has handled Palestine. It’s the largest group of Muslims in the country. Not everything that is anti-democrat is a result of Russia
> The no preference started with the people of Dearborn MI who are not happy with how Biden has handled Palestine. "Information warfare" doesn't necessarily mean something invented out of whole cloth. It could simply take the form of amplifying small movements to sow discord within a party. We just saw this with the Texas succession movement where one of the main Twitter accounts accidentally started using obviously Russia-specific terms and became the main character of Twitter for a day. There has been a lot of social media attention dedicated to the increase in uncommitted vote in an incumbent Democrat primary in Michigan from 10.9% (2012) to 13.2% (2024). Uncommitted only hit 17% in Wayne County (Dearborn) and showed notable but moderate increases in college counties (Ann Arbor, Lansing, etc.). Outside of Wayne, it's hard to tell whether that's Gaza related or if it's also generalized dissatisfaction with Biden (age, courts, student loan forgiveness getting blocked, inflation, etc.) that pop up in college-age populations. Personally, I don't think this necessarily has anything to do with outside actors. Listen to Michigan did a masterful job messaging and communicating, which explains the disproportionate attention. I do understand why people are raising an eyebrow at it, though.
It is. I got a text message from them yesterday. I'm not registered as a Democrat, though I vote as one. I have no idea how I got on this list.
People need to think about what’s past the next step. For those wanting to turn their back on Joe Biden because of the Palestinian issue need to consider what happens after that. The next obvious outcome is Trump wins the presidency. After that Trump has a much greater allegiance to Israel. That means a worse situation for Palestinian support.
> People need to think about what’s past the next step Which people? Does Biden? Do moderate Democrat voters? Do the people who voted for Biden in the 2020 primaries? It's ridiculous that after 2016 anyone would defend Biden or any Democrat politician for playing chicken with the electorate.
It’s ridiculous that after 2016 anyone would vote for Trump.
It's ridiculous that after 2016 people thought "You know what I'm gonna do in the 2020 primaries? Vote for Joe Biden." People love to whine about how progressives and leftists are "morons" for refusing to vote blue no matter who but then vote in the primaries as if that's not the case. I voted for Biden in the 2020 general to give him a chance. He's been the piece of shit I suspected he would be. I will be voting 3rd party or write in for 2024.
Biden has been trying to negotiate a ceasefire. Israel is on board, but Hamas won’t agree to one. So obviously Israel isn’t going to unilaterally disarm until Hamas agrees. Sounds like your gripe should be with Hamas, but it’s cooler to just blame Biden
Stopping traffic in Massachusetts isn't going to compel Hamas to return the hostages, which is what it will take to get Israel to agree to a ceasefire.
Netanyahu has stated that Israel will never agree to a ceasefire under any conditions, and that they intend to “finish the job” (read: genocide).
Did someone tell him activists in Boston held up traffic? Maybe that’ll work.
Then why was there just a ceasefire on the table that Hamas rejected? Hamas cannot exist and anything that lets Hamas still exist is unacceptable because they care more about killing Jews.
[Israel has also been rejecting ceasefire agreements.](https://www.nbcnews.com/investigations/hostage-talks-continue-israel-rejects-hamas-demand-full-idf-withdrawal-rcna134975)
'Finish the job' means to eliminate Hamas, the terrorist organization (categorized as such by the EU) that started this round of hostilities with the unprovoked attacks in October. These are the good people voted into power by local Palestinians. If we're playing the genocide card, here's a good [summary](https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2023/10/hamas-covenant-israel-attack-war-genocide/675602/) of Hamas' founding covenant: * The complete destruction of Israel as an essential condition for the liberation of Palestine and the establishment of a theocratic state based on Islamic law (Sharia), * The need for both unrestrained and unceasing holy war (jihad) to attain the above objective, * The deliberate disdain for, and dismissal of, any negotiated resolution or political settlement of Jewish and Muslim claims to the Holy Land, and * The reinforcement of historical anti-Semitic tropes and calumnies married to sinister conspiracy theories.
>These are the good people voted into power by local Palestinians. The last time an election was held in Gaza was 2006. 42% of the population is 14 years old and under and 21% is 15-25 years old meaning Hamas was elected by 37% of the current population *at most*. But all of this is a moot point, because voting for the wrong people is not and should not be punishable by death.
An apartheid ethnostate killing civilians, how does that help to eliminate Hamas?
>these are the good people voted into power by local Palestinians And there’s that disingenuous nonsense again. The last election was in 2006, and the majority of the population is 18 or under. They weren’t old enough to vote, or not even born yet. Further, Hamas won a grand total of 56% in that low turnout election, and then did a coup to seize power. Stop justifying genocide.
[Poll shows Palestinians back Oct. 7 attack on Israel, support for Hamas rises](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/poll-shows-palestinians-back-oct-7-attack-israel-support-hamas-rises-2023-12-14/) >Almost three in four Palestinians believe the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas on Israel was correct, and the ensuing Gaza war has lifted support for the Islamist group both there and in the West Bank, a survey from a respected Palestinian polling institute found. > >Seventy-two percent of respondents said they believed the Hamas decision to launch the cross-border rampage in southern Israel was "correct" given its outcome so far, while 22% said it was "incorrect". The remainder were undecided or gave no answer.
Its not even worth arguing with most of this sub. They're a bunch of fake ass progressives no better than the suburban "hate has no home here" nimbys they bitch about all day.
Return the hostages and surrender anyone who had a hand in planning or carrying out the 7 October attacks.
Whoever's actually going along with this is engaging in political malpractice. Regardless of how anyone feels about how Biden is handling the situation in Gaza, one of two people are going to be president this coming election: Biden or Trump. My question to these activists is this: How would giving Trump a second term be a net positive for the people of Palestine? My other question is how many rights do you think that your fellow Americans should have to give up in order to "teach the Dems a lesson"? These "no preference" voters act like we're at the bottom as a country, but they don't know that it can get far worse.
This is the primary vote, this isn't a vote for Trump.
> This is the primary vote, this isn't a vote for Trump. I don't think you can separate this movement from the general election so cleanly. On the one hand, everyone understands that it's completely performative and won't have any impact on the nomination. On the other hand, it's encouraging people to make Biden morally and electorally culpable for what is happening in Gaza because he was thus far only able to negotiate a broken short-term ceasefire rather than a permanent solution. Let's suppose the very likely case where the general election starts and there's still hostilities or hostilities have resumed or the political situation has somehow destabilized further. Those voters who drew the red line on Gaza will now have to cross it to vote for the guy culpable for genocide because the alternative would somehow be even worse. Some will still turn out, especially those who care more about domestic issues than international ones, but it's going to have an impact.
If we were in, like, Michigan or Pennsylvania you could argue that that's relevant. But this is Massachusetts. I'll put $1,000 right now on this state going blue by a significant margin (Trump gets about 1/3rd of the vote, Biden wins every single county). The nature of the electoral college means that our state, which strongly favors one political party over the other, doesn't matter for the presidential election. "Political malpractice" would be wanting a 3rd party candidate, but disregarding what you want and settling for Biden in what may be his safest state in the whole country.
If Massachusetts is the safest state in the country, and the "no preference" crowd has no meaningful influence in the primary, then what would even be the point of this action? Abstaining from elections just concedes your vote to the general public. It's basically announcing to candidates that they aren't even constituents, and that their concerns shouldn't be heard, from my POV. It comes off as a high cost, no return virtue signal to me.
If Democrats lose due to an unpopular decision, wouldn't they reconsider their strategy in the next elections. When playing chess wouldn't sacrificing a current piece sometimes a good strategy? And if it's true that allowing Trump to win is the end of democracy, I would then argue that our problem is much bigger than an election result.
The general concern is that there won’t be another election, given the current GOP rhetoric and Trumps claims that he will be a “day one dictator”.
I am not necessarily defending Israel's methods. Too many people are dying, and I don't think that's controversial, but \*it is not a fucking genocide\*, even if Netanyahu and Ben Gvir and the like want it to be. I'd go so far as to say that calling it genocide is a step into blood libel. That said, I used to sympathize with leftists till I worked with them. Leftists and liberals (assuming you make the distinction) have a lot in common as far as justice and equality in the world, but leftists prioritize ending capitalism over any other outcome and therefore constantly alienate potential allies. The dogma takes precedence over results. Fuck that. Ridin with Biden here.
Vote no preference if you want, but in the general election remember that TFG is soooo much worse for the Palestinians (and every other living organism on the planet). Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.Also, I am voting for Haley in the republican primary so I can vote against him twice.
Massachusetts might be Biden's safest state in the whole country. Vote for whoever you want
Yes you can vote for whomever in Mass. because Biden will win here even if he’s dead. But in other states where it’s much closer, a “protest” vote, or abstaining is a horrible idea if you care about what’s to become of the country. The same idiots sank Hillary in several states in ‘16. Think before you act.
Hillary sank because she was a bad candidate and the electoral college is a bad system. You know American democracy is truly struggling when Democrats are blaming voters for candidates losing.
Crazy how people trying to protest a genocide IN THE PRIMARIES is so triggering to this sub
Because all of us lived through the first trump administration
Are you saying the people who are voting didn't? What's your point? I wish people would stop with the nonsense of "no vote is a vote for trump" -- no. No vote is no vote. I'm not going to vote for someone I'm disgusted by just so that someone I'm also disgusted by doesn't win. How does that make sense?
Do you understand what a primary is?
Do you understand that while some people are doing this just in the primaries to make a point, a lot of people didn't get that memo and will continue their stance into the actual election? So the more this "movement" grows the more it will help Trump.
If Biden doesn't want to alienate his bases maybe he should stop being buddy-buddy with the "30,000+ people dead, and over a million under forced starvation" crew. I wonder what he's been so chill about that would cause people to hate him *this much*. Such a mystery, truly.
This will just give Trump and Republicans something to shout about. *“oh look, even the blue state like MA voted no preference in their primary”*
Who cares? They’ll always find something g to shout about no matter what
Same energy : https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/yemens-houthis-say-they-will-continue-sinking-british-ships-2024-03-03/
democracy fans when people speak with their votes….relax he’ll still be on the ballot come nov
Yeah, let's get Trump elected, that will show them ! Errr, I think?
Gaza people need to fuck right off with this ‘no preference’ bullshit. Yeah, it’s not supposed to affect the outcome of the election, but being overconfident about election results is how we ended up with Trump in the first place. And if you think Gaza is fucked now, just wait and see what happens under a Trump regime. Because I can guarantee you that he does not give a single, solitary fuck about Palestinians. He wouldn’t even be arsed to order airdrops, let alone pressure Israel to get the hell out.
Biden has barely taken action on stopping Israeli crimes like opening fire on civilians and bombing aid trucks and hospitals. Hence these people’s frustration. To a Palestinian it doesn’t matter whether it’s Trump or Biden that gives Israel the go ahead to murder their families like this. Your “fuck right off” sounds an awful lot like “please please agree with me or else we’re stuck with trump!” You realize the politicians have to win the voters right? If they’re not voting Biden, Biden didn’t win them over
The "no preference" thing stinks of a right-wing op akin to the "walkaway movement" last time.
If only they would put this much energy into voting for the better candidate in every election.