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.
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.