President-elect Donald Trump’s promise could lead to a 60-day cease-fire, allowing Israel to suspend hostilities until military support resumes under the new administration.
Wasn’t the uncommitted movement some 100,000 people strong?
Didn’t Harris lose by millions?
How would have the uncommitteds saved the election if their numbers represented a fraction of what Democrats needed?
Could a more likely explanation of this deplorable outcome be that Democrats did this to themselves by not rallying up their base enough to bring more people out to vote?
They would have been enough to secure the swing states and win Harris the electorial college. Her campaign would have need to promote more progressive policies that addresses the material needs of Americans, instead of running to the right on issues, in order to also pick up the popular vote.
Stop blaming the American people
100% It’s entirely on the campaign to secure votes. That’s the entire job of the campaign. Blaming voters is an easy scapegoat that accomplishes nothing. And when it’s blaming marginalized groups, it seems like it’s only promoting hate against the people most vulnerable to the violence of fascism
Looks like Harris did lose by about 79,000 votes in Michigan.
Comparatively, about 44,500 went to Stein.
We don’t ultimately know how the uncommitted movement voted. If they were a monolith throughout, we’d expect 100k for Stein. If some abstained and some voted for Harris or Trump, that would’ve split the movement.
If all of Stein’s voters went to Harris, however, that wouldn’t have changed the outcome. Harris would have still been short ~34,400. So if you wanted to make the argument that the uncommitted movement was a voting block, then the entire ~44k block voting for Harris wouldn’t have changed the outcome.
Overall I don’t see Michigan outcomes changing my argument. If Dems were more persuasive, even if they lied about Gaza, they could have sweeped the nation. And even if the uncommitteds chose the lesser of two evils, Kamala still lost all other swing states. You can’t chock the outcomes of those states up to the uncommitteds, because the largest organizational presence was in Michigan.
Wasn’t the uncommitted movement some 100,000 people strong?
Didn’t Harris lose by millions?
How would have the uncommitteds saved the election if their numbers represented a fraction of what Democrats needed?
Could a more likely explanation of this deplorable outcome be that Democrats did this to themselves by not rallying up their base enough to bring more people out to vote?
Stop blaming the American people.
They would have been enough to secure the swing states and win Harris the electorial college. Her campaign would have need to promote more progressive policies that addresses the material needs of Americans, instead of running to the right on issues, in order to also pick up the popular vote.
100% It’s entirely on the campaign to secure votes. That’s the entire job of the campaign. Blaming voters is an easy scapegoat that accomplishes nothing. And when it’s blaming marginalized groups, it seems like it’s only promoting hate against the people most vulnerable to the violence of fascism
Almost 100,000 in Michigan alone likely flipped the swing state.
https://theconversation.com/voters-in-arab-american-strongholds-likely-tipped-michigan-in-trumps-favor-242854
Looks like Harris did lose by about 79,000 votes in Michigan.
Comparatively, about 44,500 went to Stein.
We don’t ultimately know how the uncommitted movement voted. If they were a monolith throughout, we’d expect 100k for Stein. If some abstained and some voted for Harris or Trump, that would’ve split the movement.
If all of Stein’s voters went to Harris, however, that wouldn’t have changed the outcome. Harris would have still been short ~34,400. So if you wanted to make the argument that the uncommitted movement was a voting block, then the entire ~44k block voting for Harris wouldn’t have changed the outcome.
Overall I don’t see Michigan outcomes changing my argument. If Dems were more persuasive, even if they lied about Gaza, they could have sweeped the nation. And even if the uncommitteds chose the lesser of two evils, Kamala still lost all other swing states. You can’t chock the outcomes of those states up to the uncommitteds, because the largest organizational presence was in Michigan.