The challenge with this poll question is that it doesn’t ask whether this issue changes a potential voter from someone who wouldn’t have voted for Harris into someone who would have voted for Harris. It asks if they are more likely to vote for Harris.
For example, I was already highly likely to vote for Harris, but her being more emphatically against the genocide would still have made me even more likely to vote for her.
To make the case that she should have used this poll to change her position, you have to look at the pre-existing likelihood that someone would vote for her and see whether this issue brought them over that threshold. (For example, what fraction of the 35% voted in the primary and the midterm election? Were they already planning on voting? Who were they planning on voting for if not Harris?)
you’re absolutely correct in what ur saying but missing the point. the post isn’t trying to argue that the election could have been won by promising withholding weapons, it’s pointing out that it literally couldn’t hurt, and still didn’t happen.
the security that could have come from simply saying the words “no more weapons if we win” was essentially free for the taking, and yet biden-harris eschewed that opportunity in favor of courting conservatives—in a huge middle finger to pro-Palestinians. the post is about listening, or rather the lackthereof, to one’s voterbase.
again i appreciate your insight into the election dynamics but it’s just not the point here so i hope this clarifies. ❤️
First off, thanks for the discussion, and this is an important question to ask as Democrats unpack why they lost. It boils down to “does moving to the central position gain more voters in the end or not?”
The argument I’m making applies in reverse too. What if there was polling data that indicated that this issue shifted the seven percent who were las likely to vote for Harris into not voting for Harris or not voting at all?
If that’s the case, then their decision becomes more understandable.
It boils down to “does moving to the central position gain more voters in the end or not?”
I certainly don’t think it has to boil down to that. Your question is valid but there are plenty of other questions you could derive. One I like might be: “Does ignoring the voice of your voter base increase apathy or not?” or “How does apathy caused by unquestioning support for genocide interact with other alienations caused by democrats courting conservatives?” or really poignantly “Might not the ‘left’ adopting conservative framing and policies simply reaffirm conservative leaning swing voters in their decision to vote Republican?”
The challenge with this poll question is that it doesn’t ask whether this issue changes a potential voter from someone who wouldn’t have voted for Harris into someone who would have voted for Harris. It asks if they are more likely to vote for Harris.
For example, I was already highly likely to vote for Harris, but her being more emphatically against the genocide would still have made me even more likely to vote for her.
To make the case that she should have used this poll to change her position, you have to look at the pre-existing likelihood that someone would vote for her and see whether this issue brought them over that threshold. (For example, what fraction of the 35% voted in the primary and the midterm election? Were they already planning on voting? Who were they planning on voting for if not Harris?)
you’re absolutely correct in what ur saying but missing the point. the post isn’t trying to argue that the election could have been won by promising withholding weapons, it’s pointing out that it literally couldn’t hurt, and still didn’t happen.
the security that could have come from simply saying the words “no more weapons if we win” was essentially free for the taking, and yet biden-harris eschewed that opportunity in favor of courting conservatives—in a huge middle finger to pro-Palestinians. the post is about listening, or rather the lackthereof, to one’s voterbase.
again i appreciate your insight into the election dynamics but it’s just not the point here so i hope this clarifies. ❤️
First off, thanks for the discussion, and this is an important question to ask as Democrats unpack why they lost. It boils down to “does moving to the central position gain more voters in the end or not?”
The argument I’m making applies in reverse too. What if there was polling data that indicated that this issue shifted the seven percent who were las likely to vote for Harris into not voting for Harris or not voting at all?
If that’s the case, then their decision becomes more understandable.
I certainly don’t think it has to boil down to that. Your question is valid but there are plenty of other questions you could derive. One I like might be: “Does ignoring the voice of your voter base increase apathy or not?” or “How does apathy caused by unquestioning support for genocide interact with other alienations caused by democrats courting conservatives?” or really poignantly “Might not the ‘left’ adopting conservative framing and policies simply reaffirm conservative leaning swing voters in their decision to vote Republican?”