Commissioned by the Arab American Institute (AAI), the online poll of 2,505 American voters conducted between July 31 and August 1 found that 44% of U.S. voters would back Harris, 40% would support Republican nominee Donald Trump, and 11% would vote third party “if the election for president of the United States were held today.”
But if Harris were to endorse a suspension of U.S. arms shipments and diplomatic support for Israel “until there was a cease-fire and withdrawal of forces from Gaza,” her national support would grow from 44% to 49%.
A majority of Democratic voters say the Gaza crisis is either very or somewhat important in determining how they vote in November, according to the AAI poll.
The new survey, which has a margin of error of 2 percentage points, is consistent with an earlier poll commissioned by the Institute for Middle Eastern Understanding Policy Project, which found that Harris would bolster her chances in key battleground states if she backed an arms embargo.
Nowhere in the article does it state where these extra votes would be coming from.
A majority of Democratic voters say the Gaza crisis is either very or somewhat important in determining how they vote in November, according to the AAI poll.
Really? There are registered democrats who are honestly and seriously planning to vote for trump if Kamala doesn’t embargo Israel? Something is not adding up here.
A lot of Muslim democrats are refusing to vote for Harris because of this point. I don’t think they’re plannong on voting for Trump but I guess it’s a possibility.
The numbers don’t support your claim. She’s polling ahead of 2020 Biden with Muslim Americans (but the sample size is too small to actually rely on crosstab numbers here) and in Michigan.
You can find the details in pages 16-24 of the AAI poll linked in the first quoted paragraph
Edit: I’ll add screenshots here for visibility
I don’t think any potential Democrat voters would vote for trump. I agree that doesn’t make any sense. People are not energized to vote when your vote supports an active genocide either way. Your choices are ratchet to the right or a hellscape…if you give reasonable voters an appealing platform more would come out and cast a ballot. This ‘hands are tied’ position on Gaza is embarrassing and very disenfranchising
Yes, the obvious right answer here, and the morally correct thing to do, is to stop the weapons shipments. I can’t see any downside that outweighs the stakes involved in this election. The fact that they keep doubling down leads me to believe there are other factors in play here that most of us are not aware of.
Doubt that there are other factors in play other than Bibi wishes for this to continue as it’s his stay out of jail card. Biden is and has always been blind to any Israel wrongdoing and with his current mental faculties will bend to whatever the AIPAC says. Thinking there are other factors deeper is simply a way to cope with a clear atrocity that could be dampened by doing less. That is an easy way to gain voters imo. Hamas is terrible but fueling this is only creating more radicals in an already hostile area
there are third party candidates and there’s abstaining
My thoughts exactly. Given how entrenched the unconditional support for Israel is at all levels of the US, I’m sure Dems are well aware of which position on this issue will net them most votes, especially among the cohorts that actually bother to go out and vote rather than complain online and stay home.
Christ you should watch some interviews with Bassem Youssef or Mehdi Hasan. Absolutely. Even Rashida Tlaib is the only member of the squad (and only Palestinian-American congresswoman) to not endorse Harris.
It’s self-defeating but my only hope is it’s a bluff…
Edit: sorry should clarify I’m mostly referring to Not Voting as opposed to voting for Trump, but that’s still a vote for Trump.
I’m leaving president blank on my ballot if there is not a ceasefire or Kamala doesn’t backtrack
They’re not going to vote for the president at all right now.
Yes
Oh yes, millions of them, you can tell because they’re on lemmy and reddit, and they were hardcore democrats before they decided to #walkaway because of Palestine.
Oh, and also supporting Ukraine and Taiwan is wrong too.
They show up more obviously here because it’s a smaller community, but the desperate hope they can kill democratic turnout by trying to make the whole election about Israel is an incredible delusion.
And in b4 some idiot from lemmygrad or ml explaining why I’m wrong and Hitler and that’s why nobody will vote Harris in November.
fighting straw men only tires yourself out
Letting them win because they work for $.50 is worse.
This hinges heavily on the theory that we’ve got a bunch of single issue Anti-Genocide voters. And I’ve lived through too many American sponsored genocides to believe it.
However, three things poll really well in the United States
- Cutting Spending on Foreign Aid (to literally anywhere)
- Looking tough in front of foreign leaders
- Getting the TV/Radio to stop talking about genocide
I doubt she’d get a full 5% bump (unless she announces this the day before early voting starts), because there would inevitably be a bunch of spin and backlash, assuming media didn’t just switch to New Thing and leave her position on Gaza in the rear view mirror. But it seems pretty clear that she’d get some noticeable benefit by siding with American voters on a broadly popular issue.
Harris would bolster her chances in key battleground states if she backed an arms embargo.
Lots of Muslim communities in these swing Midwestern states who are already marginally primed to vote for the Democrats. It definitely wouldn’t hurt, given the Uncommitted Vote count in Michigan and Pennsylvania during the Dem primary were some of the highest in the country.
She might even benefit in states like Texas and Arizona, given how many Iranian, Lebanese, and Turkish ex-pats live there. De-escalation in the Middle East would personally mean a lot to a co-worker of mine who still has family living in Tehran, for instance.
But its also very possible that the risk of offending a NY/DC media that’s heavily influenced by AIPAC is just too high. The Israeli Lobby is already biased towards the Republican Party and its Evangelical Anti-Muslim Base voters. Perhaps Harris is simply terrified of what a foreign government with a proven record of reshaping public opinion might do. If Russia can flip an election with a $46k Facebook ad buy, imagine what an irate AIPAC lobbyist could manage with tens of millions.
So AIPAC are a terror organization?
They will cause extreme social unrest and conflict to advance their political agenda. Leaving people to fear their attack as the reason they are complicit to them.
So AIPAC are a terror organization?
If we can call the Hamas health ministry a terrorist organization, then the lobbying wing of the Israeli military must surely qualify.
They will cause extreme social unrest and conflict to advance their political agenda. Leaving people to fear their attack as the reason they are complicit to them.
The problem with a propaganda machine is that it can fuck you right up the ass and leave you thanking it for its service.
America really needs to stop calling actual governments terrorists.
What if they’re engaging in terrorism?
Then there’s words for that. State Sponsored Terrorism or Act of War.
We don’t want to use those words though because that would mean Israel has been committing acts of war against Gaza for decades, regardless of where they were in the peace process. Instead we pretend Hamas aren’t a government and therefore things like the blockade aren’t Acts of War, they’re just internal military operations.
State Sponsored Terrorism
Sounds like terrorism
It’s the difference between Iran and Al Qaeda. Nobody is saying they’re great people. But you treat those two differently.
They aren’t “Anti-Genocide” voters, as evidenced by their complete silence on the actual genocides that are occurring in other parts of the world.
Hint: They’re Anti-Western/Anti-American, and they only give a shit about Palestinians because they are attacking the West.
their complete silence on the actual genocides
Plugging your ears and ignoring people for twenty years does not mean they were silent.
She doesn’t need to support an embargo. All she has to do is to say that the US is going to follow its own laws. As a former prosecutor, all she has to do is be the law and order candidate.
We need to know which states. Can they swing a state for the Democrats, is all the democrats care about right now.
If she does announce something like this it will be in late October when AIPAC can’t make a difference anymore.
I sent her a few bucks when Biden dropped out and a few more when she picked Walz. If she said the words “embargo” or “war profiteering”, though, I’d send her a whole damn pile of money. Won’t hold my breath.
Why are you sending her any money at all? AIPAC has that covered.
Gosh, I hope Genociding Bibi doesn’t hear this. Imagine the hissy fit he’ll throw!
But then, upon further reflection, I’m ok with that.
Mmmmm that 5% difference is so yummy.
I’ll dream about it if I have to.
This data is bullshit. The results were from 1 week after Biden announced he was stepping down. As of this week, Harris is consistently polling over 50%.
Also, voters have to choose from “Let’s find a ceasefite” Harris and “Fuck them, Isreal should nuke them” Trump. It’s not even a question, stop pretending it is one.
Not anymore actually, most recent poll she is 49 51
If I’m going to be completely honest; I feel like these people in support of such a withdrawal of support (of Israel) are going to have to move the needle A LOT more than a mere 5% to get the attention they want.
Might be acceptable to get a little louder about your issue; and properly educate people about it.
I agree, but 5% is significant, especially nationally. In swing states, the second poll linked indicates it’s higher than 5% too
As I stated before; 5% is not significant enough. It won’t ensure the victory; it might barely even turn the tide. Depends on how Trump does.
In some states; that’s even within a margin of error, and might be close enough to cause certain states to enter run-offs…because we know the GOP is a bunch of sore losers.
It would also help to provide some type of calculation or explanation for how they even came up with that number. Reading the report, the 5% looks made-up.
Y’all in this comments section really underestimating polls vs voter turnout.
Did everyone already forget 2016?
Michigan turned red over a sketchy candidate. No way in hell it’s gonna be blue if a literal genocide supporter is the candidate.
And for all the “but muh ceasfire” comments, I’ll be happy to shove the 2 minute pro palestinian speech into your ears since Harris banned it from being presented at the DNC rally after pretending to care about American Palestinians.
Pandering for votes with no change from Biden’s stance because all hail that sweet sweet AIPAC money and Israeli war machine.
No way in hell it’s gonna be blue if a literal genocide supporter is the candidate
Remind me again what the other candidate’s position is.
Is this nationally or do they break down to state level? Because it’s unfortunately somewhat meaningless beyond the likes of Pennsylvania.
Edit: Just national.
There are a number of large Muslim communities across the Midwest. I doubt it would move the needle in Indiana or North Carolina, but there was a sizable Uncommitted Vote in Michigan specifically focused on the Palestinian Genocide. That’s a swing state Harris desperately needs. Juicing turnout in Deerborn could easily be what closes the deal in November.
The second poll, linked in the last quoted paragraph, has info on the swing states
A significant share of Democrats and independent voters in pivotal swing states Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Arizona are more likely to vote for the Democratic presidential nominee (presumptively Kamala Harris) if said nominee pledges support for an arms embargo to Israel, and if President Joe Biden secures a permanent ceasefire in Gaza. The findings come in new polling commissioned by the Institute for Middle Eastern Understanding Policy Project and conducted by polling firm YouGov.
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.
Overall, Democrats and independents in all three states examined in the exhibited YouGov/IMEU poll have strong support for a permanent ceasefire and disapproval of unconditional aid to Israel. At least 80% of respondents in each state supported a ceasefire, while more than 60% disapproved of unconditional military aid to Israel. Roughly a quarter of respondents in all states said the violence in Gaza — and candidates’ positions on it — is important to them and will likely sway how they vote.
Thank you for highlighting that. I need to read closely because that’s a big deal. If margins are truly that wide I can’t imagine Harris campaign isn’t testing these further with internal polling. I wonder how that coincides with whether a permanent ceasefire is achieved. I kind of get the impression Harris is toeing the line until all hope is lost for that (which now seems all hope is?)
Unfortunately it is a balancing act but I still see doing an embargo as the winning strategy. It might lose them Pennsylvania but it would certainly guarantee Michigan. It would also likely help in the other swing states because it would energize more of the base and get more progressives out. At the very least, every post on Instagram would not be flooded worth slacktivist comments about the genocide in Gaza.
And there it is
Commissioned by the Arab American Institute (AAI)
Props to the author, for putting this in the first sentence of the article letting me know so don’t need to read any further.
Why, because the word Arab?
Being uncertain about a poll’s sample size or methodology is one thing, but simply seeing ‘arab’ and discrediting the whole thing is just straight up racist.
I’m highly suspicious of the results, as you should always be when a group with a stated political goal releases a poll that shows their favored political goal is what a politician should do.
You have to think there was bias in the presentation, eg the question was framed particularly softly like “if Kamala announced she would abide by current US law including the Leahy Law suspending arms shipments until there is a ceasefire which would save the lives of civilians on both sides” or whatever…that is all 100% true and consistent with what they’re saying, but in real life if she did that she’d get millions of dollars of negative ads framing the decision differently.
Or maybe they just ran the poll 5 times and didn’t release the others because this one was the best result for them. That doesn’t make it an illegitimate poll, but it makes it more likely that the numbers are the high end of the potential benefit from such a stance.
One other way this poll could be true but misleading is that maybe this declaration brings her from 44% to 49%, but it puts Trump from 40% to 51%. Or whatever. It’s possible that with no clarity, she goes from 44% to 52% because you can’t literally vote undecided, and the 49% number is actually her doing worse than she would have.
Did you look at the actual polls linked?
I read the link and saw the numbers. Is there a deeper link that disproves something I said?
Yeah the first poll linked disproves your last paragraph
