And having no primaries turned off a lot of people. It’s like he died and she was sworn into office, except he didn’t actually die and she never took office.
That’s fair, but it’s Biden’s fault we didn’t have that time. After being sworn in, he said he wouldn’t run for re-election, then he broke that promise in a display of horrible judgment.
But no matter how we got a candidate with no primary, it still turned off a lot of people to just have her dropped on us.
I felt like she had so much traction in the beginning, and with Walz coming in on board and really hitting the MAGA in the stomach with their comebacks.
But then suddenly they just stopped, and MAGA was able to reposition and gain the upper hand for the remainder of the season.
So yeah, shit themselves in the foot a few months before the end. Such a shame, I think they would’ve ok.
But then suddenly they just stopped, and MAGA was able to reposition and gain the upper hand for the remainder of the season.
Don’t forget cozying up to Republicans. I think they took the campaign to the right because of some crazy idea that they needed to try for getting Republican votes. They stopped punching maga in the nose out of a misguided idea that they might steal some R votes from Trump.
I distinctly remember when they told Walz to stop calling out how weird the Elon/Vance/Trump crew all were. It was working and I couldn’t understand why stop. Some wormtongue consultant or PAC? It was baffling
Many people point to the influence that Uber exec and Kamala-brother-in-law Tony West had on the campaign.
His pro-corporate policies helped Kamala raise a billion dollars, but accepting that corporate money is a deal with the devil: it shifted her policy proposals and rhetoric significantly to the right.
Yeah, I don’t know if it’s just the same Democrat consultants every presidential election, but the last three elections they’ve always, always reverted to, “The election is three months away but you’ve already won, so for the love of god don’t do anything inspiring to our base because that might upset Republicans and make them attack us more. In fact, just put all your energy into getting Republican votes.”
Anyone still describing support under Dems as “unwaivering” compared to Trump deepthroating Netanyahu, posting Gaza riviera AI slop, and being puppeted into attacking Iran needs to take their pills. Not to mention, Trump likely caused Oct.7 in the first place with his dogshit handling of the middle east during his first term.
Progressives got scammed by the right & foreign states into not voting for Kamala because of Gaza. Which ironically, made them tools for Israel’s interests. Braindead clowns.
It’s gotta be either this or evidence that the base is further left than they thought and moderating to the right was a dogshit strategy. Nothing else seems like it’s threatening enough to the establishment to warrant burying the report. Though if I was gonna bet, I’d be putting it on support for Israel.
This is take from an American historian and she also mentions that US has this happen 2 times already and people woke up and stopped it. Let’s hope this time it won’t be different.
You don’t need to bet, you can just look up surveys on whether or not US voters say the Israel-Palestine conflict is important to them, and you’ll find that an extremely small minority of voters say it is.
Over 160 million people voted and she lost the popular vote by 2.3 million votes. The specific states that swung the electoral vote by even less.
Even if only a single percent of the people who voted were swayed by Trump’s lies about being anti-war contra Kamala’s refusal to even PRETEND so AND it didn’t discourage a SINGLE person from voting at all (which for the record was in no way the case), that would STILL be electorally significant to the point of being potentially decisive.
Because I’m not a Pew Research historian, and I’m not writing a research paper here.
You’re correct that data from 2024 would be more relevant, but 2026 data is still revealing. The commenter said that an “extremely small minority” cared about the conflict [in 2024].
Are you suggesting that they are correct, an extremely small minority cared during 2024, but now in 2026 that has ballooned to >50%? That is an extraordinary claim; if you are making such a claim then please provide evidence.
You don’t need to be a pew research historian to think critically and evaluate a source. You even posted the date. You were most of the way there.
Are you suggesting that they are correct, an extremely small minority cared during 2024, but now in 2026 that has ballooned to >50%? That is an extraordinary claim; if you are making such a claim then please provide evidence.
No I am not. I’m pointing out the issue of your data set.
I doubt it was a small minority, but 53% (or whatever it actually was during the election) of people can somewhat care about an issue without it being their primary voting issue. The people that made it their primary issue was likely a small minority of voters. That’s my take anyhow.
you can just look up surveys on whether or not US voters say the Israel-Palestine conflict is important to them, and you’ll find that an extremely small minority of voters say it is
Now you say “it being their primary voting issue” which is a much stronger assertion. Things can still be important even if there’s something else even more important.
“Somewhat” is doing some heavy lifting there. Of course I mean: important enough to alter their vote. So 22% per the article say the Israel-Hamas conflict is “very” important (which was less in 2024). Those who would base their vote on it is a smaller subset. Those who would base their vote on it and not think Trump was significantly worse a yet smaller subset of this subset. Some of the 22% might favour a tougher approach against Hamas, and/or support the Gaza genocide.
All this is even still ignoring the fact that Jewish Americans heavily favour the Democrats, and while many certainly aren’t Bibi fanboys, the Democrats cannot afford to alienate this part of their voter base (and in the oligarchic system of the US, that they have above-average incomes also makes them more valuable voters), making it less than obvious that a more hardline approach towards Israel would bear electoral fruit.
Of course I mean: important enough to alter their vote.
Can you point me to a survey that tracks this? You suggested there was survey data to support your claim, but I am unaware of any survey that asks if Israel/Palestine is important enough to change votes.
“This was a preventable disaster,” Cook said, “but Harris and the Democratic Party leadership prioritized the agendas of corporate donors and gambled on a centrist path, while largely abandoning working-class, young, and progressive voters.”
You and I are in agreement on the political question here: The Kamala campaign’s support for Israel’s genocide lost her the election.
But there is a specific technical question I’m asking in this argument: is there an American poll that asked potential voters if their vote is changed by the Israel/Palestine conflict?
I went through the links you provided quickly and I didn’t see any indication that this question was asked.
I think it’s much simpler - they are concerned that the report contains research on effective Republican tactics, as well as ways they can be countered in the future, which would give Republicans a lot of useful information for future elections.
This seems very obvious, but we are in a political era where everyone just defaults to cynicism I guess
So the hypothesis is that somehow the DNC ($6m in debt, raising ~$10m/month) somehow came up with valuable information that the RNC ($110m cash in hand, raising ~$20m/month) doesn’t know and doesn’t have access to?
Except he was always vaguely hinting that by end the war he meant give Isreal everything they wanted therefore “ending” the war. Same with Russia and Ukraine.
True, but vague hinting doesn’t tend to find its way to the headlines and newscast sound bytes that are the extent of information that an abysmally large portion of persuadable voters receive and base their vote on.
That’s a BIG part of why Trump has ever been the least bit successful in spite of being an obvious fraud to anyone paying even slightly close attention.
Harris ‘wasn’t allowed’?
Fuck that, you’re the candidate now. What would they have done, unannounced you? She doesn’t have the ovaries to take a strong stand.
She wasn’t a good candidate in 2020 and wasn’t better in 2024.
She COULD have won if Biden had stepped down in 2022 and let her run as the incumbent president, or if Biden had decided not to run early enough to run a proper primary and she survived the primary process.
Giving her only 100 days and blocking her from running down Biden doomed her candidacy.
I still say if Biden has stepped down at year 2 and let Harris be president for 2 years she would have won very effectively. I’ll never understand why that didn’t happen. Hell he could have just said he was sick with cancer and stepped down for to health problems
Pretty obvious to anyone who observed it:
Biden held on too long making it impossible to run a proper primary.
Harris wasn’t allowed to differentiate herself from Biden.
Time of Death: October 8th, 2024:
https://youtube.com/shorts/SJRk5PV588Q
And having no primaries turned off a lot of people. It’s like he died and she was sworn into office, except he didn’t actually die and she never took office.
Yup, and it takes 6 to 8 months to organize a primary, 100 days to the election wasn’t enough time.
That’s fair, but it’s Biden’s fault we didn’t have that time. After being sworn in, he said he wouldn’t run for re-election, then he broke that promise in a display of horrible judgment.
But no matter how we got a candidate with no primary, it still turned off a lot of people to just have her dropped on us.
What would be the consequences if she went off-piste?
Abandonment by the Biden camp, who were really the only people supporting her.
Her going the opposite as soon as it showed up well in the polls also didn’t help
There were other potential donors who sat it out because she was running as Biden 2.0.
Yup, but they had less money than the Biden machine.
I felt like she had so much traction in the beginning, and with Walz coming in on board and really hitting the MAGA in the stomach with their comebacks.
But then suddenly they just stopped, and MAGA was able to reposition and gain the upper hand for the remainder of the season.
So yeah, shit themselves in the foot a few months before the end. Such a shame, I think they would’ve ok.
Don’t forget cozying up to Republicans. I think they took the campaign to the right because of some crazy idea that they needed to try for getting Republican votes. They stopped punching maga in the nose out of a misguided idea that they might steal some R votes from Trump.
She was just inept. Remember her talking about how much she liked her handgun? She should have used Hapiness Is A Warm Gun as a campaign tune.
I distinctly remember when they told Walz to stop calling out how weird the Elon/Vance/Trump crew all were. It was working and I couldn’t understand why stop. Some wormtongue consultant or PAC? It was baffling
Many people point to the influence that Uber exec and Kamala-brother-in-law Tony West had on the campaign.
His pro-corporate policies helped Kamala raise a billion dollars, but accepting that corporate money is a deal with the devil: it shifted her policy proposals and rhetoric significantly to the right.
And all the consultants from UK labour party.
Yeah, I don’t know if it’s just the same Democrat consultants every presidential election, but the last three elections they’ve always, always reverted to, “The election is three months away but you’ve already won, so for the love of god don’t do anything inspiring to our base because that might upset Republicans and make them attack us more. In fact, just put all your energy into getting Republican votes.”
Anyone still describing support under Dems as “unwaivering” compared to Trump deepthroating Netanyahu, posting Gaza riviera AI slop, and being puppeted into attacking Iran needs to take their pills. Not to mention, Trump likely caused Oct.7 in the first place with his dogshit handling of the middle east during his first term.
Progressives got scammed by the right & foreign states into not voting for Kamala because of Gaza. Which ironically, made them tools for Israel’s interests. Braindead clowns.
Removed by mod
Some of us draw a harder line: as long as Israel is genocidal, no support. Sanctions instead. So where’s a party that actually runs on that?
It’s gotta be either this or evidence that the base is further left than they thought and moderating to the right was a dogshit strategy. Nothing else seems like it’s threatening enough to the establishment to warrant burying the report. Though if I was gonna bet, I’d be putting it on support for Israel.
3rd option would be evidence of election fraud by GOP but they are afraid DOJ will go after them.
LMAO if that’s it, we’re even more fucked than I thought.
We are actually very fucked unless Americans woke up.
https://youtu.be/XaqKHHbSOEc
This is take from an American historian and she also mentions that US has this happen 2 times already and people woke up and stopped it. Let’s hope this time it won’t be different.
You don’t need to bet, you can just look up surveys on whether or not US voters say the Israel-Palestine conflict is important to them, and you’ll find that an extremely small minority of voters say it is.
Trump won mainly because, among swing voters, he was ranked more favourably than Harris when it came to the economy and immigration.
Over 160 million people voted and she lost the popular vote by 2.3 million votes. The specific states that swung the electoral vote by even less.
Even if only a single percent of the people who voted were swayed by Trump’s lies about being anti-war contra Kamala’s refusal to even PRETEND so AND it didn’t discourage a SINGLE person from voting at all (which for the record was in no way the case), that would STILL be electorally significant to the point of being potentially decisive.
Pew Research - Apr 7, 2026 survey
Why are you linking to a study that took place more than a year after the election?
In the context of this thread it’s more important to know how people felt during the election
Because I’m not a Pew Research historian, and I’m not writing a research paper here.
You’re correct that data from 2024 would be more relevant, but 2026 data is still revealing. The commenter said that an “extremely small minority” cared about the conflict [in 2024].
Are you suggesting that they are correct, an extremely small minority cared during 2024, but now in 2026 that has ballooned to >50%? That is an extraordinary claim; if you are making such a claim then please provide evidence.
You don’t need to be a pew research historian to think critically and evaluate a source. You even posted the date. You were most of the way there.
No I am not. I’m pointing out the issue of your data set.
I doubt it was a small minority, but 53% (or whatever it actually was during the election) of people can somewhat care about an issue without it being their primary voting issue. The people that made it their primary issue was likely a small minority of voters. That’s my take anyhow.
Up-thread you said:
Now you say “it being their primary voting issue” which is a much stronger assertion. Things can still be important even if there’s something else even more important.
So where will you be moving the goalposts next?
Great, so you do agree with me. I appreciate it.
“Somewhat” is doing some heavy lifting there. Of course I mean: important enough to alter their vote. So 22% per the article say the Israel-Hamas conflict is “very” important (which was less in 2024). Those who would base their vote on it is a smaller subset. Those who would base their vote on it and not think Trump was significantly worse a yet smaller subset of this subset. Some of the 22% might favour a tougher approach against Hamas, and/or support the Gaza genocide.
All this is even still ignoring the fact that Jewish Americans heavily favour the Democrats, and while many certainly aren’t Bibi fanboys, the Democrats cannot afford to alienate this part of their voter base (and in the oligarchic system of the US, that they have above-average incomes also makes them more valuable voters), making it less than obvious that a more hardline approach towards Israel would bear electoral fruit.
I think you’re just moving the goalposts now.
Can you point me to a survey that tracks this? You suggested there was survey data to support your claim, but I am unaware of any survey that asks if Israel/Palestine is important enough to change votes.
There’s dozens of polls that show how the Dems position on Israel/Palestine cost them votes
The data on why the Democrats failed to win is clear
Here Are 34 Polls That Show A Ceasefire & Weapons Embargo Help Kamala Win
Kamala Would Have Won With A Weapons Embargo
Democrats’ Working-Class Failures, Analysis Finds, Are ‘Why Trump Beat Harris’
2024 Post-Election Report: A retrospective and longitudinal data analysis on why Trump beat Harris
How Trump and Harris Voters See America’s Role in the World
Majority of Americans support progressive policies such as higher minimum wage, free college
Democrats should run on the popular progressive ideas, but not the unpopular ones
Here Are 7 ‘Left Wing’ Ideas (Almost) All Americans Can Get Behind
Finding common ground: 109 national policy proposals with bipartisan support
Progressive Policies Are Popular Policies
Tim Walz’s Progressive Policies Popular With Republicans in Swing States
https://blueprint2024.com/polling/harris-poll-positive-message-8-8/
https://blueprint-research.com/polling/distance-biden-ads-message-test-10-15/
We know what the autopsy is about, and why they won’t release it.
You and I are in agreement on the political question here: The Kamala campaign’s support for Israel’s genocide lost her the election.
But there is a specific technical question I’m asking in this argument: is there an American poll that asked potential voters if their vote is changed by the Israel/Palestine conflict?
I went through the links you provided quickly and I didn’t see any indication that this question was asked.
I think it’s much simpler - they are concerned that the report contains research on effective Republican tactics, as well as ways they can be countered in the future, which would give Republicans a lot of useful information for future elections.
This seems very obvious, but we are in a political era where everyone just defaults to cynicism I guess
So the hypothesis is that somehow the DNC ($6m in debt, raising ~$10m/month) somehow came up with valuable information that the RNC ($110m cash in hand, raising ~$20m/month) doesn’t know and doesn’t have access to?
Seems very unlikely, not obvious at all.
You are giving people way too much credit here. Your average voter for either side isn’t thinking this hard.
Hence “beginning.”
I don’t understand this one. Both sides seem to support this?
Trump ran explicitly on ending the “war”. A lot of people knew it was bullshit but some people held out hope and voted for him.
Except he was always vaguely hinting that by end the war he meant give Isreal everything they wanted therefore “ending” the war. Same with Russia and Ukraine.
True, but vague hinting doesn’t tend to find its way to the headlines and newscast sound bytes that are the extent of information that an abysmally large portion of persuadable voters receive and base their vote on.
That’s a BIG part of why Trump has ever been the least bit successful in spite of being an obvious fraud to anyone paying even slightly close attention.
Harris ‘wasn’t allowed’? Fuck that, you’re the candidate now. What would they have done, unannounced you? She doesn’t have the ovaries to take a strong stand.
She would have lost the financial backing of the Biden camp:
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5191087-harris-trump-biden-harris/
All that financial backing didn’t help her win. She would rather lose the election than lose a source of money.
She would have lost harder without it.
Would she? What part of the money she received made her pivot to the right more palatable to the average voter?
It was never about the average voter, it was all about appealing to the people with the money.
Then she never had a chance. And the DNC fucked up hard by putting her forward.
Correct!
She wasn’t a good candidate in 2020 and wasn’t better in 2024.
She COULD have won if Biden had stepped down in 2022 and let her run as the incumbent president, or if Biden had decided not to run early enough to run a proper primary and she survived the primary process.
Giving her only 100 days and blocking her from running down Biden doomed her candidacy.
She also refused any broadcast interviews of substance to make her case.
I still say if Biden has stepped down at year 2 and let Harris be president for 2 years she would have won very effectively. I’ll never understand why that didn’t happen. Hell he could have just said he was sick with cancer and stepped down for to health problems
I was so mad when he ran again. I had a distinct memory of him running as a “transition” president in 2019 - which my fool ass took to mean one term
Totally agree I remember him saying he would not run again