[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.”]

  • coyotino [he/him]@beehaw.orgOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    12 hours ago

    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.

    • Sonori@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      12 hours ago

      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.

      • coyotino [he/him]@beehaw.orgOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 hours ago

        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.