(Bloomberg) -- Major Democratic donors on Wall Street are increasingly pushing Kamala Harris’ team to replace top regulators Lina Khan and Gary Gensler if the vice president wins in November.Most Read from BloombergWorld's Second Tallest Tower Spurs Debate About Who Needs ItThe Plan for the World’s Most Ambitious Skyscraper RenovationUC Berkeley Gives Transfer Students a Purpose-Built Home on CampusHow Americans Voted Their Way Into a Housing CrisisRome May Start Charging Entry to the Trevi Foun
Between this and her stance on Isreal Harris has excellent tools to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Please, Harris, fucking endorse popular positions… you’ll coast into the white house.
You may have forgotten, in this party, winning is less important than pleasing the billionaires.
As someone who voted for Hillary… believe me I have no doubts the depths of self-destruction democrats will go to to please donors.
Trump also caved to billionaires immediately despite all of his rhetoric.
Edit: it’s kind of whataboutism but I’m just pointing out the real problem.
I’m willing to bet they have more single issue Zionist voters to lose than single issue pro Palestinian votersthat will actually take the time to vote to win, not supporting Israel is her path to defeat, get out of your bubble.
You gonna vote for Trump if Harris backs away from selling weapons for genocide?
I’m not voting for either since I’m not from the USA.
What I’m saying is that the Zionists are a bigger % of Democrat electors than the pro Palestinians electors that are waiting on that to decide to get out and vote for the Democrats.
If saying she’ll stop selling weapons to Israel means she’ll lose more votes than she’ll gain, what would be the political advantage to saying it? Maybe that’s exactly what she wants to do once elected, right now the goal is to make sure she’s elected in the first place though!
Look at the pro Israel vs pro Palestine age distribution and then look at the % of people that don’t vote by age, you’ll realize that making promises to age groups that never bothers voting won’t win elections (and the groups that don’t vote never did, there’s nothing new to it).
That’s a self-fulfilling justification for doing whatever you were already doing. Republicans don’t vote for Democrats either, but holy fuck do Democrats ever bend over backwards to please them anyway.
Thing is, even in places where there are parties that cater to the younger electors, they don’t come out to vote. Where I live 18-35 are under 50% with 65+ close to 80%, that’s with guaranteed 4h off work to vote and a left wing party that truly is left wing with younger candidates and other options all over the spectrum.
Not all places only have two options but even with more choices young people don’t care about elections.
When Biden stepped aside, young people registered to vote in greater numbers than when Taylor Swift told them to.
Listening to young people generates enthusiasm. But that would be bad for people who support genocide for the love of genocide. And foreign actors trying to influence US foreign policy.
Capitulating to Republicans gains nothing, but the party keeps doing it anyway.
They registered, they have yet to vote.
You’re allowed to look at examples from outside the US to form an opinion you know?
You keep ignoring that Democrats have no problem addressing the concerns of people who don’t vote for them, provided those people are Republicans.