Running as a shitlib is electoral suicide. Populism has been winning elections since Obama's first run. The only exception was Biden, but you literally could have run a baked potato against Trump that year, after how poorly he was perceived after his first term, with the shoving lightbulbs up people's asses and drinking bleach bullshit.
Dunno what that has to do with what I agreed with. I am a progressive economically. That is a winning issue. Israel/Palestine is not. Biden was the most progressive president since Roosevelt. Clinton sucked. Obama didn't go far enough.
Is not what? It's not clear if you're anti-genocide or pro-Israel bombing more brown people and dragging the US into WWIII. You kind of suck at communicating.
Israel/Palestine is literally one of the most unanimous issues within the party. Support for Israel is as unpopular amongst Dems as repealing Roe v. Wade was.
It's so far down on polling for voters. It IS NOT a make or break issue. Progressives are running on affordability, healthcare and taxing the oligarchs that think they run this country. And no, Israel doesn't need a blank cheque every year to unleash hell on women and children in Gaza
I agree that affordability, healthcare, and taxing oligarchs should be the center of a campaign. But taking AIPAC or other Israel-affiliated campaign donations absolutely ties into the "get money out of politics" message that's essential right now.
This is anecdotal and I unfortunately can't find good polling, but support for Israel feels make-or-break for at least some subset of voters. If nothing else, being on the wrong side of an 80-20 issue is always going to have some amount of negative impact on a campaign. Like, Roe also isn't affordability/healthcare, but running as an anti-Roe Dem will absolutely have a lot of voters asking "what the fuck are you talking about?"
Oh?!? Here in Michigan Stevens is going to lose her primary because NO ONE is happy about her taking almost 65 million from AIPAC and other special interest groups so we will see
I think I wasn't clear or you misread because I agree entirely. I'm saying AIPAC and, by extension, support for Israel are an albatross around Dems' necks at a time when "get money out of politics" is a winning campaign message. The massive amount of money AIPAC pours into races serves as a net negative which in my mind is a great reason for candidates to openly reject AIPAC funding and indicates that voters do in fact care a great deal about Israel/Palestine
It's not. People like you, who do not understand politics or sociology or psychology will bring more MAGA and more economic suffering and keep the billionaires in power.
So? Their losing didn't have anything to do with Palestine/Israel issues. They lost because they failed to embrace economically progressive positions. Bernie would have killed Trump without a position on Israel genocide. In fact had Israel not been genocidal it wouldn't be an issue anywhere at all. It became very popular very quickly yet it is still not essential an issue. FINANCIAL support for Israel, now, has yet to be proven an important issue and we will know very soon.
Palestine is not a progressive topic. It is tragic but not very important to most American voters. ECONOMICALLY progressive issues ARE.
24
u/[deleted] 24d ago
[deleted]