Here Is the Speech That the Uncommitted Movement Wants to Give at the DNC : politics

[–] ptz@dubvee.org 35 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (3 children)

When the other option is Trump (and Project 2025), anyone "uncommitted" at this point is just trying to hold the rest of us (and the world) hostage. Sorry not sorry.

I cannot respect people who refuse to see the bigger picture. Maybe if/when we ever get rid of the electoral college and elect based on the popular vote then they can indulge their moral purity. Until then, I ask that they join the rest of us in the current reality, join us in compromise to solve the immediate crisis at home, and then present their wish list. Because only one option on the ballot is going to make that wish list even possible.

"Oh, well, the Democrats need to work for my vote". In an ideal world, yes. But the reality is the house is on fire and they're asking the fire department to tap dance before they let them bring out the hoses.

I'm sympathetic to what's happening in Palestine, but I am beyond livid that it's being constantly used as a wedge issue and bargaining chip.

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 19 points 3 weeks ago

Let’s commit to each other, to electing Vice President Harris and defeating Donald Trump who uses my identity as a Palestinian as a slur.

One of the points this speech makes is that the actual Uncommited Movement supports Harris. Palestinians in this movement do not see Israel's genocide of Palestinians in the Gaza strip as a wedge issue to make Democrats lose the election.

Anyone who is using the genocide as such a wedge issue against the Democrats is not acting in the interest of the Palestinian people. As Trump has publicly stated his intention to allow Israel's government to complete their genocide of the Gaza strip. Where as Democrats are actively negotiating for a ceasefire.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 9 points 2 weeks ago

The electoral college is exactly why this is such an important issue. There are a lot of Uncommitted voters in the battleground states. If you're really that dedicated to winning and stopping Project 2025, appealing to those voters is critical.

Whatever you wish they'd do, it's their vote, they can see bigger pictures or "smaller pictures" (a.k.a., their family being murdered with US bombs). If this is a crisis, you should be trying to help resolve the smaller pictures of your fellow Democrats so we can all move together on the "bigger picture". Instead you just want to berate them to act how you'd like and say "we'll deal with your family later" (if they're still alive). It's not a "wish list", it's actual people dying. Your priorities are scary but hypothetical. Theirs are happening right now.

Alternately, if you just want to bitch on message boards, then stop pretending like you really care about the crisis of the election, because actually caring is not compatible with "sorry not sorry" (about your dead family).

[–] kescusay@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

What pisses me off the most about that is the game of make-believe about Palestine that the wedgies (I think I'll call them that from now on) try to play.

It is 100% understandable and reasonable to be pissed about Israel's treatment of Palestine. It is not OK to pretend it happened for no reason.

The fact of the matter is that the whole situation is an atrocious mess with horrid, horrific behavior by absolute monsters on all sides. To downplay any of it, whether the horrific response by Israel to being attacked, or the horrific attack itself, is to do any serious attempt to address it and cut through the Gordian knot of Middle East problems a disservice.

I've maintained, and continue to maintain, that there's currently no right answer. If Israel collapses, that will be a nightmare the likes of which we haven't seen in a century, so we have to ensure it can defend itself by supplying it weapons. Netanyahu is a madman who wants to commit genocide against the Palestinians and is desperate to hold onto power to avoid prison, so we have to stop supplying Israel with weapons.

See that? Both statements are defensible. Both statements have at least an element of truth. It's fucking complicated. And I don't have the answer.

But you know what I'm 100% certain we shouldn't do? Let Donald fucking Trump get into office to truly fuck things up even more.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 5 points 2 weeks ago

It is 100% understandable and reasonable to be pissed about Israel’s treatment of Palestine. It is not OK to pretend it happened for no reason.

Almost nothing happens without reason. That doesn't make the reason an excuse or justify the response. Nothing Hamas did justifies the war Israel has waged. This is like making sure no one forgets that an abuse victim hit their abuser first.

I’ve maintained, and continue to maintain, that there’s currently no right answer. If Israel collapses...

This isn't something that's a possible consequence of stopping their war, so why bring it up unless to try to introduce a false dilemma? This isn't a Gordian knot and we don't need to solve the Middle East. We simply need to stop a genocide being perpetrated with our support and weapons, with the solution you've already acknowledged: "stop supplying them with weapons".

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

But you know what I’m 100% certain we shouldn’t do? Let Donald fucking Trump get into office to truly fuck things up even more.

I 100% agree. Anyone at this stage not committed to electing Kamala Harris and defeating Donald Trump is not acting in the interest of anyone except the fascists, that includes Donald Trump, in the short term. In the long term, everyone being dead to genocide and climate change benefits no one.

It’s fucking complicated. And I don’t have the answer.

In the short term, when it comes to the Gaza war, a ceasefire is the solution. The long term solution is the US recognizing Palestine as a nation state and not allowing Israel to be an exception to international law. Achieving this is easier said than done, but it is straightforward.

If Israel collapses, that will be a nightmare the likes of which we haven’t seen in a century, so we have to ensure it can defend itself by supplying it weapons. Netanyahu is a madman who wants to commit genocide against the Palestinians and is desperate to hold onto power to avoid prison

Israel's current government can collapse in the next election after a ceasefire. This would allow Israel to change course without needing it to be destroyed like Nazi Germany. That assumes of course that the far right coalition that is currently in power doesn't go completely mask off fascist to their own population and seize power by force.

so we have to stop supplying Israel with weapons.

Yes.

edit: typo

[–] CaptainKickass@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

While I feel strongly that the Palestine people are being systematically erased from the earth I also recognize that there is a real possibility of another trump presidency.

I want to do something for those that are suffering down the street but there's crazy person loose in my own house right now and they're threatening to burn it to the ground.

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

An important take away from this speech is that those two points are not in conflict with each other according to the Uncommitted Movement. Anyone trying to make it seems like supporting Palestinians and supporting Democrats are mutually exclusive does not have the interest of either group at heart.

[–] RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

So this another group like Defund the Police who don't actually advocate what their own name says?

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 3 weeks ago

The Uncommitted in Uncommitted Movement referred to marking the uncommitted option on Democratic Party primary ballots in certain states. The Uncommitted Movement did this. It was never their intention to contest the DNC ticket in the general election.

[–] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

Mother Jones - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

Information for Mother Jones:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.News

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/08/dnc-speech-uncommitted-movement-harris-walz-ruwan-romman/

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

[–] mlg@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Really like the implication people are making here that the DNC clearly does not care about the amount of constituents in the uncommitted group because they think enough voters will vote against Trump.

ie we get genocide either way

yeah I'm so excited to vote this November............

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

With Trump the genocide will continue until all Palestinians in the Gaza strip are dead and the West Bank is annexed. With Harris we get a ceasefire.

I could not be more excited with the option to the stop the genocide.

[–] mlg@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

With Harris we get a ceasefire

What makes you think that will happen lol? I think someone here even counted the days it took from Biden dropping out to Harris answering the question over Gaza which was "We will continue to support Israel against foreign threats", ie the same policy as Biden.

She also ignored pretty much all of the protests that occurred at some of her campaign rallies, so I think it's safe to assume nothing will improve.

[–] Dearth@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

Trump wants to deport protesters and arrest people who burn the American flag. Harris seems content with keeping the 1st amendment rights of America's roughly where it is right now.

Frankly I'd rather organize and mobilize under Harris than trump

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Harris met with the Uncommitted Movement. The Uncommitted Movement endorsed Harris in the speech they released to Mother Jones. Harris isn't a life long zionist like Biden. Harris picked Tim Walz over a zionist like Josh Shapiro for VP.

Supporting Israel against Iran doesn't mean allowing Israel to commit genocide in Gaza.

She already commented on the scale of the suffering in Gaza saying it was heartbreaking during the DNC.

It's safe to assume things will improve.

[–] mlg@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Harris met with the Uncommitted Movement. The Uncommitted Movement endorsed Harris in the speech they released to Mother Jones.

Yeah, and then she denied them from making said speech at the DNC rally.

An endorsement in a speech that never happened is practically moot, even the Mother Jones article makes this abundantly clear. If anything, this could easily backfire and keep the uncommitted movement from voting.

Supporting Israel against Iran doesn’t mean allowing Israel to commit genocide in Gaza.

Unconditionally sending weapons and continuing to give Israel a free pass, even with the antics they play with Iran, is not going to prevent the genocide.

She already commented on the scale of the suffering in Gaza saying it was heartbreaking during the DNC.

Any indication of the past 10 moths, if not the past several decades of relations with Israel, should show you this comment means jack shit. Biden said the same thing multiple times, and it took him 5 months until he quietly admitted Israel might have just possibly used weapons incorrectly and caused innocent deaths by mistake.

Playing up Gaza as a two sided humanitarian crisis, and then blocking anyone on the Palestinian side from talking about it, and then allowing some Israelis to talk about Hamas, is very clear message on her policy. She doesn't care, she never will.

Even pretending to make it seem like her campaign was interested was just a farce to gain voters and support. This was a massive "fuck you" from the campaign to the uncommitted movement and anyone involved who thought she would change her policy on Israel.

If SE Michigan was smart enough to figure out Hillary was a scumbag, they sure as hell aren't going to fall for a liar pretending to care about stopping an active genocide. That state is going to end up red this year.

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago

We do not know why the Uncommitted Movement was denied a speaking slot or who the decision maker was. All we know is that the Uncommitted Movement got a no. Regardless of who made the decision or why, it was an unforced error from the Democrats.

An endorsement in a speech that never happened is practically moot, even the Mother Jones article makes this abundantly clear.

No where in the article does it say or imply anything to that effect. The Uncommitted Movement released the endorsement to the public. It counts. Especially since their goal was to contest Biden during the Democratic Party's primary election and not the general election. It's in their name. Uncommitted in Uncommitted Movement refers to marking the uncommitted option on certain states' primary ballots. So it doesn't matter that the DNC made a mistake in not airing the speech. The Uncommitted Movement has made their position known. They support Kamala Harris.

Let’s commit to each other, to electing Vice President Harris and defeating Donald Trump who uses my identity as a Palestinian as a slur.

Defending Israel from Iran doesn't have to be giving Israel more offensive weapons. It can just be restocking the iron dome and shooting down Iran's missiles and drones. Democrats are working to negotiate a ceasefire which is essential to stopping the genocide.

This is from the Harris campaign.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-official-explains-why-dnc-denied-a-speaking-spot-to-palestinian-american

What the group, or any people who continue to protest, will see is a president “who is committed to ending the violence, … making sure that we resolve this conflict with a permanent cease-fire that allows Israel to fully secure itself, that fully continues and make sure that we have a full humanitarian aid, but also make sure that Gazans are able to peacefully live and prosper in Gaza,” he said.

A commitment to defend Israel doesn't have to be an endorsement of genocide. The campaign is onboard with supporting Gaza. This is already a huge departure from Biden's rhetoric who would barely mention the Palestinians at all. Actual indications are that the next Democratic administration will be better on this issue and certainly better than the Republicans.

The Uncommitted Movement supports Kamala Harris because the Democrats are the best option for the Palestinian people. Kamala has made it clear she wants a ceasefire. Trump stated he's going to let Israel finish the job, ie finish the genocide. Anyone voting for Republicans or refusing to vote for Democrats either wants the genocide to continue or has been misled by people who do.

[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Your source for a policy position is "many delegates say"? Seriously?

And even that comes with a "but" clause.

Really?

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The premise of the Uncommitted Movement is to protest in the primary election by voting uncommitted, but not in the general election. It's in the name. Anyone involved in the movement or advocating for it will explain this. It's public knowledge. The goal is to move the Democratic Party to the left on issues related to the Palestinian people.

Still, the war in Gaza remains a flashpoint dividing the Democratic Party. Many of the “uncommitted” delegates say they want Harris to win — but they also want her to listen to the antiwar voters who elected them to the convention.

These aren't mutually exclusive positions. Elected politicians are supposed to listen to their constituents. That's how representative democracy is supposed to work.

Your argument refuses to acknowledge the publicly stated premise of the Uncommitted Movement. It misrepresents or ignores all sources related to the topic. This is disingenuous at best or trolling at worst.

[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

lolololol, I finally get it, you have no idea what you're talking about, not just in regards to campaign staff or risk management, but about the actual damned movement! Your entire understanding of literally every point which you've brought up isn't based in reality but rather how you'd like things to be. If it wasn't so depressing it'd be impressive.

I feel dumber for having been in this conversation.

The premise of the Uncommitted Movement is to protest in the primary election by voting uncommitted, but not in the general election. It’s in the name. Anyone involved in the movement or advocating for it will explain this. It’s public knowledge.

Your source is basically "I feel this way!" Like what, you think the word uncommitted actually secretly means committed Democrat voter regardless? Is this the "people are saying" style of fact gathering???

Do you literally not understand that the movement leaders are actively trying to negotiate with the Harris team now? Goodness gracious.

Elected politicians are supposed to listen to their constituents.

You're at the point where you're either purposefully or wildly ignorantly misunderstanding what the word listen means. They're not saying she needs to actively hear what they are saying, they mean it in the sense of "she needs to acquiesce to our demands." That's what listening to our demands/needs means in a political context. Just... Wow kid, wow.

the publicly stated premise

lol, the publicly stated premise that, as far as you've been able to show, only exists in a speech that wasn't given? Neat publicly stated premise.

Good heavens, this is what I get for assuming people are worth engaging with. I mean, the misinformation you're spreading is useful but like, I don't want to be a party to lying to people.

You might look at an interview NPR did with one of the leaders where they have this interesting exchange:

SIMON: I mean, reading between the lines, it sounds as if your support is conditional upon some of your demands being met or reassessing your position.

ALAWIEH: I am an individual. As an individual faced with a binary choice between Trump and Kamala Harris on a ticket, I will circle Kamala Harris. But I'm also a movement leader...

SIMON: Yeah.

ALAWIEH: ...Among movement leaders here. I can't go to those folks and say, hey, I think Vice President Harris will feel differently. They need to see a plan because in this moment, saying thoughts and prayers, saying feelings, does not cut it.

In other words, if Kamala does not change course on Gaza, the uncommitted movement as a movement does not look like it will support her.

I'm pretty done with this.

That being said, it is flattering to see you borrowing my syntax, even though you've used at best/at worst less elegantly it has somewhat improved your style. So that's nice.

[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

I can't imagine a competent campaign manager or DNC staffer who would let this happen.

Sure, the speech as presented isn't bad (though doesn't really help Harris) the nightmare scenario is the speaker deviates (in the name of Palestine/"I thought it was too important to be quiet" etc) and the DNC has to play them off. Imagine how bad that coverage and fallout would be.

Edit: a word

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The Uncommited Movement endorses Harris in the speech. So it would actually be good for Harris. In fact going off script would be bad for the Uncommitted Movement and Palestinians by the logic provided in their speech.

But in this pain, I’ve also witnessed something profound—a beautiful, multifaith, multiracial, and multigenerational coalition rising from despair within our Democratic Party. For 320 days, we’ve stood together, demanding to enforce our laws on friend and foe alike to reach a ceasefire, end the killing of Palestinians, free all the Israeli and Palestinian hostages, and to begin the difficult work of building a path to collective peace and safety. That’s why we are here—members of this Democratic Party committed to equal rights and dignity for all. What we do here echoes around the world.

The actual Uncommitted Movement sees themselves as an integral part of the Democratic Party. They correctly assert that the Democratic Party is fighting for everyone and that everyone includes the Palestinians. Anyone who can write this speech should know that it is of the utmost importance to stay on script.

By not airing the speech the DNC is leaving Israel's genocide in the Gaza strip to be a wedge issue for bad actors. It falls to the rest of us to assert that this is not the case. There is no other secret speech that needs to be said. Free Palestine and Vote Blue No Matter Who are not statements that are at odds in the general election.

[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Yes, the speech as given is fine (again, not super helpful but not awful) but the risk is the speaker deviates from a speech submitted for DNC approval etc.

Given the protestors outside have signs accusing Democrats of funding genocide it just seems like an unnecessary risk.

As for giving a wedge issue for bad actors, that'll happen regardless of whether one speaker says nice things at the DNC.

In sum, negligible upside with a significant risk this is not a move I, or any rational campaign staffer, would make.

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

There is no serious risk of a deviation in giving the speech. This is isn't a speech by protesters holding 'Killer Kamala' signs. This is the speech from the Uncommitted Movement. The speaker is a Democrat state representative herself. The Uncommitted Movement made their point in the Democratic Party's primary election and now are supporting the Democratic ticket in the general election.

An endorsement by a major pro-Palestinian movement in the US would be a huge upside to Kamala Harris' campaign. Again, not just any speaker saying nice things. A Palestinian woman who is a Democrat and state representative. Who, on behalf of a large pro-Palestinian movement, says things that would turn this issue around for the Democrats.

The real downside by not airing the speech is giving more ammo to bad actors and psyops on social media platforms. Who try to make supporting Palestinians and Democrats mutually exclusive. That kind of misinformation dominating the discourse and depressing voter turnout would negatively impact the Democratic ticket.

The rational analysis is in favor of letting this speech air. I am not privy to the DNC's thought process. What could be happening is self-sabotage based on unfounded fear. Fear that is motivated by a misunderstanding of who the Uncommitted Movement is. Anyone protesting to prevent Kamala from winning the general election is either a bad actor or part of a psyop, not the Uncommitted Movement.

This is is a missed opportunity for the Democrats. However, it need not be a missed opportunity for us. Whenever someone tries to hit Kamala with this topic as a wedge issue, show them this speech. The Uncommitted Movement is with Kamala Harris.

[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

As far as I can tell, the uncommitted movement hasn't made any official statements supporting Harris or anything to that effect on their website.

So the DNC has to trust this group's policy is going to be announced by this speaker at the DNC with zero mechanisms to make sure things go as planned.

Outside of a few goofs, most voters understand the Dems will be better for Palestine than trump. Even if the uncommitted movement made a serious pledge, a lot of the genocide Joe crowd would just call them party hacks or whatever. At the same time, frankly, among the people most likely to actually vote (those 65+) support is incredibly favourable to Israel, even during this conflict.

Again, negligible possible gains, huge risk, avoiding this is a no brainer.

(Unsure how old you are but you might remember the kerfuffle over Bernie in 2016 or the ridicule after Eastwood's bizzare empty chair speech. A successful convention is one that avoids those embarrassing moments at all costs.)

I don't imagine we're going to agree on this but I appreciate your input.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 3 points 3 weeks ago

Outside groups somehow universally guaranteeing support support and only then being allowed to join the political process is just not how things work. And they're not putting a random person or even the group as a whole on stage. It's a particular person with a reputation and incentives to not make an enemy of the Democratic party and future president.

This fear that they're likely to go rogue, or that such a risk would always outweigh the benefits is not realistic, and massively downplaying how important it is to heal this rift. This is the single serious issue weighing on both youth support and the support of critical populations in swing states. Pretending like nothing needs to be done to resolve that is a foolish strategy.

At the same time, frankly, among the people most likely to actually vote (those 65+) support is incredibly favourable to Israel, even during this conflict.

This "old people are the only people who vote" meme is just completely disconnected from reality. Old people vote at higher rates, but they were only around 25% of the total number of votes cast in 2020. Around the same number as 18-34 (40M vs. 38M). And they tend to be biased toward Republicans, while 18-34 is strongly Democratic. Chasing voters who aren't likely to support you while alienating those who are is something with "negligible possible gains" and "huge risk". Avoiding it is a "no brainer".

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

As far as I can tell, the uncommitted movement hasn’t made any official statements supporting Harris or anything to that effect on their website.

The Uncommitted Movement do not need to indirectly communicate with the DNC via their website. They requested to speak at the DNC and eventually got a no. If the DNC wanted additional assurances they could have just asked. The DNC didn't even want to look at the speech. They analyzed fewer facts than we are now.

So the DNC has to trust this group’s policy is going to be announced by this speaker at the DNC with zero mechanisms to make sure things go as planned.

The same mechanisms as anybody the DNC works with. Again, the speaker is a Democrat. Specifically a Democrat state representative in Georgia. The DNC should be able to trust this person.

Outside of a few goofs, most voters understand the Dems will be better for Palestine than trump.

Those goofs are people whose votes the Democrats will need to win the election in November. This speech was an easy way to win them over.

Even if the uncommitted movement made a serious pledge, a lot of the genocide Joe crowd would just call them party hacks or whatever.

Which the Uncommitted Movement did. They released the speech to Mother Jones. We need to tell people that the Uncommited Movement has done this.

At the same time, frankly, among the people most likely to actually vote (those 65+) support is incredibly favourable to Israel, even during this conflict.

The Democrats need high voter turnout to win. Swing state elections this year could be determined by younger, unlikely voters. Many younger, unlikely voters care about Palestine. So it is critical they know the Democratic Party's ticket is in the interest of Palestine.

(Unsure how old you are but you might remember the kerfuffle over Bernie in 2016 or the ridicule after Eastwood’s bizzare empty chair speech. A successful convention is one that avoids those embarrassing moments at all costs.)

Those were 8 and 12 years ago respectively. So recent. The kerfuffle you are referring to is a major source of grievance for the kind of people who would otherwise support the current Democratic Party's ticket.

Your argument misses that these examples are in fact the opposite problems. The DNC went out of their way to put down Bernie's campaign. Where as the RNC were completely blindsided by Clint Eastwood's improv performance. The RNC couldn't be bothered to get Clint Eastwood to commit to an agreed on speech.

The DNC again went out of their way to block a speech that could have benefited them and is yet another unforced error from Democrats. Rather than allowing the DNC mistake cost the Democrats another election we should inform people what an actual pro-Palestinian movement thinks.

Again, negligible possible gains, huge risk, avoiding this is a no brainer.

It is a no brainer, but not in the way your argument is describing it. No matter how many times your argument minimizes the benefits of and invents risks for this speech for Democrats doesn't make it true. The DNC's analysis is a moot point anyway. We can see that this speech is a useful tool against people wrongly using the topic as a wedge issue. We should use the speech.

I don’t imagine we’re going to agree on this but I appreciate your input.

Your argument's analysis isn't based on the available facts. Your argument invents a 'reasonable' DNC response when we are in the dark about the actual reasoning. Why imagine a world where the DNC did the right thing when we can simply do the right thing for them. Show people the speech.

[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It really seems like you are asserting things without regard for evidence or observable reality. You can't just say "there's no risk of deviating from the speech." That's a very bold assertion made entirely without evidence!

The Uncommitted Movement do not need to indirectly communicate with the DNC via their website.

Yes, they kind of do. That's the thing. It is very strange to have a "movement" say they are going to make a significant strategic decision but only if they are able to do it live and on primetime. That works for WWE and reality television but not politics. And it is a strategic switch that seems to only exist in this one copy of a speech, not on the website or anything where you would expect to see a significant policy switch.

The same mechanisms as anybody the DNC works with.

Yes, except those speakers have all been part of groups that are enthusiastically and vocally for Harris.

Again, you have this group that have been pretty anti-establishment then promising they are going to radically shift gears and are now going to be vocal for Harris? Seems off.

The Democrats need high voter turnout to win. Swing state elections this year could be determined by younger, unlikely voters. Many younger, unlikely voters care about Palestine. So it is critical they know the Democratic Party’s ticket is in the interest of Palestine.

You should look at the swing state data! https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/08/10/us/elections/times-siena-poll-likely-electorate-crosstabs.html - For the "blue wall" https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/08/17/us/elections/times-siena-poll-likely-electorate-crosstabs.html - For the interesting possible swings (Arizona, Nevada, Georgia and North Carolina.)

In both, you can see that Harris leads or is close with 65+ (a group that is twice the size of the younger voters and votes reliably.)

Nate Silver also broke down the math pretty well in an aptly titled post "Your friends are not a representative sample of public opinion"

Let’s do some math here. About 51 percent of the country voted for Biden in 2020. Of that 51 percent, 14 percent say they don’t plan to vote for Biden this time in the head-to-head matchup against Trump. Of those, 13 percent list Gaza or something related as their top issue. And of that 13 percent, 49 percent4 are more sympathetic to Palestine than to Israel (and only 17 percent are more sympathetic to Israel; the rest are in the both/neither camp). So we get:

.51 * .14 * .13 * .49 = .005

That is, 0.5 percent of the American electorate are 2020 Biden voters who say they’ll withdraw their vote from Biden because he’s too far to their right on Israel.

(https://www.natesilver.net/p/your-friends-are-not-a-representative)

You might also look at how the issue fits in with the broader public, where even a third of Democrats oppose a ceasefire if Hamas does not release the hostages (the ones they haven't murdered yet): https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/49384-majorities-support-a-ceasefire-in-gaza

Like I said, huge risk with marginal upside. Even if the odds are against it, the outcome could be disastrous. Think about Russian Roulette with a 1/100 chance, sure the odds are in your favour but would you play that game for a nickel?

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It really seems like you are asserting things without regard for evidence or observable reality. You can’t just say “there’s no risk of deviating from the speech.” That’s a very bold assertion made entirely without evidence!

No, it's not. Again, she is an elected Democrat. If the DNC can't trust their own elected officials then they can't trust anyone. Your argument is trying to make it sound like a random protester would be giving the speech.

And it is a strategic switch that seems to only exist in this one copy of a speech, not on the website or anything where you would expect to see a significant policy switch.

Their website is for general information and donations. Not for sending smoke signals to the DNC. They can communicate over the phone or by email. The Uncommitted Movement do not have to signal anything publicly on their donation page for the DNC to take them seriously.

Again, you have this group that have been pretty anti-establishment then promising they are going to radically shift gears and are now going to be vocal for Harris? Seems off.

The Uncommited part in Uncommitted Movement referrers to the uncommitted option on certain state's primary ballots for the Democratic Party. The intention of the movement was always to contest Biden during the primary election and not the general election. There is no switching gears, that was always the plan.

All of the above is a moot point anyway. The DNC is over. They did not allow the speech to be given by anyone.

Those likely voters are voting. It will come down to unlikely voters. This the margin of victory in 2020.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/results/president

Many of the races in battle ground states came down to less than a million votes. .5% of 340 million people is 1.7 million people. In other words, enough people to make the Democrats lose critical swing states.

Rather than misleading people about reality and blowing off voters in an election where every vote counts, consider telling them the truth instead. The Uncommitted Movement supports Kamala Harris. The speech is evidence of that. Arguments trying to make this a wedge issue against the Democrats are demonstrably false. The Democratic Party's ticket is good for the Palestinian people, don't let any misinformation about that go unchallenged.

I'm talking about arguments like this one in this comment section:

Really like the implication people are making here that the DNC clearly does not care about the amount of constituents in the uncommitted group because they think enough voters will vote against Trump.

ie we get genocide either way

yeah I’m so excited to vote this November…

Trump is going to let all of the Palestinians be killed. Arguments in support of the Palestinian people should be trying to energize people to vote for Kamala and to defeat Trump this November. However the rhetoric in the above argument is designed to de-energize voters. We can argue against that rhetoric with facts like this speech.

[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It just seems wild to put your entire argument as "there is no way a state member of Congress who has been in office for all of 20 months would go off script in support of a cause which she feels is super important." Especially to heartily endorse Kamala, a position which the uncommitted movement has (as far as I can tell) kept fairly quiet, not even bothering to publish on their website. (Yes, we have this super important message about the election but it's not on us to present that message anywhere if we don't get our way with a speaker!"

Even if I think the odds are the script would go fine, it's a silly risk and would be an insane unforced error.

Wanting something to be true is not the same as it being true.

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

“there is no way a state member of Congress who has been in office for all of 20 months would go off script in support of a cause which she feels is super important."

Twenty months? You mean almost two years? No one is throwing away their career for the thirty seconds it would take to escort them off stage. This idea that she or anyone in her position would seriously plot to do this is an exceptional claim. Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence to back them up.

They released the speech to Mother Jones where people saw it. In that speech they endorsed Kamala.

Wanting something to be true is not the same as it being true.

That's exactly it. Your argument wants there to be a secret speech for her to go off script to. But the speech they released is the speech. There is no conspiracy. There is no evidence there was any plot to use the time for anything besides reading the two minute speech they released to Mother Jones. There was no indication there was any risk whatsoever. They had a list of speakers. They were open to edits and vetting for the speech.

Below, you can find the speech Romman wants to give. Uncommitted says it was open to multiple speakers. Rep. Romman and Uncommitted organizers both confirmed that this was the speech she was planning to give if allowed for a potential 2-minute speaking slot. Uncommitted said they were open to the speech being edited and vetted. They said the DNC did not ask to see the speech.

Wanting there to be another speech won't make it true. Wanting the Democrats be the reasonable people who don't make obvious mistakes won't make it true. Wanting this issue to go away won't make it go away.

In this comment section, I've been arguing with a user who is arguing that Kamala is no different than Trump on this issue. I think we can both agree that isn't true. People with these views are not uncommon. I have been arguing with people for months about Israel's genocide in Gaza and related topics. We don't know how close the election is going to be, but pretending no one cares about these issues is not an effective strategy. This issue is not a wedge issue for the Democrats, so don't let anyone make it out to be one. This speech is a useful tool, if we choose to use it.

[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Twenty months? You mean almost two years? No one is throwing away their career for the thirty seconds it would take to escort them off stage.

Except she's had a long career, probably making a better living, working for Deloitte. Seriously, 2 years is nothing in politics. She has many back ups and promoting this cause may be important to her. You are making a wildly large assumption in deciding that a life in Congressional politics is going to be this woman's lifelong career. And frankly, using a giant national event to grab headlines in the name of a cause isn't a terrible way to make a name for yourself. (Consider how much of the republican party leadership actually got their start in the tea party, which was at the time a similarly anti-establishment group.)

That's the thing. This person is a relatively unknown, there are potential benefits (or someone could see plausible benefits) to going off script and that's inherently risky.

Consider that State legislators occasionally straight up switch parties during legislative sessions.

This idea that she or anyone in her position would seriously plot to do this is an exceptional claim. Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence to back them up.

I am not claiming that she was plotting to do this, I am saying there was a risk that she could have.

Another way to think about it, they had metal detectors at the DNC. Now, if I were to claim that someone was planning to shoot up the DNC, that would be an extraordinary claim and would require evidence. But, like me, the DNC understands the difference between a potential risk and a known danger. The metal detectors, like stopping this speech, are there to prevent a potential risk, despite the odds being fairly slim.

Your argument wants there to be a secret speech for her to go off script to.

No, you are misunderstanding. My argument is that there is a **risk **of such and that's an unforced error. It's the same risk averse strategic approach that Harris has adopted to great success thus far.

They said the DNC did not ask to see the speech.

Yeah, because the thing someone promises to say is not what they were concerned about. Pretty simple.

I really don't know how to break this down any more clearly for you. But I will say it's very strange to be like "it's important to nominate Harris, so we're going to tell people in this one leaked speech rather than say, using any of our social media or web presence which, y'know, are how we generally try to disseminate information directly to people."

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

This version of the person your argument is about is invented for your argument. This version of her is not real. It is based on bias, not evidence. People do not normally engage in the behavior that you are describing. She is not any more risky than any other speaker who got a speaking slot at the DNC.

She has every reason to take advantage off the slot by giving the intended speech and nothing to be gained by deviating. The Uncommitted Movement explains in the speech their cause is a part of the Democratic Party and is best served by being part of the Democratic Party. Going against the Democratic Party and trying to sink Kamala Harris' campaign would be detrimental to the Palestinian people. Where as sticking with the Democrats is beneficial for the Palestinian people.

That’s why we are here—members of this Democratic Party committed to equal rights and dignity for all. What we do here echoes around the world.

They know what Trump thinks about Palestinians. Again this is the endorsement line.

Let’s commit to each other, to electing Vice President Harris and defeating Donald Trump who uses my identity as a Palestinian as a slur.

The metal detectors, like stopping this speech, are there to prevent a potential risk, despite the odds being fairly slim.

Your argument again relies on bias instead of evidence. Here you equate the risk of a Palestinian woman speaking to concealed weapons. Your argument's application of risk is targeted to her and her movement selectively as if they have some kind of known inherent risk when they do not. This is commonly referred to as racial profiling. Where instead of using actual evidence to exclude a person, your argument relies on culturally inherited biases to invent risk where there is none. Your argument is attempting to use racism, unsuccessfully, to make an obvious mistake seem like a reasonable decision, when it's not. We can only hope this was not the reason the DNC gave the Uncommitted Movement a no.

Also, the speech wasn't leaked. It was given freely by the Uncommitted Movement so people could see it. Mother Jones interviewed the speaker. A news site like Mother Jones is a legitimate way to communicate with the public in the year 2024.

[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Your argument’s application of risk is targeted to her and her movement selectively as if they have some kind of known inherent risk when they do not.

lol, did you forget the part where she is part of a group that tried to hold the Democratic nomination hostage?

This version of the person your argument is about is invented for your argument.

YES! AND THAT'S THE POINT! I don't know this person, you don't know this person. We have both invented possible versions. Except you seem unable to realize that there is a chance, however small, that your version is incorrect and that there are risks associated.

Look, I do forget my own privilege. A probabilistic worldview is difficult and not everyone has the cognitive capacity to do so. Making things binary (yes/no) is easy but not a very good way of looking at the world. Here's an article that kind of outlines probabilistic thinking in fairly simple terms, it might help:

https://modelthinkers.com/mental-model/probabilistic-thinking

A news site like Mother Jones is a legitimate way to communicate with the public in the year 2024.

Come on. A movement doesn't announce serious policy change via a single interview to a news site.

Just to demonstrate this conversation is worth having, after you've read the article, can you explain what you think probabilistic thinking is?

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

lol, did you forget the part where she is part of a group that tried to hold the Democratic nomination hostage?

People were protesting the DNC. No one was being held hostage. In the US, people have the First Amendment right to assemble.

We have both invented possible versions.

My argument is based on the evidence about her status as an elected representative. It is not based on bias involving her inherent characteristics of being a Palestinian woman. The risk of her speaking was no greater than any of the people who got to speak at the DNC. There was no risk associated with anyone who spoke at the DNC.

Come on. A movement doesn’t announce serious policy change via a single interview to a news site.

They did though. There is no reason not to. The point of the news is to inform the public.

A probabilistic worldview is difficult and not everyone has the cognitive capacity to do so.

can you explain what you think probabilistic thinking is?

This is a self-help article designed to help with anxiety related to life being uncertain. It's not a worldview or even a way to justify bias of any kind. If this helps some people that's great, but it's not implying anyone actually calculates the probabilities in their head. Humans aren't calculators. It's a collection of linguistic tricks to help manage uncertainty that anyone can do.

Update your probabilities.

Be open to new information and consider emerging facts that might inform an updated view of your probabilities. This involves challenging and interrupting your biases.

If your argument is that this is a justification for racial profiling then the source cited undermines that position.

The point of sharing this speech on lemmy was to give people a tool for arguing in favor in of both the Palestinian people and Democratic Party's ticket. The goal was to discuss useful strategies. As long as your argument is about excluding people based on inherent characteristics, racial profiling, we have nothing further to discuss. Racial profiling is not a useful way to view reality because it is not based on reality.

[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Clearly you need to re-read the article.

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

This is a self-help article on a self-help website. It's not a justification for racial profiling.

https://modelthinkers.com/playbook/welcome-to-modelthinkers

ModelThinkers has an ambitious goal. We aim to help build a better world by empowering individuals, teams and organisations to be smarter, faster.

https://modelthinkers.com/mental-model/probabilistic-thinking

The horrible truth? In our culture, 'uncertainty' is a dirty word.

In most situations, it's common, perhaps even expected, that you approach and explain the world with Binary Thinking — where options, choices and everything is either black or white; yes or no; on or off.

Binary Thinking will suffice for some things, sometimes. But for the most part, in the reality of our uncertain, complex world, this simply won't cut it.

A more useful approach is Probabilistic Thinking, which helps to inform decision making by considering the odds, or likelihood, of various outcomes.

FROM POKER TO BUSINESS.

As poker champion and author Annie Duke explained: “Poker players and entrepreneurs both embrace the probabilistic nature of decisions. When you make a decision, you’ve defined the set of possible outcomes, but you can’t guarantee that you’ll get a particular outcome.”

FORECASTING.

This model is particularly important given findings from behavioural economics that we tend to be overly optimistic and overconfident in predictions. For example, one way to improve forecasts involves researching past cases and assigning probabilistic outcomes to those cases.

BEFRIENDING UNCERTAINTY.

Part of Probabilistic Thinking involves befriending uncertainty, which is incredibly hard. And, as a result, finding the confidence to act by understanding probable outcomes, based on your current knowledge, while accepting the fact that you might always be wrong.

Your immediate inclination might be to focus Probabilistic Thinking on how you understand the world, that's wonderful, but also consider how you might apply it to your own development — see the Actionable Takeaways below for more.

IN YOUR LATTICEWORK.

Consider how to apply this Probabilistic Thinking to understanding Correlation vs Causation, Split Testing, Cynefin Framework, the Risk Matrix and even Second-Order Thinking all of which, in a variety of ways, help to understand and/or predict events in complex situations. Actionable Takeaways

Acknowledge and befriend uncertainty.

Be okay with saying ‘I’m not sure’. Accept that you are never going to know all the facts in any given situation and that there will be no guarantees of a specific outcome.

Ask yourself, ‘what else might happen?’

Investing time and effort to consider more possible options will help to inform the actual chances of the desired or expected outcome.

Decouple notions of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ decisions from outcomes.

Uncertainty and complexity means there is always a degree of luck involved in any situation, so it’s possible to make a ‘bad’ decision that leads to a positive outcome. Instead of focusing on results, reflect on past decisions from a probabilistic point of view.

Express levels of confidence and avoid claiming 100% certainty.

Get in the habit of assigning levels of certainty to predicted outcomes, rather than claiming that something simply ‘will happen’, estimate the percentage chance it will happen based on your available facts.

Update your probabilities.

Be open to new information and consider emerging facts that might inform an updated view of your probabilities. This involves challenging and interrupting your biases.

Apply Probabilistic Thinking to understanding yourself to be adaptable and grow.

Rather than just pointing this mental model outwards, to help you understand the world, consider how it can help you to understand, manage and develop yourself. When expressing an emotion or thought, practice using the term 'part of me...'. For example, rather than saying 'I'm anxious about that', try saying 'part of me is anxious about that'. Not only is it more accurate, but it also gives room for you to acknowledge that other parts of you might be excited or happy at the same time. After all, you're as complicated as the rest of the world :).

[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Kid, the entire point of the article is that things are not will/won't happen. It's that there are a range of probabilities.

This nonsense of claiming the person representing a movement explicitly about withholding support for the Democrat nominee has the exact same risk of deviation from the other speakers is, at best, foolish.

Then ignoring that movement and saying I'm only seeing a risk because of her race is either impressively dumb or disingenuous. I'm not sure which is worse.

The rational or adult way to look at the issue is to think about the probability of an event vs the rewards of the action. That's a conversation worth having. Your position would be worth respect if you could have the sanity to admit "sure, there's a chance that she'd go off script but here's what I think are the odds, rewards and costs." That's a reasonable discussion. What you are doing is just saying over and over again that there is zero risk and any notion of such risk is racist.

That's just petulant child shit.

As you grow up, hopefully you'll learn that things that you assume will happen, may not happen and vice versa. Part of being an adult is learning to think about that sort of uncertainty, it's tricky but a worthwhile excercise.

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

My argument's central point is supported by evidence. Your argument's central point is to invent risk with racial bias. Your argument is fundamentally flawed because it is not based in reality. Racial profiling will only lead to unjustly excluding people.

The reason I know it would be safe for her to speak is that I'm not a racist. When I grow up, I hope to help build systems that include everyone and exclude intolerance.

[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Jesus, the self righteousness of ignorance, it's impressive.

Race has nothing to do with the fact that the movement she represents has explicitly argued against the Democratic nominee and the **only **place where that position changes was to be the speech.

Just... Wow kid, wow.

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I already commented this but FYI:

The Uncommitted in Uncommitted Movement referred to marking the uncommitted option on Democratic Party primary ballots in certain states. The Uncommitted Movement did this. It was never their intention to contest the DNC ticket in the general election.

Wiki is a good place to start if you would like to learn more!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncommitted_National_Movement

[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It was never their intention to contest the DNC ticket in the general election.

Okay, I'll bite. Beyond the speech, what is your source for this?

Or do you literally not understand the strategic point of marking those ballots uncommitted?

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/8/21/meet-the-uncommitted-how-gaza-hangs-over-democratic-national-convention

Still, the war in Gaza remains a flashpoint dividing the Democratic Party. Many of the “uncommitted” delegates say they want Harris to win — but they also want her to listen to the antiwar voters who elected them to the convention.

Only with their support can she succeed on election day, several delegates told Al Jazeera.

The “uncommitted” movement started with the Listen to Michigan campaign in February. A grassroots protest movement, Listen to Michigan encouraged the state’s primary voters to cast protest votes — and its push exceeded expectations, winning more than 13 percent of the vote.

Then the movement went national. Voters across the country cast enough “uncommitted” ballots to send delegates from states like Hawaii, Washington and Minnesota to the convention.

Those delegates are using their presence at the convention to demand a commitment to an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and an arms embargo against Israel, which has killed more than 40,000 Palestinians over the past 10 months.

To make their case, the delegates are arguing that, without a meaningful change in policy, large parts of the party base — including young voters, Arabs, Muslims and progressives — will not be energised to elect Harris in November.

At the convention this week, uncommitted delegates and their allies are making themselves visible with keffiyehs and lapel pins calling for an end to weapon transfers to Israel.

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=uncommitted+movement&atb=v411-1&ia=web

[–] ClassStruggle@lemmy.ml -2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Like Israel, the DNC refuses to acknowledge they exist

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Biden said the Gaza war protests have a point. There is plenty to criticize about the DNC. This isn't one of those things.

https://www.axios.com/2024/08/20/biden-dnc-gaza-war-protesters-point

"Those protesters out in the street, they have a point. A lot of innocent people are being killed on both sides."

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

There's lots to criticize about Biden on this issue and his words mean little to nothing when he's the one in a position of power to act. But thank god he's not our nominee anymore. Harris can turn a new page.

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 weeks ago

She is off to a great start. Harris already took a stab at it tonight. The fact neither Harris nor Walz are zionists is a relief.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/aug/22/kamala-harris-dnc-night-4?CMP=share_btn_url&page=with%3Ablock-66c803fc8f0841a2a14c4dd4#block-66c803fc8f0841a2a14c4dd4

The vice-president said she would “always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself”, but also spoke of Gaza, saying “the scale of suffering is heartbreaking”.

[–] ClassStruggle@lemmy.ml -5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Hollow meaningless words when they have the ability to get no one killed.

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 3 weeks ago

Again, there is plenty to criticize, but it is an acknowledgement. The suffering of the Palestinians has as least been allowed into the Democratic Party's organizational knowledge.

When it's mostly the Palestinians being killed, over 40000 currently which is an underestimate, it is inaccurate to assert the magnitude of the deaths are equivalent. The magnitude of the suffering of the Palestinians and the one-sidedness of the Gaza war against the Palestinians is the Democrats' organizational ignorance that needs to be corrected for everyone's sake, especially the Palestinians.