Supporters of both Israel and Palestine are, by default, likely to vote Democrat
Both of them also are likely to consider the conflict their one issue of primary importance, where they cannot imagine voting for someone who supports the other side.
There is no way to please all of them.
This is simple logical arithmetic. The best strategy is to say nothing, and not piss anyone off. Because if you choose to piss off one side and support the other, you’ll end up making the other go to Trump or decide to stay home. And if that happens, it’ll be Miriam Adelson deciding the policy and that means Israel takes both Gaza and the West Bank and expels everyone they don’t like.
There is much evidence to show that is not true. Harris changing position on Gaza to support withholding weapons would only be a gain of voters. Polling shows as much as 6 points if not more, which is significant, especially with the race this close. And especially in swing states like Michigan.
Quote
Our first matchup tested a Democrat and a Republican who “both agree with Israel’s current approach to the conflict in Gaza”. In this case, the generic candidates tied 44–44. The second matchup saw the same Republican facing a Democrat supporting “an immediate ceasefire and a halt of military aid and arms sales to Israel”. Interestingly, the Democrat led 49–43, with Independents and 2020 non-voters driving the bulk of this shift.
In Pennsylvania, 34% of respondents said they would be more likely to vote for the Democratic nominee if the nominee vowed to withhold weapons to Israel, compared to 7% who said they would be less likely. The rest said it would make no difference. In Arizona, 35% said they’d be more likely, while 5% would be less likely. And in Georgia, 39% said they’d be more likely, also compared to 5% who would be less likely.
Majorities of Democrats (67%) and Independents (55%) believe the US should either end support for Israel’s war effort or make that support conditional on a ceasefire. Only 8% of Democrats but 42% of Republicans think the US must support Israel unconditionally.
Republicans and Independents most often point to immigration as one of Biden’s top foreign policy failures. Democrats most often select the US response to the war in Gaza.
These are all interesting polls and slightly more supportive of changing Israel policy than I would’ve expected, but they don’t really answer the key question: if Kamala came out and announced a key change to the relationship with Israel, like withholding military aid, would her numbers improve or get worse? The top poll doesn’t really answer it because the Biden administration clearly has been trying to make a ceasefire happen, without success. So 49% represents the current reality.
I’d also point out that in the second poll, 13% of Democratic voters support more weapons for Israel. If Kamala loses 13% of Democrats, or even a quarter of that number, this election is over.
Kamala came out and announced a key change to the relationship with Israel, like withholding military aid, would her numbers improve or get worse?
13% of Democratic voters support more weapons for Israel. If Kamala loses 13% of Democrats, or even a quarter of that number, this election is over.
You can always just shame them into voting for Kamala, like the demonstrably larger other side of the argument is being shamed now, since you guys seem to think that’s the strategy to beat them all.
The critical part of the first poll is the halt of arms sales to Israel, that is what gives the Democrats a +6 boost.
The third poll (which I think you meant) still shows that twice as many Democrats want to reduce weapons sent compared to those who do. Although, I’m not sure we can reasonably say those 13% of Democrats would no longer vote for Harris if she did change her policy on that. Would that also imply that those 28% of Republicans also switch to Harris? I don’t think that would be true either.
The second poll, which deals with swing states, shows that people are not deciding to not vote Democrat because of the current policy. To the extent that a change in policy would make ~35% of those swing state voters would be more likely to vote for the Dems compared to the ~5% that would be less likely.
The 4th poll shows a 5% increase from a chance in policy, similar to the first.
The 5th shows how Biden’s handling of the war, the calls of a ‘ceasefire’ that never materializes while the US continues to send more and more weapons, is one of his most unpopular positions.
There’s so many things Kamala can do to guarantee she wins…
In a world where a surprisingly high proportion of society are moderately to completely sure that the Government can control major weather events, I must say I am more than a little skeptical about the idea that anyone can convince a majority of the populace to make what is self-evidently the best decision based on factual information that they can process and compare against other statements until reaching a cohesive conclusion not based more or less entirely on self-serving and/or ideological biases.
There’s so many things Kamala can do to guarantee she wins…
Taking a stand against genocide is just one of them, but she just keeps going to the right.
It’s the exact opposite of what voters want, but exactly what donors want and why they’re donating.
Shit won’t get better until we at least get dirty money out of our party.
The following are all true:
This is simple logical arithmetic. The best strategy is to say nothing, and not piss anyone off. Because if you choose to piss off one side and support the other, you’ll end up making the other go to Trump or decide to stay home. And if that happens, it’ll be Miriam Adelson deciding the policy and that means Israel takes both Gaza and the West Bank and expels everyone they don’t like.
There is much evidence to show that is not true. Harris changing position on Gaza to support withholding weapons would only be a gain of voters. Polling shows as much as 6 points if not more, which is significant, especially with the race this close. And especially in swing states like Michigan.
Quote
Quotes
Quotes
Quotes
Quotes
These are all interesting polls and slightly more supportive of changing Israel policy than I would’ve expected, but they don’t really answer the key question: if Kamala came out and announced a key change to the relationship with Israel, like withholding military aid, would her numbers improve or get worse? The top poll doesn’t really answer it because the Biden administration clearly has been trying to make a ceasefire happen, without success. So 49% represents the current reality.
I’d also point out that in the second poll, 13% of Democratic voters support more weapons for Israel. If Kamala loses 13% of Democrats, or even a quarter of that number, this election is over.
You can always just shame them into voting for Kamala, like the demonstrably larger other side of the argument is being shamed now, since you guys seem to think that’s the strategy to beat them all.
The critical part of the first poll is the halt of arms sales to Israel, that is what gives the Democrats a +6 boost.
The third poll (which I think you meant) still shows that twice as many Democrats want to reduce weapons sent compared to those who do. Although, I’m not sure we can reasonably say those 13% of Democrats would no longer vote for Harris if she did change her policy on that. Would that also imply that those 28% of Republicans also switch to Harris? I don’t think that would be true either.
The second poll, which deals with swing states, shows that people are not deciding to not vote Democrat because of the current policy. To the extent that a change in policy would make ~35% of those swing state voters would be more likely to vote for the Dems compared to the ~5% that would be less likely.
The 4th poll shows a 5% increase from a chance in policy, similar to the first.
The 5th shows how Biden’s handling of the war, the calls of a ‘ceasefire’ that never materializes while the US continues to send more and more weapons, is one of his most unpopular positions.
In a world where a surprisingly high proportion of society are moderately to completely sure that the Government can control major weather events, I must say I am more than a little skeptical about the idea that anyone can convince a majority of the populace to make what is self-evidently the best decision based on factual information that they can process and compare against other statements until reaching a cohesive conclusion not based more or less entirely on self-serving and/or ideological biases.
That comment needs an editor.
Your comment needs to be interesting. Briefly checking your post history, this seems to a recurring issue.
You thought it was interesting enough to go look at my history? That’s quite flattering. Or it would be.