politics

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.

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".

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.