BI: AOC asked voters why they backed her candidacy and Trump's reelection. They said the economy and Gaza.
BI: AOC asked voters why they backed her candidacy and Trump's reelection. They said the economy and Gaza.
I've often assumed Harris didn't want to insult her boss by going against him, because I got the impression she was planning to give Netanyahu what for once she took over - especially with him escalating things further and further. Did anyone else get that vibe, or was it just wishful thinking on my part?
Have people been keeping up on the news? Like privately Biden has been feuding with Netanyahu for months. It’s not like Biden is on board with what Netanyahu is doing. He’s been trying to change the course, but publicly attacking Netanyahu would have drawn a ton of fire from the right, which he was trying to avoid during the election season. It shocks me that people really think Biden is cheering this on.
Lovely, well as far as I know, the genocide in palestine will stop under Trump...
...when all the palestinians have been wiped out
I see a lot of comments that basically summarize the constituent feedback as "well I guess they're just stupid then, can't wait til the leopards eat your face."
First, keep alienating these voters, sure. See how far that gets you in the next election. We need to be listening to and understanding these voters now more than ever if we are ever going to get out of this. Whether you like it or not, their vote carries as much weight as yours (maybe more depending on what state you're in).
Second, responding to economy concerns with "well actshually, the economy is amazing. What you mean is inflation" is about the worst response you can give. It's incredibly dismissive. When someone is scared that they can't afford a house, can't see retirement, can't buy groceries, they don't care about GDP or stock market numbers. Whatever Biden tried to do to alleviate their concerns wasn't enough. Inflation stopped but wages didn't catch up enough. Trump promised to fix it. He is a charlatan but desperate people will cling to anyone who gives them hope. What they experience is a system so incredibly slow to respond to their needs that the "Fight for $15“ really should be the Fight for $30 at this point.
The reason Trump and AOC are popular is that they directly speak to these concerns, whether they have a plan to fix it or not. Both speak of systemic change to make it happen. Establishment candidates don't.
What this election has taught me is that until the Dems learn to actually prioritize working class needs over identity politics they will lose. Every time. Look at how even women's reproductive rights was not enough to get them to vote Harris, and yet on states Trump won where there were proposals to protect abortion access, those efforts were successful.
I'm skeptical she would have done anything differently than Biden in terms of Gaza. There was plenty of polling out saying that voters, especially potential Democratic voters, overwhelmingly would favor her more if she differentiated herself on Gaza. Once she got the nomination locked, there was nothing really stopping her from making some changes. Yeah, Biden would not have liked it, but what was he going to do, endorse Trump? Plus, he didn't actually spend that much time campaigning. And as unpopular as Biden was, his endorsement really didn't mean much.
My point is that Kamala had everything to gain and nothing to lose by changing her Gaza stance. She chose not to because she didn't want to offend some very wealthy conservative donors. In the end, it didn't matter. She still massively outspent Trump, just like Hillary did. What Democrats can't realize is that fundraising dollars are less important than actual appeals to voters. Yes, fundraising is critical. But passed a certain point, ads lose their effectiveness. Once you've already spent a billion dollars, everyone has already made up their mind. At that point, it's more about getting out your base. And the problem for Democrats is that the same policies that will make them very popular to wealthy donors also make them unpopular to the voters they actually need to win over to win at the national level.
Democrats should just focus on appealing to actual voters and forget the donor class entirely. They have proven that they can raise more than enough money in small-dollar donations to produce all the messaging they need.
Kamala wouldn't have changed Biden's positions because the only logical time to change your policies to appeal to voters is when you actually need to appeal to voters. I could see Kamala telling voters she'll confront Israel, then turning her back on that plan after the election to appease donors, but there's no reason she would change her policies after the point such a policy shift could actually help her. Donor dollars can come in at any time, but voters are only important during the campaign season.
"We can't push policies that cause deflation! That will cause people to put off buying things and cause a economic recession, which will cause more deflation leading to a neverending ending spiral! Lets just hold inflation to 2% per year and hope people's jobs eventually given them raises."
We have been putting off buying things for years! Houses, cars, cloths, food - if the price goes down, no one will go 'oh, I'm going to wait a bit longer and see if it goes down more'. No, we will buy like crazy! Every administration that ruled over this inflation spike - be them left wing or right wing - has seen their electoral chances tumble. But god forbid we see even a hint of deflation.
I've often assumed Harris didn't want to insult her boss by going against him, because I got the impression she was planning to give Netanyahu what for once she took over - especially with him escalating things further and further. Did anyone else get that vibe, or was it just wishful thinking on my part?
Wishful thinking. There’s no guarantee this happens. You would have just removed the most powerful motivator for her to do something about gaza while simultaneously demonstrating to her that she had no reason to do so. All the while AIPAC and the ADL are breathing down her back and offering her bribes not to. It would be like expecting me to build you a house after randomly sending 1 million dollars into my bank account. Why would I? I have the money now and have given you no guarantee that I would do so in the past. You’ll just see me chilling in the Bahamas.
The responses to Ocasio-Cortez from split-ticket voters included:
- "It's real simple… Trump and you care for the working class"
- "Trump is going to get us the money and lets men have a voice. You're brilliant and have amazing passion!"
- "I feel like Trump and you are both real."
- "I know people that did this and it was bc of Gaza."
- "You are focused on the real issues people care about. Similar to Trump populism in some ways."
- "Because of Gaza"
- "I voted Trump and dems because he reached out to Muslims"
No.
Giving Netanyahu 'what-for', in my understanding, would be ...
... stating that the US would immediately cease all further shipments of any military materiel and financial aid to Israel that can be used offensively (ie, not Patriot Systems or Iron Dome)...
... and that if Netanyahu does not cease his expansion into Lebanon, withdraw from it, withdraw from Gaza, allow food, medical aid and journalists into Gaza...
... and resign from his position as President and his dismiss his entire cabinet, and agree to face at least the numerous domestic charges of corruption against him in court, in Israel...
Those last two parts have a 60 day timeframe.
If those aren't met, cut off everything, freeze Netanyahu and high up Likkud party member's personal finances the way we did with Russia.
... Something like that would be giving Netanyahu what for.
That was obviously never on the table.
Kamala just would have continued running propaganda defense for Israel as Biden had done, watching more and more 'red lines' get blown through and giving some meaningless bs explanation why, if even acknowleding it at all.
Maybe she would be slightly more vocal about allowing aid in. She would not actually do anything to make that happen, but maybe she'd make a tiny bit of a show of it.
She said it herself. No meaningful differences from Biden's approach.
So yeah in that regard, you have ludicrously wishful thinking. You must not know very much about bog standard corporate mouthpiece flavored Democrats.
Would this have been better than Trump?
Yes. Despite his extremely dubious public claims to want to end wars, he will obviously greenlight even more military aid to Israel, probably directly provoke Iran publically, either conduct or help the Israelis conduct a wave of air assaults on Iranian nuclear infrastructure, probably more than that.
Basically he'll demand all the stuff we've given to Ukraine back, give it to Israel, and heavily pressure if not outright demand Ukraine surrender by the end of April.
It's cool that these people who care so much about Gaza absolutely led to its annihilation by electing Trump. 🙄 Good job, shit piles.
Yes. It's a bit like interviewing for your boss's job while your boss still signs your checks. Your boss can still fire you or make your life miserable if you openly trash the job (s)he's doing.
People don't seem to understand that when you sign on to be someone's VP you sign on to support everything they do in public, even if you offer different advice in private. She's simply not in a position to call the shots, even if she thinks her boss is stupid. I have total confidence that in-office Harris would have made different decisions than on-campaign Harris.
Alaska.
Edit: Not to mention the fact that public statements by the VP that directly contradict the President could present very real national security risks and seriously undermine foreign policy and diplomacy.
I don't think people answering a question on AOC's Instagram account is a fair sampling of her constituents. Even though there are clearly idiots among her followers based on example responses, they're still going to be skewed toward voters who are more interested in politics on average.
This doesn't really tell us much.
Why the hell would you expect Harris to do a 180 on Israel once elected? Pure wishful thinking. If she won by toeing the party line, why would President Harris govern any differently? She could have gone maverick, knowing that there would be no time to replace her as the dem candidate, but the truth is she is perfectly happy with US policy towards Israel.
Does Gaza mean they liked it so much they wanted to see it on steroids?
Wishful thinking. Presidencies are always doing less than promised, never more.
Harris is an empty suit candidate. She has no consistent policy positions. She has never stuck her neck out for anything. Harris has ever won a presidential primary and lost to Andrew Yang (lmao).
She was selected behind closed doors, presumably by donors and horse trading with party insiders. She is exactly the kind of candidate you would expect from that: someone that caters to donors, punches left, tries to embrace "never Trumpers" as the main campaign strategy. Left policies are directly against donors' interests.
She is not your friend and not a good person, and is definitely not on your team. These people don't care about you and they don't care about things like whether they "insult their boss". Also, the president is not the boss of the VP, the VP can do whatever they want and the only consequences would be partu fallout. Distancing herself from Biden, both around the Democrats' embrace of genocide and the objective degradation in conditions due to a reduction in real wages, was the obvious way to actually try to win. And to be clear, as empty suits serving donor interests, ahe could have done both of those things in eords only and then done their bidding once in office. That is how beholden she is to donor interesrs: she couldn't even play the false promise game that every Dem uses to get elected.
Harris has only ever indicated unwavering support for the genocide and the the wider ethnosupremacist apartheid settler colony that is Israel. This is entirely consistent with being a vehicle for donor interests, who are all wrapped up in the petrodollar and investments in Israel. There is no reason to think there was some kind of plan to hurt her election chances by demotivating the base and to then do the popular thing once in office. The tendency is to do the exact opposite of that.
And if they convinced you to tolerate genocide for this, take a real hard look at yourself.
I am a huge AOC fan and always have been, but after this election, I'm not voting for women in the primaries. Tens of millions of people just made up excuses to stay home. The media will obsess over any flaw, whether it exists or not, and people will fixate on it.
Maybe AOC will be the first woman president, but it'll take America 20 years at least to change their tune on the issue.
I got the same vibe but it seems the ambiguity was a large enough liability.