[wat0n]

If Biden loses, it won't be because of Gaza.

Hailey also said explicitly she will not support Trump. I highly doubt her voters will be pleased if Biden harms Israel.

Neither will other Dem voters in battleground states like PA or GA.

Furthermore, there is no guarantee those leftist voters would not seek some other reason to justify not voting for Biden even if the war ended today. They already hated Biden even before October 7, 2023.

[late]

If Biden loses, it won't be because of Gaza.

Hailey also said explicitly she will not support Trump. I highly doubt her voters will be pleased if Biden harms Israel.

Neither will other Dem voters in battleground states like PA or GA.

Furthermore, there is no guarantee those leftist voters would not seek some other reason to justify not voting for Biden even if the war ended today. They already hated Biden even before October 7, 2023.

Wishful thinking, this is a lose/lose situation.

[wat0n]

Wishful thinking, this is a lose/lose situation.

I think you're underestimating the importance of "never Trumpers". Even if they're 25% of the GOP, that's a problem for Trump.

[skinster]

Quite a few goalpost moves at once there I see.

This is what hasbara trolls do.

..the reality is that with allies like Israel, we don't need enemies.

Indeed. As a former US ambassador said yesterday:

I mean, the basic argument for supporting Israel has been first, we share values. Well, Israel is demonstrating values of the Ku Klux Klan, and I don't share those values. Basically what's going on in Gaza is a mass lynching. And the second reason is supposedly Israel is a strategic asset. But I have never heard anyone describe what it does for us other than get us in trouble. The question they used to pose was, does Israel have a right to exist? Which is a rather strange question because it does exist. But I think that question is being replaced now in much of the world by, does Israel deserve to exist? Can the world really maintain normal relations with a country that behaves in utter disregard of international law and in a completely inhumane fashion?

More disruptions against the genocide:

[late]

I think you're underestimating the importance of "never Trumpers". Even if they're 25% of the GOP, that's a problem for Trump.

Open to debate, but a very relevant question.

It looks like most Republicans will hold their nose, and vote for Trump..

But it's awfully early to say that. The sort of Republican that likes the Lincoln Project will never vote for Trump. But they are old, mostly, and us old farts have a declining influence. Which is why the old Republicans want to burn the country down, as long as they can rule over the ashes.

[wat0n]

Open to debate, but a very relevant question.

It looks like most Republicans will hold their nose, and vote for Trump..

But it's awfully early to say that. The sort of Republican that likes the Lincoln Project will never vote for Trump. But they are old, mostly, and us old farts have a declining influence. Which is why the old Republicans want to burn the country down, as long as they can rule over the ashes.

Not so declining given both likely candidates are old. Like very old.

Of course, 2028 is a total tossup.

[skinster]

[wat0n]

No shit, there were 72 uncommitted delegates in the 2012 primary Obama won.

[skinster]

[KurtFF8]

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.

What do you mean by "this time"? There was no "last time."

And even when you compare it, you see an increase for this go around. Also the Michigan primary in 2012 was a caucus. So you can't even really compare them.

But the point stands: you're comparing a campaign that happened exclusively this year to a non existent campaign in 2012. And in your own comparison, the campaign this year was more successful.

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.

There was no "uncommitted" option in California.

[wat0n]

What do you mean by "this time"? There was no "last time."

And even when you compare it, you see an increase for this go around. Also the Michigan primary in 2012 was a caucus. So you can't even really compare them.

But the point stands: you're comparing a campaign that happened exclusively this year to a non existent campaign in 2012. And in your own comparison, the campaign this year was more successful.

Saying that an "uncommitted" campaign achieved marginally better results than no campaign is not the win you think it is.

There was no "uncommitted" option in California.

No, there was an actual candidate who campaign taking a lefty pro-Palestinian position. Which is even worse, if anything.

[AFAIK]

But the point stands: you're comparing a campaign that happened exclusively this year to a non existent campaign in 2012. And in your own comparison, the campaign this year was more successful.

Wat0n is trying to compare the current rate of "uncommitted" protest votes to previous rates of uncommitted votes in similar circumstances in order to gauge how much higher that vote share is during this ceasefire campaign compared to a baseline that occurs without any campaigning.

Please share the data so we can compare.

That's your job. If you want to argue a point look up the supporting evidence yourself and don't expect others to do your homework for you.

[wat0n]

That's your job. If you want to argue a point look up the supporting evidence yourself and don't expect others to do your homework for you.

He's claiming this campaign has been very successful.

Thus far, I have been able to find it wasn't in Michigan (where this meme began). Other states did caucuses on 2012, which aren't comparable to a primary.

Overall, there were uncommitted 72 delegates in the 2012 Dem Convention (4.9% of the votes). Let's wait until this year's convention. I think there are 20 uncommitted delegates so far.

[KurtFF8]

Wat0n is trying to compare the current rate of "uncommitted" protest votes to previous rates of uncommitted votes in similar circumstances in order to gauge how much higher that vote share is during this ceasefire campaign compared to a baseline that occurs without any campaigning.

And @wat0n is doing a very bad job. Firstly, by skipping the past 2 elections. Secondly by comparisons a caucus to a primary with direct votes, and of course thirdly by comparing an active campaign to a time where there wasn't an active campaign.

Even when we compare the numbers, it's clear that in 2024, there was a much larger group of people voting uncommitted. Not sure what numbers @wat0n is looking at, but to claim it was "marginally" better isn't really accurate.

Thus far, I have been able to find it wasn't in Michigan (where this meme began). Other states did caucuses on 2012, which aren't comparable to a primary.

Yet, you are going to keep claiming that it was "only marginally better" and all that, while also admitting that you can't even really compare them.

Overall, there were uncommitted 72 delegates in the 2012 Dem Convention (4.9% of the votes).

Another goalpost shift.

[wat0n]

@KurtFF8 I don't see the goalpost shift. I am doing the correct thing, comparing with the most similar past election.

No, 2016 is not a good example because there was no incumbent Dem POTUS running. 2020 isn't a good example, because there was no incumbent Dem POTUS running either.

One can compare Michigan's 2024 primary to the 2012 primary because there was, in fact, a Dem primary in Michigan.

One cannot compare Minnesota's 2024 primary to the 2012 Minnesota Dem primary because there was no Dem primary in Minnesota in the 2012 election. They had a caucus.

The state the pro-Palestinian campaigners had their biggest hopes for was Michigan and the results were unimpressive if not outright disastrous.

Then we have California'a Senatorial Primary, where the Senate candidate explicitly running a pro-Palestinian campaign ended dead last in the primary with around 8%. Another unimpressive and indeed poor result.

[ingliz]

@wat0n

"I just want to find 11,780 votes."

The percentages are a distraction. In the states that matter, in the swing states, if Biden loses even a small fraction of Dem voters to turn out, and that is in the tens of thousands in some states, he's fucked.

[wat0n]

@ingliz you know who can actually lose a lot more than just a handful of votes from his own party? Trump, given Hailey did a lot better than the uncommitted and she refused to endorse him.

[KurtFF8]

@KurtFF8 I don't see the goalpost shift. I am doing the correct thing, comparing with the most similar past election.

You're not doing a very good comparison. You're comparing a vote to a caucus. You're comparing a specific campaign's results to an election where no such campaign existed, etc.

One can compare Michigan's 2024 primary to the 2012 primary because there was, in fact, a Dem primary in Michigan.

The Democratic Primary in 2012 in Michigan was a caucus. This was not the case in 2024. This makes your comparison much less accurate and doesn't show what you think it's trying to show.

One cannot compare Minnesota's 2024 primary to the 2012 Minnesota Dem primary because there was no Dem primary in Minnesota in the 2012 election. They had a caucus.

See above.

The state the pro-Palestinian campaigners had their biggest hopes for was Michigan and the results were unimpressive if not outright disastrous.

This is a cope by you. The results show that in a close state like Michigan, there is enough dissatisfaction with Biden that it could cost him the state in the general. Just compare Biden's margin of win in 2020 to the "uncommitted" vote in Michigan. That's a close comparison that ought to alarm Biden's team.

Then we have California'a Senatorial Primary, where the Senate candidate explicitly running a pro-Palestinian campaign ended dead last in the primary with around 8%. Another unimpressive and indeed poor result.

The campaign for "uncommitted" didn't exist in CA because that isn't an option there. It's true that the Senate candidate with the better position didn't do as well, but the campaign is largely to target the President's policies. (Here we see yet another goalpost shift by you)

[wat0n]

You're not doing a very good comparison. You're comparing a vote to a caucus. You're comparing a specific campaign's results to an election where no such campaign existed, etc.

The Democratic Primary in 2012 in Michigan was a caucus. This was not the case in 2024. This makes your comparison much less accurate and doesn't show what you think it's trying to show.

The Democratic primary in 2012 was a primary, not a caucus. It was regulated by a 2011 state law, too, as it is done in any primary.

https://www.legislature.mi.gov/document ... A-0163.htm

This is a cope by you. The results show that in a close state like Michigan, there is enough dissatisfaction with Biden that it could cost him the state in the general. Just compare Biden's margin of win in 2020 to the "uncommitted" vote in Michigan. That's a close comparison that ought to alarm Biden's team.

It's interesting that this argument somehow doesn't apply to Trump, given Haley did a lot better in the GOP primary than the uncommitted did in the Dem one, and she's actually refused to endorse Trump.

The campaign for "uncommitted" didn't exist in CA because that isn't an option there. It's true that the Senate candidate with the better position didn't do as well, but the campaign is largely to target the President's policies. (Here we see yet another goalpost shift by you)

No, it's just another example of how your ideas don't gain traction.

The same protest vote against Biden should materialize in a Senatorial primary. In reality, those voting uncommitted may not be doing so for anything related to a far-left campaign.

[KurtFF8]

The Democratic primary in 2012 was a primary, not a caucus. It was regulated by a 2011 state law, too, as it is done in any primary.

https://www.legislature.mi.gov/document ... A-0163.htm

Nope!

From the wiki article I posted above:

The Democratic Party used a caucus system to determine the proportion of delegates awarded to Democratic candidates. The caucuses took place May 5; as the only Democratic candidate, President Obama won all 183 pledged delegates in the caucus. They, along with the other 20 unpledged delegates, voted for Obama at the 2012 Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina.

It's interesting that this argument somehow doesn't apply to Trump, given Haley did a lot better in the GOP primary than the uncommitted did in the Dem one, and she's actually refused to endorse Trump.

How could this apply to Trump? Haley is not pro-cease fire and as far as I know, there isn't a cease fire pressure campaign in the current GOP primary race.

No, it's just another example of how your ideas don't gain traction.

It's more an example of how you just quickly switch topics. It's a bizarre claim by you considering that the majority of voters support a cease fire.

The same protest vote against Biden should materialize in a Senatorial primary. In reality, those voting uncommitted may not be doing so for anything related to a far-left campaign.

There was no vote uncommitted campaign in California. You're again just comparing two different things, as usual.