politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I mean this is Tim "Israel has the right to expand its borders" Walz. Unless he walks that one back he'll probably alienate the Palestine vote.
But if he walks back that is he going to lose the Israel vote and will they finance a primary challenger?
The Israel vote basically doesn't exist anymore. Even most pro-Israeli voters won't go so far as to base their entire voting strategy on whether Israel gets to expand. Aleo if they're Republican-leaning they don't vote Democrat in a million years and vice versa. The reason this logic didn't work for Gaza voters was because genocide is a massive red line for a lot of people (and the existence of a sizeable Arab diaspora), not because most Americans particularly care about Palestine.
The Israel vote definitely exists and the Israel lobby can make or break almost any political career.
Single issue Israel voters? Do you have data for that? Because if they exist one would expect them to make more noise in favor of Harris instead of the narrative being set by Palestine voters.
No because that wasn't what I said.
Here's some stuff about the Israel lobbyists though
Vocal anti-Israel candidate Bowman loses New York's primary election
Pro-Israel groups spent big to oust two Squad members in primaries
Pro-Israel groups tout Dem primary endorsee winners, but yet to target safer anti-Israel incumbents
The equivalent to Gaza voters in 2024 would be single issue Israel voters. With a good candidate everyone else will fall in line, so only those two need to be considered.
Yeah I know about those, but lobbyists aren't all powerful and in something as large as the presidential election their impact will be outweighed by the Gaza vote. Israel lobbyists are so effective because they put all their weight against defectors who can be primaried and pick their battles; increase the scale of the election and their impact will wane accordingly.
Sure is neat watching which incumbents party leadership won't rally behind.
When AIPAC has thrown its weight into a race to try to unseat a Democrat, they mostly haven't used "Israel" to do it. If the Israel vote was actually a critical voting bloc that would sink campaigns, you'd think that would feature front and center.
This is my comment which almost lines up perfectly with the article you posted.
That's not the "Israel vote", that's the Israel lobby. And the Israel lobby has the money to attack a vulnerable representative, not the money to swing a presidential race. They failed to oust Omar and didn't even try to oust AOC. They're an enemy PAC, not god of elections.
Money you can get around. Voting constituencies you can't.