
A new poll by the Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU) offers stark findings concerning Kamala Harris’ 2024 election defeat. Her whole-hearted support for Israel’s war on Gaza, and her refusal to break with Biden’s approach, cost her the election. Until now, we’ve been able to say that the Democratic lock-step with Israel suppressed Harris voter turnout. But we haven’t been able to quantify it or to say that it led to her defeat. This poll is the first to do so.
Harris received 75.1-million votes this past November. In 2020, Joe Biden won 6-million more votes. She lost to Trump by 2.5-million votes. 29% of the IMEU poll respondents who voted for Biden–but didn’t vote for Harris–said her Gaza stance was “the most important in deciding their vote [not to support Harris].” To quantify this: 29% of 6-million is just under 1.75-million votes. If Harris had made a break with Biden on this issue, she would have significantly closed the gap with Trump in the popular vote. She might be president today. Instead, we face four more years of MAGA policies and politics dominating the nation.
That being said, it is possible that some of those who didn’t vote for Harris would still have refused to vote for her, even if she adopted a more critical approach toward the war. But those numbers would be relatively small. Also, some who voted for Harris may have stayed home if she opposed Israel’s war against Gaza. But the number would’ve been considerably smaller than those who refused to vote for her over Gaza.
Since presidential elections are decided by state electoral, rather than popular vote, the poll also points to dissatisfaction over Gaza as being a decisive factor in losing many of them. 20% of battleground voters who voted for Biden, but not Harris, said her stance on this issue was “the most important” in refusing to vote for her. 36% said they would have been more likely to vote for her if she opposed Israel’s war. The figures among those key battleground states were Arizona (38%), Michigan (32%), Wisconsin (32% ), Pennsylvania (19%). It’s difficult to quantify whether opposing the war would have won enough battleground states for her to have achieved victory, it’s safe to say that she would have had a fighting chance, instead of her dismal showing last November.
To be clear, there were many key factors contributing to her defeat. Democratic voters felt Harris was thrust upon them after Biden dropped out. They hadn’t had a chance to choose her. This magnified some of her weaknesses and reduced enthusiasm for her candidacy. She also ran a top-down, rather than grassroots campaign, that was fueled by donors and the elites. She never generated the excitement of candidates like Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. Nevertheless, Gaza loomed large among her strategic blunders, made even worse because neither she nor her campaign staff acknoledge it as a factor. For them, Gaza was a minor footnote.
36% of Biden voters who didn’t vote for Harris said they would have been more likely to vote for her if she had “pledged to break from President Biden’s policy toward Gaza by promising to withhold additional weapons to Israel.” 55% of this cohort believe Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.
Even among those who voted for both Biden and Harris, they would have done so with more ethusiasm if she had “pledged to break from President Biden’s policy toward Gaza by promising to withhold additional weapons to Israel.”

To give some idea of how at odds Harris’ most diehard voters were from the Biden-Harris embrace of Israeli genocide: while the president showered $26-billion in murder weapons on Israel since 10/7, Harris’ voters wanted an arms embargo. You can’t get any more explicit than that regarding the chasm between the Democratic elites and the rank-and-file. The question is–will the Party ever come to understand what its voters want, rather than what its pro-Israel billionaire donors want? So far, the answer seems a resounding No. If that continues and the MAGA Republicans continue to maintain their base, Democrats may be shut out of power for some time to come.
56% of poll respondents said they would be more likely to vote for Democratic candidates who called for a halt in US arms sales to Israel. Though this finding comes in the context of the Gaza war, voters are now sensitized to the impact that ongoing US arms sales has on the overall Palestine-Israel conflict. The constituency for a halt in arms sales, even outside wartime, can only increase over what it was before 10/7.
Aipac and pro-Israel Super PACs have showered hundreds of millions in campaign cash in Democratic primary campaigns to defeat progressive candidates who criticize Israel. They recruit pro-Israel moderate opponents who promise to toe the pro-Israel line and promote the Israel Lobby’s agenda. Though the PACs claim to represent Democratic values and voters, funding largely comes from Republican billionaires. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and others have excoriated this phenomenon and called on the Party to stop it. Nevertheless, leaders like Rep. Hakeem Jeffries and Sen. Chuck Schumer have refused. Doing so would endanger the millions they rake in from the same pro-Israel donors.
Poll participants described the Democratic Party as: “too beholden to wealthy donors and billionaires (46%), “ignoring the demands of voters who usually support Democratic candidates (46%), and “doing too much to support Israel in its invasion of Gaza” (44%).

Polling shows that 68% of Democrats oppose pro-Israel Super PACs. 60% said they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who refuses such donations. Though of course, the PACs disguise their donations by setting up innocuous-sounding astroturf groups to funnel cash to their candidates. As former Aipac staffer, Steve Rosen, once said: “A lobby is like a night flower. It thrives in the dark and withers in the light.” These Super PACs can’t withstand transparency, so they must resort to subterfuge to fool primary voters.
A Party that refuses to address this corruption of democratic processes doesn’t deserve to win votes, let alone elections. A Party leadership that deliberately divorces itself from its grassroots is destined for oblivion; unless it wakes up, ends its drug addiction to Lobby loot, and puts forward candidates who are independent, and not beholden to the Lobby.