You and I are in agreement on the political question here: The Kamala campaign’s support for Israel’s genocide lost her the election.
But there is a specific technical question I’m asking in this argument: is there an American poll that asked potential voters if their vote is changed by the Israel/Palestine conflict?
I went through the links you provided quickly and I didn’t see any indication that this question was asked.
I think you’re just moving the goalposts now.
Of course I mean: important enough to alter their vote.
Can you point me to a survey that tracks this? You suggested there was survey data to support your claim, but I am unaware of any survey that asks if Israel/Palestine is important enough to change votes.
I doubt it was a small minority
Great, so you do agree with me. I appreciate it.
Because I’m not a Pew Research historian, and I’m not writing a research paper here.
You’re correct that data from 2024 would be more relevant, but 2026 data is still revealing. The commenter said that an “extremely small minority” cared about the conflict [in 2024].
Are you suggesting that they are correct, an extremely small minority cared during 2024, but now in 2026 that has ballooned to >50%? That is an extraordinary claim; if you are making such a claim then please provide evidence.
More than half of Americans (53%) say the conflict between Israel and Hamas is either very or somewhat important to them personally.
Pew Research - Apr 7, 2026 survey
So the hypothesis is that somehow the DNC ($6m in debt, raising ~$10m/month) somehow came up with valuable information that the RNC ($110m cash in hand, raising ~$20m/month) doesn’t know and doesn’t have access to?
Seems very unlikely, not obvious at all.
Many people point to the influence that Uber exec and Kamala-brother-in-law Tony West had on the campaign.
His pro-corporate policies helped Kamala raise a billion dollars, but accepting that corporate money is a deal with the devil: it shifted her policy proposals and rhetoric significantly to the right.
If he changes parties then he’s just another ® senator.
His current position as spoiler maximises the amount of attention/power/leverage/bribes he can receive.
We just had a general strike on May 1, what did it accomplish?
But what about the SAVE act?
The presidents primary domestic legislature is set to rewrite the rules of voting, if passed.
The way the law is currently written, your Real ID will not be sufficient to vote. You will need a passport to confirm your ID, which is something 50% of Americans do not have.
You’re right, I am legitimately having trouble understanding your position.
It seems like you’ve given up on defending Ken Martin though, so that is progress. Hopefully we can both now agree he is bad for progressivism and the left.
I’m not sure why you’re hung up on this. Yes he said he would release it to DNC members. And now he is not releasing it.
Releasing it to the DNC is functionally equivalent to releasing it to the public, on its release there is media speculation and leaks. That is why they aren’t even giving it out to the DNC imo.
Now that I’ve bit and responded to your aside, will you dare to tackle any of my questions you’ve avoided? What is your take on Ken Martin’s performance on Pod Save? Do you think his performance will increase or decrease progressive voter turnout in the primaries?
Ken Martin said he would release the autopsy, and you’re suggesting that he meant release it only to the DNC and not to the public? Buddy, you’re really reaching here. Did you watch the Pod Save interview that I linked? It makes your position look quite foolish and ahistorical.
As for progressives voting in primaries, I want the maximum amount of them to vote. Lying to them about the virtues of the DNC chair is not a good strategy to get them to vote, honesty works better.
Now we’re fighting about sources? This is tiresome.
How do you explain Ken Martin’s recent interview with Pod Save America?
The host asks
When you won the chairmanship in Feb of 25, you criticized the DNC’s refusal to release their 2016 autopsy as exactly what not to do. You asked “was there any utility in doing that?” and then promised your 2024 autopsy would be different. Your exact quote was “of course it would be released”. Why did you change your mind on that?
Ken Martin does not push back against this quotation. He responds by saying he’s “focusing on the lessons that can actually help us win”. He goes on to say it’s “not completely accurate to say we didn’t release [the autopsy] because we are focused on the lessons that can actually help us win”.
Youtube - Jon Favreau interviews DNC Chair Ken Martin in a heated exchange over Democratic strategy.
Sure, I’ll Google that for you
Specifically, Martin stressed that he was not coming to Washington to placate the political consultant class. His allies said that underneath his Minnesota nice exterior, he could be cutthroat. They promised he would be. And that the getting down to brass tacks would start with a rigorous analysis of where the party went wrong in the 2024 election, written up in a report that Martin committed to release publicly.
“Of course it will be released,” Martin said after winning the chairmanship. “There has to be some lessons that we glean.”
If you have faith in DNC chair Ken Martin then I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
He’s the guy who promised to realease the autopsy of the 2024 election, and is now refusing to release it. You really think he’s going to reform the DNC?
Think about all the oil you use as a regular person- for heating, transportation, fertilizer for your foods, etc.
Now say the price goes up by 20%. Would you, in response, consume 20% less? Would you heat your home 20% less and eat 20% less and go to work 20% less? Of course not.
The estimated 20% reduction in worldwide crude production means, somehow, somewhere, as a world we have to use 20% less oil. Then the question is, how high does the price have to rise to force people to consume 20% less?
How expensive will it have to get to force people to heat 20% less and eat 20% less and drive 20% less? I don’t know, but it’s going to get worse, because we aren’t there yet.
Israel does use the same argumentation, the “human shields” narrative was used as justification to bomb Gaza.
The difference is that Israel bombed pretty much every building in Gaza, whereas the IRGC reportedly only struck select hotels where US or Israeli troops were being moved off base.
That is a significant difference, because one is a war crime, and the other is a legitimate target under the rules of war.
Moving troops from military bases into hotels means that those hotels are no longer civilian infrastructure.
Your scenario suggests that the friend ‘just started’ to act out, but this breaks the analogy because the US has been doing war crimes for decades.
This isn’t a friend that just started acting out, it’s a friend that has a history of talking behind your back, stealing your stuff, crashing your car, sleeping with your SO, killing your pet, and offering you a cash bribe in return.
Why is this person still your friend? Why didn’t people reach their limit when the friend killed a million innocent Iraqis?