[alt text: a screenshot of a tweet by @delaney_nolan, which says, “Biden/Harris saw this polling and decided to keep unconditionally arming Israel”. Below the tweet is a screenshot from an article, which states: “In Pennsylvania, 34% of respondents said they would be more likely to vote for the Democratic nominee if the nominee vowed to withold 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.”]
0.639% of the US population. This is a tiny minority of no relevance to American politics. Trump has 51% of popular votes already, not that this matters, because the districts that carry Trump to victory have few voters with this kind of background. Arab Americans could not have changed the outcome of this election, even if 100% had voted for Harris.
2.1% of Michigan, and Harris could really use an extra 2.1% in Michigan right now.
Not really, without Pennsylvania Michigan doesn’t matter unless nearly every other swing state goes for her, and they don’t look like that’s even a possibility.
126k Arab-Americans living in PA. As of reporting right now, Harris is losing PA by 152k votes. Obviously this doesn’t clearly indicate that this single issue would swing the election in her favor, but I wouldn’t call that “a tiny minority of no relevance to American politics”.
And the Jewish voting population of PA is more than three times that. Now, that hardly means that they’ll all vote for Isreal, but it does mean that how that group breaks has a far more outsized impact and why Haris was focused so much on things that both sides can generally agree with like conditional aid.
I would have much preferred an actual hardline leftist stance of course, but at the end of the day Gaza does not seem to have played a significant part in this election.
Sure, but I would argue a much larger chunk of that Jewish voting population is firmly in the Democratic base, and may have voted for her either way. Only one party is supporting antisemitism, after all.
Given how entrenched support for Isreal is parts of the base and moreover how conflicted much of the middle ground of the community is, I expect a lot of them would have sat the election out. Of course I think playing both sides of the street did lead to a lot of them sitting it out, but I think the hope was that an week intermediate position would allow for unity and coalition building around issues that didn’t have your party primarily fighting itself.
I hear you. I can see the view that supporting an arms embargo might have also broke bad for Dems. I guess part of my point is that this is just one of a variety of issues where Kamala fumbled the bag.
That 0.639% of the population actually has a lot of them in a critical swing state that helped Biden win 2020. Harris lost Michigan by less than 85K votes, they could have made the difference.
Okay, how about the 34% of voters in PA as mentioned in the OP? Or the black Americans who said Gaza was important to them?
The quote is deliberately misleading by leaving out that they were only asking Democrats and independents. It also doesn’t mention that it (leading questions and all) was commissioned by the Institute for Middle Eastern Understanding Policy Project, which is a self-proclaimed pro-Palestinian group that opposed protections of Jewish Americans from antisemitism. Hardly an unbiased entity.
The war against Hamas ranks 15th among all issues to American voters. It’s not entirely unimportant, but don’t kid yourself by making the unfounded claim that it had any significant influence on this election.
How does the IMEU oppose protection against antisemitism, specifically
Here’s the initiative:
https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism
Here’s how the organization reacted to it:
https://imeu.org/article/imeu-policy-analysis-9-ihra-definition-silences-speech-for-palestinian-righ