Many of the broad suggestions (“Ceasefire now, condition aid”) end up polling poorly when specifics are brought up (“Pressuring Israel, removing aid until conditions are met”). People are generally not informed on foreign policy issues and vote on ‘gut instinct’, which makes propaganda, such as that peddled by AIPAC, very potent.
She’s probably going to do her damndest to be “everything to everyone”, not say anything that would upset Israel supporters whilst still trying to tack a more dovish position than the current Israeli position of “total genocide”, as that’s the old politician’s trick on base-splitting issues.
I agree that Harris SHOULD pivot leftwards on the issue, both morally and because I see it as more likely to be beneficial to the campaign. But it’s not a clear-cut issue in terms of electoral calculus. Whatever position she takes, including the aforementioned hedging bets option, it’s going to be a gamble, and a big one.
Over 55% support at least conditional aid, which is necessary to secure a ceasefire, which that yougov poll shows 64%/13% approval for US Citizens. Even a 50%/25% approval for Republicans according to that poll.
We agree that it’s the right move morally and politically. Ultimately Harris needs to calculate whether AIPAC money or gaining all those votes and grassroots momentum is more important to win the campaign
Many of the broad suggestions (“Ceasefire now, condition aid”) end up polling poorly when specifics are brought up (“Pressuring Israel, removing aid until conditions are met”). People are generally not informed on foreign policy issues and vote on ‘gut instinct’, which makes propaganda, such as that peddled by AIPAC, very potent.
She’s probably going to do her damndest to be “everything to everyone”, not say anything that would upset Israel supporters whilst still trying to tack a more dovish position than the current Israeli position of “total genocide”, as that’s the old politician’s trick on base-splitting issues.
I agree that Harris SHOULD pivot leftwards on the issue, both morally and because I see it as more likely to be beneficial to the campaign. But it’s not a clear-cut issue in terms of electoral calculus. Whatever position she takes, including the aforementioned hedging bets option, it’s going to be a gamble, and a big one.
Same poll I believe, but some different looks at the data
Over 55% support at least conditional aid, which is necessary to secure a ceasefire, which that yougov poll shows 64%/13% approval for US Citizens. Even a 50%/25% approval for Republicans according to that poll.
We agree that it’s the right move morally and politically. Ultimately Harris needs to calculate whether AIPAC money or gaining all those votes and grassroots momentum is more important to win the campaign