Only the movements in solidarity with Palestinian freedom offered a substantive challenge to the Harris coronation, as it remains the only issue impervious to party influence. To be sure, the absence of a primary for the Democratic Party lessened the ability of progressive forces to push back against Harris galloping rightward.
What does it mean to say the opposition to genocide was “impervious to party influence”?
I do agree the one clear problem was lack of a primary-- that’s the major structural difference from 2020. Without a primary you can’t prove who has the votes and who is voting, it was easy for them to pretend “progressives won’t vote” even though from this article it is clear progressives delivered via in Biden’s election.
This paragraph I don’t understand:
What does it mean to say the opposition to genocide was “impervious to party influence”?
I do agree the one clear problem was lack of a primary-- that’s the major structural difference from 2020. Without a primary you can’t prove who has the votes and who is voting, it was easy for them to pretend “progressives won’t vote” even though from this article it is clear progressives delivered via in Biden’s election.
Biden’s win had less to do with progressives and more to do with higher voter turnout.
The reason 2020 voter turnout was higher was because of emergency vote by mail regulations due to Covid.
Without more people voting by mail, participation dropped.
It means the democratic party couldnt shut it down.