The Uncommitted movement made modest demands on the Democratic Party toward ending the agony in Gaza, and the party rejected them. But their demands cannot be ignored by Democratic power brokers forever.
Sure. Hundreds of thousands strong…in disparate voting areas.
Say what you want, but there is absolutely no way they can impact a US election in numbers alone. If you feel badly about that, you might want to also get that group together and vote for election reform where small groups like this consolidate their votes and actually impact an election. They do not right now, and the people running these campaigns just don’t fucking care.
You can discredit the movement all you want, despite how large it’s grown in such a short time. Political analyst disagree, to overlook the movement it to jeopardize the campaign. I’m with the movement on moral grounds, so I’ll defend it regardless of how popular it is. But it is gaining more and more popularity and has already influenced many local representatives in more than just battleground states.
So far, the uncommitted movement has tallied roughly 500,000 votes across the United States. It is an impressive milestone for a campaign launched just four months ago — and in a part of the country that is too often overlooked. But for Democrats, paying attention to the uncommitted movement is not just good politics in an election year. Seven months of sustained protest against Israel’s onslaught — and U.S. complicity in it — have pushed activists to look beyond the current crisis and challenge a system that values power over human life. That a growing slate of candidates is heeding their call points to a potential sea change in the Democratic Party. It may also make the movement for Palestinian freedom a quintessentially American one.
I will always advocate to demand more from our representatives. Especially when it comes to ending military support for a genocide. Yeah, the Democratic party can take that risk, but it’s a bad move. It’s a bad move on moral grounds, it’s a bad move on political grounds. Especially if they want to win, that’s not a constituency to ignore and risk losing those votes in key states.
Sure. Hundreds of thousands strong…in disparate voting areas.
Say what you want, but there is absolutely no way they can impact a US election in numbers alone. If you feel badly about that, you might want to also get that group together and vote for election reform where small groups like this consolidate their votes and actually impact an election. They do not right now, and the people running these campaigns just don’t fucking care.
You can discredit the movement all you want, despite how large it’s grown in such a short time. Political analyst disagree, to overlook the movement it to jeopardize the campaign. I’m with the movement on moral grounds, so I’ll defend it regardless of how popular it is. But it is gaining more and more popularity and has already influenced many local representatives in more than just battleground states.
It’s not that I don’t believe the movement exists. It does.
I’m saying it is insignificant to the people you are here complaining about in its specificity.
Yes they want your vote. After threatening that party over the past many months from the same movement, will they talk to you? Nope.
Can they win without you. YUP!
I will always advocate to demand more from our representatives. Especially when it comes to ending military support for a genocide. Yeah, the Democratic party can take that risk, but it’s a bad move. It’s a bad move on moral grounds, it’s a bad move on political grounds. Especially if they want to win, that’s not a constituency to ignore and risk losing those votes in key states.