-38
Not sure why this post would get downvoted like this. Harris losing Michigan is a genuine concern and people should be addressing it, not silencing it.
It's hopium for the people pushing a specific agenda to believe enough Muslims will not vote for Harris to fuck her over.
They won't. They don't have the numbers.
It's a pretty significant voting block in the state. Biden won Michigan in 2020 thanks in large part to the Arab-Americans.
It's unclear how many skeptics Harris will be able to win over, especially since she has not proposed any concrete changes on U.S. policy toward Israel or the war in Gaza. Four years ago, Joe Biden won by a 3-to-1 margin in Dearborn, where nearly half of the 110,000 residents are of Arab descent. Now Democrats are concerned some of these voters will go to Trump or third-party candidates like Jill Stein.
Harris doesn't have that much of a lead over Trump in the state, it's well within the margin of error. And losing Michigan means there's a good chance she loses the election. The only Arab-Americans who are actually voting for her are doing so begrudgingly because they hate Trump even more. But that's not exactly a winning strategy. Hillary Clinton lost Michigan, and the election, in 2016 due to this mindset.
It does not. I'm not even going to run down the numbers again because it's a stupid amount of effort.
Specifically, the total Arab Population of Michigan is about 2%, and less than half are able to vote (age or otherwise). Assuming ALL of them are going along with a virtue signaling plan only spouted by a few (they aren't), you can read all the interviews and reports of people in the "Uncommitted" group saying they are voting for Harris.
So 100k people trying to influence the vote in a state Biden won by 150k in 2020, and most of those people are still voting Harris, AND they e already shattered early voting records.
Don't see it happening. The people who keep bringing up 2016 are living in the past. That was a low turnout election 8 years ago. None of the polling or early voting numbers say this is anything like election.
The 100K number is from the Democratic primaries. The situation in the middle-east has deteriorated much more since then. I wouldn't be surprised if that 100K number grew.
That being said, you may be right in that Harris will win and I hope you are. But like I said in my comment above, it's a toss-up on who will win the state of Michigan at this point. And whoever wins Michigan has a really good chance of winning the election. It really should not have been so close for this state, given how important it is.
Anger amongst them is understandable and they should not be berated to make a choice they wish to make.
Financial Times - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Financial Times:
Wiki: reliable - The Financial Times is considered generally reliable.
MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United Kingdom
Media Bias Fact Check | bot supportSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.ft.com/content/9c5ede13-85fb-4a66-8cf4-a905a79aac62
this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
-38 points (12.0% liked)
politics
19136 readers
3800 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS