Position on Israel will important not heritage or religious identity. I think it is questionable if anyone can win the D nomination without stating that the days of unconditional support for Israel are over. Oh there will be some who will still do the dual loyalty insinuation canard, but the offset is the they will avoid the accusation of their constraint on support of Israel as crypto antisemitism.
Those names will likely be on the debate stage. If none of them make it past the first round I won’t be looking to their Jewish heritage as reasons.
And FWIW I would be shocked if Harris or Newsome make it far.
Making it far to win the D nomination? Aren’t those two leading most polls?
EDIT: yeah I get it - polls aren’t the be-all and end-all, and the midterms are still three months away, but this Ossof fan will be surprised if those leads change.
Make it past the first several primaries before suspending.
Yes they have name recognition now, and that is what current polling measures, but IMHO they are the meatloaf from last night’s dinner that we know is in the fridge.
Yes, since his Mother was Jewish he is, but he is secular, and does not attend.
But Bernie has also strongly criticized Netanyahu and the events in Gaza.
That would be true if the elections were held today , but being as they are two years away, the Gaza situation may no longer be in the headlines. Netanyahu may be gone, there may be a solid peace deal etc.
Primaries kick off in eighteen months not two years. It is possible that Bibi could be bye bye, but I have absolute confidence that there will not be a solid peace deal resolving the conflict there by then. Position on Israel, ranging from divestment and isolation to unconditional support and all points between, will be a subject during the Democratic primaries. Its rank in importance may go up or down based on how currently active the conflict is vs other issues, but it will be an issue.
It feels like Israel/Palestine is way more of an online priority than a voter priority. It will probably feature heavily as a question in debates and get a lot of tik tok reactions, but unless a candidate pledges fealty to a foreign power, I don’t expect it to actually help or hurt anyone.
Yes, it’s basically a non-issue for persuadable swing voters. People who care a lot about Israel policy (whether actual Israel policy, or code for The Jew) already know who they are voting for and aren’t going to determine what happens in the general election. But it’s the only issue for the far-left maniacs who have disproportionate influence on the Democratic primary process. The DNC has done some smart things to try to marginalize the nutjobs like making South Carolina the first primary and trying to make Iowa and other caucus states (which reward unemployed losers who have time to stand in a gym for 14 hours) as irrelevant as possible. It’s a nonstop fight between “the extremists have a lot of time and energy because they’re insane” vs. “the average Democrat/average voter who needs a better process to protect their interests.”
It would be lovely if you would provide evidence for your assertions. For what it’s worth, I’m pretty far-left, and it’d also be lovely if you wouldn’t constantly call folks like me insane and nutjobs and maniacal.
Again, this has nothing at all to do with the question of whether the left would torpedo a Jewish candidate, unless you’re saying that the left is fine with a secular Jew but not a religious Jew; and if that’s your assertion, evidence please.
This is not how the primary process works. Anyone who paid attention in the last 30 years of primaries can attest. The democratic nominee is decided in the south, where black voters are the first and last word in democratic politics.
This is why Ossoff has an outsiders shot for the nomination Harris is probably still the frontrunner for, because he could feasibly earn that Jim Clyburn endorsement, which is worth more than a billion dollars in fundraising.
Any joker who makes this primary about Israel/Palestine will get a lot of enthusiasm from influencers (like democratic primary loser Kat Abughazaleh) and no traction whatsoever from the people who actually vote for the nominee for president.
Right, the people who are actually interested in Democrats winning elections are doing what they can to keep that in place after the Iowa situation got increasingly ridiculous over the last several cycles. That’s why South Carolina is now first on the schedule.
I wish Georgia, Arizona, and Minnesota ran primaries on the first week. I’d love a more representative cross section of the places that elect democrats president to set expectations for the rest of the primary.
And it will make how the “Jewish” and Israel questions play very interesting. The progressive candidates and wing care a lot about pressure on Israel including cutting off aid. I don’t think most Southern Black voters have it as a top line issue. If they want traction they will play to the economic side of their messaging. But packaging it intelligently for the audience.
The best way I understand how to clear South Carolina is to be normal, don’t attack the Democratic party, don’t do anything that would hurt you in the general, and be the kind of exciting that’s more asset than liability.
An Obama can beat a H. Clinton there. But I think the DSA is DOA.
Incidentally, the biggest issues among voters is “It’s the economy stupid” as it has been for quite some time. Not gaza, not epstein, not you know who doing weird stuff, not immigration, but the economy.
Most voters want to hear congressional candidates talk about economic issues, specifically prices and affordability, according to a Pew Research Center survey released Thursday…Only 24% of those surveyed rated current economic conditions in the country as excellent or good, while 41% say they are “only fair” and 35% describe them as poor.
Economic optimism has also declined, with the majority less likely than they were in January to expect the economy to improve over the course of the next year.
Large majorities of Americans remain very concerned about the cost of healthcare, food and consumer goods, and housing, according to the center. Concern over gas prices has risen over 50% since the beginning of the year.
Six-in-ten Americans now say that Trump’s economic policies have worsened economic conditions in the country, an increase from the more than 50% who held this view last fall.
How the stock market is doing was listed at the bottom of Americans’ concerns, even though Trump spent a good portion of his Wednesday speech boasting it.
This holds true for the Congress Midterms as well.
The nice thing is that the post midterm congress could vote on a lot of bills tackling economic issues and force republicans to filibuster or veto them. Much like the stimulus that Biden was able to campaign on signing day one, while the Georgia runoffs were being decided at the very beginning of 2021.
That would be a great way to force the Republican nominee to defend the Trump admin, and give the Dem nominee an easy list of things he or she could lineup behind.
“The” Left … and a fair portion of the center … might be against any candidates that support Israel totally.
But there are big spaces between that and the BDS end of the spectrum. Some will be occupying the BDS end, river to sea, and others more a good friend that cannot be allowed to do bad things, strings have to be attached to support.
So Southern front loading would help Harris out of the gate. And possibly Ossoff.
OTOH the early races are also about meeting or exceeding expectations. And the paradox could be that doing well but not doing as well as expected can be read as losing? Once out of the South I don’t see any sustainable support for Harris. And there is room for a viral debate moment to have any of the others become the one to watch as it moves out of the South. Harris had that against Biden … she just couldn’t follow through on the opening created.