The 192-page report, authored by a Democratic strategist and first published by CNN on Thursday morning, goes in-depth on several factors found to be detrimental to Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign in its ultimate loss to Donald Trump. Despite the contention within the party over then-President Joe Biden’s support for Israel’s genocidal campaign against Palestinians in Gaza, however, the war doesn’t get a single mention.
Also missing from the document are the words “Israel,” “Palestine,” “Arab American,” and “Muslim.”
A spokesperson for the DNC declined to comment on the omission of anything having to do with Gaza…
OP been living in a cave or finally returned from Gaza.
Im in these streets girl
I’d like to congratulate OP for waiting a whole week before bringing this up again…
https://lemmy.world/post/47181932?scrollToComments=true
Someday I hope people realize billionaires hating the DNC is a good thing tho, and that it wasn’t a coincidence the media waited till a new chair was sat until criticizing what Biden’s DNC did.
it wasn’t a coincidence the media waited till a new chair was sat until criticizing what Biden’s DNC did.
That doesn’t apply to The Intercept, or other independent media like Drop Site, Democracy Now, ect
Well duh. Whatever your thoughts may be on those who chose their vote purely based on Gaza, it is an undeniable fact that it played a not insignificant part in their loss to the orange paedophile.
Of course they don’t want to admit that essentially ignoring their ally’s genocide screwed them over… Because admitting that officially means they’d have to do something about it.
It would also disrupt funding.
The document was AI slop. I can see why they didn’t want to release it, but for crying out loud just be honest about why. The way they handled this only makes them look untrustworthy.
Is there any evidence that it was a top issue for voters? Every poll I saw was all about the economy and immigration etc. Americans are far too self-absorbed to care about a genocide they are paying for.
There can be more than one dealbreaker. For example, candidate eats barbecued babies for breakfast, or candidate supports sending money and weapons to a country committing genocide.
Even if it were possible to rank them, I wouldn’t want to support a candidate who does either.
With the voters split pretty evenly, it doesnt need to be a “top issue”. It needs to be enough of an issue that Dems will lose if they ignore it. The Dems are basically in a civil war, and progressives absolutely do have the power to keep them from winning elections if the centrists try to ignore them and pivot right again.
I think, other than Michigan, it was just a part of a larger group of things that turned progressive people away from voting at all. Numbers were down hard for Dems and a lot of people were self reporting that they didn’t think Dems earned their vote or that they wouldn’t do anything good with it.
Yeah, it’s not exactly inspiring when the choices are to have MAGA running amok, or Schumer droning on about irrelevancies while MAGA still runs amok.
It does not even need to be a top issue, but you cannot deny that it was an issue.
It is indeed interesting that they did not mention this topic at all. If the issue was actually insignificant, I would expect it to be mentioned to clarify it.
A proper post-mortem would have done a factor analysis of some kind, and then analyze the relationship between those factors. But that might lead to identifying root causes that make them uncomfortable, such as the glaringly evident fact that their donors’ objectives are in opposition to those of a large subset of their voters.
