#Dissatisfied with Biden

[vamptastic]

Genuinely what is wrong with this website that nobody understands what a third party is and that voting third party isn't the same as abstaining from voting

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Working class Dems who campaign on economics beat Trumpists in elections

I'm on tour with my new, nationally bestselling novel The Bezzle! Catch me FRIDAY NIGHT (Mar 22) in TORONTO, then SUNDAY (Mar 24) with LAURA POITRAS in NYC, then Anaheim, and more!

The Democratic Party Pizzaburger Theory of Electioneering is: half the electorate wants a pizza, the other half wants a burger, so we'll give them all a pizzaburger and make them all equally dissatisfied, thus winning the election:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/06/16/that-boy-aint-right/#dinos-rinos-and-dunnos

But no one wants a pizzaburger. The Biden administration's approach of letting the Warren/Sanders wing pick the antitrust enforcers while keeping judicial appointments in the Manchin-Synematic universe is a catastrophe in which progressive Dem regulators (who serve one term) are thwarted by corporatist Dem judges (who serve for life):

https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/14/making-good-trouble/#the-peoples-champion

The Democrats – like all parties in two-party systems – are a coalition; in this case, a "progressive" liberal-left coalition with liberals serving as senior partners, steering the party and setting its policies. These corporate dems like to color themselves as "neutral" technocrats with "realistic, apolitical" policies that represent what's best for the country:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/05/not-that-naomi/#if-the-naomi-be-klein-youre-doing-just-fine

This sets up the left wing of the party as the starry-eyed, unrealistic radicals whose policies are unpopular and will lose elections. But for a decade, grassroots-funded primary challenges have made it possible to test this theory, by putting leftist politicians on the ballot in front of voters, especially in tight races with far-right Republicans (that is, exactly the kinds of races that the corporate wing of the party says we can't afford to take chances on).

The 2022 midterms included enough races to start testing these theories – and, unlike traditional midterms, these races enjoyed high voter turnout, thanks to the unpopularity of GOP positions like abortion bans, book bans and anti-trans laws. Jacobin teamed up with the Center for Working-Class Politics, Yougov and the Center for Work and Democracy at ASU and analyzed those races:

https://images.jacobinmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/11134429/CWCP-Report-2024.pdf

Their conclusion: candidates from working-class backgrounds who campaigned on economic policies like high-quality jobs, higher minimum wages, a jobs guarantee, ending offshoring and outsourcing, building infrastructure and bringing manufacturing back to the US won with a 50% share of the vote in rural and working-class districts. Dems who didn't lost with a 35% share of the vote:

https://prospect.org/politics/2024-03-18-how-actually-existing-democrats-run-for-office/

In other words, in the kinds of districts where Trumpist politicians are beating Democrats, running on "left populist" policies beats Trumpist politicians.

That's the good news: if Dems recruit leftist, working class politicians and put them up for office on policies that address the material reality of voters' lives, they can beat fascist GOP candidates.

Now for the bad news: the Democratic establishment has no interest in getting these candidates onto the ballot. Working-class candidates, by definition, lack the networks of deep-pocketed cronies who can fund their primary campaigns. Only 2.3% of Dem candidates come from blue-collar backgrounds (if you include "pink-collar" professions like nursing and teaching, the number goes up to 5.9%):

https://jacobin.com/2024/03/left-populists-working-class-voters

All of this confirms the findings of Trump's Kryoptonite, an earlier Jacobin/CWCP research project that polled working-class voters on preferences for hypothetical candidates, finding that working-class candidates with economically progressive policies handily beat out Republicans, including MAGA Republicans:

https://images.jacobinmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/08125102/TrumpsKryptonite_Final_June2023.pdf

Since the Clinton-Blair years, "progressives" have abandoned economic populism ("It's not a burning ambition for me to make sure that David Beckham earns less money" -T. Blair) and pursued a "third way" that seeks to replace half the world's of supply white, male oligarchs with diverse oligarchs from a variety of backgrounds and genders. We were told that this was done in the name of winning elections with "modern" policies that replaced old-fashioned ideas about decent pay, decent jobs, and worker power.

These policies have delivered a genocide-riven world on the brink of several kinds of existential catastrophe. They're a failure. The pizzaburger party didn't deliver safety, nor prosperity – and it also can't deliver elections.

Name your price for 18 of my DRM-free ebooks and support the Electronic Frontier Foundation with the Humble Cory Doctorow Bundle.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/03/20/actual-material-conditions/#bread-and-butter

[nothorses]

May I ask why you think Biden stepping down and Kamala being the candidate to be 'good news'? I'm still voting for whoever the Democratic candidate is ofc, but I worry this move threw away the average swingvoter who may have been swayed towards voting blue. I don't see how anyone who may have been okay voting for Biden by virtue of him being an old white dude is gonna be as nice towards a brown woman. I mean, people were too sexist for Hillary, the most milquetoast white woman imaginable. I'd really like to hear your perspective.

Biden has been polling like shit for months, and basically fucking everyone has been calling for him to step out of the race for a while now. It's been the opinion of political experts that he doesn't have much of a shot in this election for a variety of reasons. The vast majority of his own base is incredibly dissatisfied with his stance on Palestine (an understatement), and numbers have been reflecting that he was going to be running against some truly miserable odds because of that.

It is genuinely the best option for him to step out of the race. Literally just about anyone else has a much better shot at winning than Biden did. Kamala included! There was a press conference a while back where someone actually asked him if he'd step down if Kamala polled better, and he said he wouldn't. Which is extremely worrying, because it demonstrates that he may have been prioritizing his own personal ego over the importance of keeping Republicans out of office this election.

I don't like Biden, and I really didn't like his odds in this race. Nobody else did, either. The fact that Obama came out and said Biden needs to step down is indication enough that this happened because the situation is really that dire; you have to remember that Democrats are all about Doing Things By The Book, especially in the last 8-ish years when it's been useful for them to be Rule Followers in contrast to the tantrum-throwing chaos machines that Republicans have been. If there was even a sliver of hope for Biden to stay in the race after being chosen in the sad sham that the primaries were this election cycle, they would have kept pushing just to stay within the bounds of convention.

I was ready to push for Biden regardless, because keeping Republicans out of office is priority #1. But I've been saying for a while now that he needs to drop out (just... not on Tumblr, where the dominant conversation is "does voting for a flawed political pawn make you personally responsible for everything they ever do, or should we abstain and let the fascists hijack our government and kickstart several new genocides for the sake of personal moral purity" and I don't think that kind of nuance would be well-received).

I use my grandparents as a litmus test in a lot of this stuff, because they are very much the Typical Liberal Democrats, and their opinions on these things tend to fall in line with the majority of voting Democrats. They absolutely loved Biden in 2020, long before he was chosen as the candidate. They don't anymore. Seeing them lose any and all enthusiasm for voting for this corpse of a man was evidence enough to me that we needed someone else. Ideally someone people can get excited about, because I think folks have mostly lost the perspective we had in 2020 when Trump's nightmarish presidency was fresh in everyone's minds, and served as motivation enough to get to the fucking polls- regardless of who the Dem pick actually was.

From what I understand, Kamala is actually polling better than anyone else right now. I have my fears about voters' racism and misogyny too, but if she's doing well in the polls, I wonder if maybe there's some other factors counteracting that. She's also got name recognition, and the general impression of Being Qualified (because she's been VP already, like Biden was), and Being Likeable (because she comes with the general positive associations of the largely successful Biden presidency, without any baggage of perceived responsibility that Biden himself carries- like Biden did with Obama). She's been flying under the radar while still reaping the benefits of positive associations, and people know who she is. That feels like a good combination, but I don't know enough, and I haven't read enough into it to make any decently educated guesses.

That said, I don't really know as much about who the other potential candidates might be, either. I've heard Pete Buttigieg's name tossed around, but nobody liked his ass back in 2020 and idk if that's actually changed at all. I just know that every politically-knowledgeable/politically-active leftist whose opinion I've heard on the topic has been citing Biden dropping out as the literal only hope for a non-Republican to win this election, and I'm really fucking excited to see that come to fruition. I just hope the Dems pick someone who really does have a good shot.

As a sidenote, I also really hope this marks a shift in how they make decisions, too. It's become increasingly obvious how out-of-touch Democrats are with their voters, and Biden 2024 was just the latest and greatest indicator of exactly how bad that's gotten. The fact that the party has been able to make such an unconventional decision in response to what their voters actually want gives me a little bit of hope that we might be able to influence more change with them going forward than we have been.

[ceilidhtransing]

As someone from the UK I'm stunned that there are still people talking about “boycotting” the [US presidential] election in order to “send a message”. No one in politics actually interprets low turnout as some kind of message and that's pretty obvious from the general election we just had over here.

We had crashingly low voter turnout, at 59.9% - down 7.4 percentage points since the last one. But it's worse than that makes it look: 59.9% is just the percentage of actually registered voters who turned up; the proportion of total UK adults who voted was 52%, the lowest since 1928.

Yet Labour still took a massive victory (with fewer votes than in both 2019 and 2017). There has been a little mention in the media of the extremely low turnout, but overall the Story Of This Election as it's being presented by both the media and politicians is not “wow, looks like half the British adult population wanted to send a message that they were dissatisfied with the options” but rather “what an incredible Labour landslide”.

And the fact that Labour won power despite only 52% of adults actually voting is not going to affect the way they run things. They're not going to water down their plans, they're not going to say they have a smaller mandate, they're not going to try to work with smaller parties who took votes from them, they're certainly not going to “move left” to try to scoop up lefties who are decidedly unenthusiastic about the current state of the Labour Party (in fact, if anything they're likely to move even further to the right to try to attract voters who went to the far-right Reform UK). Staying at home and not voting has not “sent anyone a message”. The attitude of politicians towards non-voters is overwhelmingly “why bother trying to appeal to people who aren't inclined to use their political voice”, not “wow we need to enact change right now in order to appeal to people who feel unheard and disenfranchised”. Non-voters are assumed to be apathetic uninterested people who couldn't be bothered voting, not a bloc of highly motivated people with strong views who are refusing to vote in order to make a point. And I'm not saying this is a good thing! Ideally politicians would try to connect with people who don't feel politically represented, especially since non-voters are more likely to be marginalised in some way*. But that's the state of affairs we have. The inaction of not voting is not treated as some special kind of protest action; it's just treated as inaction.

*In this election, turnout was 7% lower in constituencies with the highest proportion of BME people, compared with the lowest, and 10% lower in constituencies with the highest proportion of Muslims, compared with the lowest. Compare this with turnout being 11% higher in constituencies with the highest proportion of >64-year-olds and 13% higher in constituencies with the highest proportion of homeowners.

Trump cannot be allowed to get into power again. And I know that Americans have the horrible quandary of “well how on earth are we supposed to communicate to Democrats that we don't like what they're offering other than not voting for them”. This is one of the many flaws with the US electoral system; it's a simple two-horse race and there's no realistic way to send a message that actually you don't like either option without just making it more likely that the candidate you most hate will win. It's not a great situation to be in, especially since there are very valid reasons not to like Biden and not exactly be hyped to vote for him. But oh my god NOW is not the time to be trying to “send Democrats a message” by not voting (or voting third party). You won't be sending anything and you'll just be handing Trump a second term because that is, very unfortunately, how it works. The best-case scenario of a Trump second term is “merely” an intensification of violence towards people of colour, crackdowns on LGBTQ rights, the further stripping away of reproductive freedoms, heinous crimes at the border and towards migrants and undocumented people, dangerous and apeshit foreign policy that will further endanger vulnerable oppressed groups everywhere, the emboldening of fascism and Christian nationalism not only across America but across the entire world, the list goes on. The worst-case scenario is the straight-up end of the last vestiges of representative democracy the US still has. None of this is a price worth paying in order to “send Democrats a message” and “move them to the left”. And I would feel the same way if Reform UK - a party whose supporters talk about wanting to gun down asylum seekers in the sea - were at the gates of power and the only realistic way to stop them was to vote for the current deeply flawed incarnation of the Labour Party. Some prices are too high.

(And I've seen a few people seem to embrace the notion of a Trump second term with the idea that “then we'll just form the antifascist resistance”. Trust me, you don't want to have to become “the resistance” to a fascist state. That is a last resort. So many people will die if it gets to the point where Trump or some other far-right ghoul is a dictator presiding over an authoritarian one-party state. This stance of “bring on the fascist nightmare so then we can be The Resistance” feels like it comes from people who get their idea of political action from Star Wars rather than from those familiar with the harrowing stories of real-life historical antifascist resistance. It's not hanging out at the secret HQ with your friends and blowing stuff up and having fun; it's being thrown in a camp and executed.)

It's good to want the Democrats to move left, to want to tell them that you're dissatisfied with Biden as a candidate, to want to let them know that you're profoundly furious with their handling of Gaza. But the way the system is set up means that “not voting” is not sending a message at all; it's just handing a victory to their opponents. And again: some prices are too high.

[racefortheironthrone]

Sorry this is a silly question, but when US elections are around the corner I always see posts about like it’s either Trump or Biden and nothing else. Now I’m aware of the two-parties system, but I’ve also read there are other smaller parties as well. I guess I’m really baffled with how it always ends up with the same two people competing when the public seems generally dissatisfied with both. Aren’t they able to vote let’s say greens instead of democrats or republics? Or aren’t they able to vote for democratic leader A instead of B? (both in practice and theory). Again sorry if it’s a silly question, but I come from a country where the game is always in between 3-5 parties so I’m like ??? with America.

I mean, you've kind of answered your own question: the United States is a federal, presidential political system that uses first-past-the-post to run its elections and doesn't usually allow for electoral fusion. (With a very few exceptions.) In that context, a two-party system is the only logical method for doing electoral politics.

But even if a left-wing party or (let's be honest) it's way more likely to be a right-wing party, given that right-wing third parties have been far more successful in American political history (relatively speaking) did well in the polls and had a totally level playing field in terms of ballot access, campaign finance, etc. I still don't think people would actually prefer them to the main political parties.

Most third parties are not very popular, even among people supposedly of similar ideological views. Most supposedly left-wing third parties (cough cough Greens cough cough) are disliked by the main demographic constituencies they would need to win over in order to win elections. Likewise, lots of conservatives dislike the Libertarians because they like the idea of using the government to impose their views on their enemies, and they're not that big of a fan of a bunch of "woke capitalists" with disturbing ideas about age of consent laws. And so forth.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Next week, for the third time in eight years, Donald Trump will be nominated as the Republican Party’s candidate for president of the United States. A once great political party now serves the interests of one man, a man as demonstrably unsuited for the office of president as any to run in the long history of the Republic, a man whose values, temperament, ideas and language are directly opposed to so much of what has made this country great.

It is a chilling choice against this national moment. For more than two decades, large majorities of Americans have said they are dissatisfied with the direction of the country, and the post-Covid era of stubborn inflation, high interest rates, social division and political stagnation has left many voters even more frustrated and despondent.

The Republican Party once pursued electoral power in service to solutions for such problems, to building “the shining city on a hill,” as Ronald Reagan liked to say. Its vision of the United States — embodied in principled public servants like George H.W. Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romney — was rooted in the values of freedom, sacrifice, individual responsibility and the common good. The party’s conception of those values was reflected in its longstanding conservative policy agenda, and today many Republicans set aside their concerns about Mr. Trump because of his positions on immigration, trade and taxes. But the stakes of this election are not fundamentally about policy disagreements. The stakes are more foundational: what qualities matter most in America’s president and commander in chief.

Mr. Trump has shown a character unworthy of the responsibilities of the presidency. He has demonstrated an utter lack of respect for the Constitution, the rule of law and the American people. Instead of a cogent vision for the country’s future, Mr. Trump is animated by a thirst for political power: to use the levers of government to advance his interests, satisfy his impulses and exact retribution against those who he thinks have wronged him.

He is, quite simply, unfit to lead.

The Democrats are rightly engaged in their own debate about whether President Biden is the right person to carry the party’s nomination into the election, given widespread concerns among voters about his age-related fitness. This debate is so intense because of legitimate concerns that Mr. Trump may present a danger to the country, its strength, security and national character — and that a compelling Democratic alternative is the only thing that would prevent his return to power. It is a national tragedy that the Republicans have failed to have a similar debate about the manifest moral and temperamental unfitness of their standard-bearer, instead setting aside their longstanding values, closing ranks and choosing to overlook what those who worked most closely with the former president have described as his systematic dishonesty, corruption, cruelty and incompetence.

That task now falls to the American people. We urge voters to see the dangers of a second Trump term clearly and to reject it. The stakes and significance of the presidency demand a person who has essential qualities and values to earn our trust, and on each one, Donald Trump fails.

[See Also Lucian Truscott : [New York Times editorial on Trump is weak, lame, pathetic, and belated]

[queen-boudicca]

A heads up to my fellow americans on here that the democratic primaries in many states have an "uncommitted delegates" option that you can choose instead of Biden, and it's being used as a way to show the administration your opposition to the genocide in Palestine rn.

It's an excellent form of protest vote: it doesn't materially hand anything to Republicans, but it does make the Democrats fully fucking aware that a very large portion of their base is very dissatisfied, and may not vote for them in the future.

In Michigan, the "uncommitted delegates" got about 13% of the vote (as of rn, with not all precincts reporting) and it was such a big deal the Washington Post reported on it in the same headline as Biden's win, so it really does make a big fucking statement. If your state's primary is coming up and you're reluctant to vote for genocide Joe, I encourage you to, rather than sitting this one out, go to the polls and make your voice heard.

[catdotjpeg]

Vice President Kamala Harris’ push to rally voters in San José around support for reproductive rights ran headlong into protests Monday, demanding an immediate cease-fire in the Israel-Hamas War in Gaza.

At times, protest chants of “cease-fire now” broke out during the rally, interrupting Harris’ speech at least four times. Outside, dozens of protesters lined up along King Road and Alum Rock Avenue, waving signs outside Mexican Heritage Plaza.

[...]

The colliding forces at the Harris rally exposed a key election year challenge for Democrats: many of the younger, progressive voters who the party hopes to win over with a platform of protecting abortion rights are deeply dissatisfied with the Biden administration’s support of Israel.

Holding signs and banners bearing “Free Palestine” and “End U.S. Aid to Israel,” members from the Council on American-Islamic Relations joined a coalition of multi-faith, multiracial organizations with other supporters to demand a permanent cease-fire in Gaza. Allie Felker said she was invited to the Harris event for her work advocating for prenatal care to prevent stillbirths.

But less than three minutes into Harris’ on-stage conversation with actress and activist Sophia Bush, Felker stood up and joined in calls for a cease-fire. Felker told KQED she was motivated by the risks to pregnant women caused by the Israeli invasion. “I can’t come here and advocate for reproductive justice without also standing with Palestine, standing with the women and children of Gaza and saying that the reproductive justice we’re seeking in this country needs to also be equated with what’s happening in Gaza,” Felker told KQED.

[...]

...The ongoing war in Gaza has proven costly to the Biden administration among young voters. A Gallup poll from December found that 50% of Americans under 35 believe the U.S. is giving “too much” support to Israel — compared to 21% who believe the country is lending “too little” support to Israel. “So long as President Biden and Vice President Harris ignore that call [for a cease-fire], they are complicit in genocide, but they are also demonstrating their disconnect with the electorate,” said Zahra Billoo, executive director of CAIR’s San Francisco Bay Area office.

-- From "Protesters Demand Permanent Cease-Fire, Interrupting VP Harris' Stop in San José" by Guy Marzorati, 29 Jan 2024

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Both the New York Times and LA Times released editorials correctly labeling Donald Trump unfit to lead

New York Times editorial (07.11.2024):

Next week, for the third time in eight years, Donald Trump will be nominated as the Republican Party’s candidate for president of the United States. A once great political party now serves the interests of one man, a man as demonstrably unsuited for the office of president as any to run in the long history of the Republic, a man whose values, temperament, ideas and language are directly opposed to so much of what has made this country great. It is a chilling choice against this national moment. For more than two decades, large majorities of Americans have said they are dissatisfied with the direction of the country, and the post-Covid era of stubborn inflation, high interest rates, social division and political stagnation has left many voters even more frustrated and despondent.

The Republican Party once pursued electoral power in service to solutions for such problems, to building “the shining city on a hill,” as Ronald Reagan liked to say. Its vision of the United States — embodied in principled public servants like George H.W. Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romney — was rooted in the values of freedom, sacrifice, individual responsibility and the common good. The party’s conception of those values was reflected in its longstanding conservative policy agenda, and today many Republicans set aside their concerns about Mr. Trump because of his positions on immigration, trade and taxes. But the stakes of this election are not fundamentally about policy disagreements. The stakes are more foundational: what qualities matter most in America’s president and commander in chief.

Mr. Trump has shown a character unworthy of the responsibilities of the presidency. He has demonstrated an utter lack of respect for the Constitution, the rule of law and the American people. Instead of a cogent vision for the country’s future, Mr. Trump is animated by a thirst for political power: to use the levers of government to advance his interests, satisfy his impulses and exact retribution against those who he thinks have wronged him. He is, quite simply, unfit to lead.

The Democrats are rightly engaged in their own debate about whether President Biden is the right person to carry the party’s nomination into the election, given widespread concerns among voters about his age-related fitness. This debate is so intense because of legitimate concerns that Mr. Trump may present a danger to the country, its strength, security and national character — and that a compelling Democratic alternative is the only thing that would prevent his return to power. It is a national tragedy that the Republicans have failed to have a similar debate about the manifest moral and temperamental unfitness of their standard-bearer, instead setting aside their longstanding values, closing ranks and choosing to overlook what those who worked most closely with the former president have described as his systematic dishonesty, corruption, cruelty and incompetence. That task now falls to the American people. We urge voters to see the dangers of a second Trump term clearly and to reject it. The stakes and significance of the presidency demand a person who has essential qualities and values to earn our trust, and on each one, Donald Trump fails.

Los Angeles Times editorial (07.11.2024):

Democrats are in crisis at the moment, divided over whether President Biden should stay in the race after his disastrous debate last month or clear the way for another, younger candidate. Biden’s shaky performance raised concerns about whether he can win in November, and prompted calls from prominent Democrats, columnists and others for him to step aside. It’s up to the Democratic Party to sort this out. But it’s time to refocus attention on the only candidate in the race who is patently unfit for office — any office — and an imminent threat to democracy: Donald Trump. It’s unbelievable that the nation is spending so much time on the question of Biden’s verbal acuity, when the greatest concern ought to be that his challenger is a self-aggrandizing felon and twice-impeached election-denier. Trump fomented the Jan. 6 insurrection, shows contempt for the rule of law and shamelessly lies in pursuit of more power. He’s an authoritarian who admires murderous despots, wants to jail his political enemies and has publicly flirted with declaring himself a dictator on his first day back in office.

[...] Trump is the only man in the presidential race manifestly unworthy of holding a position of power, and has no business ever returning to the White House. If the GOP had any decency left, its members would be discussing whether to dump Trump for a candidate who isn’t out to bulldoze democratic institutions in favor of autocracy. Voters should resist viewing this contest through the politics-as-usual lens of past elections. This November is not about dueling personalities, middle-of-the-road policy differences, or as some might see it, an 81-year-old man being the lesser of two evils compared with a 78-year-old man. It’s nothing short of a referendum on our 248-year democracy, and a choice between a trustworthy public servant who upholds American values and a serial liar who wants to push the country into authoritarianism.

Both the New York Times and the LA Times have released editorials rightly declaring the cognitively-challenged insurrection-inciting 34x convicted felon Donald Trump unfit to lead the nation for a 2nd term.

Vote for Joe Biden (or Kamala Harris if she is the nominee) to stop the Orange Fascist from regaining the Presidency!

[nodynasty4us]

Trump doesn't really have to do anything if he's elected president in order to satisfy his voters -- just being elected, fairly or otherwise, spites us. Everything he does to us, or to people whose lives we think should be made better, is satisfying spite, even if a court rolls it back. And he doesn't have to do any of the big things on his agenda if small, easy things make us angry. This isn't purely a Trump phenomenon. Nearly every Republican makes owning the libs a priority, and lib-owning alone can make a Republican politician seem like a success in office. Whereas Joe Biden looks like a failure if his supporters are in any way dissatisfied with the economy, the war in Gaza, the degree of homeless or crime in America.... In other words, it's much easier to be a Republican politician, as long as you concentrate on spite.

No More Mister Nice Blog: ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL JUSTICE ARE HARD. SPITE IS EASY.

[sevenoctober7]

In Rafah.. The end of Netanyahu and the defeat of the entity. Israel has never fought a war and suffered strategic defeats, as it happened in its war on Gaza. Its leaders are war criminals, its army fears rebellion, support for the West has turned into isolation, countries compete to recognize Palestine, universities distance themselves, student voices rise in support of Gaza, and most importantly, the Jewish consensus on Israel has been broken, and opposing voices have risen among youth and women. Netanyahu is walking determinedly towards his death, and believes that he can continue his war without caring about the world’s anger and protests, and whenever he faces a crisis, he takes a step towards a miserable end. He has no plan for war, no solution to the crises of his entity, and no answers for the families of the prisoners, and his army has lost half of its mechanisms, between partial and total destruction. And its economy is declining, despite the support of America and the West. He wants to resolve the battle by any means, but Gaza has turned into a war of attrition, hunting its soldiers like lost ducks, and choosing its targets with monitoring and planning, and it still has the upper hand in the field, despite the oppression of the occupation and its revenge on children and civilians. According to the context, Netanyahu is isolated. Within a week, members of his war council will leave. Most European countries are dissatisfied and consider that Israel lost the war and must acknowledge it. Washington is reviewing its calculations. The Biden administration is on the verge of losing the elections before they begin. International bodies have raised their voices denouncing the occupation and demanding its trial. Rafah is the rock that will fall on Netanyahu's head, make him fall, and end his political life with a miserable failure, horrific crimes, and a dark end in a prison that has been waiting for him for a while.

[spitblaze]

sorry idk what all that was about. sometimes you just see shit that really sticks in ur craw. like ppl saying biden is the most progressive president we've ever had for. [checks notes] standing with some people in a picket for an hour a few months after fucking over railroad workers and saying that ppl who disagree or are any sort of dissatisfied are discouraging people from voting, somehow

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Biden will but a firebreathing trustbuster like Lina Khan in charge of the FTC, but he’ll also life-appoint federal judges like Jacqueline Scott Corley, who will seize on any flimsy excuse to confound Khan’s attempts to protect the American people from predatory monopolies.

Most of Biden’s coalition wants pizza, but a powerful group of insiders wants hamburgers. Biden’s given us all a pizzaburger, and he views the fact that we are all equally dissatisfied with his solution as evidence that he’s struck a Solomonic compromise.The country is on fire. It’s baking. It’s drowning. We’re running out of time. Republican bosses don’t want the same thing as their base, but they’re delivering it anyway, because that base has jettisoned “my party right or wrong,” in favor of “we’d rather blow this whole thing up than back someone who sells us out.”

The Democrats have started to fear their base — a little. But they still mostly hate us. Until and unless they know that they have to earn our support, the best we can hope for is pizzaburgers — heavy on the burger.

- The Right's Hardliners Would Rather Lose Elections Than Culture Wars: and the finance wing knows it

[bulletsandbracelets]

If you want to protest Biden running, do it like they did it in Michigan. Seriously.

Voice your dissatisfaction in the primary.

This is entirely different than simply threatening not to vote in the General. When you vote for someone other than Biden in the primary, you are showing something extremely important: that you are an active democratic voter who is dissatisfied.

The Democratic Party doesn’t care about random twitter users whose affiliations they don’t know. Those people could be non voters every year. They could be republicans trying to sow chaos in the social media sphere. There’s no reason for them to really pay attention.

But active democrats voting in a primary and voting like Michigan did? Actually makes a statement. Actually means they might pay attention.

As the primaries keep going, do more of it please.

[cheesey-rice]

What does the post-DNC future look like for the Uncommitted movement?

After unsuccessfully lobbying to place a representative on the Democratic National Convention stage, where does the staunchly anti-Gaza war group go from here?

By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US published 28 August 2024

Article text:

If Georgia State Rep. Ruwa Romman (D) had taken the stage during last week's Democratic National Convention, she would have used her time at the speaker's rostrum to call for her party to "commit to each other, to electing Vice President Harris and defeating Donald Trump who uses my identity as a Palestinian as a slur." Had she been allowed to address the convention floor, Romman, the first Palestinian American elected to public office in Georgia, would have become the first Palestinian to ever address the DNC — an honor she would have mentioned directly, according to a transcript of her planned remarks obtained by Mother Jones. 

Instead, after lengthy negotiations with party officials, the DNC chose not to allow Romman to address the crowds within Chicago's United Center, prompting the progressive Uncommitted movement that was pushing for her speech to stage a high-profile sit-in protest outside the convention space. 

The episode represented one of the few points of genuine tension during a national convention characterized largely by a sense of unity and enthusiasm for presidential nominee Kamala Harris. Moreover, it was a sign that the Uncommitted activists who withheld their support for Joe Biden in the Democratic primaries over American backing of Israel's war in Gaza remain vocally dissatisfied with the party establishment, even in the general election phase of the 2024 race. 

With November fast approaching, and the violence across Gaza showing little sign of slowing, what options and opportunities do the Uncommitted activists have moving toward Election Day? 

What did the commentators say? 

The fallout from the DNC's decision to sideline Uncommitted voices is "spreading beyond activists at the convention," Politico said, with the "potential to undo inroads made by the Harris campaign among voters who believed she would take a harder line against Israel if elected president."

"We'll roll with the punches, we're good organizers," Uncommitted movement co-founder Abbas Alawieh said to CNN. One of the "loudest applause lines" in Harris' DNC speech was a call for a cease-fire and the rights of Palestinians to live with "dignity" and "self-determination," said Romman to CNN. The problem is that "saying things is important," but the Uncommitted movement wants "specific policies that will create the things we are hoping for." To that end, the group has pledged on its website to move past the DNC by "keeping our anti-war voters engaged through November to save lives, fight fascism and strengthen our democracy."

That Harris used her nomination acceptance speech "with more than 26 million watching from home, to issue a forceful call for Palestinian human rights was actually remarkable," said Rolling Stone. It could be argued that "taking up the call for Palestinian freedom and self-determination is a bigger coup than a brief speaking slot of the kind the Uncommitted delegates were seeking." While the Uncommitted movement was unable to secure a speaker, group leaders "cast their work at the convention as a success," The Guardian said. Uncommitted's impact was still undeniable, as "numerous delegates, including older Black and white delegates from as far-flung as Texas, were spotted wearing keffiyehs in clear support of the pro-Palestinian movement," The Independent said. Still, there is "little sign that the Democratic Party wants to kill the vibe shift as they hope for a Harris victory." 

What next? 

Uncommitted movement leaders have "been asking for a meeting with Vice President Harris. We formally requested that that meeting happen before September 15," Alawieh said to NPR. "She and her team know how to reach us." 

Although much of Harris' rhetoric "continue[s] to be empty," Uncommitted Washington State DNC delegate Yaz Kader said at Rolling Stone, "The positive thing is when she did talk about Gaza, the roar from the delegates in support was palpable." Nevertheless, Kader said, until Harris "can make that change" from words to action, "I'm still uncommitted."

[gender-void-partially-stars]

if you cant bring yourself to vote for biden thats fine i get it. but if youre debating if you should then whats the disadvantage. you can do all the same protesting and boycotting you would do otherwise and also vote.

if you dont want to vote though i suggest you go out to voting places and spoil your ballot in some manner. in that way politicians can tell you are dissatisfied with them and your lack of a proper vote isnt put up to voter apathy