Massive protest marches in every American city, and takeovers of University commons across the country, on network news every night for months, during the spring and summer of an Election year, calling the incumbent Democratic President running for re-election “Genocide Joe”, chanting “from the river to the sea” not only freaked out middle America (democrats and republicans in equal measure) but all of it, and not only suppressed the Democratic youth vote, but in fact all of it
edit: More Arab and Latino Americans voted for Donald Trump than have ever voted for any Republican candidate before in US history. The Republican youth vote was higher in this past election than it ever has been before, the Democratic youth vote was lower in this pas election than it ever has been before. The Far Left told us they weren’t going to vote for “Genocide Joe”, and Democrat youth didn’t show up to vote.
Is it possible that young people who didn’t turn out to vote had independently reached similar conclusions to the ones who marched after seeing what was happening in Gaza with their own eyes?
There was another presidential candidate other than “Genocide Joe,” who knew that as far back as March 2024 75% of Democrats (higher among youth) were against the Israeli actions in the war. She didn’t change the US policy towards the conflict. When asked on October 8th if there was anything she’d have done differently than Joe, she said “Not a thing comes to mind.”
Do you think the youth turnout could have been higher if Kamala materially shifted her policy on Israel and Gaza, once she was the nominee?
If she maintained a widely unpopular policy among Democrat youth, do you expect the electorate to fall in line instead of the politician representing the electorate? Would that not be undemocratic?
If most network media is owned by the same people who fund politicians and pay for the policies politicians espouse, including unconditional support for Israel, doesn’t it sound plausible that the coverage of the protests was presented as far-left extremism in order to marginalize the opinion that US should curb support for the war and make it unacceptable, in the hope that the vast swaths of democrats would be shamed out of it? Doesn’t that sound like a gamble they were willing to make, given they knew most democrats disagreed, in an attempt to keep funneling money for the war, despite what the electorate wanted?
At least to me, these are more likely explanations behind the lower turnout.
I’m not trolling and I’m not asking to change your opinion or anything. Just positing some Qs and explanations for you to consider. Don’t feel the need to defend yourself.
Wow, just in time 🙄
Right?
Center-right
Hah! Well played!
lol the far left suppressed the democratic youth vote for their own candidate telling them they weren’t voting for “genocide joe”
Where did you hear what the far left did?
Massive protest marches in every American city, and takeovers of University commons across the country, on network news every night for months, during the spring and summer of an Election year, calling the incumbent Democratic President running for re-election “Genocide Joe”, chanting “from the river to the sea” not only freaked out middle America (democrats and republicans in equal measure) but all of it, and not only suppressed the Democratic youth vote, but in fact all of it
edit: More Arab and Latino Americans voted for Donald Trump than have ever voted for any Republican candidate before in US history. The Republican youth vote was higher in this past election than it ever has been before, the Democratic youth vote was lower in this pas election than it ever has been before. The Far Left told us they weren’t going to vote for “Genocide Joe”, and Democrat youth didn’t show up to vote.
Is it possible that young people who didn’t turn out to vote had independently reached similar conclusions to the ones who marched after seeing what was happening in Gaza with their own eyes?
There was another presidential candidate other than “Genocide Joe,” who knew that as far back as March 2024 75% of Democrats (higher among youth) were against the Israeli actions in the war. She didn’t change the US policy towards the conflict. When asked on October 8th if there was anything she’d have done differently than Joe, she said “Not a thing comes to mind.”
Do you think the youth turnout could have been higher if Kamala materially shifted her policy on Israel and Gaza, once she was the nominee?
If she maintained a widely unpopular policy among Democrat youth, do you expect the electorate to fall in line instead of the politician representing the electorate? Would that not be undemocratic?
If most network media is owned by the same people who fund politicians and pay for the policies politicians espouse, including unconditional support for Israel, doesn’t it sound plausible that the coverage of the protests was presented as far-left extremism in order to marginalize the opinion that US should curb support for the war and make it unacceptable, in the hope that the vast swaths of democrats would be shamed out of it? Doesn’t that sound like a gamble they were willing to make, given they knew most democrats disagreed, in an attempt to keep funneling money for the war, despite what the electorate wanted?
At least to me, these are more likely explanations behind the lower turnout.
I’m not trolling and I’m not asking to change your opinion or anything. Just positing some Qs and explanations for you to consider. Don’t feel the need to defend yourself.
Yes, but the dems didn’t do themselves any favors either.