Dimmer06

If they didn't vote in 2020 then yes they are not included in these numbers because they're unlikely to be Democrats that got pushed away from the party because of events in Palestine. Those voters that voted for Biden in 2020 and abstained voting this time around are included in these numbers however.

In two of these states Harris actually got more votes than Biden did four years ago. The gain in North Carolina is small enough that maybe it could be explained by changes in population or demographics and if adjusted for that she would have received fewer votes than Biden in 2020. Otherwise it seems fairly safe to say for all of these states except maybe Michigan that recent events in Palestine did not drive voters away from the Democrats between 2020 and 2024 because the Democrat's losses from 2020 and third party voters don't amount to more than Trump's margin of victory.

I wasn't arguing a position, just pointing out that Michigan is really the only one of those states from the graphic that the numbers might suggest the possibility of Gaza playing a role in changing the outcome of the state election. I personally don't think it changed the outcome anywhere.

In Michigan Harris lost by 80K votes (netting 70K fewer votes than Biden in 2020), anti-genocide candidates got 50K (37K more than 2020)

In Wisconsin Harris lost by 29K votes (netting 30K more votes than Biden in 2020), anti-genocide candidates got 17K (16K more than in 2020)

In Pennsylvania Harris lost by 130K votes (netting 66K fewer than Biden in 2020), anti-genocide candidates got 34K (Greens were not on the ballot in 2020)

In North Carolina Harris lost by 190K votes (netting 4K more than Biden in 2020), anti-genocide candidates got 35K votes (23K more than 2020)

I'm not a statician by any means but my reading of the numbers is that Michigan seems to be the only of these states that you could argue that abstentions from 2020 plus the growth of anti-genocide parties could have actually cost Harris the state.

Edit: if every single voter in these states that the Dems lost between 2020 and 2024 voted for Harris, and every vote for anti-genocide candidates was a whole seperate vote for Harris (which is an absurd assumption), then the only one of these states that would flip to her would be Michigan. If Palestine was what drove all of these votes away from Harris (also an absurd assumption) then we can fairly conclusively say that the Democrats' position on Palestine did not cost them WI, PA, and NC.

Somewhere between a third and half of Americans read at or below a sixth grade level so these books are at the reading level of the median American.

Unions will continue to be regulated by the US government but would hopefully figure out that without the NLRB pressuring companies to negotiate the workers would have to do it themselves.

Most likely though the courts will say it's up to the states and then each blue state will have a labor relations board like many already do for workers not covered under the NLRA and zero new organizing will happen or be supported in red and purple states as industries are slowly shipped out of areas with union presence and the unions reach their eventual demise.

At most Kamala only "lost" 2.1 million voters to other candidates this election (realistically it's probably around a million). If that's the case then 5.9 million voters voted for Biden in 2020 and nobody in 2024 but still casted a ballot. Now maybe that's because of Gaza but from my experiences with the American electorate I highly doubt that the majority of those people are refusing to vote for Harris because of Gaza, refusing to vote third party, and yet still voting. I think if Americans had coherent anti-genocide politics then the anti-genocide candidates would have seen more growth than 5% of Harris' losses. I don't believe Americans have coherent politics though so I doubt most of those voters were taking a principled anti-genocide stance when they didn't vote for anybody.

This isn't to say that abstentions or votes for other candidates because of the genocide could not have played a significant role in the fucked up math of the American electoral system, merely that it didn't drive her huge loss in the popular vote from Biden's victory in 2020.

I honestly don't think any more than 10% of the voters Kamala "lost" were because of Gaza. Otherwise there would be millions more votes for the third parties that ran almost exclusively on ending the genocide. The vast majority of these voters abstained from the presidential election and voted down ballot either because they did not like Harris or Trump, or more likely they didn't know anything about either of them and did not feel confident casting a ballot for them.

As much of a farce as 2020 was, the political divide was quite clear. Trump represented COVID and racist cops murdering people. Biden seemed to represent something else. The mass mobilisations and the initial response to the pandemic taught people that and many more of them voted accordingly. The Democrats didn't even try to reach the masses this time around though and so the masses were left confused and aimless and did not vote.

A 2020 Gallup poll found that 46% of American adults read below a 6th grade (11 or 12 year old) level. Many surveys have found slightly better but still worrisome reading levels in the adult population. This is not a matter of Americans being able to read what is on a page, but rather that they do not know how to take in and process information.

Any political analysis that does not start with this fact is fundamentally flawed.

143000 votes for a guy with literal brain worms who isn't even running for president anymore

This is why any talk of democracy in this country is pointless without systematic mass education.

Essentially capitalism had progressed to a point sometime in the late 19th century where industrial monopolies had formed in the major European powers. The industrial monopolies had been purchased by finance capital, and the finance capital became monopolized as well. In search of cheaper profits, these monopolies began exporting capital overseas to other countries and colonies. The secret treaties were a product of this. France for instance was heavily invested in Russia (I think Lenin said France owned half of all foreign capital in Russia at the start of the war) so France signed a defense pact with Russia to protect their investments there.

The treaties also carved up the world outside of the major European powers so the Balkans, Africa, Asia, and the Pacific were all legally divided between the imperialist powers so that they could be more securely be exploited.

The German, French, British, and American finance capitalists ability to carve up the world (as they did with Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman empire, Africa, Asia, and they intended to do to Russia had the Bolsheviks not won) and exploit the people in these imperial holdings was why the war was fought and they were happy to liquidate the proletariat of all nations to do so. It had nothing to do with fighting autocracy or the right to self determination which only served as ideological cover for the postwar settlement and were quickly done away with especially in the British and French colonies. Therefore the British and French were not the "good guys". Tens of millions of people were slaughtered just so the British and French could pillage and enslave most of the world.

No, democracy is not identical with the subordination of the minority to the majority. Democracy is a state which recognizes the subordination of the minority to the majority, i.e., an organization for the systematic use of force by one class against another, by one section of the population against another.

We set ourselves the ultimate aim of abolishing the state, i.e., all organized and systematic violence, all use of violence against people in general. We do not expect the advent of a system of society in which the principle of subordination of the minority to the majority will not be observed. In striving for socialism, however, we are convinced that it will develop into communism and, therefore, that the need for violence against people in general, for the subordination of one man to another, and of one section of the population to another, will vanish altogether since people will become accustomed to observing the elementary conditions of social life without violence and without subordination.

This might get at your question somewhat but I'd strongly suggest reading the whole of State and Revolution if you haven't already.

Essentially, liberal democracy is a sham because of capitalism. Even if there's some aspects of a democracy like elections or a parliament the capitalist class still rules and democracy will be subordinated or ignored if the capitalists deem it necessary. Marxists recognize that democracy is an important tool in teaching the proletariat how to govern itself and that capitalism must be overthrown therefore it is an important stage of historical development. As communists we also recognize that the democratic state must one day wither away and therefore democracy will wither away. In that way we are not mere democrats with some idealistic belief in majoritarian rule or the perfect democracy or whatever the way liberals are. If democracy becomes impractical or unnecessary in the pursuit of communism than it can be done away with.

I had some CPUSA members tell me Trump was a fascist threat that needed to be defeated even if it meant voting for genocidal Democrats and I desperately want to ask them why they aren't organizing a new Abraham Lincoln brigade now that the fascist threat is here.