Good job pretending like you don’t understand that the electoral college exists and why that matters.
And in order to figure what was most important to voters you also have to consider the ones that actually, you know, voted. Which that poll almost entirely ignores.
Yes, some of the questions in the poll address the fraction of the poll who did vote for someone other than Harris. Which is why I wrote ‘almost’. The poll completely ignores the question of actual fraction of voters that those questions are attempting to represent (not many) as well as what the much, much larger fraction of voters who voted for both Biden and Harris thought. You have to go to the other poll for that and the answers about the influence of Biden’s policy toward providing weapons to Israel become less clear.
Did the Biden administration’s policy of providing taxpayer-funded weapons to Israel make you [more likely to
vote for Kamala Harris in 2024, less likely], or make no difference?
If Kamala Harris had pledged to break from President Biden’s policy toward Gaza by promising to withhold
additional weapons to Israel for committing human rights abuses against Palestinian civilians, would it have made
you [more enthusiastic, less enthusiastic] to vote for Harris, or make no difference?
Asked of those who voted for Harris
Forcing one to wonder how exactly the translation between enthusiasm and voting likelihood works. The only thing that does seem to be clear is ‘makes no difference’ was by far the most popular opinion, which is pretty easy to read as people cared most about something else.
None of that reads as “wasn’t even close” to me. That looks like, actually, it was significant and it did influence a lot of voters and it shouldn’t be dismissed. 35% is not insignificant - even if, as you say, it’s hard to translate [more enthusiastic, less enthusiastic] into actual tangible votes. What we can clearly see, though, is that siding with Biden on Gaza definitely didn’t help. Only 5% of voters would have been turned off by her deciding to break with Biden on Israel. She’d have lost almost nothing and gained a lot.
Would Harris have won if she broke with Biden? I don’t know, and I’m not saying she would! I only want to push back on the implied claim that it was irrelevant.
She got 7 million fewer votes than Biden.
Now I’m not saying the economy wasn’t important, I’m just countering the claim that “it wasn’t even close” - it clearly was.
Good job pretending like you don’t understand that the electoral college exists and why that matters.
And in order to figure what was most important to voters you also have to consider the ones that actually, you know, voted. Which that poll almost entirely ignores.
Okay, so the poll I linked were people that voted. They cast ballots for someone other than Harris.
Yes, some of the questions in the poll address the fraction of the poll who did vote for someone other than Harris. Which is why I wrote ‘almost’. The poll completely ignores the question of actual fraction of voters that those questions are attempting to represent (not many) as well as what the much, much larger fraction of voters who voted for both Biden and Harris thought. You have to go to the other poll for that and the answers about the influence of Biden’s policy toward providing weapons to Israel become less clear.
More likely . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14%
Less likely . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . … . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9%
Make no difference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77%
More enthusiastic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35%
Less enthusiastic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
Make no difference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59%
Forcing one to wonder how exactly the translation between enthusiasm and voting likelihood works. The only thing that does seem to be clear is ‘makes no difference’ was by far the most popular opinion, which is pretty easy to read as people cared most about something else.
None of that reads as “wasn’t even close” to me. That looks like, actually, it was significant and it did influence a lot of voters and it shouldn’t be dismissed. 35% is not insignificant - even if, as you say, it’s hard to translate [more enthusiastic, less enthusiastic] into actual tangible votes. What we can clearly see, though, is that siding with Biden on Gaza definitely didn’t help. Only 5% of voters would have been turned off by her deciding to break with Biden on Israel. She’d have lost almost nothing and gained a lot.
Would Harris have won if she broke with Biden? I don’t know, and I’m not saying she would! I only want to push back on the implied claim that it was irrelevant.