Gaza ceasefire protest vote gains traction in US on Super Tuesday - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15306675
Source

A protest vote against Joe Biden gained more traction around the country on Super Tuesday as voters in several states sought to send a message to the Democratic president to support a permanent ceasefire in Gaza.

Grassroots groups organized quickly after a similar effort in Michigan last week far exceeded its goal of 10,000 votes for “uncommitted” brought in more than 100,000 votes, or 13% of the vote.

A smattering of Super Tuesday states – Alabama, Colorado, Iowa, Massachusetts, North Carolina and Tennessee – had an option on the Democratic ballot where voters could decide not to commit to a specific candidate. These options included “uncommitted”, “noncommitted delegate” and “no preference”.

In Minnesota, about 19% of voters chose “uncommitted”, far more than chose Dean Phillips, the congressman from that state who is challenging Biden in the primary. Massachusetts saw about 9% of votes go to a “no preference” options. In North Carolina, about 13% of voters picked “no preference”. Democratic protest votes were also recorded in Alabama (6% “uncommitted”), Iowa (4%) and Tennessee (8%).

Minnesota’s campaign was seen as the most likely to bring in more votes because the state has a large Muslim population, high voter turnout and a progressive left, all factors that could help it get more people to send a protest vote.

Organizers in Massachusetts, North Carolina and Colorado also worked to push voters toward uncommitted options after Michigan. In Massachusetts, volunteers spread the word over the past few days that voters there should choose “no preference” on their primary ballots. Colorado voters were urged by the Colorado Palestine Coalition to pick “noncommitted delegate” on their ballots, Colorado Public Radio reported.

“We join a national movement which has been galvanized by what has come out of Michigan and we’re asking people to use their ballot to tell Biden ‘we say no to genocide,’” Lara Jirmanus, one of the “no preference” organizers in Massachusetts, said, according to Mass Live.

The uncommitted campaign is moving nationally to push Biden on the ceasefire issue. This weekend, Kamala Harris called for an “immediate ceasefire” for six weeks. But organizers in the movement have called for a permanent ceasefire and seen temporary measures as a half-step to try to assuage the Democratic base.

The movement got a boost this weekend when the Democratic Socialists of America, the country’s largest socialist group, endorsed “uncommitted”.

“Until this administration ends its support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza and delivers a permanent, lasting ceasefire, Joe Biden will bear the responsibility for another Trump presidency,” the group wrote on X.

Biden allies and Democratic officials across the country have drawn attention instead to the eventual Trump-Biden matchup, saying the threat Trump poses to the country is too great for people to choose other options.

But Biden’s campaign acknowledged the movement, with campaign spokeswoman Lauren Hitt telling the New York Times on Tuesday that “the president hears the voters participating in the uncommitted campaigns. He shares their goal for an end to the violence and a just, lasting peace – and he’s working tirelessly to that end.”
The Minnesota uncommitted campaign had only about a week to put together an effort and sway voters. They didn’t have a set number goal and instead saw any amount as a way to force Biden to pay attention to the issue, a key liability among Democratic voters. They called and texted voters and showed up at mosques around the state to spread the word about the uncommitted option, explaining how it was a protest of Biden on his Israel stance.

Ruth Schultz, a Minneapolis voter, was inspired by Michigan’s uncommitted vote and started reaching out to people she organized within a group called MN Families for Palestine. She saw the vote as a way to show the Biden administration how many registered Democrats want a ceasefire, pressuring him to be accountable to that base of people.

She said she probably would not have voted in the Minnesota presidential primary if there wasn’t an uncommitted campaign. In November, it’s a “given” that she won’t vote for Trump, but she wants to see Biden move on a ceasefire.

“I want to see President Biden take a stronger stance for peace and how to get a ceasefire and to use all the tools at his disposal in order to do that,” she said. “I am watching that as a voter in the general election. I believe that there is the ability and time for him to be a stronger leader in this arena.”

After Super Tuesday, movement organizers say they’re planning to share what they learn to help other states organize and keep the pressure up. Already, states like Washington have been getting to work – there, the state’s largest labor union endorsed “uncommitted”, a major boost to the protest campaign.


Certainly a positive development. Hopefully the uncommitted votes grow in the coming primaries.
#15306690
KurtFF8 wrote:In the previous primaries, the US wasn't supporting an active genocide against Palestine. So not sure that such a comparison would make much sense considering this is a specific campaign to a contemporary geopolitical position of the current President.


Why do I suspect that the comparison is like Michigan's, where the uncommitted percentage was basically the same compared to the last time a Dem incumbent was in a primary in 2012?

Please share the data so we can compare.
#15306706


Democrats are getting protested all over the shop because of their support for the genocide, I've been enjoying watching all the protests in the U.S., here's a few from this last week:






More to come..



All this explains why Kamala was all pro a temporary ceasefire all of a sudden. :lol:

Turns out voters in the U.S. have some power to influence their overlords after all..
#15306909
wat0n wrote:So you are saying that this campaign was as ineffective as it was in Michigan, to the extent that they managed to go from 10.5% to 13.2%? :eek:


You're not really making any sense here. The campaign was first launched in 2024. So you can't compare its previous performance to the current one because there was no previous performance.

Also where are you getting those numbers from? Based on wiki, the 2016 primary showed 21k or 1.79%, the 2020 primary shows 19k or 1.20%. So 2024 by comparison to the previous two shows quite a massive increase in people who voted uncommitted.
#15306912
KurtFF8 wrote:You're not really making any sense here. The campaign was first launched in 2024. So you can't compare its previous performance to the current one because there was no previous performance.

Also where are you getting those numbers from? Based on wiki, the 2016 primary showed 21k or 1.79%, the 2020 primary shows 19k or 1.20%. So 2024 by comparison to the previous two shows quite a massive increase in people who voted uncommitted.


wat0n wrote:It's more useful to compare to the last times an incumbent POTUS was on the ballot.

Current 2024 primary:

GOP: 1,105,989 votes (754,351 for Trump, 68.21%)
Dem: 757,574 votes (614,727 for Biden, 81.14%)

2012 (last time there was a Dem incumbent running for POTUS):

GOP: 996,499 votes (409,522 for Romney, 41.10%)
Dem: 194,887 votes (174,054 for Obama, 89.31%)

Obama won the general election by 9.5 percentage points.

2020:

GOP: 683,431 votes (640,522 for Trump, 93.72%)
Dem: 1,587,679 votes (840,360 for Biden, 52.93%)

Biden won by 2.78 percentage points.

I think it's remarkable to see how enthusiastic the Dem base is to go on and show support for Biden, just to stop Trump.


Also, have you seen the results of the CA Senate primary?
#15306940
@wat0n

Quite a few goalpost moves at once there I see.

The point stands that if we stick to the point you were trying to make "It's not much more than previous 'uncommitted' votes in Michigan" then you're just wrong. Not only are you wrong by the numbers but you're also trying to compare an active campaign to a time when there wasn't one.

Also nothing of what you just posted deals with the topic at hand.
#15306942
KurtFF8 wrote:@wat0n

Quite a few goalpost moves at once there I see.


None were moved.

KurtFF8 wrote:The point stands that if we stick to the point you were trying to make "It's not much more than previous 'uncommitted' votes in Michigan" then you're just wrong. Not only are you wrong by the numbers but you're also trying to compare an active campaign to a time when there wasn't one.


Or maybe the raw numbers are higher than in 2012 because these primaries attracted a lot more interest.

I will also note the hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty in assuming that all the uncommitted votes are protests votes over Biden's Gaza policy while at the same time assuming that not all votes for Biden are a vote in favor of his Gaza policy.

KurtFF8 wrote:Also nothing of what you just posted deals with the topic at hand.


This is a direct comparison with another primary, in a battleground state. That one shows the uncommitted didn't change significantly.

Just because you don't like it, it doesn't mean it's off topic.

Neither is discussing the CA Senate primary, how did the candidate who prominently based her campaign on "ceasefire now" do? Do you want to get into that? CA is one of the most progressive states in the country.
#15306945
wat0n wrote:Or maybe the raw numbers are higher than in 2012 because these primaries attracted a lot more interest.

I will also note the hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty in assuming that all the uncommitted votes are protests votes over Biden's Gaza policy while at the same time assuming that not all votes for Biden are a vote in favor of his Gaza policy.


The raw numbers were significantly higher, and so was the percentage. Also why do you keep only referring to 2012 rather than the two other primaries that followed?

It's not dishonesty to assume that by the way, there was a major public campaign to vote uncommitted to protest his pro-genocide policies and we saw a massive upsurge in uncommitted votes. It's intellectually dishonest to assume these two things are unrelated. It's really just a weak cope attempt.



This is a direct comparison with another primary, in a battleground state. That one shows the uncommitted didn't change significantly.


You were the one who brought up Michigan here, and what we saw in Michigan was a massive increase in uncommitted votes. You can try to twist it all you want but you can't deny the results and the numbers.


Neither is discussing the CA Senate primary, how did the candidate who prominently based her campaign on "ceasefire now" do? Do you want to get into that? CA is one of the most progressive states in the country.


Explain how the progressive losing to the right wing Democrat means that results like in Michigan didn't happen.
#15306947
KurtFF8 wrote:The raw numbers were significantly higher, and so was the percentage. Also why do you keep only referring to 2012 rather than the two other primaries that followed?


The campaign attracted a lot more interest this time as well. What's your point?

I compare to 2012 because it's the last time a Democrat incumbent President was in the ballot.

KurtFF8 wrote:It's not dishonesty to assume that by the way, there was a major public campaign to vote uncommitted to protest his pro-genocide policies and we saw a massive upsurge in uncommitted votes. It's intellectually dishonest to assume these two things are unrelated. It's really just a weak cope attempt.


It is dishonest to assume that while at the same time not assuming that the massive upsurge of votes for the incumbent President is a form of support for his policies, including his Gaza policy.


KurtFF8 wrote:You were the one who brought up Michigan here, and what we saw in Michigan was a massive increase in uncommitted votes. You can try to twist it all you want but you can't deny the results and the numbers.


More dishonesty here.

KurtFF8 wrote:Explain how the progressive losing to the right wing Democrat means that results like in Michigan didn't happen.


This doesn't make sense.

Explain how did the ceasefire campaign succeed in California given the only candidate who took its call ended dead last, with under 8% of the vote in one of the most progressive states.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQ4bO6xWJ4k There[…]

@FiveofSwords " chimpanzee " Having[…]

@Rancid They, the dogs, don't go crazy. They s[…]