That’s only a valid argument if you assume more votes would be gained from acceding to their demands than not. Otherwise you still end up with a loss, only now you’re looking at the fucking Zionist ‘moderates’ being the missing piece that we have to accede ‘full-throatedly’ to, since we can’t ‘stop fascism’ without them.
Yeah this was the hand-wringing the trope they rolled out during the elections. Considering that the majority of Zionists are republicans already, at least in the form of Cristian zionists, we (both now and should have then) can readily dismiss this. It gets the Democratic candidate bupkis.
Yeah this was the hand-wringing the trope they rolled out during the elections.
And a miscalculation (or, depending on your point of view, throwing the game for the opposition) does not mean that the idea is inapplicable.
“They should have leaned more towards anti-Zionists to win” does not equate to “Completely acceding to anti-Zionists in a coalition which includes a large number of Zionists would have brought victory.”
Considering that the majority of Zionists are republicans already, at least in the form of Cristian zionists, we (both now and should have then) can readily dismiss this. It gets the Democratic candidate bupkis.
Okay, it doesn’t fucking matter that most Zionists are Republicans. What matters is that a sizable percentage, even if a minority, of Democrats are Zionists.
Using the term Zionist as you would on here, on Lemmy/the Fediverse, what percentage of Dem voters - who make up a good 1/3 of this country’s electorate - do you think are Zionists? How many do you think we can lose? How many dedicated anti-Zionists are out there in the electorate, willing to vote for the Dems if they change position on just this one issue?
Okay, it doesn’t fucking matter that most Zionists are Republicans.
I want to push back on this, because I think it does matter, because it speaks to Democratic strategy for the election. Who are you doing a thing for? Its not any different than them heading hard right with their campaign post/ during the convention: Who is the thing for?
What matters is that a sizable percentage, even if a minority, of Democrats are Zionists.
And what percentage are Muslim? Or are Palestinian? Or from Mexico? Or… or… or… and I can go on, for all the groups Democrats lost with how they approached both governance and the election.
The argument I saw out there was that Harris couldn’t break with Biden on Palestine, or else she would lose Pennsylvania. Well she lost Pennsylvania. And in her effort to not lose Pennsylvania, she also lost Michigan. And Georgia and Nevada. Calling it a miscalculation is like… its a gross understatement.
I can’t believe we have to relitigate all of this because Booker has decided that he, one of the least popular Democrats in history, has decided he doesn’t want the left to have a roll in the Democratic party.
Its basically political fact that Harris blew it with her support of Israel, and by not campaigning to her base. Instead of pre-blaming voters, the blueMaga contingent should have been actively advocating for policy changes instead of defending positions the voters had made loud and clear, that they would not vote for.
And if you are ABWD/ BlueMAGA, we don’t need to worry about your perspectives, because your vote is a forgone conclusion. You aren’t gaining voters catering to the sensibilities of privileges liberals. You win elections growing coalitions into groups of voters you either lost or didn’t have.
I want to push back on this, because I think it does matter, because it speaks to Democratic strategy for the election. Who are you doing a thing for? Its not any different than them heading hard right with their campaign post/ during the convention: Who is the thing for?
No, it doesn’t matter because of what I laid out below - that a sizable percentage, even if still a minority, of Democrats are Zionists.
And what percentage are Muslim? Or are Palestinian?
Less than 5%, on both counts. And with considerable overlap rather than adding up to nearly 10%.
Do you know what percentage of Muslim and Palestinian voters voted for Trump? Apparently, the single issue was not quite the dealbreaker for their vote you’re implying it is. I specified Zionist precisely because it is a policy position, and I specified, for that matter, how many anti-Zionists would be gained and how many Zionists would be lost (or rather, asked to consider whether the gain would outweigh the loss, not demanding you to have a specific number ready off the top of your head).
Or from Mexico?
I didn’t realize Zionism was such a hot topic for Mexican-Americans.
The argument I saw out there was that Harris couldn’t break with Biden on Palestine, or else she would lose Pennsylvania. Well she lost Pennsylvania. And in her effort to not lose Pennsylvania, she also lost Michigan. And Georgia and Nevada. Calling it a miscalculation is like… its a gross understatement.
Man, I don’t give a fuck what you call it, I went ahead and fucking specified that you could say it was deliberate for all the choice mattered to the point being disputed.
And if you are ABWD/ BlueMAGA, we don’t need to worry about your perspectives, because your vote is a forgone conclusion. You aren’t gaining voters catering to the sensibilities of privileges liberals. You win elections growing coalitions into groups of voters you either lost or didn’t have.
… and you think people you characterize as “BlueMAGA”, especially as such a label is often combined with criticism of party elites who push harder against the left wing of their party than against the GOP, will actually vote blue no matter who?
even if still a minority, of Democrats are Zionists.
Just… Just read through your response. You are arguing that because there is some slight minority of Democrats who identify as Zionists, we have to cater to their views; that they were the electoral segment the Dems could not lose less they lose the election. My point in bringing up Mexico and Muslims is that they too are a segment of the vote Dems could not lose less they lose the election. But because liberal moderates, the BlueMAGA coalition, insists that their identity and sensibilities be centered in democratic politics, the Democrats lost the election. They ran a campaign focused on appealing to white moderates and it fucking lost. The lost ground with Muslims because of how they campaigned. They lost ground with Mexican voters because of how they governed. And they LOST! Thats the entire point. Your argument only holds up if Democrats had actually won with the strategy they used. Pennsylvania was the “could not lose state” that Dems claimed they NEEDED to maintain support for Israel to get, and they lost that state too.
The point is that there was either a) not enough appeal among zionist voters with Democrats or b) that zionist voters weren’t sufficient to get Democrats elected: Regardless of the mechanism, it was a losing strategy.
“BlueMAGA”, especially as such a label is often combined with criticism of party elites who push harder against the left wing of their party than against the GOP, will actually vote blue no matter who?
I think it needs to be put to a test and that White Liberals have shown themselves to a net drag on the parties elect-ability when its their approach to politics, when its their identity which gets centered in campaigns. We can’t hand-wring about ABWD when the “no-confidence” vote is out there specifically telling you they won’t vote D if they support a genocide. They told you what their requirement for voting D was. You should have just fucking listened.
Just… Just read through your response. You are arguing that because there is some slight minority of Democrats who identify as Zionists, we have to cater to their views; that they were the electoral segment the Dems could not lose less they lose the election.
… first, the minority isn’t ‘slight’, and I can cite extensive polling on the matter.
Second, my point is not that the Dems had to cater to the Zionists without any compromise towards anti-Zionists - I agree that the Dems catered too much to the Zionists. My point, as I mentioned, was that the simple reverse is no solution at all - both Zionists and anti-Zionists are part of the Dem coalition, and we don’t have the numbers to do away with either, unless you have some radical new coalition to propose.
They ran a campaign focused on appealing to white moderates and it fucking lost.
Sure. I agree.
Your argument only holds up if Democrats had actually won with the strategy they used.
Again, my argument is not “Dems made the right decision!”, I called it a miscalculation at best, and opined that regarding it as throwing the election entirely would not be unfair. My point is that un-fucking-fortunately, Zionists are part of this coalition-of-the-less-fucked too, so the simplistic notion that acceding to all anti-Zionist demands is a path to victory is about as electorally stupid as the near-no-compromise pro-Zionist line the DNC went with.
The point is that there was either a) not enough appeal among zionist voters with Democrats or b) that zionist voters weren’t sufficient to get Democrats elected: Regardless of the mechanism, it was a losing strategy.
Zionists are not and were not a new addition to the coalition that were going to save a Dem campaign. The issue is that they’re part of the base vote which is presumed in the first place to have any sort of serious challenge to GOP bootlickers marching in lockstep. My point, as I noted, was not that more Zionism would have won, or even that the level of Zionism presented was anything but excessive; my point is that going forward, the coalition is still going to include Zionists, unfortunately, and simply reversing the direction of the mistake will not lead to victory. It’ll lead to Zionists sitting out 2028 like anti-Zionists did in 2024, and handing the country over to domestic fascists - assuming that we have meaningful elections at all in 2028, which is far from assured considering to whom power was handed over to in 2024.
As long as Zionists make up a significant percentage of the electoral coalition, the option of “Just alienate the larger group and placate the smaller and less reliably-voting one” is not particularly fucking promising. Anti-Zionists should have been compromised more with, but it’s a balance as long as they’re both in the same electoral coalition. You want to kick out all Zionists from the more-left-leaning party of this ultra-fucked political system? I’m with you. But that’s not exactly an option when we’re regularly losing by a greater number than the difference between Dem Zionist voters and Dem anti-Zionist abstainers.
I think it needs to be put to a test and that White Liberals have shown themselves to a net drag on the parties elect-ability when its their approach to politics, when its their identity which gets centered in campaigns. We can’t hand-wring about ABWD when the “no-confidence” vote is out there specifically telling you they won’t vote D if they support a genocide. They told you what their requirement for voting D was. You should have just fucking listened.
… would you like me to bring up polling on non-negotiable Zionist voting requirements for a candidate? Or does it only count when they’re abstaining currently, rather than voting currently?
Please tell me you didn’t vote third party in November…
You keep following me around, straw-manning me, derailing the conversation, making ad hominem attacks. Get lost
Right …so anyways. Did you vote for Jill or not?
So you’ve moved on from bullying cross-dressers to bullying… people who ask why we’re bullying cross-dressers?
Really selling me and everyone else on how totally justified you were in your bullying.
Right. No anwser suggests you either voted third party, or you’re not even American anyways and your opinion on this matter does not matter.
Want to provide any input?
Pathetic.
I mean if they, did, I’m sure you’ll see the point in advocating full-throatedly to their demands, since you couldn’t stop fascism without them.
That’s only a valid argument if you assume more votes would be gained from acceding to their demands than not. Otherwise you still end up with a loss, only now you’re looking at the fucking Zionist ‘moderates’ being the missing piece that we have to accede ‘full-throatedly’ to, since we can’t ‘stop fascism’ without them.
Yeah this was the hand-wringing the trope they rolled out during the elections. Considering that the majority of Zionists are republicans already, at least in the form of Cristian zionists, we (both now and should have then) can readily dismiss this. It gets the Democratic candidate bupkis.
And a miscalculation (or, depending on your point of view, throwing the game for the opposition) does not mean that the idea is inapplicable.
“They should have leaned more towards anti-Zionists to win” does not equate to “Completely acceding to anti-Zionists in a coalition which includes a large number of Zionists would have brought victory.”
Okay, it doesn’t fucking matter that most Zionists are Republicans. What matters is that a sizable percentage, even if a minority, of Democrats are Zionists.
Using the term Zionist as you would on here, on Lemmy/the Fediverse, what percentage of Dem voters - who make up a good 1/3 of this country’s electorate - do you think are Zionists? How many do you think we can lose? How many dedicated anti-Zionists are out there in the electorate, willing to vote for the Dems if they change position on just this one issue?
I want to push back on this, because I think it does matter, because it speaks to Democratic strategy for the election. Who are you doing a thing for? Its not any different than them heading hard right with their campaign post/ during the convention: Who is the thing for?
And what percentage are Muslim? Or are Palestinian? Or from Mexico? Or… or… or… and I can go on, for all the groups Democrats lost with how they approached both governance and the election.
The argument I saw out there was that Harris couldn’t break with Biden on Palestine, or else she would lose Pennsylvania. Well she lost Pennsylvania. And in her effort to not lose Pennsylvania, she also lost Michigan. And Georgia and Nevada. Calling it a miscalculation is like… its a gross understatement.
I can’t believe we have to relitigate all of this because Booker has decided that he, one of the least popular Democrats in history, has decided he doesn’t want the left to have a roll in the Democratic party.
Its basically political fact that Harris blew it with her support of Israel, and by not campaigning to her base. Instead of pre-blaming voters, the blueMaga contingent should have been actively advocating for policy changes instead of defending positions the voters had made loud and clear, that they would not vote for.
And if you are ABWD/ BlueMAGA, we don’t need to worry about your perspectives, because your vote is a forgone conclusion. You aren’t gaining voters catering to the sensibilities of privileges liberals. You win elections growing coalitions into groups of voters you either lost or didn’t have.
No, it doesn’t matter because of what I laid out below - that a sizable percentage, even if still a minority, of Democrats are Zionists.
Less than 5%, on both counts. And with considerable overlap rather than adding up to nearly 10%.
Do you know what percentage of Muslim and Palestinian voters voted for Trump? Apparently, the single issue was not quite the dealbreaker for their vote you’re implying it is. I specified Zionist precisely because it is a policy position, and I specified, for that matter, how many anti-Zionists would be gained and how many Zionists would be lost (or rather, asked to consider whether the gain would outweigh the loss, not demanding you to have a specific number ready off the top of your head).
I didn’t realize Zionism was such a hot topic for Mexican-Americans.
Man, I don’t give a fuck what you call it, I went ahead and fucking specified that you could say it was deliberate for all the choice mattered to the point being disputed.
… and you think people you characterize as “BlueMAGA”, especially as such a label is often combined with criticism of party elites who push harder against the left wing of their party than against the GOP, will actually vote blue no matter who?
Just… Just read through your response. You are arguing that because there is some slight minority of Democrats who identify as Zionists, we have to cater to their views; that they were the electoral segment the Dems could not lose less they lose the election. My point in bringing up Mexico and Muslims is that they too are a segment of the vote Dems could not lose less they lose the election. But because liberal moderates, the BlueMAGA coalition, insists that their identity and sensibilities be centered in democratic politics, the Democrats lost the election. They ran a campaign focused on appealing to white moderates and it fucking lost. The lost ground with Muslims because of how they campaigned. They lost ground with Mexican voters because of how they governed. And they LOST! Thats the entire point. Your argument only holds up if Democrats had actually won with the strategy they used. Pennsylvania was the “could not lose state” that Dems claimed they NEEDED to maintain support for Israel to get, and they lost that state too.
The point is that there was either a) not enough appeal among zionist voters with Democrats or b) that zionist voters weren’t sufficient to get Democrats elected: Regardless of the mechanism, it was a losing strategy.
I think it needs to be put to a test and that White Liberals have shown themselves to a net drag on the parties elect-ability when its their approach to politics, when its their identity which gets centered in campaigns. We can’t hand-wring about ABWD when the “no-confidence” vote is out there specifically telling you they won’t vote D if they support a genocide. They told you what their requirement for voting D was. You should have just fucking listened.
… first, the minority isn’t ‘slight’, and I can cite extensive polling on the matter.
Second, my point is not that the Dems had to cater to the Zionists without any compromise towards anti-Zionists - I agree that the Dems catered too much to the Zionists. My point, as I mentioned, was that the simple reverse is no solution at all - both Zionists and anti-Zionists are part of the Dem coalition, and we don’t have the numbers to do away with either, unless you have some radical new coalition to propose.
Sure. I agree.
Again, my argument is not “Dems made the right decision!”, I called it a miscalculation at best, and opined that regarding it as throwing the election entirely would not be unfair. My point is that un-fucking-fortunately, Zionists are part of this coalition-of-the-less-fucked too, so the simplistic notion that acceding to all anti-Zionist demands is a path to victory is about as electorally stupid as the near-no-compromise pro-Zionist line the DNC went with.
Zionists are not and were not a new addition to the coalition that were going to save a Dem campaign. The issue is that they’re part of the base vote which is presumed in the first place to have any sort of serious challenge to GOP bootlickers marching in lockstep. My point, as I noted, was not that more Zionism would have won, or even that the level of Zionism presented was anything but excessive; my point is that going forward, the coalition is still going to include Zionists, unfortunately, and simply reversing the direction of the mistake will not lead to victory. It’ll lead to Zionists sitting out 2028 like anti-Zionists did in 2024, and handing the country over to domestic fascists - assuming that we have meaningful elections at all in 2028, which is far from assured considering to whom power was handed over to in 2024.
As long as Zionists make up a significant percentage of the electoral coalition, the option of “Just alienate the larger group and placate the smaller and less reliably-voting one” is not particularly fucking promising. Anti-Zionists should have been compromised more with, but it’s a balance as long as they’re both in the same electoral coalition. You want to kick out all Zionists from the more-left-leaning party of this ultra-fucked political system? I’m with you. But that’s not exactly an option when we’re regularly losing by a greater number than the difference between Dem Zionist voters and Dem anti-Zionist abstainers.
… would you like me to bring up polling on non-negotiable Zionist voting requirements for a candidate? Or does it only count when they’re abstaining currently, rather than voting currently?