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?
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?