3 ms·

Wait what happened? Was it that people who typically vote blue voted against those who supported Israel? As a Muslim and staunch supporter of Palestine, I didn'

Wait what happened? Was it that people who typically vote blue voted against those who supported Israel? As a Muslim and staunch supporter of Palestine, I didn't think that many people turned red because of this, at least not enough to swing the election. Wayne County, which has Dearborn Michigan (the city with the largest population proportionally of Muslims), stayed blue. I figured if Dearborn couldn't tip the scales any which way then the issue was probably not something worth campaigning on in terms of demographics

throwaway3060 1y ago
The bigger factor was people staying home because they refused any compromise on the issue. For races that swing depending on turnout, this was enough to tip those races red. Hard to say whether this impacted the Presidential election, but it probably did affect some House and Senate races.
- abustamam 1y ago
  Ah, that's a good point. Indeed, I voted Stein over Harris, which is basically the same as staying home (much to my chagrin).
  - aprilthird2021 1y ago
    This is shocking to me tbh. Everyone I know who wants peace in Palestine also knew Trump would be a disaster and that Stein or whoever had 0 chance of winning...
    - crummy 1y ago
      If you live in a safe blue/safe red state, then there's no harm in voting third party.
    - Cyph0n 1y ago
      Yes, we did know Trump is a disaster. Perhaps Democrats should have met their voterbase somewhere in the middle to reduce the risk of losing to Trump? Of course, they didn’t, so to me the Harris campaign is to blame more than the third-party voters. Frankly, my reading was that Democrats preferred risking losing the presidency to making any concessions whatsoever on the Palestine issue.
      - _DeadFred_ 1y ago
        [flagged]
        Cyph0n 1y ago
        No, it’s more like: fuck the American gov for materially supporting a genocide [of Palestinians]. And that’s a bad analogy. AIPAC is literally buying out elected officials, while I am simply participating in democracy by choosing how to use my vote.
        _DeadFred_ 1y ago
        By placing a foreign nation above what is best for the USA and allowing Trump to win (objectively worse for the USA, worse for Palestinians).
        Cyph0n 1y ago
        Sure, if you think committing genocide is best for the country.
      - DangitBobby 1y ago
        Democrats are constantly trying to please whatever portion of their voter base they think they need to win the election. In this case they were trying harder to court the maybe-Trumpers than the never-Trumpers because the never-Trumpers don't need as much convincing. Unfortunately, when these two groups become at odds over a single-issue vote, it fucks the Democrats no matter what they do. In the end, people who refused to vote for Harris over Palestine fucked everyone, especially Palestine. And yes, a large contingent of Democratic lawmakers inexplicably believe staying on Israel's good side is the most important issue facing our country. That doesn't make letting Trump win the smart move.
    - lelanthran 1y ago
      > Everyone I know who wants peace in Palestine also knew Trump would be a disaster So the Democrats, who presumably wanted peace in the middle east, knew that Trump would be a disaster, and yet they still ignored voters concerns?
  - jjk166 1y ago
    Voting third party isn't the same as staying home. If a third party candidate gets just 5% of the vote, the party gets federal election funds in the next election. This isn't some pipe dream, third parties were crossing that threshold in the 90s. It encourages the major parties to alter their positions to avoid splitting the vote, and if they fail to do so then the third party can gain traction over the long run. Further, if you go to the polls for a third party, you are presumably also voting in down ballot races, where you have significantly more impact whether you vote third party or major party. Staying home does nothing to combat the two party system, gives no direction to politicians as to which way they ought to move to get your vote in the future, and doesn't allow you to participate in local politics.
    - abustamam 1y ago
      Yes agreed, that's why I voted instead of actually staying home. I wish other people would understand the nuance you just mentioned. I don't think either the democratic party nor the republican party actually care about anything more than keeping their seat at the table. They don't care about the working class, the disenfranchised, or the underprivileged, even if they claim to to get votes.
jimbob45 1y ago
What happened was complex, multi-factoral, and impossible to cleanly draw pithy conclusions from. It’s like the drawing of the rabbit that turns into a duck when you look at it a different way except there are fifty animals instead of just two. Everyone wants you to think it’s just their preferred animal because it fits their agenda.
- abustamam 1y ago
  This makes me curious about how many other historical events have presented the animal that happened to fit the ruling class at the time. I'm not talking about history being written by the winners, but more nuanced things.

throwaway3060 1y ago

The bigger factor was people staying home because they refused any compromise on the issue. For races that swing depending on turnout, this was enough to tip those races red. Hard to say whether this impacted the Presidential election, but it probably did affect some House and Senate races.

abustamam 1y ago
Ah, that's a good point. Indeed, I voted Stein over Harris, which is basically the same as staying home (much to my chagrin).
- aprilthird2021 1y ago
  This is shocking to me tbh. Everyone I know who wants peace in Palestine also knew Trump would be a disaster and that Stein or whoever had 0 chance of winning...
  - crummy 1y ago
    If you live in a safe blue/safe red state, then there's no harm in voting third party.
  - Cyph0n 1y ago
    Yes, we did know Trump is a disaster. Perhaps Democrats should have met their voterbase somewhere in the middle to reduce the risk of losing to Trump? Of course, they didn’t, so to me the Harris campaign is to blame more than the third-party voters. Frankly, my reading was that Democrats preferred risking losing the presidency to making any concessions whatsoever on the Palestine issue.
    - _DeadFred_ 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - Cyph0n 1y ago
        No, it’s more like: fuck the American gov for materially supporting a genocide [of Palestinians]. And that’s a bad analogy. AIPAC is literally buying out elected officials, while I am simply participating in democracy by choosing how to use my vote.
        _DeadFred_ 1y ago
        By placing a foreign nation above what is best for the USA and allowing Trump to win (objectively worse for the USA, worse for Palestinians).
        Cyph0n 1y ago
        Sure, if you think committing genocide is best for the country.
    - DangitBobby 1y ago
      Democrats are constantly trying to please whatever portion of their voter base they think they need to win the election. In this case they were trying harder to court the maybe-Trumpers than the never-Trumpers because the never-Trumpers don't need as much convincing. Unfortunately, when these two groups become at odds over a single-issue vote, it fucks the Democrats no matter what they do. In the end, people who refused to vote for Harris over Palestine fucked everyone, especially Palestine. And yes, a large contingent of Democratic lawmakers inexplicably believe staying on Israel's good side is the most important issue facing our country. That doesn't make letting Trump win the smart move.
  - lelanthran 1y ago
    > Everyone I know who wants peace in Palestine also knew Trump would be a disaster So the Democrats, who presumably wanted peace in the middle east, knew that Trump would be a disaster, and yet they still ignored voters concerns?
- jjk166 1y ago
  Voting third party isn't the same as staying home. If a third party candidate gets just 5% of the vote, the party gets federal election funds in the next election. This isn't some pipe dream, third parties were crossing that threshold in the 90s. It encourages the major parties to alter their positions to avoid splitting the vote, and if they fail to do so then the third party can gain traction over the long run. Further, if you go to the polls for a third party, you are presumably also voting in down ballot races, where you have significantly more impact whether you vote third party or major party. Staying home does nothing to combat the two party system, gives no direction to politicians as to which way they ought to move to get your vote in the future, and doesn't allow you to participate in local politics.
  - abustamam 1y ago
    Yes agreed, that's why I voted instead of actually staying home. I wish other people would understand the nuance you just mentioned. I don't think either the democratic party nor the republican party actually care about anything more than keeping their seat at the table. They don't care about the working class, the disenfranchised, or the underprivileged, even if they claim to to get votes.

jimbob45 1y ago

What happened was complex, multi-factoral, and impossible to cleanly draw pithy conclusions from. It’s like the drawing of the rabbit that turns into a duck when you look at it a different way except there are fifty animals instead of just two. Everyone wants you to think it’s just their preferred animal because it fits their agenda.

abustamam 1y ago
This makes me curious about how many other historical events have presented the animal that happened to fit the ruling class at the time. I'm not talking about history being written by the winners, but more nuanced things.