Twenty-nine percent of non-voters who supported Biden in 2020 said U.S. support for the genocide was the top reason they sat the 2024 election, according to a survey by YouGov.
So a lot of people are angry at them for letting Harris lose because they held on to their anti-genocide moral high ground; they should’ve sucked it up and voted for her because the alternative was so much worse. Allegedly, if Harris had broken with Biden to denounce genocide, she would have lost too many voters.
So who the fuck were those people?! Let’s unpack this. If Harris were to oppose genocide, and they were to get angry, the same argument would apply to them: Suck it up and vote for her, or you’re supporting the destruction of democracy. And if they stayed home anyway, then it would mean that they’d rather see Harris lose than ease up on genocide. “Keep sending bombs to kill kids, or we’ll let women and LGBTQ people suffer, by God!”
Do such monsters exist in our midst? I dunno, seems to me like they’d already be voting for the guy who allegedly would genocide harder. But if they exist, it makes a lot more sense to be angry at them.
As you correctly point out, and according to the article:
Of course, diverging from Biden on Gaza risked losing voters who supported his policy. But a close look at the survey suggests that risk was low compared to the potential reward. Voters who were with Biden in 2020 and stuck with Harris in 2024 were asked if breaking with him on Gaza would make them more or less enthusiastic about voting for Harris. By a 35 to 5 margin, they said doing so would have made them more enthusiastic to vote for her, with the remainder saying it would have made no difference.
So a lot of people are angry at them for letting Harris lose because they held on to their anti-genocide moral high ground; they should’ve sucked it up and voted for her because the alternative was so much worse. Allegedly, if Harris had broken with Biden to denounce genocide, she would have lost too many voters.
So who the fuck were those people?! Let’s unpack this. If Harris were to oppose genocide, and they were to get angry, the same argument would apply to them: Suck it up and vote for her, or you’re supporting the destruction of democracy. And if they stayed home anyway, then it would mean that they’d rather see Harris lose than ease up on genocide. “Keep sending bombs to kill kids, or we’ll let women and LGBTQ people suffer, by God!”
Do such monsters exist in our midst? I dunno, seems to me like they’d already be voting for the guy who allegedly would genocide harder. But if they exist, it makes a lot more sense to be angry at them.
As you correctly point out, and according to the article:
The real issue is Biden shouldn’t have been materially supporting genocide in the first place
Then Harris wouldn’t have needed to decide to break with his administration or not.
The whole situation was russian propaganda.
Nobody would care about American bombs ripping apart thousands of children if Russia didn’t tell them to.
Really this is Russia’s fault that genocide is unpopular.