news 2024 US Election Megathread 🇺🇸🏛️

[dman4life]

Anyone have any insight on what her plans are moving forward after the convention? I think she really needs to find a way to reach out to straight black men. 

[MAKSIM]

I'm confused why anyone would think an uncommitted representative would get a speaking slot. She's not supporting an arms embargo, and that is why they are staying uncommitted. 

 

 

[ClashAndBurn]

Personally I agree more with Kate than Emma here. There is no reason to believe Kamala is going to serve anything other than Biden 2.0. She's more than willing to lie for votes. After all, she's a prosecutor who fought to keep people in jail so that California would have firefighters that they didn't have to pay.

[Hex]

13 minutes ago, dman4life said:

Anyone have any insight on what her plans are moving forward after the convention? I think she really needs to find a way to reach out to straight black men. 

I think if she wants to do that, she needs to really focus on how her economic policy will improve the lives of black Americans and focus less on the social stuff (which usually unfortunately is seen as a threat to many straight black men's toxic masculinity).

[Relampago.]

7 hours ago, Vermillion said:

I've been consistent in saying that remaining Dobbs enthusiasm and increased youth and black turnout from the Kamala switch will not be enough to make up for the Arab-American drop-off in Michigan. This decision today ensures that dynamic holds. I do think she ultimately loses the state as a result.

Exactly, I don't know why people feel so

comfortable with Michigan. Cross tabs and polling is showing Trump having higher favorability and polling, while Kamala has less than Biden did in 2020 with groups she needs to win.

 

Literally every vote counts, and while I do think many Arab Americans weren't going to stay home just cause of Biden's position on Gaza, the flat out rejection of the Uncommitted movement is so callous and careless I can see it really turning some voters off and that WILL cause Michigan to be dangerously close and ultimately slip out of Kamala's grip.

 

Sure.. we can try to pick up AZ in that case to make up for it, but why even bet on that when Michigan is likely more reliable if you just… do the right thing??

[Sannie]

5 hours ago, SlayianaGrenade said:

Every time I see some asinine comment about Michigan it only proves to me that leftist truly live in a delusional echo chamber. All of Dearborn could sit out this election( which won't happen btw, a lot of Muslims in the real world are voting for her) and Kamala would still win because she's going after the part of the electorate that she needs to win. As someone who works at the grassroots level canvassing, the uncommitted movement is not picking up steam here. The DNC protests that a lot of you fear mongered about did zero damage. Not a single one of you know what real revolution and protest is like and it drives me insane to read such awful takes in here. 

And considering how much of a bust the DNC protests have been, is this movement as big as leftists want us to believe?  Turns out all the white leftists who have made Palestine their personality were not dedicated enough to show up to Chicago.

 

4 hours ago, eyeroll said:

Miscellaneous 3am insomnia thoughts:

 

— I don't buy the notion that an uncommitted voice would be an off-script risk when the DNC microphone is getting passed around like a fleshlight to 'former' republicans and Trump supporters who pose a similar threat. I feel like Trump would encourage, glorify, and probably even pay someone to be a double agent like that.

 

— I try to live life with no expectations because A) I don't get disappointed as much, and B) it's the only way I experience mildly exhilarating blips of organic joy in adult life. With that, I've been surprised multiple times now by Kamala's fast responses/pivots/recoveries, as small as they've been. So, sans expectations, it would be nice to continue that pattern tomorrow and see her rectify this by making space for a Palestinian speaker.
 

— I wish Shapiro would just (**** off tbh) take some estrogen or something to make his voice higher because his budget Obama register does something to my body that feels like a violation. Like his specific vocal tone and frequency manages to project in a way that intrudes upon my physical being and makes me feel like i'm morphing into that one Pokémon that's just a blob of poisonous sludge. 

Those former Republicans have spent the past several years rallying against Trump and supporting the Democrats. They do not pose the same risk as people from the Uncommitted movement who are silent on Republicans and focus solely on attacking the Democratic Party.

 

1 hour ago, Gui Blackout said:

Is the demand to have a representative of the Uncommitted organization, or just any Palestinian/Muslin speaker, even ones that don't endorse that particular movement? If it's the latter, then I don't see the issue. If it would indeed be a vetted person with a vetted speech, and as long as that person stick to the agreement and don't go off-script, it would be a powerful moment in the convention. I don't blame the DNC for having reservations here, but I do hope something can be worked on.

 

Now, I don't see the point of giving Uncommitted a speaking slot unless they pledge to unequivocally support Harris and halt their campaign at once, here in the convention. Cause say that they get their speaker, what's stopping them from turning around on the the next day and say "actually we're not supporting Harris unless she [insert demand]" and are back at protesting at her rallies. If the arms embargo is their ultimate demand, it was already made clear that won't happen (and surely they know that already). So make your decision, in or out. Otherwise it's just a waste of everyone's time.

As you can tell by the responses, anything short of fully bending the knee to a movement that has spent months rallying against Democrats while being silent on Republicans will not be accepted or satisfactory.  

[ClashAndBurn]

DNC attendees were delighted at the idea that tear gas was deployed on protesters.

 

Words cannot describe the shame I feel for ever supporting this hollowed out husk of a political party. @Communion @Vermillion

[FameFatale]

Fox and Friends was extra unhinged this morning  I'm just going to play it off as they knew Trump was watching and calling in because they were absolutely giving North Korea this morning. 

[on the line]

21 minutes ago, Sannie said:

And considering how much of a bust the DNC protests have been, is this movement as big as leftists want us to believe?  Turns out all the white leftists who have made Palestine their personality were not dedicated enough to show up to Chicago.

 

Those former Republicans have spent the past several years rallying against Trump and supporting the Democrats. They do not pose the same risk as people from the Uncommitted movement who are silent on Republicans and focus solely on attacking the Democratic Party.

 

As you can tell by the responses, anything short of fully bending the knee to a movement that has spent months rallying against Democrats while being silent on Republicans will not be accepted or satisfactory.  

It's true this movement is not anywhere near as big or impactful as those chronical mentioning it want people to believe.

 

All my progressive friends are SO fired up and 100% on board with Harris-Walz.

 

It's another case of loud, obnoxious online commenter's not reflecting the reality of America, especially Democrats.

[Blade]

I am being so deadass serious when I say the Democratic party needs to stay tf away from promoting her. Not only is she a centrist hack but do you really want THAT to be the rhetoric and image of the new Dem party. Put her AWAY.

[ClashAndBurn]

People in this thread, on this page, are also failing that same test.

[Relampago.]

27 minutes ago, on the line said:

It's true this movement is not anywhere near as big or impactful as those chronical mentioning it want people to believe.

 

All my progressive friends are SO fired up and 100% on board with Harris-Walz.

 

It's another case of loud, obnoxious online commenter's not reflecting the reality of America, especially Democrats.

You know, from a strategic standpoint I'm struggling to understand this argument's approach. Morals aside for a bit, let's walk though why I don't even think this makes sense from a winning perspective. 

 

Let's say you're right and this movement isn't as big as people are making it out to be. With the latest data we have on this topic, it shows only about 7% of voters would be less likely to vote if Harris was tougher on Israel, 34% said they would be more likely to vote for Harris if she was, and the rest said their vote wouldn't change. 

 

Spoiler

https://truthout.org/articles/poll-harris-would-gain-support-in-key-states-if-she-backed-israel-arms-embargo/

 

Clearly, showing support for Gaza isn't a losing battle when it comes to winning votes. We already know this race is likely to be even closer than Biden's, assuming Trump doesn't get underestimated for the 3rd time, in which case he will blow Harris out of the water. There is no world in which rejecting the Uncommitted is a smart move for winning the election. We could argue that 34% isn't "that much" and this movement is "just online", but when you have a race as close as this it isn't a great idea to brush off a net gain of undecided voters, especially when the issue at hand pertains strongly to one of the top 3 states to win in 2024.

Edited August 22 by Relampago.

[Vroom Vroom]

28 minutes ago, on the line said:

It's true this movement is not anywhere near as big or impactful as those chronical mentioning it want people to believe.

 

All my progressive friends are SO fired up and 100% on board with Harris-Walz.

 

It's another case of loud, obnoxious online commenter's not reflecting the reality of America, especially Democrats.

When Biden was the nominee, the convention was going to be a great opportunity for demonstrators to get global attention and make their voices heard. Polls showed that a mass majority of people did not want Biden to be the nominee and protestors were ready to use Biden's unpopularity to raise their numbers 

 

Then Kamala became the nominee and unrest in the party cooled down. Of course uncommitted supports still wanted to go all out at the convention, but the circumstances have changed and they did not get the opportunity/make the statement they initially wanted to make 

Edited August 22 by Vroom Vroom

[FameFatale]

 

[Vermillion]

 

[Vermillion]

 

[Miles.]

32 minutes ago, Blade said:

I am being so deadass serious when I say the Democratic party needs to stay tf away from promoting her. Not only is she a centrist hack but do you really want THAT to be the rhetoric and image of the new Dem party. Put her AWAY.

They need to be promoting Parker Short instead.

[FameFatale]

 

[nadiamendell]

 

[State of Grace.]

1 hour ago, on the line said:

It's true this movement is not anywhere near as big or impactful as those chronical mentioning it want people to believe.

 

All my progressive friends are SO fired up and 100% on board with Harris-Walz.

 

It's another case of loud, obnoxious online commenter's not reflecting the reality of America, especially Democrats.

Constantly referring to protestors (including actual Palestinians whose families have been killed/affected by the genocide) who are trying to get the Dem nominee to let them speak, to hear them, and most importantly change her policy as "loud", "obnoxious", "chronically online", "chaos lovers", etc then claiming that you support Palestine. A Liberal through and through.

 

Can't wait for yall to let the mask off and go full on racist MAGAs when many of these people don't vote in November. Apparently, their votes are useless and they have no impact.

Edited August 22 by State of Grace.

[Both Sides Now]

11 minutes ago, Relampago. said:

You know, from a strategic standpoint I'm struggling to understand this argument's approach. Morals aside for a bit, let's walk though why I don't even think this makes sense from a winning perspective. 

 

Let's say you're right and this movement isn't as big as people are making it out to be. With the latest data we have on this topic, it shows only about 7% of voters would be less likely to vote if Harris was tougher on Israel, 34% said they would be more likely to vote for Harris if she was, and the rest said their vote wouldn't change. 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

https://truthout.org/articles/poll-harris-would-gain-support-in-key-states-if-she-backed-israel-arms-embargo/

 

Clearly, showing support for Gaza isn't a losing battle when it comes to winning votes. We already know this race is likely to be even closer than Biden's, assuming Trump doesn't get underestimated for the 3rd time, in which case he will blow Harris out of the water. There is no world in which rejecting the Uncommitted is a smart move for winning the election. We could argue that 34% isn't "that much" and this movement is "just online", but when you have a race as close as this it isn't a great idea to brush off a net gain of undecided voters, especially when the issue at hand pertains strongly to one of the top 3 states to win in 2024.

Morality aside, it's objectively the easiest scoop of independent voters for Democrats. Simply humanise Palestinians by allowing a Palestinian-American to speak about their family in Gaza at the DNC and commit to an arms embargo on offensive weaponry. 
 

The Uncommitted vote was 100K in Michigan. Biden won by 150K in 2020 to a weaker Trump. Some people in here seem to be uncomfortable with ordinary people wielding power and forcing change within the Democratic Party. But ignoring this huge group of voters could swing the entire election. 
 

There seems to be a mythical swing group of "I will only vote for Kamala if she continues to send billions of American $ to bomb children in Gaza". They just don't exist based on data - only vibes from warmongering liberals on Twitter. 
 

This is why I hope Mother Pelosi goes three for three with her plotting and pushes the Democrats on this. Something that has always stayed with me about Pelosi is her commitment to winning elections. This is such an own goal. 

[Relampago.]

2 minutes ago, nadiamendell said:

 

Harris has been running such a responsive campaign thus far, if this is where she draws the line and slips up… oof.

[MAKSIM]

We will find out in 75 days, but the whole uncommitted movement strategy is weird because the premise is that Kamala Harris can't win Michigan without uncommitted voters supporting her….but what if she does win it?

 

[Blade]

1 minute ago, MAKSIM said:

We will find out in 75 days, but the whole uncommitted movement strategy is weird because the premise is that Kamala Harris can't win Michigan without uncommitted voters supporting her….but what if she does win it?

 

Then she wins MI?...

 

not sure what this post is trying to ask (not trying to sound like an ass either) but she can either win or lose swing states we know that. What happens after isn't really worth discussing when we know ways of boosting her share of votes NOW, in the present.

[ClashAndBurn]

8 minutes ago, Blade said:

Then she wins MI?...

 

not sure what this post is trying to ask (not trying to sound like an ass either) but she can either win or lose swing states we know that. What happens after isn't really worth discussing when we know ways of boosting her share of votes NOW, in the present.

I'm sure what they're trying to get at is that if Uncommitted doesn't result in her losing Michigan, and she wins anyway, then their concerns can be easily disregarded and Democrats can resume supporting Israel unconditionally. Which is… already what is happening anyway. So truthfully it makes no difference.