518

A career State Department official resigned from her post on Tuesday, saying she could no longer work for the Biden administration after it released a report concluding that Israel was not preventing the flow of aid to Gaza.

Stacy Gilbert, who served as a senior civilian-military advisor to the State Department's Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration (PRM), sent an email to staff saying she was resigning because she felt the State Department had made the wrong assessment, The Washington Post reported, citing officials who read the note.

The report was filed in response to President Joe Biden issuing a national security memorandum (NSM-20) in early February on whether the administration finds credible Israel's assurances that its use of US weapons do not violate either American or international law.

The report said there were reasonable grounds to believe Israel on several occasions had used American-supplied weapons "inconsistent" with international humanitarian law, but said it could not make a definitive assessment - enough to prevent the suspension of arms transfers.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

Biden wasn't supporting a genocide of the Palestinian people in 2020.

Things are different for incumbents than they are for challengers, especially those without a recent track record.

In 2020, right now in terms of days till voting day, Biden had something like a 15 point lead on Trump.

Biden barely won going into election day with a massive lead.

Its 2024. Biden lags Trump by 3-6 points.

Its over. Biden loses. He can't make up that kind of polling deficit.

[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

Biden wasn’t supporting a genocide of the Palestinian people in 2020.

Trump is also a supporter of Israel. Trump (and GOP lawmakers) actively criticized Biden for stopping delivery of weapons to Israel. So Trump comes out looking no better than Biden on Gaza.

Things are different for incumbents than they are for challengers, especially those without a recent track record.

Biden was in the Executive Branch for VP for 8 years and was in the US Senate for 36 years. Trump has 4 years as an twice impeached President.

Its over. Biden loses. He can’t make up that kind of polling deficit.

Thats funny, that's what people said in Hilary's favor, and then Trump won. So which is it?

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

Thats funny, that’s what people said in Hilary’s favor, and then Trump won. So which is it?

You might consider that those were the same people who have been telling you to not worry about/ apologizing for Biden.

The world isn't a monolith. There were plenty of people, myself included, saying in 2016 that Trump had a far better shot than they were being led to believe.

[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

You might consider that those were the same people who have been telling you to not worry about/ apologizing for Biden.

No, they're the same people saying the polls conclude Trump is a shoe in that you are citing yourself.

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

Bro you don't know who I'm citing. I've been doing ground up analysis on polling data for years. Biden showed a 12 point polling deficit to Trump in 2020, and hasn't led (unweighted) in 15 months.

[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

So...you're citing...yourself?

Biden showed a 12 point polling deficit to Trump in 2020, and hasn’t led (unweighted) in 15 months.

Didn't you yourself point out that polling data analysis lead to the incorrect conclusion in 2016?

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

you’re citing…yourself?

Yeah bruh that's how shit works. Here is a link:

https://lemmy.world/post/15291274?scrollToComments=true

You put analysis out publicly and people can engage with it. Polling isn't "wrong" it just has biases. It over samples some populations and under-samples others. Polling is only one approach to modeling political outcomes, but its generally pretty consistent. Trump was and is clearly an exception. But because we have the 2020 data, we can correct for some of these issues, especially because its consistent.

The best data we have is that in a Biden / Trump head to head, Biden needs to be +12 on Trump to be secure and overcome the spread he has been shown to demonstrate between polling values and performance. And its pretty good data, its a years worth of scientifically conducted polls and an actual election. In-terms of data sources, it doesn't get much better than this.

Here it is in map form:

https://lemmy.world/post/15294268?scrollToComments=true

Another way to think of this map would be "how much so does a given candidate outperform local polling".

And this is the big takeaway. Biden was CRUSHING it in the polls prior to November 2020, and like, squeaked out a W.

Even if you cut the polling differential in half (and we don't have evidence for that), Biden is still failing dramatically.

this post was submitted on 29 May 2024
518 points (96.2% liked)

politics

19132 readers
3965 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS