The cause of Kamala Harris’s disastrous failure in the 2024 presidential election will forever be debated, but there are good reasons to believe the Israeli genocide in Gaza played a significant role.
The fact that Harris might have lost because of foreign policy is actually somewhat unique in the US. Usually we only vote based on domestic issues and mostly ignore things that happen outside the country, especially when we don't have any US soldiers involved. Vietnam was the last time foreign policy actually mattered in elections, and that was honestly mostly because of the draft.
This is something new and really interesting. What if USAmericans are finally gaining a level of international consciousness?
The Dems lost like 15m voters between '20 and '24.
I am sure a substantial number of those voters were lost because of Gaza, but we need to see polling or other evidence before we can begin to guess how many. It's likely Michigan would have been much bluer without the ongoing genocide, but I am less sure it had a decisive impact in a state like Pennsylvania.
Meanwhile, voter participation is still crazy low, and I find it very likely a big chunk of Kamala's deficit was motivated by a sluggish economy people were tired of being gaslit about. Where foreign policy did motivate the average American voter, I would think it is couched in chauvinism "why are we giving billions to Ukraine or Israel, when we have a boarder crisis and my nephew is addicted to Fentanyl" type people.
I wish this election foretold a shift in the American electorate, but I don't see enough evidence to support that conclusion. At least not yet.
In terms of messaging reality doesn't matter at all. Just begin asserting it was due to being too right wing, including doing a genocide.
The "why" of losing an election isn't entirely knowable anyways. Most people didn't vote at all. Every candidate that loses mostly loses because the majority of people see no value in it. The consistency of this should mean most reflection be about the illegitimacy of American "democracy", but that is rarely the focus. Instead, all of the air in the room gets taken up by cynical party "strategists" trying to normslize even farther right views to placate donors and get their next gig on the next campaign, now defined as, "we are woke but are against trans people and latinos".
The "it's because they're right wing genociders" line is more correct than 90% of what anyine will otherwise hear. It is also in line with why there are so many non-voters. What is the meaning of being politically "engaged" in electoralism when you don't see a material benefit to it, can't really personally do anything about it except check a box for one of two Hitlers, and see correct popular will on important topics routinely ignored despite how the party suckups tell you it works?
Smoosh that stuff together and take up more space!
The fact that Harris might have lost because of foreign policy is actually somewhat unique in the US. Usually we only vote based on domestic issues and mostly ignore things that happen outside the country, especially when we don't have any US soldiers involved. Vietnam was the last time foreign policy actually mattered in elections, and that was honestly mostly because of the draft.
This is something new and really interesting. What if USAmericans are finally gaining a level of international consciousness?
The Dems lost like 15m voters between '20 and '24.
I am sure a substantial number of those voters were lost because of Gaza, but we need to see polling or other evidence before we can begin to guess how many. It's likely Michigan would have been much bluer without the ongoing genocide, but I am less sure it had a decisive impact in a state like Pennsylvania.
Meanwhile, voter participation is still crazy low, and I find it very likely a big chunk of Kamala's deficit was motivated by a sluggish economy people were tired of being gaslit about. Where foreign policy did motivate the average American voter, I would think it is couched in chauvinism "why are we giving billions to Ukraine or Israel, when we have a boarder crisis and my nephew is addicted to Fentanyl" type people.
I wish this election foretold a shift in the American electorate, but I don't see enough evidence to support that conclusion. At least not yet.
In terms of messaging reality doesn't matter at all. Just begin asserting it was due to being too right wing, including doing a genocide.
The "why" of losing an election isn't entirely knowable anyways. Most people didn't vote at all. Every candidate that loses mostly loses because the majority of people see no value in it. The consistency of this should mean most reflection be about the illegitimacy of American "democracy", but that is rarely the focus. Instead, all of the air in the room gets taken up by cynical party "strategists" trying to normslize even farther right views to placate donors and get their next gig on the next campaign, now defined as, "we are woke but are against trans people and latinos".
The "it's because they're right wing genociders" line is more correct than 90% of what anyine will otherwise hear. It is also in line with why there are so many non-voters. What is the meaning of being politically "engaged" in electoralism when you don't see a material benefit to it, can't really personally do anything about it except check a box for one of two Hitlers, and see correct popular will on important topics routinely ignored despite how the party suckups tell you it works?
Smoosh that stuff together and take up more space!
Could be the shifting demographics. That many more people concerned with what's happening at home