I encourage everyone to read his actual blogpost linked in the article, it’s pretty good.
In the article:
> 34% of adults in America did not exercise their right to vote. Why?
In the referenced news:
> ... “Currently my biggest issue with U.S. politics is the response to the Palestinian genocide," Rojas said. ...
Back to the article:
> I think many of the Americans who did vote are telling us they no longer believe our government is effectively keeping America fair for everyone. Our status as the world's leading democracy is in question.
> We should make it easier for more eligible Americans to vote, such as making election day a national holiday, universal mail in voting, and adopting ranked choice voting so all votes carry more weight.
Is there any serious polls show how many Americans choose not to vote for the same reason? is it a number so small that it can be ignored?
Here's a quote from the poll:
When Biden 2020 voters cast a ballot for someone besides Harris in 2024 were asked “Which one of the following issues was MOST important in deciding your vote?” they selected:
29% - Ending Israel’s violence in Gaza
24% - The economy
12% - Medicare and Social Security
11% - Immigration and border security
10% - Healthcare
9% - Abortion policy
5% - Don’t knowNope. The poll is about people who did vote - not those who abstained.
As I pointed out elsewhere, those numbers are so tiny they would not have impacted the election results at all if every single one of them voted Harris.
It's all anecdotes - how many protest voted for Trump vs a 3rd party candidate or simply not vote at all (which I think was the ultimate factor)?
For the latter category: The same reason Arab Israelis often boycott their local elections. Playing a long game. Playing the short game means almost no real gains for Gaza (it hasn't, after all, in all these years).
They likely don't believe Republicans will ever see it their way, but have more influence with the Democrats. Had they voted for Harris, they felt it was a vote for the status quo. If Harris won, it would mean the Gaza policy would continue as the Democrats feel they'll get their votes anyway. If they voted Harris and Trump won anyway, then that's worse - they "sold out" to Harris, and they still ended up with Trump. Either way, they'd feel the genocide would continue.
If they voted 3rd party or no one else, and Trump won, the thought process would be:
"Yes, the bad treatment for Gaza will continue for another 4 years. Maybe it'll be worse, but it was intolerable with the Democrats anyway. Now the message has been sent to the Democrats and they may be willing to come to the table in the future".
Also, keep in mind that the impact to the voters is miniscule either way. It's not as if their livelihood is at stake with Trump.
I was not very sympathetic to them in the beginning, but as the election proceeded and when the pro-Gaza crowd actually made a lot of moves to appease the Democrats (lowering their demands, etc), and get pretty much nothing in return, it made total sense. For all practical purposes, the Party leaders were not willing to even come to the table, let alone negotiate. On the whole, exposing the Democratic Party for who they are was a notable achievement.
The whole flaw in all of this is: It's really not clear if Gaza impacted the election at all. I haven't seen a good study that indicated this factor would have been enough to bridge the gap between Harris and Trump.
It's not really about the current crisis in Gaza. What they want is a seat at the table to influence future policy.
They believe they won't get it with Republicans. If they voted for Harris, they know they won't get it with the Democrats either. Their only hope for a seat at the table in the future is by hurting the Democrats now.
But as I said - they probably didn't hurt the Democrats much, so all of it won't matter in the near future.
This is probably what we disagree on. The raw Muslim vote was probably not enough to matter anywhere besides maybe MI (and Harris needed way more states to win). But the "allies" and depressed turnout caused by lowered enthusiasm esp in Gen-Z and below IMO could've swung more states than just MI. She might've still lost, but it would have been a lot closer.
Regardless, it's still the only lever the Gaza people had to pull, so they pulled it. It was that or pulling nothing at all, which they thought was a worse option.
I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying I haven't seen any good polls/studies to indicate this is true. At the moment it sounds more like wishful thinking.
These people were "irrelevant" to the election outcome. Isn't it the case that if every 3rd party vote went for Harris, Trump would still have won?
If someone has good data on this, it would be great to see it.
[1]: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastMonth&page=0&prefix=fa...
Yep, it's dead. Someone please make it official already. Don't worry about the autopsy or time/date of death - just get the death certificate already and let's move on.
Whether they want to replace it with something equivalent is frankly up to the rich people, college institutions, and home owners/sellers. Just guessing based on the trend, but that will also be a No.
Right now, it's really called "The American Survival Games". This isn't just fear mongering, you have to change your mindset. The American Dream meant you were assured some level of survival in exchange for work. Now that is not the case and you constantly have to reassess what your work trajectory is going to get you and if it will be enough to survive the next day, but also survive the volatility of a very polarized nation changing its policies on a whim. You also need a backup plan for your job in case you just get laid off due to no fault of your own. And a backup plan for the backup plan because the hiring landscape might change.
I've never thought that was a common interpretation of the American Dream.
I do not believe that was a selection based on convenience.
The American Dream has a sense of social and/or financial mobility to it, but most of all, from what I can extract, it is about an ever-present opportunity to "make it." Fail miserably? Try again. Bankrupt? Maybe you'll make a go of it this time. Effort is part of it, yes, but an acceptance of the role of pure luck is also a vital component. You can bust your ass and it will likely turn out better for you than not busting your ass, but there are no guarantees. You can only approach the table and go again. Another role of the dice or the hope that you haven't drawn a bad beat.
I will not bore you with how that works into the novel, but one point to take away was the sense that the Dream was moribund, if not already dead. A sense that credit scores, background checks, and "I hope you know that this will go down on your permanent record" mentality is a noose slowly drawing shut. No more second chances, or third, or fourth. You screw up, bucko, that's it. The American Dream is now a taxidermied carcass whose silhouette we can see in the window of a house on a hill: referenced as if it were still alive, but never met.
Now, we see people who have made it big, but some section of them are products lifted from the mud and polished for public consumption. Others, when investigated, come from surprisingly fortunate backgrounds. Sons of senators' sons, as Jello Biafra put it. This has been sensed on an unconscious level since perhaps the mid-eighties.
You can completely wreck your credit and still bounce back and even prosper. I’ve seen it happen with bankruptcy and have fixed my own credit after a charge off in my youth, and now own a home, with paid off cars and student debt, and a solid cushion in savings. It takes time; everyone wants everything now, which to me is a sign of poor reasoning leading to poor decision making.
I think an important difference is: are you in dire straights because of poor decision making, or bad luck? If you consistently make poor decisions, you’ll eventually wreck your life and may not be able to get out of the hole.
If you make sound decisions, bad luck can just as easily turn into good luck. You just have to be executing when the opportunity arises. This is of course no guarantee, I definitely believe there are good people out there who were never able to make it. But that doesn’t mean that nobody good will ever make it.
To me, that is what the American Dream aspired to be. Something other than a caste or feudal system, or religious monarchy, that pretty much keeps everyone in their place, with no motivation to innovate or take a risk to try something new, and then propelling general society upwards with each breakthrough.
Care to weigh in on the other 98% of my response?
No seriously, this reminds me of another "Golden Age" which according to the propaganda happened under Ceausescu in Romania when I was growing up (https://princetonbuffer.princeton.edu/2014/01/30/tales-from-...), while in reality everything was falling to pieces. I just hope Trump's age won't last as long as Ceausescu's (24 years).