politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
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
view the rest of the comments
It's gotta be either this or evidence that the base is further left than they thought and moderating to the right was a dogshit strategy. Nothing else seems like it's threatening enough to the establishment to warrant burying the report. Though if I was gonna bet, I'd be putting it on support for Israel.
3rd option would be evidence of election fraud by GOP but they are afraid DOJ will go after them.
LMAO if that's it, we're even more fucked than I thought.
We are actually very fucked unless Americans woke up.
https://youtu.be/XaqKHHbSOEc
This is take from an American historian and she also mentions that US has this happen 2 times already and people woke up and stopped it. Let's hope this time it won't be different.
I think it's much simpler - they are concerned that the report contains research on effective Republican tactics, as well as ways they can be countered in the future, which would give Republicans a lot of useful information for future elections.
This seems very obvious, but we are in a political era where everyone just defaults to cynicism I guess
So the hypothesis is that somehow the DNC ($6m in debt, raising ~$10m/month) somehow came up with valuable information that the RNC ($110m cash in hand, raising ~$20m/month) doesn't know and doesn't have access to?
Seems very unlikely, not obvious at all.
You don't need to bet, you can just look up surveys on whether or not US voters say the Israel-Palestine conflict is important to them, and you'll find that an extremely small minority of voters say it is.
Trump won mainly because, among swing voters, he was ranked more favourably than Harris when it came to the economy and immigration.
Over 160 million people voted and she lost the popular vote by 2.3 million votes. The specific states that swung the electoral vote by even less.
Even if only a single percent of the people who voted were swayed by Trump's lies about being anti-war contra Kamala's refusal to even PRETEND so AND it didn't discourage a SINGLE person from voting at all (which for the record was in no way the case), that would STILL be electorally significant to the point of being potentially decisive.
Pew Research - Apr 7, 2026 survey
"Somewhat" is doing some heavy lifting there. Of course I mean: important enough to alter their vote. So 22% per the article say the Israel-Hamas conflict is "very" important (which was less in 2024). Those who would base their vote on it is a smaller subset. Those who would base their vote on it and not think Trump was significantly worse a yet smaller subset of this subset.
All this is even still ignoring the fact that Jewish Americans heavily favour the Democrats, and while many certainly aren't Bibi fanboys, the Democrats cannot afford to alienate this part of their voter base (and in the oligarchic system of the US, that they have above-average incomes also makes them more valuable voters), making it less than obvious that a more hardline approach towards Israel would bear electoral fruit.
I think you're just moving the goalposts now.
Can you point me to a survey that tracks this? You suggested there was survey data to support your claim, but I am unaware of any survey that asks if Israel/Palestine is important enough to change votes.
There's dozens of polls that show how the Dems position on Israel/Palestine cost them votes
The data on why the Democrats failed to win is clear
Here Are 34 Polls That Show A Ceasefire & Weapons Embargo Help Kamala Win
Kamala Would Have Won With A Weapons Embargo
Democrats' Working-Class Failures, Analysis Finds, Are 'Why Trump Beat Harris'
2024 Post-Election Report: A retrospective and longitudinal data analysis on why Trump beat Harris
How Trump and Harris Voters See America’s Role in the World
Majority of Americans support progressive policies such as higher minimum wage, free college
Democrats should run on the popular progressive ideas, but not the unpopular ones
Here Are 7 ‘Left Wing’ Ideas (Almost) All Americans Can Get Behind
Finding common ground: 109 national policy proposals with bipartisan support
Progressive Policies Are Popular Policies
Tim Walz's Progressive Policies Popular With Republicans in Swing States
https://blueprint2024.com/polling/harris-poll-positive-message-8-8/
https://blueprint-research.com/polling/distance-biden-ads-message-test-10-15/
We know what the autopsy is about, and why they won't release it.
You and I are in agreement on the political question here: The Kamala campaign's support for Israel's genocide lost her the election.
But there is a specific technical question I'm asking in this argument: is there an American poll that asked potential voters if their vote is changed by the Israel/Palestine conflict?
I went through the links you provided quickly and I didn't see any indication that this question was asked.
I'm not sure that exact poll has been done, not to my knowledge
Why are you linking to a study that took place more than a year after the election?
In the context of this thread it's more important to know how people felt during the election
Because I'm not a Pew Research historian, and I'm not writing a research paper here.
You're correct that data from 2024 would be more relevant, but 2026 data is still revealing. The commenter said that an "extremely small minority" cared about the conflict [in 2024].
Are you suggesting that they are correct, an extremely small minority cared during 2024, but now in 2026 that has ballooned to >50%? That is an extraordinary claim; if you are making such a claim then please provide evidence.
You don't need to be a pew research historian to think critically and evaluate a source. You even posted the date. You were most of the way there.
No I am not. I'm pointing out the issue of your data set.
I doubt it was a small minority, but 53% (or whatever it actually was during the election) of people can somewhat care about an issue without it being their primary voting issue. The people that made it their primary issue was likely a small minority of voters. That's my take anyhow.
Up-thread you said:
Now you say "it being their primary voting issue" which is a much stronger assertion. Things can still be important even if there's something else even more important.
So where will you be moving the goalposts next?
I never said that if you look up thread you'll see that was another user.....
Fish for an argument elsewhere. I just want people to think about their sources a bit
Great, so you do agree with me. I appreciate it.
Yes? That doesn't address the dataset issue which was all I was pointing out.
Anyone still describing support under Dems as "unwaivering" compared to Trump deepthroating Netanyahu, posting Gaza riviera AI slop, and being puppeted into attacking Iran needs to take their pills. Not to mention, Trump likely caused Oct.7 in the first place with his dogshit handling of the middle east during his first term.
Progressives got scammed by the right & foreign states into not voting for Kamala because of Gaza. Which ironically, made them tools for Israel's interests. Braindead clowns.
You are giving people way too much credit here. Your average voter for either side isn't thinking this hard.
Hence "beginning."
Some of us draw a harder line: as long as Israel is genocidal, no support. Sanctions instead. So where's a party that actually runs on that?
I don't understand this one. Both sides seem to support this?
Trump ran explicitly on ending the “war”. A lot of people knew it was bullshit but some people held out hope and voted for him.
Except he was always vaguely hinting that by end the war he meant give Isreal everything they wanted therefore "ending" the war. Same with Russia and Ukraine.
True, but vague hinting doesn't tend to find its way to the headlines and newscast sound bytes that are the extent of information that an abysmally large portion of persuadable voters receive and base their vote on.
That's a BIG part of why Trump has ever been the least bit successful in spite of being an obvious fraud to anyone paying even slightly close attention.
haha you wish, it was just traitors like yourself that used it as an excuse to allow trump into power