Do you think it was worth the risk of losing Michigan for the DNC to refuse allowing a Palestinian American speaker at the DNC? Do you think the dems took the danger of trump winning seriously enough in michigan?
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
I do think this is one reason they didn't have a speaker from the Uncommitted group in particular. Parties don't tend to allow speakers who don't plan to vote for them.
Yes this is the solemn duty of every voter in this election to save democracy. What would you say is the duty of the primary opposition candidate? And do you think that obligation was met? I live in Virginia btw and we did our duty and trump lost here.
2/3 But you're not responding to my actual point. It was the responsibility of Dem leadership to inspire people to vote, AND it was the responsibility of voters to recognize the danger and vote regardless. Both failed at their responsibility, and each pointing at the other's failures
There are a million answers to this. For me personally, the main two are:
1. Declaring that the problem in Gaza was that the Israelis weren't doing the genocide fast enough.
2. Outright stating that he planned to commit multiple genocides within the United States.
No. I also don't know if having a Palestinian speaker would have helped, though. Every choice came with tradeoffs, and I don't know if votes gained vs. votes lost would have been a net plus.
I think having the speaker would have been the morally right choice regardless.
1. A primary isn't necessarily greater democratic participation. Primaries suck, and participation would be low.
2. The cost of holding a primary would have included the loss of the Biden/Harris campaign funds and weeks of candidates beating on each other instead of fighting the actual enemy.
Comments
It was *every eligible voter's job* to vote against Trump, regardless of the Dems' performance.
I just don't think that their failure absolves the nonvoters or the third-party voters of responsibility. Which is the topic at hand in this thread.
1. Declaring that the problem in Gaza was that the Israelis weren't doing the genocide fast enough.
2. Outright stating that he planned to commit multiple genocides within the United States.
I think having the speaker would have been the morally right choice regardless.
But you are again avoiding my actual point.
2. The cost of holding a primary would have included the loss of the Biden/Harris campaign funds and weeks of candidates beating on each other instead of fighting the actual enemy.