The Democratic votes on the pair of resolutions from Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., were not enough to overcome universal opposition from Republicans.
Still, the votes represented a watershed moment in the party’s relationship with Israel and the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Israel had continued to enjoy strong support from Democratic leaders, despite outrage from the base over the war on Gaza. Sanders said the votes signaled that party leaders are finally taking note.
“This is where the American people are. The polls are very clear: The overwhelming majority of American people do not want to continue to give weapons to Netanyahu and his horrific wars in the Mideast,” he said. “I think the Democrats have caught on to that. It took a little while, but they caught on to that. But Republicans, I think, are standing in opposition to millions of their own supporters.”
I’m assuming they know it won’t pass because of the Republican majority so they are virtue signaling. I can’t trust either side.
Call their bluff and give them the majority they need yet secretly hope they don’t receive?
Why does your cult always put the burden on the voters and not the party to do what their constituency wants?
If they really want to oppose Israel, ask them to renounce their lobbying and kick them out instead?
“Call their bluff and make them win”
What kind of retarded strategy is this?
I mean, the alternative is what we have. Can’t see how that’s better. Giving them the votes for it would, at worst, change absolutely nothing, and at best prove cynics wrong and minutely improve shit. What’s there to lose?
I believe this is exactly what people have been doing the last 40 years, and each day that passes the Dems are further right because they know people will vote for them anyway.
Yeah, that is a problem, but are the Republicans going to fix it?
Primaries, lower-stakes elections (like non-federal or in non-swing states), nurturing an actually progressive platform from the ground up - that’s the most plausible democratic way to change things. Imagine if you could swing a formerly red state around to a progressive one. That would send one hell of a message.
I’m not going to advocate for non-democratic means on a public forum, obviously.
But as should be evident by now, neither voting Dem nor not voting Dem seem to y stop that slide (though defeats seem to encourage it, since they subsequently try to curry conservative votes rather than trying to regain the progressive favour), except that Republicans at the federal level have manifestly worse side-effects.
So I maintain that giving them votes is a form of damage control, where no better option exists, but if there is little damage to control, voting third party can be a sensible way to send a signal.
I’m not even American. I’m just wondering if that would be an effective strategy. I’m probably wrong and I wonder why that is the case.