5 ms·

There is a poll about this that was recently released: https://www.imeupolicyproject.org/postelection-polling https://www.imeupolicyproject.org/postelection-pol

by uludag 2y ago

There is a poll about this that was recently released: https://www.imeupolicyproject.org/postelection-polling https://www.imeupolicyproject.org/postelection-polling Here's a quote from the poll: When Biden 2020 voters cast a ballot for someone besides Harris in 2024 were asked “Which one of the following issues was MOST important in deciding your vote?” they selected: 29% - Ending Israel’s violence in Gaza 24% - The economy 12% - Medicare and Social Security 11% - Immigration and border security 10% - Healthcare 9% - Abortion policy 5% - Don’t know

Larrikin 2y ago
So completely unrelated poll to the question?
- uludag 2y ago
  Yeah, not directly related. Interesting though that most people who abstained from voting did have a issue they could name, and only 5% put down "Don't know" so this particular demographic may fall in this category (probably more complicated though).
  - ericjmorey 2y ago
    That data is about people who voted in both elections, it's not about people who didn't vote in 2024.
  - BeetleB 2y ago
    > Interesting though that most people who abstained from voting did have a issue they could name, and only 5% put down Nope. The poll is about people who did vote - not those who abstained.
pbiggar 2y ago
Good Drop Site News article about the poll providing context https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/kamala-harris-gaza-israel-biden-election-poll https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/kamala-harris-gaza-israel-bid...
- BeetleB 2y ago
  The article is wrong/misleading. It starts by talking about Americans who voted for Biden in 2020 and who did not cast a ballot in 2024. Then it cites this poll, which is of a completely different demographic: Those who voted Biden in 2020 and did vote in 2024 (but not for Trump/Harris). As I pointed out elsewhere, those numbers are so tiny they would not have impacted the election results at all if every single one of them voted Harris.
  - throwaway243123 2y ago
    So anecdotal, but I think you have to consider the depressed turnout. From my circles, it's clear that plenty of Gen Z people (not just Muslims) either stayed home because of Gaza or (as in Dearborn, MI) voted Trump to protest Gaza. Gaza was a IMO a huge enthusiasm dampener for Harris.
    - ryandrake 2y ago
      This has never made sense to me. If you are worried about the treatment of people in Gaza, and your choice is between a party who supports the current mistreatment and a party who supports even worse treatment, why would you protest-vote for the party who supports even worse treatment?
      - BeetleB 2y ago
        > why would you protest-vote for the party who supports even worse treatment? It's all anecdotes - how many protest voted for Trump vs a 3rd party candidate or simply not vote at all (which I think was the ultimate factor)? For the latter category: The same reason Arab Israelis often boycott their local elections. Playing a long game. Playing the short game means almost no real gains for Gaza (it hasn't, after all, in all these years). They likely don't believe Republicans will ever see it their way, but have more influence with the Democrats. Had they voted for Harris, they felt it was a vote for the status quo. If Harris won, it would mean the Gaza policy would continue as the Democrats feel they'll get their votes anyway. If they voted Harris and Trump won anyway, then that's worse - they "sold out" to Harris, and they still ended up with Trump. Either way, they'd feel the genocide would continue. If they voted 3rd party or no one else, and Trump won, the thought process would be: "Yes, the bad treatment for Gaza will continue for another 4 years. Maybe it'll be worse, but it was intolerable with the Democrats anyway. Now the message has been sent to the Democrats and they may be willing to come to the table in the future". Also, keep in mind that the impact to the voters is miniscule either way. It's not as if their livelihood is at stake with Trump. I was not very sympathetic to them in the beginning, but as the election proceeded and when the pro-Gaza crowd actually made a lot of moves to appease the Democrats (lowering their demands, etc), and get pretty much nothing in return, it made total sense. For all practical purposes, the Party leaders were not willing to even come to the table, let alone negotiate. On the whole, exposing the Democratic Party for who they are was a notable achievement. The whole flaw in all of this is: It's really not clear if Gaza impacted the election at all. I haven't seen a good study that indicated this factor would have been enough to bridge the gap between Harris and Trump.
BeetleB 2y ago
> When Biden 2020 voters cast a ballot for someone besides Harris in 2024 These people were "irrelevant" to the election outcome. Isn't it the case that if every 3rd party vote went for Harris, Trump would still have won?
- sharkjacobs 2y ago
  "someone besides Harris" means Trump too, not just 3rd party candidates.
  - BeetleB 2y ago
    Fair point - but I suspect the outcome was more due to non-voters who voted Biden in 2016 than those who voted for someone else. If someone has good data on this, it would be great to see it.

by uludag 2y ago

Larrikin 2y ago

So completely unrelated poll to the question?

uludag 2y ago
Yeah, not directly related. Interesting though that most people who abstained from voting did have a issue they could name, and only 5% put down "Don't know" so this particular demographic may fall in this category (probably more complicated though).
- ericjmorey 2y ago
  That data is about people who voted in both elections, it's not about people who didn't vote in 2024.
- BeetleB 2y ago
  > Interesting though that most people who abstained from voting did have a issue they could name, and only 5% put down Nope. The poll is about people who did vote - not those who abstained.

pbiggar 2y ago

Good Drop Site News article about the poll providing context https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/kamala-harris-gaza-israel-biden-election-poll https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/kamala-harris-gaza-israel-bid...

BeetleB 2y ago
The article is wrong/misleading. It starts by talking about Americans who voted for Biden in 2020 and who did not cast a ballot in 2024. Then it cites this poll, which is of a completely different demographic: Those who voted Biden in 2020 and did vote in 2024 (but not for Trump/Harris). As I pointed out elsewhere, those numbers are so tiny they would not have impacted the election results at all if every single one of them voted Harris.
- throwaway243123 2y ago
  So anecdotal, but I think you have to consider the depressed turnout. From my circles, it's clear that plenty of Gen Z people (not just Muslims) either stayed home because of Gaza or (as in Dearborn, MI) voted Trump to protest Gaza. Gaza was a IMO a huge enthusiasm dampener for Harris.
  - ryandrake 2y ago
    This has never made sense to me. If you are worried about the treatment of people in Gaza, and your choice is between a party who supports the current mistreatment and a party who supports even worse treatment, why would you protest-vote for the party who supports even worse treatment?
    - BeetleB 2y ago
      > why would you protest-vote for the party who supports even worse treatment? It's all anecdotes - how many protest voted for Trump vs a 3rd party candidate or simply not vote at all (which I think was the ultimate factor)? For the latter category: The same reason Arab Israelis often boycott their local elections. Playing a long game. Playing the short game means almost no real gains for Gaza (it hasn't, after all, in all these years). They likely don't believe Republicans will ever see it their way, but have more influence with the Democrats. Had they voted for Harris, they felt it was a vote for the status quo. If Harris won, it would mean the Gaza policy would continue as the Democrats feel they'll get their votes anyway. If they voted Harris and Trump won anyway, then that's worse - they "sold out" to Harris, and they still ended up with Trump. Either way, they'd feel the genocide would continue. If they voted 3rd party or no one else, and Trump won, the thought process would be: "Yes, the bad treatment for Gaza will continue for another 4 years. Maybe it'll be worse, but it was intolerable with the Democrats anyway. Now the message has been sent to the Democrats and they may be willing to come to the table in the future". Also, keep in mind that the impact to the voters is miniscule either way. It's not as if their livelihood is at stake with Trump. I was not very sympathetic to them in the beginning, but as the election proceeded and when the pro-Gaza crowd actually made a lot of moves to appease the Democrats (lowering their demands, etc), and get pretty much nothing in return, it made total sense. For all practical purposes, the Party leaders were not willing to even come to the table, let alone negotiate. On the whole, exposing the Democratic Party for who they are was a notable achievement. The whole flaw in all of this is: It's really not clear if Gaza impacted the election at all. I haven't seen a good study that indicated this factor would have been enough to bridge the gap between Harris and Trump.

BeetleB 2y ago

> When Biden 2020 voters cast a ballot for someone besides Harris in 2024 These people were "irrelevant" to the election outcome. Isn't it the case that if every 3rd party vote went for Harris, Trump would still have won?

sharkjacobs 2y ago
"someone besides Harris" means Trump too, not just 3rd party candidates.
- BeetleB 2y ago
  Fair point - but I suspect the outcome was more due to non-voters who voted Biden in 2016 than those who voted for someone else. If someone has good data on this, it would be great to see it.