Democrats Tuned Out Gaza Protests at the DNC. History Won’t Forget.
As Vice President Kamala Harris received the presidential nomination at the 2024 Democratic National Convention (DNC), thousands of people marched near the convention demanding an end to U.S. arms shipments to Israel and the war on Gaza. The protesters, led by Palestinian and Jewish activists, represented a diverse coalition including anti-war veterans, climate justice activists, and labor organizers. Despite efforts by Democrats to keep the Palestine issue sidelined, the marchers made their voices heard, declaring Harris and President Joe Biden complicit in the genocide in Gaza. The protesters came from communities and movements that are often considered part of the Democratic coalition, warning that their votes could not be taken for granted unless the party takes concrete action to end the occupation and devastation in Palestine. Organizers estimate around 30,000 people demonstrated in Chicago over the course of the week, making Palestine impossible to ignore during the convention. The activists drew connections between the struggle for Palestinian liberation and the fight against racist violence and state repression in the U.S., challenging the Democratic Party's complicity in both. The protests encountered a heavy police presence, with hundreds of riot police surrounding the march at all times. Despite the tension, the demonstration remained largely peaceful as the protesters demanded justice for Palestine. As Kamala Harris prepared to take the stage, the marchers continued their chants and songs, determined to keep the spotlight on the ongoing catastrophe in Gaza and the Democratic Party's failure to address it.
Sorry I don't feel represented by a political party that aids and abets genocide. Democrats have a chance to earn my vote and continue to squander it.
The logic is that if the party doesn't have an incentive to change then it won't.
Totally irrational. It's not about who represents you most, they aren't on the ballot. It's about which of the two represents you more than the other. What incentive does the party have to sabotage their races (AIPAC influence is real) to court an uninformed bloc that's unlikely to vote in the first place? Your abstinence is not incentive, no logic whatsoever.
I already know America is not a democracy, that's why I don't feel the need to vote in support of a corrupt system.
Depends, do they need our votes to win the election or not?
If they need our votes, they should start acting like they're trying to earn them.
If they don't think they need our votes, then they don't have to represent us. And since they don't represent us, we shouldn't vote for them.
It's perfectly logical, you just don't like the conclusion that the logic points towards, because it betrays the party leadership as being self-interested, cynical, and willing to aid and abet genocide to preserve their bloody campaign funding.
Do you... do you think that if enough people don't vote that the government will say "Shucks, guess we have to redo the election with better candidates"? If only one person in the whole country votes, they decide the winner. You gain absolutely nothing by not voting, all you're doing is shifting power to those who disagree with you the most. This is just plain idiotic.
They need enough votes. If they think pandering to your demographic will cost them other demographics, they will not pander to you. Despite your claims, America is a democratic republic, granted with it's own peculiarities in determining electoral votes. The candidate who wins the most votes wins the state. You will be left in the dust as irrelevant noise in the flood of people who know how to use their vote, and you will get zero representation. Congratulations.
Nope, there is no logic. It's based on nonsense feelings with no correspondence to the functional mechanism of our elections. Abstinence has no effect, and in fact will probably push the party farther right to scoop moderates because they actually vote. Congratulations.
I wish. A sane electoral system would declare a redo if the abstains win. No, I simply don't consider how other people will be voting to be a factor. I'll base my decision not on the promises they make, but the ones they have already fulfilled.
What I gain from not-voting is a clear conscience.
And if I'm the deciding vote in my solid-blue state then power has already shifted so far that my one vote won't hold it back for long.
The only idiotic part is how much time you're wasting trying to convince a disillusioned old anarchist to pick between the negative peace that is a false promise of a "reasonable" politician and an increasingly demented madman who stands out as the greatest living example for why the management of our lives can't be trusted to a political party.
Then they should stop pretending that they're on my side. They aren't "the left", they're liberals who can abide by genocide so long as it's happening somewhere else. Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds.
Make up your mind, is it "democratic" or does everyone's vote not count?
Of course, they were going to do that anyway, especially if we live in the good timeline where the Republican party collapses under the weight of its impending electoral failure. Democrats will keep triangulating towards the right to pick up the mythical "moderate" and become the new right-wing party while some new group starts to pick up the pieces on the Left. Probably the greens.
Not sure what promises the Harris administration have fulfilled, since it hasn't existed yet.
That might be a point if I was trying to convince a disillusioned old anarchist. What I'm actually doing is publicly debunking your public nonsense so that impressionable onlookers in swing states don't try to emulate that nonsense.
Votes count. Non-votes don't. There is no conflict in logic here.
All the more reason to entice them further left now so that the future landscape, in the good timeline, rests further left. I'm all for that future, and want it to start off as far left as possible.
And how, precisely, is a promise that they don't have to move further left to earn your vote supposed to entice them into anything?
A party with a comfortable margin can embrace less centrist policies when their voters ask for them (write to your representatives everyone). A party with an uncertain margin has to calculate their platform to target the largest demographics. Using your vote + using your voice = representation.
How, precisely, does a promise that you won't vote for them unless they alienate a larger demographic entice them into anything?
They must have a very comfortable margin if they can ignore the majority of Americans and instead embrace less centrist policies like helping Israel bomb schools and hospitals.
You should be happy, you can safely ignore my vote and my voice because the Democrats will be winning this election regardless.
The segment of Americans that oppose genocide are the majority, the smaller group that the Democrats are trying not to alienate is AIPAC. The only things that could entice them to change are an even larger quantity of campaign financing, or electoral consequences.
Unfortunately, I don't think that's the majority. I think the majority either support Israel without really thinking about it, or don't care.
Your vote I can ignore, your voice muddying the water for other impressionable voters I cannot
Unfortunately, I don't think you know what you're talking about. Polls show an overwhelming majority of Democrats disapprove of Israel's military adventurism in Gaza:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/642695/majority-disapprove-israeli-action-gaza.aspx
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/08/kamala-harris-dnc-israel-palestine-polls-voters-ceasefire-arms.html
Of poll respondents. There's a large overlap between people who don't care, and people who don't answer polls. And oh yeah, Harris has been calling for a ceasefire
And disregarding AIPAC is stupid. Picking up the single issue voters by overtly pissing off AIPAC during the election will unleash a multimillion dollar ad campaign. Look at what happened to the squad.
There's no good reason to do that now. A smart candidate would stay relatively quiet until the election, and then go full bore on the offensive. Especially since, y'know, the vice president doesn't even have authority here so it's stupid to blame it on her. Especially when the other candidate is actively sabotaging ceasefire negotiations.
There's just no logic here.
"Of voters. There's a large overlap between people who don't care and people who don't vote."
If you're going to argue that polling isn't an effective means of determining public sentiment then you probably shouldn't pretend to care about voting.
Wake me up when there's some action behind those words.
Indeed, look at what this foreign influence campaign did to our precious American democracy. But hey, we're not ready to talk about it because the parties want to have their cake and eat it too.
You said "smart" but you appear to have meant "complicit".
Since when did they abolish the bully pulpit? A lack of authority only means she couldn't change national policy unilaterally, it doesn't mean she can't actively work against arms deals and for an embargo.
Thus, the obvious move is to make the ceasefire negotiations a fait accompli by refusing to reload the aggressor's weapons. Even Trump can't sabotage a ceasefire if there's no fire left to be ceased.
Agreed!