Democrats looked on course to significantly overperform as they held onto control of the Michigan state Senate with victory in a special election on Tuesday...
11.7 was the “undecided” portion of Democratic primary votes in this county.
Oh, okay, so you just decided:
Not to say what the 11.7% was – baselessly assuming that everyone would mutually understand.
To completely switch topics – whereas I said “Muslim vote in the 35th Senate district”, you decided to go with “undecided in the 2024 presidential primaries in this county” (the 35th is made of multiple counties, and you fail to even specify what “this county” is).
Not to provide a source.
That the alleged 11.7% undecided were ride-or-die on Israel–Palestine based on absolutely nothing.
That any of this at all pertains to the district’s status in 2026.
This is pigeon chess. You’re trying lazy numerical sleight-of-hand assuming people won’t actually question what you’re saying if you say it authoritatively enough. Steve Bannon would be proud of your ability to flood the zone by throwing mountains of bullshit out and hoping people get disoriented enough that they stop bothering to check.
Bruh stfu. You can go look up any electoral map to confirm the numbers. Politico, ballotopedia, CNN. Go pick one. You the one pushing pieces off the table once bringing numbers up became inconvenient to your narrative. You the lazy sloppo because you don’t even know the basic underlying results of any of these campaigns to be able to back up what you are saying, ALONG WITH complete and total historical revisionism.
I don’t owe you the labor of chewing up basic facts about the election and spitting them into your mouth like a mamma bird because you are too ignorant or lazy to do so yourself. If you don’t know things about elections, then maybe you shouldnt have a fucking opinion.
You literally just threw out numbers without any context and expected everyone to understand what you meant. You’ve since explained what you meant, but it’s still only partially relevant to this specific district, and you didn’t cite anything. Providing numbers without sources and presenting them as fact means what you said has no validity. The onus is on you to support your claims. If you can’t do that, then maybe you shouldn’t share your fucking opinion.
We’re discussing the weight that Israel/Palestine had on the election and I cited the district level “undecided” vote.
For me that’s more than plenty of context because anyone discussing election results, especially in Michigan, especially considering Democratic performance in '24, should already be aware of what was the superlative issues of the day were.
The people who don’t recognize the context are either politically illiterate, or, more likely, didn’t think it was important at the time that Biden and Harris change their approaches to Gaza.
Fortunately for us, with regards to commenters here, the latter is well documented and I know the apologists for genocide walking these halls only fake political illiteracy when it’s convenient to their political objectives.
Ah. More, “voting for Harris means you are a genocide apologist” rhetoric. Short sighted, narrow minded, and the huge reason Trump is president. It takes a whole bunch of stupid and copium to justify sitting back and abstaining from voting or voting third party giving the clear advantage to Trump. Anyone that falls in that group doesn’t actually care about Palestine/Gaza, domestic US policies, minority rights, or global relations, it’s all just emotionally charged saber rattling to make them feel morally superior. If they cared, they’d have swallowed their pride and voted for the clearly better, but not perfect, candidate in a two party system. Damn near everything bad that’s happened over the past 17 months would be better if Harris were POTUS right now.
No. Blaming voters for not voting for a pro-genocide candidate makes you a genocide apologist. If you don’t like that, stop making excuses for the candidate, full stop.
It was true when it was happening and its only become more clear: Harris and Biden needed to not be in support of genocide to win the election. Period. There was no alternative thing they could have done and won the election. If you represented any kind of a barrier to this change taking place, you represented a barrier to stopping Trump from taking the white house. This election result puts the same thing which was obviously true in the primary season of '24 into even starker relief: The votes were there, just not for genocide.
Don’t want to get called a genocide apologist? Easy peasy. Stop apologizing for the Democratic candidate being pro-genocide.
I’m not apologizing. I’m not saying I support genocide. I think anything but opposing it is a problem. I also know that Harris or Trump was going to be president. I know which one is better. If harris had won, there was at least a chance for change and with Trump the best case scenario was that he did nothing. With all of those facts, there was one clear choice for possible change in Palestine, and it wasn’t protesting. Perhaps the protest will lead to long term change, which would be wonderful, but it also means a guaranteed 4 more years of Hell, possibly the complete deletion of Palestine instead.
You are. You quite literally are. You’re literally doing it in this reply. You use apologetics immediately after saying you aren’t apologizng. I’m sorry you don’t know what words mean. I understand deeply what it means to live in a society that doesn’t value education. Apologetics as it applies to rhetoric doesn’t mean saying “sorry”. Apologetics is a structural, rhetorical technique in philosophy and debate, and how you are making your case, its the definition of apologetics. You are definitively being an apologist.
An apologetic argument would be along the lines of “Thing A might not be great, but thing B is far worse. Therefore, it should follow that one prefers thing A.” You are excusing, or apologizing for thing A as an argument against thing B. The rest is anecdotal (you use ‘I’ four times). Its an apologist argument to excuse the failures of the campaign.
Harris wasn’t good, but Trump was worse, so Harris was the clear choice.
That is an apologist argument. And it fails. Its a losing argument because we ran the scenario and we got the data. The same argument you are making here, it was basically the core argument the campaign made (both campaigns, the Biden phase and Harris phase were making basically the same argument). We tested it against US voters, and it lost.
It was the same structural argument used when Hillary was running. Sure she’s number one with bankers, but Trump is worse. Its a losing argument. It loses elections. You can’t be taken seriously if you are going to make arguments of apologia moving forwards, because we’ve tested this approach against voters sooo many times, and what we can confidently say, is that it loses elections.
Nothing about your argument addresses voter behavior in the real world. None of it addresses what the campaign could have done differently. It doesn’t address the fact that in-spite of you “knowing” all of these things, Trump still won the election. It doesn’t provide any insight into what it would have taken to win the 2024 election or what it will take to win future elections. It doesn’t address that both the apologists and the Harris campaign knew all of this in advance.
What it comes down to: Your individual decisions are immaterial and what you think voters should do doesn’t matter. What matters is what voters actually do. How they actually think. How campaigns get those kinds of information and how campaigns respond to them.
My argument addresses voter behavior directly. I’m saying anyone that didn’t vote for Harris is either an idiot or a malicious idiot. I’m not apologizing for voting for Harris. It was easily the right choice. There are no perfect people, so you could argue that voting for anyone would make you an apologist for any of their shortcomings. It’s just strawman arguments. It’s possible to support someone and be critical of them without being an apologist.
Oh, okay, so you just decided:
This is pigeon chess. You’re trying lazy numerical sleight-of-hand assuming people won’t actually question what you’re saying if you say it authoritatively enough. Steve Bannon would be proud of your ability to flood the zone by throwing mountains of bullshit out and hoping people get disoriented enough that they stop bothering to check.
Bruh stfu. You can go look up any electoral map to confirm the numbers. Politico, ballotopedia, CNN. Go pick one. You the one pushing pieces off the table once bringing numbers up became inconvenient to your narrative. You the lazy sloppo because you don’t even know the basic underlying results of any of these campaigns to be able to back up what you are saying, ALONG WITH complete and total historical revisionism.
I don’t owe you the labor of chewing up basic facts about the election and spitting them into your mouth like a mamma bird because you are too ignorant or lazy to do so yourself. If you don’t know things about elections, then maybe you shouldnt have a fucking opinion.
You literally just threw out numbers without any context and expected everyone to understand what you meant. You’ve since explained what you meant, but it’s still only partially relevant to this specific district, and you didn’t cite anything. Providing numbers without sources and presenting them as fact means what you said has no validity. The onus is on you to support your claims. If you can’t do that, then maybe you shouldn’t share your fucking opinion.
We’re discussing the weight that Israel/Palestine had on the election and I cited the district level “undecided” vote.
For me that’s more than plenty of context because anyone discussing election results, especially in Michigan, especially considering Democratic performance in '24, should already be aware of what was the superlative issues of the day were.
The people who don’t recognize the context are either politically illiterate, or, more likely, didn’t think it was important at the time that Biden and Harris change their approaches to Gaza.
Fortunately for us, with regards to commenters here, the latter is well documented and I know the apologists for genocide walking these halls only fake political illiteracy when it’s convenient to their political objectives.
Ah. More, “voting for Harris means you are a genocide apologist” rhetoric. Short sighted, narrow minded, and the huge reason Trump is president. It takes a whole bunch of stupid and copium to justify sitting back and abstaining from voting or voting third party giving the clear advantage to Trump. Anyone that falls in that group doesn’t actually care about Palestine/Gaza, domestic US policies, minority rights, or global relations, it’s all just emotionally charged saber rattling to make them feel morally superior. If they cared, they’d have swallowed their pride and voted for the clearly better, but not perfect, candidate in a two party system. Damn near everything bad that’s happened over the past 17 months would be better if Harris were POTUS right now.
No. Blaming voters for not voting for a pro-genocide candidate makes you a genocide apologist. If you don’t like that, stop making excuses for the candidate, full stop.
It was true when it was happening and its only become more clear: Harris and Biden needed to not be in support of genocide to win the election. Period. There was no alternative thing they could have done and won the election. If you represented any kind of a barrier to this change taking place, you represented a barrier to stopping Trump from taking the white house. This election result puts the same thing which was obviously true in the primary season of '24 into even starker relief: The votes were there, just not for genocide.
Don’t want to get called a genocide apologist? Easy peasy. Stop apologizing for the Democratic candidate being pro-genocide.
I’m not apologizing. I’m not saying I support genocide. I think anything but opposing it is a problem. I also know that Harris or Trump was going to be president. I know which one is better. If harris had won, there was at least a chance for change and with Trump the best case scenario was that he did nothing. With all of those facts, there was one clear choice for possible change in Palestine, and it wasn’t protesting. Perhaps the protest will lead to long term change, which would be wonderful, but it also means a guaranteed 4 more years of Hell, possibly the complete deletion of Palestine instead.
You are. You quite literally are. You’re literally doing it in this reply. You use apologetics immediately after saying you aren’t apologizng. I’m sorry you don’t know what words mean. I understand deeply what it means to live in a society that doesn’t value education. Apologetics as it applies to rhetoric doesn’t mean saying “sorry”. Apologetics is a structural, rhetorical technique in philosophy and debate, and how you are making your case, its the definition of apologetics. You are definitively being an apologist.
An apologetic argument would be along the lines of “Thing A might not be great, but thing B is far worse. Therefore, it should follow that one prefers thing A.” You are excusing, or apologizing for thing A as an argument against thing B. The rest is anecdotal (you use ‘I’ four times). Its an apologist argument to excuse the failures of the campaign.
That is an apologist argument. And it fails. Its a losing argument because we ran the scenario and we got the data. The same argument you are making here, it was basically the core argument the campaign made (both campaigns, the Biden phase and Harris phase were making basically the same argument). We tested it against US voters, and it lost.
It was the same structural argument used when Hillary was running. Sure she’s number one with bankers, but Trump is worse. Its a losing argument. It loses elections. You can’t be taken seriously if you are going to make arguments of apologia moving forwards, because we’ve tested this approach against voters sooo many times, and what we can confidently say, is that it loses elections.
Nothing about your argument addresses voter behavior in the real world. None of it addresses what the campaign could have done differently. It doesn’t address the fact that in-spite of you “knowing” all of these things, Trump still won the election. It doesn’t provide any insight into what it would have taken to win the 2024 election or what it will take to win future elections. It doesn’t address that both the apologists and the Harris campaign knew all of this in advance.
What it comes down to: Your individual decisions are immaterial and what you think voters should do doesn’t matter. What matters is what voters actually do. How they actually think. How campaigns get those kinds of information and how campaigns respond to them.
My argument addresses voter behavior directly. I’m saying anyone that didn’t vote for Harris is either an idiot or a malicious idiot. I’m not apologizing for voting for Harris. It was easily the right choice. There are no perfect people, so you could argue that voting for anyone would make you an apologist for any of their shortcomings. It’s just strawman arguments. It’s possible to support someone and be critical of them without being an apologist.