Kamala Would Have Won With A Weapons Embargo
Back in December of 2023, I made this video saying that Joe Biden needed to stop the genocide in Gaza if he wanted to win the election.
It was obvious to me back then that the most unpopular incumbent presidential candidate ever, less than 11 months from an election, needed to stop the genocide that was dividing his party's base.
But instead of listening to warnings like mine, Biden continued his doomed candidacy without taking any action to stop the genocide. And when he was forced out of the nomination because of his age, Kamala Harris just continued in his place, doing absolutely nothing to stop the genocide.
Now, in the wake of her historic defeat to Donald Trump, the election results show those warnings about the genocide were right:
Kamala Harris would have won the presidential election if she called for a weapons embargo.
Let me explain.
Reason #1: Kamala Could Have Gained More Support From An Embargo Than What She Lost By
For over a year now, we’ve had polling showing a weapons embargo could cost Biden/Harris the election.
In fact we had so much polling on this that I put together a full list of polls emphasizing this before the election, and it amounted to 34 in total! 34 polls!!!
But when it comes to understanding the impact of an embargo on the election, we really only need the first two polls on my list to make that case:
- Poll #1 on my list (a Split Ticket Survey) showed the, if a generic Democrat and a generic Republican agree on Israel's approach in Gaza, they are tied in a head-to-head race. But if the Democrat is said to support “an immediate ceasefire and a halt of military aid and arms sales to Israel”, the Democrat's lead over the generic Republican jumps to +6, driven mainly by reaching independents and non-voters.
- Poll #2 on my list (an AAI online poll) showed Harris’s support rises from 44% to 49% (a 5% increase) if she endorses a suspension of US Arms Shipments “until there was a cease-fire and withdrawal of forces from Gaza”.
This potential gain of 5% to 6% from an embargo is greater than nearly every swing states final result margin as of right now on November 13th. That means if Harris got the boost that the polls suggested, she would have won every swing state.
(And before anyone claims "Kamala can't do that since she's the VP", remember that both these polls are specifically gauging the impact of a candidate "supporting" these actions, not actually "implement them", so that is taken into consideration.)
In addition to the increase in general support, we had additional polling showing the impact of an embargo could be massive among swing state voters.
- Poll #3 on my list is a YouGov/IMEU poll, which showed swing state Democrats and Independents would be at least 34% more likely to support Kamala if she just came out in-favor of a weapons embargo.
- Poll #19 from the Cato Institute also measured the perception of swing state voters, with 50% - 61% of swing state voters in general thinking we should either put conditions on military aid or don’t support military aid to Israel.
The polls are clear: a weapons embargo would have massively helped Kamala's performance both nationally and within swing states, and if those poll margins are accurate, it would have been enough to give her the presidency.
Reason #2: Israel Was Kamala's Worst Issue With The Most Votes To Gain
Now let's say you don't believe a weapons embargo would have moved the needle enough despite what the polls say, and that there were other issues voters cared more about than the genocide.
Well take a look at this poll: it's an NBC News poll (# 4 on my list) showing which issues voters trusted Harris versus trusted Trump.
Do you know what was Harris's worst performing issue out of all of them: Israel
Only 30% thought Harris would be better on Israel, which was even worse than Immigration (31%). In fact, more voters trusted Donald Trump on Abortion than they trusted Kamala Harris on Israel.
What's also important to note is that Israel is the issue where there was the most amount of voters who didn't trust either candidate at 17%. That's 6% higher than the next issue at Healthcare at 11% (note that 6% gap again correlating with the 5%-6% boost shown in those other polls).
And that's not the only poll to reflect this: this AP poll (#18 on my list) found Harris's trust at 35% in handling the "situation in the middle east" and this Blueprint poll (#6 on my list) found Harris at -6 net trust for "Israel and Palestine", her third worst issue.
More voters trusted Donald Trump on Abortion than they trusted Kamala Harris on Israel.
These polls showed Kamala coming out for an embargo could have massively improved her standing on one of her worst issue (if not her worst) while backing up the potential 6% boost she could have gotten from an embargo.
Reason #3: The Hubert Humphrey Parallel
Now let's say you STILL don’t believe she would have gotten a boost. Maybe you think "well American politics doesn’t work as seamlessly as that, voters wouldn't just line up behind a VP who goes against their president during an election year, that clearly wouldn't work!"
Well, funny enough, we actually have a nearly identical comparison that supports the impact breaking with Biden could have done: Hubert Humphrey.
In 1968, Hubert Humphrey was running as the incoming VP against Richard Nixon. President Johnson had decided not to run, partly because he was so unpopular because of his Vietnam bombing policy.
Up until September, Humphrey had said he would keep the massively unpopular bombing policy, which led him to poll horribly low while also dealing with pro-peace protestors disrupting his campaign, similar to what Kamala Harris had to deal with.
But on September 30th, Hubert Humphrey announced he would be breaking with Johnson on his bombing policy on live television.
This led to a massive increase in his poll numbers in the weeks following his announcement, and even led to putting enough pressure on Johnson to stop the bombing in late October.
And these events would have likely gotten Humphrey elected if not for Nixon and Kissinger committing treason to break up Johnson’s peace deal, which led to Humphrey losing in a relatively close race.
When it comes to 2024, if Kamala Harris would have received a similar boost to what Humphrey got, she would have easily won the election in a landslide.
But regardless of the increase, this shows clear precedent for an incoming VP to break with their acting president on a horribly unpopular issue and benefit massively from taking that action.
Reason #4: Harris Would Have Gained Massive Volunteer Support
I know of many former Biden volunteers/voters who had fully conditioned their support on a ceasefire/weapons embargo, and if the administration was willing to actually take action on the issue, the campaign would have gained massive amounts of volunteers with the energy and desire to help them win.
The best example here was Hasan Piker, one of the largest voices on the left, constantly saying for a year that, if Biden or Harris stopped the genocide, he would “go door knocking immediately” to help them win.
He would have mobilized his entire 2.7M following to help Biden and Harris win, and they would have been highly engaged volunteers who could speak to an important issue to help change voters opinions on.
This would have proven essential to actually GOTV in swing states, which would have helped convert that 5%-6% of potential voters who said they would have voted for Kamala if she came out for an embargo.
Reason #5: Harris Would Have Avoided So Much Negative Social Media Attention
One of the constant responses I get when I say a weapons embargo would have given Kamala the presidency, is “AIPAC would have crushed her” or "Mainstream Media would have made it impossible for her to win".
The implicit idea here is these forces would have flooded the zone with so much negative media that Harris would outweighed the support an embargo would have generated.
However, in addition to ignored the clear poll boost and volunteer support she would gain, that theory ignored the current reality of all of the negative social media energy that Harris was already dealing with by not taking any action.
Right before the election, my Instagram feed was filled with two things: Harris supporters trying to get out the vote, and Palestinians begging for the genocide to stop.
For a whole year we saw dead Palestinians, starving Palestinians, begging to not die from the weapons we gave to Israel, and the more Kamala defended Israel, the more that energy was rightfully directed at her.
So many Democratic influencers, whose comments in 2020 were filled with nothing but praise for Biden, were filled with comments calling them out for not pushing Harris to stop the genocide. This led to Democratic supporters spending all their energy trying to fight back Palestine supporters in the comments trying to justify voting for Harris.
Right before the election, my Instagram feed right was filled with two things: Harris supporters trying to get out the vote, and Palestinians begging for the genocide to stop.
All of that could have been stopped if Harris took actions to stop the genocide, but she didn’t and was hurt massively from that negative social media attention.
To wrap this up, we technically won't know if Harris would have won by announcing support for an embargo, but the evidence is strong to support it would have:
- Polls showed Harris could gain between 5%-6% if she announced support for an embargo, which would have given her every swing state.
- Polls showed Israel was Harris's worst performing issue with the most voters to gain.
- Hubert Humphrey in 1968 showed that an incoming VP can break with their president on an extraordinarily unpopular foreign policy issue and gain massively in the polls.
- Left voices were ready to volunteer for Harris if she were to call for an embargo, including those with millions of followers like Hasan Piker.
- Harris could have avoided massive amounts of negative social media if she announced support for an embargo.
At the end of the day, Harris and Democrats made their supporters decide between caring about "Saving Democracy" or stopping the mass murder of the Palestinians.
The data showed that was an impossible path to victory, and the results of the election proved that theory correct.
