Twenty-nine percent of non-voters who supported Biden in 2020 said U.S. support for the genocide was the top reason they sat the 2024 election, according to a survey by YouGov.
I think the guys at TLDR news said it best: if Trump threatening to withhold aid was enough to get a cease-fire deal, then Biden HAD enough leverage this whole time to get one. He just DIDN’T USE IT.
If this poll is to be believed (which is a big if), Biden and Harris let a fascist back into the whitehouse because they didn’t want to stop a genocide.
Trump isn’t pro Palestine. How on earth are people so dumb.
Nor is biden, nor is kamala, how are you so simple minded? If trump hating netenyahu is enough to stop the war or give a moment of ceasefire for aid then he already did more then biden ever did. Also the bill drafted for ceasefire under trump does allow Palestinans to return to all of Gaza which is something the Israeli government does not want as they are colonizing demons who in 75 years have absolutely destroyed the pretty solid 3000 year old reputation of the jews.
It’s doubtable this poll has uncovered something that countless other post-election polls have missed.
It’s more likely that the pollster is biased. This is the first sentence of About section of the pollster’s website: “Palestinians, like all people, are entitled to live in freedom and with their human rights respected. Yet, for too long, the US government has funded and enabled Israel’s denial of Palestinian human rights.”
Imagine thinking that Palestinians being human beings is indicative of a bias. Yikes…
Yes, it does smell of bias when we’re talking about statistics and polling. Why would you even mention all that in such a story? It should be a dry, here’s the facts kinda story.
“We believe $X and here’s the polling to prove it.”
The problem with that is that the actual polling questions did not indicate any such bias nor did they try to ask leading questions in the way that you’re implying.
News coverage always has a political viewpoint to express (including the “”“centrist”“” slop that often gets peddaled as “unbiased”), and so yeah, you’ll find such ““bias”” as maybe we shouldn’t be engaging in a horrific genocide from progressive news outlets. But the polling questions were pretty direct and clear in a non-leading way.
Do you [favor or oppose] the Biden administration approving taxpayer-funded weapons and other military support to Israel, even if the U.S. government has no control over whether the Israeli military uses those weapons on innocent civilians in Gaza, or are you undecided?
How much do you [agree or disagree] with the following statement: The $18 billion in weapons the U.S. provided to Israel over the last year, funded by taxpayer dollars, would be better spent lowering costs and supporting Americans dealing with inflation and struggling to afford basics like housing and healthcare.
These questions inform the participant of basic facts about the DNC’s strategy on Israel. So this survey provides a great look at what non-voters think of Harris when they’re informed about the issues. But it doesn’t actually tell us why they didn’t vote, because it doesn’t give us any information on how non-voters think when they’re uninformed. And many non-voters were uninformed. This would be an excellent survey in a perfect world where people understand the consequences of their decisions, and it’s a terrible survey in a world where people have no clue what their leaders are doing with their tax dollars.
But other polls have found similar results?
I dug into the survey and it appears they intentionally skewed the results by the word choice and order of the questions.
For example: “5. Do you [favor or oppose] the Biden administration approving taxpayer-funded weapons and other military support to Israel, even if the U.S. government has no control over whether the Israeli military uses those weapons on innocent civilians in Gaza, or are you undecided?”
The wording in that question will predispose a respondent to view the Biden administration negatively, even if that wasn’t the main reason that a respondent chose not to vote.
Worse, they asked that question before they asked about sitting out the election, predisposing the respondent to view that topic as more significant in their decision to sit out the election.
If the purpose of a poll was to figure out the reason for not voting, this is not a scientific way to do it. It predictably would skew results as it appears to have done.
Thanks for digging into it - yeah, that’s definitely not a neutral way to phrase things.
Made me look too! Holy shit those are loaded questions.
Imagine throwing an election because you love genocide too much.
How could the dems know that genocide is unpopular??! What’s next, are you going to tell me canceling all student debt would have been popular? Throwing Trump in prison? Rescheduling cannabis? Not campaigning on building the wall and closing the border?
It’s amazing that she was in bed with Israel according to pro Palestinians and in bed with Hamas according to pro Israeli.
We all have been played through social media algorithms, and it didn’t really matter what stance she had or would have.
Disinformation was so amazingly orchestrated that people on both sides of any issue hated her.
It’s not disinformation and it’s hardly specific to social media.
Democrats falling for republican’s saying they’re soft on crime when they unilaterally defund schools to fund the police, that they’ve opened the borders when they deport more immigrants than the republican administrations, that they’re weak on foreign policy even while they’re bombing half a dozen countries, etc goes back to Clinton.
Every single time the dems act like they’re going to get the mythical moderate republican vote or a pat on the head or something if they just do the abhorrent shit the republicans are accusing them of not doing, and every time they fall for it.
I think specifically they are referencing this:
In heavily Arab-American areas of Michigan, where disfavor with Biden’s handling with the war is at its highest, purportedly pro-Israel billboards have for weeks trumpeted Harris’s commitment to Israel and featured her Jewish husband Doug Emhoff; online ads with the same message have also targeted these constituencies. Meanwhile, the same PAC has also funded mailers sent to Jewish households in Pennsylvania declaring that Harris not pro-Israel enough.
The above article also discusses how this was not merely the effort of one PAC, but that multiple PACs were engaged in this sort of disinformation.
However - I think I understand what you mean, and Harris should have immediately broken with Biden on Palestine. Make no mistake, I’m not thinking of this as some sort of dispassionate politics-as-baseball strategy.
The right thing to do was and always will be to stop a genocide.
I don’t like shitty conspiracies but this really felt like they were working really hard to try to lose the election.
No, I really thought trump was trying to lose. Saying people in ohio eat cats and dogs, and he has no plan, just concepts of a plan. I really thought he was throwing the election.
I made one mistake. I forgot that this country is full of morons.
I thing Trump was trying to loose and his handlers were trying their best to stop him.
I wanted to bet on a Trump win so bad on the premise that Americans are not to be trusted ever, but couldn’t quite stoop to it.
So fucking idiots were idiots, as usual. And they believe they’re somehow morally superior while handing Gaza over to Israel in the process. As if Trump and the Republican party was the better option, they care even less about Gaza than the Biden admin.
This is why the Dems and progressive both keep losing everything, too many dumb fucks that think they’re making a difference while just making things worse with inaction.
Maybe if Democrats stop taking entire demographics for granted without providing them with anything, they’d win more.
Demos like the “won’t support any genocide” demo.
You know, while I am a fan of choosing the lesser evil, when the “lesser evil” is genocide, maybe it is time to re-consider the approach.
Their response was to avoid it, resulting in the worst option by default.
It was clear this would be the result. Choosing not to vote was the worst option to choose both objectively, and morally. And considering the entire supposed reasoning was moral, they failed spectacularly.
Choosing not to vote was the worst option to choose both objectively, and morally.
Strictly speaking, assuming Democrats care about winning elections, it is not true.
Sure, you get the worst option for one or two terms, but you would hopefully force the Democratic party to reform and stop supporting Genocides in the long term.
This is why I hate when people try to shift the blame on voters. This was 100% the Democrats election to loose, and they did.
You can’t really change the voters, so what is the point of complaining about them? You can change the party to allow it to win the next time. Blaming the voters is just distracting from that.
Sure, you get the worst option for one or two terms, but you would hopefully force the Democratic party to reform and stop supporting Genocides in the long term.
I’m not entirely convinced that the USA still has terms.
If ye mean it as a meme, then yes, haha.
If you are actually worried, then don’t be. However much capitalists may suck, they won’t allow a dictator who could confiscate their wealth to take over. It’s against their own self-interest. And they have enough influence over media, politicians and probably some assassins to remove Trump if needed. That’s why communist democracies turn authoritarian pretty much on day one, while the very capitalistic ones tend to survive.
If Trump was actually smart and competent, maybe there would be a risk, but as is, I am not worried.
On the other hand, I bet they would love to have a dictator THEY can control. Trump is very easy to manipulate. It’s much cheaper to give Trump a bribe than to spend billions influencing the voters. Take Elon Musk, for example. He spent 44 billion dollars to control Twitter, and it didn’t even work right. The platform is dying. 44 billion to control the internet’s agora, and then he broke it with his incompetence. On the other hand, 277 million to buy Trump is a fantastic investment.
And it is infinitely safer to pay off the next president as well, then to remove the safeguards that protect them from government power.
No, if anything, I expect them using Trump to rig the next election even more, so they can control future puppet presidents even better. Not in obvious ways like ballot stuffing. But campaign donations, access to information, etc. And rotate the puppets out before they can get too powerful and dangerous.
Impactful. Thanks 🙏🏻
I need to read the article, but I’m going in skeptically. I think progressives - especially younger, more idealistic ones - are ignorant of just how much money and influence AIPAC wields.
Maybe she could have gotten those 29% (however many actual votes that amounts to), but it AIPAC would have turned actively hostile against her, my guess is those votes would have been overshadowed by the loss of pro-Israel votes she did get.
