Progressives acknowledging the fact of genocide is a good first step, and it’s useful that Ocasio-Cortez and others have done so — “I think [unconditional aid to Israel] enabled a genocide in Gaza,” she said in Munich — but it is not in and of itself sufficient. Before anyone in the party can move on to selling a post-Biden vision of human-rights-first foreign policy, they must address what accountability for the war criminals in the Biden administration — those who aided, armed, and funded genocide — should look like.
How does your point in any way refute that voting for Democrats is the most beneficial thing for Palestine? Unless you’re trying to say that by voting for a third party you actually helped Democrats win more than you would have by voting for them?? Your point was a non sequitur.
So I responded by broadening the scope and looking at all third party voters. Its a classic trope for apologist Dems to blame third party, and the point is that third party voters were utterly meaningless, and if anything, actually helped Dems in 2024.
We are not, at all, nor ever have we been, nor ever will we be, talking about what any of us as individuals do. Neither your vote or my vote decided an election. The presentation that voters individually needed make different decisions is a dangerous and deceptive framing that political parties have used prop up deeply unpopular candidates and policies. No one voter decides the outcome of an election.
The 6 million votes that Harris left on the table lost the election. You are arguing against a strawman of your own creation, and what you think my personal choice would have been is utterly fucking irrelevant.
What we are discussing is how elections and electorates respond to candidates and the strategies those candidates use. The point that is now conclusive, is that there was one functional path to Harris winning the election: She needed to oppose the genocide in Gaza. There was no other way for her to win.
Nope. They were talking about an individual vote, their own. Again, you’re changing the subject.
And the point is: No, they’re not.
The most beneficial thing they could have done would have been to make it clear to the campaign that they were going to lose if they didn’t change their policy on Gaza, because their individual vote doesn’t matter.
Why would the campaign care about their threat to withhold their single useless vote?