During negotiations with the DNC and the Harris campaign, we were repeatedly told by interlocutors that Harris couldn’t meet any of our basic requests (a policy shift from Biden, a Palestinian speaker at the DNC, a statement distinguishing herself from Trump on Israel, or even a meeting with Michigan families who lost loved ones to Israeli bombs) because of AIPAC-aligned politicians like Fetterman, who might take to TV, rile up suburban white and Jewish voters, and fracture the party’s coalition in a swing state.
That political calculus alienated a key voting bloc, although likely not large enough to have shifted the ultimate election outcomes, that should be part of a durable Democratic majority. But few will ever be held accountable for that choice.
A Fetterman staffer condemning Uncommitted for not advocating for Palestinians ‘the right way’ is like an arsonist scolding the fire department for using the wrong hose.
Voting isn’t some bargain between a thousand voting groups and one candidate. Let’s break it down.
THERE ARE TWO CANDIDATES
YOU PICK THE BEST CANDIDATE
Note that ‘best’ isn’t ‘great’; nor is it ‘good’, ‘awesome’, etc. And, while there are more candidates, sometimes only two have a chance (Hi Ross Perot!). So it’s a binary choice. There has to be someone in office. You pick the least-worse one.
The unmentioned third option is “If you vote third party or don’t vote at all, you accept the consequences of a worst-case scenario”.
I’m really thinking America didn’t educate people on ‘this or that’.
Sounds like US democracy with the US voting system is deeply flawed and the only moral action is to no longer engage with it. Otherwise you are expected to choose between different approaches to an ongoing genocide.
Personally I pull the lever in the trolley problem. Not pulling the lever definitely doesn’t equal washing one’s hands of the outcome.
Pro genocide comments like this don’t surprise me anymore. I urge you to post more like this during the upcoming elections to remind people what the Democratic Party and its base really are. Voters might be scared into voting for the Democrats again.
No you can force a political party to abide by your wishes by showing you are willing to not vote for them.
What lesson can the Democratic party learn from this?
No you cannot. They don’t even know that you exist. The simple reality is that the one and only possibility for major progress is for Dems to win big and win often. When that happens, Dems will all be competing with each other to show themselves to be more progressive than the other guys.
Dems had control of the house, senate, and POTUS for Bidens first two years, and they decided to do almost nothing.
That’s not how democracy works…
Being restricted to two candidates is just like a one-party state with an extra choice for shits and giggles.
People vote with their conscience on whatever candidate they feel represents them. And it’s THEIR business.
Anything else is NOT democracy. Nobody is entitled to your vote. That’s the one power you have.
It is unfortunately how the US democracy works. Nobody around today set this system up. We simply realized how it does and doesn’t work.
Nope. Two parties is a huge improvement over one. Three is an improvement over 2, etc.
3 > 2 > 1
The US is not, nor has it ever, been a democracy. Money decides and always decided, politics.
Not democracy.
Never has been.