The guy is trying to shine light on why Kamala lost. But Trump promised his followers he’d end the war in Ukraine. Maybe I am wrong, but seems to me that what they have in common is that they all support Ukraine with weapons and/or money.
What they all have in common is that they’re incumbents. The article this appears to be from is paywalled, so we don’t know what all the data points are. There could be some countries in there that don’t support Ukraine, or that support it so little it wouldn’t be a real factor in their elections.
I’m very skeptical of Ukraine (and Palestine) having major direct impacts on the U.S. election because of how little most voters care about any foreign policy issue, sometimes even when it’s U.S. troops directly fighting.
This seems like a worthwhile observation from the comments, though:
Anything that happens in the world gets blamed on the incumbent and than amplified by politically adjacent media sources
No such thing as an “incumbent advantage” anymore given how effective constant negative coverage from oppositional media is
Ultimately voters don’t distinguish between unpleasant things that their leaders and governments have direct control over, and those that are international phenomena resulting from … the warmongering of an ageing autocrat halfway across the world.
“…and we would have created a utopia had it not been for that meddling Putin!”
The cost of living was also the top issue in Britain’s July general election and has been front of mind in dozens of other countries for most of the last two years.
Inflation from borrowing money to send to Ukraine. They’re technically loans, but there’s just no way Ukraine can repay them.
India sticks out as a country that is not giving significant aid to Ukraine, yet lost votes.
I do think the Ukraine war has had a negative impact on incumbents, it’s just probably a smaller “that’s one more thing that sucks and I’ll blame the incumbent for” than a larger “I’m directly opposed to my government’s support of this” sentiment.
Have the article this is from?
I think the argument that this is directly tied to Ukraine is weakened by the fact that every incumbent lost, not just the ones supporting Ukraine.
https://xcancel.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1854485866548195735
The guy is trying to shine light on why Kamala lost. But Trump promised his followers he’d end the war in Ukraine. Maybe I am wrong, but seems to me that what they have in common is that they all support Ukraine with weapons and/or money.
What they all have in common is that they’re incumbents. The article this appears to be from is paywalled, so we don’t know what all the data points are. There could be some countries in there that don’t support Ukraine, or that support it so little it wouldn’t be a real factor in their elections.
I’m very skeptical of Ukraine (and Palestine) having major direct impacts on the U.S. election because of how little most voters care about any foreign policy issue, sometimes even when it’s U.S. troops directly fighting.
This seems like a worthwhile observation from the comments, though:
Paywall bypass: https://archive.is/ktYKs
o7
Thanks!
“…and we would have created a utopia had it not been for that meddling Putin!”
Inflation from borrowing money to send to Ukraine. They’re technically loans, but there’s just no way Ukraine can repay them.
They use the term “developed” for the countries on the list, so I assume they mean “Western” or Western-adjacent countries.
Their data comes from here: https://www.parlgov.org/ I’m on my phone now so it’s inconvenient to download the data and view it.
India sticks out as a country that is not giving significant aid to Ukraine, yet lost votes.
I do think the Ukraine war has had a negative impact on incumbents, it’s just probably a smaller “that’s one more thing that sucks and I’ll blame the incumbent for” than a larger “I’m directly opposed to my government’s support of this” sentiment.