That’s exactly why pivoting left on Gaza is critical if Harris wants to secure a Victory. Hundreds of thousands of likely voters all over swing states would be gained of Harris makes Israel a partisan issue
An April 2024 poll of likely voters across the U.S. found that 30% strongly supported withholding military funds to Israel until the attacks on Gaza stop; another 25% somewhat supported that conditional aid policy.
Below we asked all respondents what minimum combination of policies would secure (for non-Biden voters) or solidify (for Biden voters) a vote for Biden for President. A third or more voters in every state except Minnesota said a lasting ceasefire was among the minimum policies that would be needed to secure solidify their votes
Although voters are split on whether they approve or disapprove of Biden’s handling of the war, the vast majority (≥ ~75%) across all states still support an immediate and permanent ceasefire. Only a small minority of voters, from 11.2% to 16.1% in Minnesota and Pennsylvania, respectively, strongly approve of the President’s approach on Gaza. Of those, the vast majority in each state (≥64%) strongly support an immediate and permanent ceasefire. That is to say, a change in approach would not lose those votes, but staying on the current path risks doing so.
Many of the broad suggestions (“Ceasefire now, condition aid”) end up polling poorly when specifics are brought up (“Pressuring Israel, removing aid until conditions are met”). People are generally not informed on foreign policy issues and vote on ‘gut instinct’, which makes propaganda, such as that peddled by AIPAC, very potent.
She’s probably going to do her damndest to be “everything to everyone”, not say anything that would upset Israel supporters whilst still trying to tack a more dovish position than the current Israeli position of “total genocide”, as that’s the old politician’s trick on base-splitting issues.
I agree that Harris SHOULD pivot leftwards on the issue, both morally and because I see it as more likely to be beneficial to the campaign. But it’s not a clear-cut issue in terms of electoral calculus. Whatever position she takes, including the aforementioned hedging bets option, it’s going to be a gamble, and a big one.
Over 55% support at least conditional aid, which is necessary to secure a ceasefire, which that yougov poll shows 64%/13% approval for US Citizens. Even a 50%/25% approval for Republicans according to that poll.
We agree that it’s the right move morally and politically. Ultimately Harris needs to calculate whether AIPAC money or gaining all those votes and grassroots momentum is more important to win the campaign
Either it makes political sense for her to adopt her current position or it doesn’t. You can’t get voters on both sides of an issue but you can mark where you stand on it and have people vote accordingly.
Either it makes political sense for her to adopt her current position or it doesn’t. You can’t get voters on both sides of an issue but you can mark where you stand on it have people will vote accordingly.
Because elections in this country are often decided on fractions of a percentage point.
That’s exactly why pivoting left on Gaza is critical if Harris wants to secure a Victory. Hundreds of thousands of likely voters all over swing states would be gained of Harris makes Israel a partisan issue
Many of the broad suggestions (“Ceasefire now, condition aid”) end up polling poorly when specifics are brought up (“Pressuring Israel, removing aid until conditions are met”). People are generally not informed on foreign policy issues and vote on ‘gut instinct’, which makes propaganda, such as that peddled by AIPAC, very potent.
She’s probably going to do her damndest to be “everything to everyone”, not say anything that would upset Israel supporters whilst still trying to tack a more dovish position than the current Israeli position of “total genocide”, as that’s the old politician’s trick on base-splitting issues.
I agree that Harris SHOULD pivot leftwards on the issue, both morally and because I see it as more likely to be beneficial to the campaign. But it’s not a clear-cut issue in terms of electoral calculus. Whatever position she takes, including the aforementioned hedging bets option, it’s going to be a gamble, and a big one.
Same poll I believe, but some different looks at the data
Over 55% support at least conditional aid, which is necessary to secure a ceasefire, which that yougov poll shows 64%/13% approval for US Citizens. Even a 50%/25% approval for Republicans according to that poll.
We agree that it’s the right move morally and politically. Ultimately Harris needs to calculate whether AIPAC money or gaining all those votes and grassroots momentum is more important to win the campaign
Either it makes political sense for her to adopt her current position or it doesn’t. You can’t get voters on both sides of an issue but you can mark where you stand on it and have people vote accordingly.
What an astounding way to say absolutely nothing.
If they are decided by a fraction and you made the correct the political choice then you win. Hope this helps.