This is persuasion done correctly. "I understand how you are feeling. Israel's crimes and US support of them should be important to all of us. You aren't wrong to have your reservations, and I agree change is needed. That being said, please let me tell you why it's important to participate." No insults, readily apparent empathy, and a sound argument.
People have been doing exactly that since back when we were trying to somehow get Biden to win.
The message isn't the thing. It is the speaker. Because even the tankiest of tankies are going to be wary of insulting Sanders in front of their audience. And this is why celebrity endorsements matter.
Edit: I'm changing my stance on how common this is after a few hours looking at top election posts and comments across boards. The abuse definitely exists, but in most places it WASN'T at the top. While "vote bullying" happens, I was wrong about how much support it gets. I'm happy to be wrong and glad to see that people usually are pretty decent about presenting their arguments. I still think OP's article shows how people should be convinced.
I get what you are saying and half-agree. ~~Where I respectfully disagree is that people have always been this reasonable.~~ By writing "this is how it's done correctly, with respect and logic" I'm juxtaposing Sen. Sander's approach vs. "vote with us or else you're -insert insult here-" posts, comments, and memes. I've seen ~~tons of~~ some attempts to dehumanize or discredit critics of Biden/Harris/Dems on Lemmy and other platforms. You are right that ~~some~~ most have always tried to be empathetic and civil.
I also agree high-profile endorsements matter. That bugs me a little bit because I think arguments should succeed or fail on their own merits and not reputation. But I know I'm a consciously "have no heroes" person because I believe everyone is fallible. I definitely have people I respect a lot, but no one that I'll agree with all the time.
Generally speaking, people AREN'T saying "vote with us or else you're a piece of shit" to anyone who is (good faith) complaining about Biden's horrendous record on genocide and Kamala being unlikely to be much better. We almost always point out "Yeah... it sucks. But do you think trump will be any better? and get responses along the lines of "WELL I WON'T VOTE FOR GENOCIDE!! THAT IS MY LINE!!!"
It has nothing to do with the way the message was said and pretending otherwise is an active insult to everyone who gives a shit.
The only reason this MIGHT make a dent is because it is Bernie Sanders. The guy who opened a lot of people's minds to the reality that there is something better than late stage capitalism and beltway liberals.
people AREN’T saying “vote with us or else you’re a piece of shit”
Lemmy is doing precisely this, in this very thread, and has been doing this in literally every thread where this comes up since 2023. The issue that needs to be addressed is whether or not "Trump worse" is working as a strategy. What Bernie is saying here isn't new, and maybe he's saying it better, or its better coming from him than other surrogates. ymmv. I would argue you've already captured all the votes you can get using this approach. Now what about the votes you aren't getting with the argument "Trump worse"?
I think without a pivot on this Harris is leaving the easiest 1-3% of voters to get on the table. And they've been there since the last day of the convention, where Harris conveniently showed Arab-americans the exit rather than the podium. Its a small group, but its more than sufficient to be a deal breaker in this election. You can't force them to go for Harris, and no amount of telling them they have to has changed their minds.
Going forwards, how do you get these voters to vote for Harris?
I am an AAPI. I already know no candidate gives a shit about me. Hell, it says something when frigging Yang seemed palatable for like... five minutes. And with the way geopolitics is shaking up? If you thought the anti-asian hate was bad during the lockdown parts of COVID, just wait until we are in a cold war gone lukewarm against china like we are with russia.
And that is why a lot of AAPI folk kind of go right wing. They, like their parents, decide it is easier to try to ingratiate themselves wit hteh white supremacists than to show solidarity. But the rest of us? We rapidly learn that there IS no solidarity with us because we are "model minorities" and get told to shut the fuck up when more important minorities are being discriminated against.
But also? That isn't the only issue. There are AAPI women and AAPI lgbtq+ folk and so forth. And thus, you actually look at the issues and vote in your interests even if neither party really gives a shit. Because you have more than one issue (and, even that, one party is still a lot less shitty)
So if "Well... neither is great but one is a whole lot worse in these very concrete ways" isn't working?
You get a celebrity influencer to say it. Like Sanders.
We rapidly learn that there IS no solidarity with us because we are “model minorities” and get told to shut the fuck up when more important minorities are being discriminated against.
Its like the trolley problem exemplified. Blue-dog democrats be like "well someone needs to get crushed under the weight of this thing".
I’ve seen threads from only hours ago where lemmygrad denizens were shitting on Sanders as far too conservative. Like… honestly, at this point, I think many people in that crowd are just leaning into being agitprop trolls for t3h lulz, or something like that. It’s deeply stupid imo, but they seem to not care.
The tankies on Lemmy are not the progressives that Sanders is speaking to.
Those progressives feel disenfranchised by Democrats and will rightly drop support for the “moderate” candidate next time there’s an election where the alternative is not a mask-off fascist. Some of them might do it this year, unfortunately. Maybe this is their first time voting, and they’re struggling with settling for the lesser evil. Maybe they’ve been doing it all their life and they’re tired of it. They’re the ones Sanders is trying to persuade.
Tankies, on the other hand, don’t actually give a fuck about their own moral arguments. They would be in Gaza murdering Palestinians with their own hands if they thought it would accelerate the collapse of the US and the rest of the western world. But why get your hands dirty when Trump can drop MOABs because of “the power” or whatever dumb shit he’s going to do. They hope Trump wins so that China and Russia will need to rescue the world from a fascist dictator in the US. They’re hoping for a new world order - like what the allies did after they defeated nazi germany.
It’s easy to confuse them around here because there are so many tankies among the well-meaning progressives getting swept up by tankie opportunism.
This is where I'm at. I've been open that I'm voting for Kamala, but people are literally posting that she has "no scandals" unironically, and will call you a Russian bot or a Trump supporter for disputing that. It's absolutely unhinged, and does nothing for her election.
And this is why celebrity endorsements matter.
Good call. When your "role model" (for lack of a better term) takes a position on something, it tends to give it more credence to the target audience.
I have a great deal of respect for Bernie Sanders, so his words carry some weight with me. He is being a voice of reason.
People have been doing exactly that since back when we were trying to somehow get Biden to win.
No. Centrists have been screaming that anyone who has the slightest misgivings about their genocide is a trumpist russian shill bot child. There has been no understanding whatsoever because centrists cannot fathom disliking genocide.
Pfft.
Just had someone tell me that Bernie is too old and can't think any more.
They just want an excuse to get noticed and pretend to be badass.
I really wish the USA was just seeing the end of a double-term Bernie presidency. I'm not dumb enough to pretend that it would have all been roses and prosperity (especially with the pandemic), but missing the setbacks of that 1st Trump presidency alone would have been pretty great. I -think- I'd prefer a younger president, but if an older president had to be chosen then Bernie seems articulate and compassionate.
Finally! Not the video link! Thank you!
That was my bad. Thank you for everything you do!
AOC had a similar response on Pod Save America.
You win political influence by being a crucial part of a win. You lose political influence if your political opponents are in office. The best chance to have your voice heard on Israel is being a crucial part of a Harris win.
That is the calculation.
Yep.
I would recommend folks watch this 20 minute video on Rules for Rulers from CGP Grey.
Despots, Presidents, CEOs, Deans, Homeowners Association Presidents, the guy who runs the open mic- at the end of the day they have to follow the same rules to maintain their power. The zero'th rule in the video is "without power, you affect nothing".
I'm voting for Kamala, and I'm voting down ballot for any pro-palestine candidate. I want to send the message that in order to get reelected, she will need to change her stance.
When I see people not voting out of protest, they are giving their opposition the influence over their elected officials. Remember, they work for you, and voting is how you let them know what you want.
They're using synpathy towards people suffering genocide to try and coral people to the polls. I've seen this before. What happened with Roe V Wade? Why are kids still in cages at the border? Why is minimum wage still so low?
Madam Vice President, too little has been done on issues that were previously promised. I cannot take these people at their word.
Want my vote? End support now. It's been a year of genocide with you at the right hand of Biden. All those lives lost happened on your watch. I will not be duped into voting for someone who has been complicit in commiting genocide, who is now promising to stop that same genocide because it happens to coincide with their political goals.
I will not support a genocide, on the promise of it being ended, only to wake up on January 21st just to hear 'Well, the situation is more complicated than just simply ending support, but I vow...!"
You've had a year to end it, and too little has been done to stop it. I will not vote for a genocidal candidate. I will not say that I support genocide by voting for these people. I will not be an accomplice.
It's sickening to think that they probably allowed the genocide to continue just to use it as a carrot to lead people to the ballot box, all the while lining the pockets of the military industrial complex.
Fuck off with your promises, you're in the White House now.
Virtue signalling about genocide and letting the 'genocide to the max' guy win will show the Palestinian people how much you care for their plight.
"If I can't have zero genocide then I don't care to vote against the candidate that is very likely to be even worse."
Especially with only two candidates with a chance of winning, a vote doesn't mean unconditional support for everything that candidate wants. Sucks, but if you want to make your wishes known more specifically, you have to do more than just vote (if even that) and complain on the internet.
They voted against both, dont be mad your candidate was so shit she couldnt clear a 'dont genocide' hurdle from a voter. Thats not either your faults or problems its Harris' problem.
The current system (or voter inertia) doesn't allow you to vote against both. One of them will win, your only decision is which one you want (or despise less). If your vote doesn't threaten their win, then when you vote for neither you're voting for the winner.
The current system (or voter inertia) doesn’t allow you to vote against both.
false premise.
One of them will win,
Yes.
your only decision is which one you want (or despise less).
false conclusion.
If your vote doesn’t threaten their win, then when you vote for neither you’re voting for the winner.
Man, you're a mental pretzel. please re-read your statement a few times. think really hard on what you just said. come back when you realize how that statement works both ways and is beautiful nonsense.
You agreed that either Trump or Harris will win. Your vote can only threaten one of them, by voting for the other or an alternative candidate. Same with not voting, the winner won't care about your missing vote.
That means no action you take in the election will harm both candidates, ergo there is no way to vote against both of them.
Good plan dude. Trump to the rescue.
I don't think anyone thinks trump is going to rescue anything.
The easiest way to get back voters for whom this was a deal breaker, is for Kamala to pivot on the issue.
The rhetorical techniques from surrogates have been out there for months. They don't work when the candidate is out there eroding them by saying things like "nothing comes to mind". You can be angry at these voters, you can blame them, but what obviously isn't working is trying to move them by saying "Trump would be worse".
The only answer here that works is a pivot from Kamala.
The only answer here that works is a pivot from Kamala.
That's the only answer you want. That's not the only answer that works.
Well its clear that the "rhetoric only" approach isn't working and is insufficient. Bernies rhetoric here and in the video version are good. But its not any different than what we've been seeing, literally the entire time from other surrogates. It sums to "Trump worse".
And its not working. It hasn't moved the needle. Kamala has been declining in polling pretty precisely since she snubbed Muslim's at the DNC and then a week after that doubled down on it saying that "nothing would be different" in her administration relative to Biden's. Since then the scale and scope of Israels genocide have increased, and she's stayed the course to a continual decline in polling. Its not "the answer I want", its what the data have to say.
We're a week out from the election. You've convinced all the voters for whom "Trump worse" is a sufficient rhetorical approach.
Now what about the voters for whom that approach is insufficient. Is your plan to leave them on the table? Because it seems to me you aren't interested in getting their votes, and that puts the campaign in jeopardy.
There is a cohort that appears to be about 5% of voters for whom "Trump worse" is an ineffective argument. If not for a pivot on the part of Harris, what is your argument then to get those voters to show up and vote for her?
I don't know why we're assuming that she picks up more votes than she loses by making a pivot on Israel. Not only will she lose votes from other areas of the base, that pivot will drive turnout among the GOP base. 5% means nothing if they lose 5% from Christians/Jews and turn out all the Christian crazies for the GOP.
Unfortunately I think the Harris campaign is doing the right thing with Israel right now. If other people on the left think this issue is worth losing over, I simply disagree. I don't think there's a good answer where everyone is happy, just one with less dead Palestinians.
why we’re assuming that she picks up more votes than she loses by making a pivot on Israel
Because thats what the data have to say. That's why we think that.
I think the Harris campaign is doing the right thing with Israel right now. If other people on the left think this issue is worth losing over,
What you need to recognize is that this is something YOU think the election is worth losing over. YOU are the one arguing to leave a sufficient block of voters on the table by not pivoting. That 1-3% of voters is what wins or loses all of these tight races.
This is an aspect that makes me irate. People will say that its pure electoral pragmatism to support Israel, but how is losing Michigan over it pragmatic? I have seen no convincing argument that an arms embargo would be more dangerous for her electorally than continuing to tripple down on supporting Israel. If its not taken as a given that genocide is a pragmatic approach, then it seems obvious that the choice that leads to less genocide is correct, but Harris won't take it.
Christ, right? If anything, the data we have suggest a pivot gets her back to being a candidate that had momentum and was increasing their share of likely voters.
There is nothing pragmatic about supporting a policy which is deeply unpopular with your base. This is a turn out election. You have to turn your base out, not off.
You lose way more voters than you gain on the issue by resorting to all out condemnation of one of our biggest allies, unfortunate as it is
Maybe if Harris were running as a Republican.
But its not Republican votes she's leaving on the table. Its literally registered Democrats. And Democrats put the responsibility for the state of things on the Israeli government.
I feel you. I completely agreed until sometime in spring, when Sen. Sanders first posted an argument very similar to OP's linked article. One of the major reasons I switched stances was environmental damage and global warming which is threatening horrible suffering for hundreds of millions at least. If for no other reason than that Trump must lose. Afterwards those who stand for ethics and proportional response can try to drag the Western leaders out of complicity with war crimes. Never stop criticizing such unethical and illegal policies, but if you're American please vote Democrat.
No amount of endorsement or support will ever stop the democrats from shitting on bernie. Bernie doesn't even want to replace capitalism, he wants to save capitalism from itself. But even that is way over the line for blue conservatives.
It is of my opinion that individuals that don't vote in the upcoming election are complacent to the atrocities occuring.
I feel that this occupation is just repeating every few years since '87.
This is what thinking people do, given the cureent choice. Good on Bernie! Shame on the narrow minded twits.
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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