Vice President Kamala Harris' refusal to break with the Biden administration's support for Israel's assault on Gaza cost her millions of potential Democratic voters. Will the Democratic Party learn from this and listen to its voters who want leaders to oppose sending more weapons to Israel? #Gaza #ElectionImpact
a) A soft stance against genocide is not a very good stance on genocide.
b) Biden also said he was against genocide. His position is that all the starvation, collective punishment, and attacks against civilian infrastructure just weren’t genocide so nothing much needed to be done. She said she didn’t disagree with anything he had done.
And just to jump to the next step of this conversation, yes, Trump was vocally worse and while it’s hard to imagine being much worse than what Biden has done, I think he has the potential to figure out a way. A sober and objective and rational game theorist should choose to vote for Harris.
But that’s not how voters work. “We’re 98% bad, but he’ll be 100%” isn’t a message to keep your coalition together. Emotional voters will cut off their nose to spite their face and that’s a fundamental aspect of how politics works that can’t be ignored or dismissed because they should do something else.
Well, I suppose it’s a good thing that wasn’t “the next step of the conversation”, internet-stranger-oracle. What an odd and presumptuous way to make an argument…
What I would have said is; So, no evidence? You’re right that a softly worded stance on genocide is not a good one. It also isn’t supporting genocide. Those two things are long and far apart. Harris’ statement on Israel was political/tactful because she knows that US military bases in Israel are extremely important for US interests in the region. She had to give an answer to a very complex question, without alienating or enraging multiple different groups, with very different interests, while still promising some action will be taken against Israel. I thought she walked that tight-rope pretty well and, in doing so, showcased a quality of leadership Trump, IMO, is not capable of displaying on his best days.
a) A soft stance against genocide is not a very good stance on genocide.
b) Biden also said he was against genocide. His position is that all the starvation, collective punishment, and attacks against civilian infrastructure just weren’t genocide so nothing much needed to be done. She said she didn’t disagree with anything he had done.
And just to jump to the next step of this conversation, yes, Trump was vocally worse and while it’s hard to imagine being much worse than what Biden has done, I think he has the potential to figure out a way. A sober and objective and rational game theorist should choose to vote for Harris.
But that’s not how voters work. “We’re 98% bad, but he’ll be 100%” isn’t a message to keep your coalition together. Emotional voters will cut off their nose to spite their face and that’s a fundamental aspect of how politics works that can’t be ignored or dismissed because they should do something else.
Well, I suppose it’s a good thing that wasn’t “the next step of the conversation”, internet-stranger-oracle. What an odd and presumptuous way to make an argument…
What I would have said is; So, no evidence? You’re right that a softly worded stance on genocide is not a good one. It also isn’t supporting genocide. Those two things are long and far apart. Harris’ statement on Israel was political/tactful because she knows that US military bases in Israel are extremely important for US interests in the region. She had to give an answer to a very complex question, without alienating or enraging multiple different groups, with very different interests, while still promising some action will be taken against Israel. I thought she walked that tight-rope pretty well and, in doing so, showcased a quality of leadership Trump, IMO, is not capable of displaying on his best days.
Here’s a clip of that portion of her speech, if you haven’t seen it already: https://youtu.be/oogNVOqnChc