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.
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…
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.
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 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 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.
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.
