Democrats' internal review said to find Kamala Harris's stance on Gaza cost her votes in 2024

[PufPuf23]

Source: The Times of Israel

Live Now Updated 45min ago

Democrats’ internal review said to find Kamala Harris’s stance on Gaza cost her votes in 2024

DNC reportedly showed findings to pro-Palestinian group despite saying it would not make probe public

By ToI Staff

Today, 3:35 am

Read more: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog-february-23-2026/

---

No body of story yet.

This is top (newest) story on The Times of Israel liveblog.

no paywall

[usonian]

1. Russian bots and no doubt GOP operatives pushed this to divide the the party.

Damage done.

Gaza was destroyed thanks to the abstainers.

And America is being destroyed, as well.

STOP ICE. STOP TRUMP, STOP VANCE, THIEL AND MUSK. STOP MIKEY.

Do it or there's nothing left.

[Celerity]

2. here is the proper link

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/report-democrats-internal-review-finds-harris-lost-votes-in-2024-due-to-her-stance-on-gaza/

An internal investigation within the US Democratic Party has found that former US vice president Kamala Harris’s stance on Gaza and Israel’s war against Hamas cost her votes in the 2024 election, the Axios news outlet reports.

According to Axios, this information was uncovered by the Democratic National Committee amid its probe into the errors and pitfalls that led to Harris losing against US President Donald Trump. The DNC said last year it would not make its findings public.

Nevertheless, Axios says members of the DNC informed pro-Palestinian activists from the IMEU Policy Project that their data showed Harris’s stance on Israel and Gaza — which was in line with the policies of former US president Joe Biden — was overall a “net negative” in the election.

Axios says it had “independently verified” that the DNC believes Harris’s policies on Israel and Gaza did alienate some voters. The DNC confirms to Axios that it did indeed speak to the IMEU Policy Project but declines to provide details on the meeting.

snip

[karynnj]

17. I would be interested in knowing what the impact of other positions

would have been.

From memory, she was seen as being less pro-Israel than Biden. Biden himself took steps to reject sending some of the strongest weapons to Israel. If this is correct, this means that both Biden and Harris had moved to less pro Netanyahu positions.

So, what position could they have taken and what would its impact be? I would imagine that the next step they could have taken was a complete ban on offensive weapons to Israel. (That would still allow defensive weapons, such as replenishing what was needed for the Iron Dome ). Although difficult to test after an election, if their analysis leading to these conclusions involved polling voters, they could ask how they would have voted had she stated that was her position. Obviously, there might be vote changes in both directions. One caveat is that asking now, they first need to ask, knowing what you know now, how would you vote to make sure they are not just picking up people regretting their vote.

I actually think it might not have been Harris's position, but the War in Gaza itself that was the problem because of our decades long weird relationship with Israel.

[groundloop]

3. Fuck all this nitpicking, what about the big things - Russian interferance and corporate money?

[thesquanderer]

4. Add it to the list. A whole lot of things cost her votes.

the short campaign window

hewing so closely to a Biden legacy that many had already grown skeptical about (which I guess includes OP's reference to stance on Gaza)

not being a great campaigner/communicator (e.g. for much of the campaign, she avoided interviews and press conferences, and often didn't do so great when she didn't)

and okay, she was a woman and a person of color, though I think that factor is often overstated on DU... because the "I won't vote for a woman" or "I won't vote for a POC" voters are, I believe, overwhelmingly people who would almost certainly vote for a Republican over a Democrat anyway.

[travelingthrulife]

6. She was a great candidate who was poorly placed by a botched primary.

So sick of people trashing a very good candidate.

[Shrek]

9. Actually the short campaign window wasn't short enough

In the first month or so after entering the race she had a substantial bounce in the polls and there was a palpable sense of joy and relief among the electorate. Trump and Vance were constantly on the defensive with all the mockery about being "weird" and the online couch ridicule, while Harris/Walz rallies were raucous and enthusiastic. Had the election been held in early August I believe she'd have won comfortably.

After that she steadily lost ground and there's nothing to suggest that a longer campaign would have resulted in a turnaround.

[thesquanderer]

15. More time wouldn't necessarily have helped, but...

...things weren't so rosy earlier. Check the state polls between the convention and election day... Harris was pretty consistently behind in Georgia and Arizona, and Pennsylvania was consistently a toss-up. Electorally, if she didn't win on Nov 4, I don't think there was any earlier day she'd have been likely to win either. I don't know that more time would have made a difference, but it was one thing that might have helped.

https://www.270towin.com/2024-presidential-election-polls/

[Prairie Gates]

7. Large portions of the world population believe that the Israeli state apparatus, IDF, and settler conduct

in the West Bank and Gaza is not just criminal, but fundamentally evil.

You can pretend that it is simple antisemitism all you want, but it is a fact. That includes big portions of the US population. And not just the activists. A lot of people have held their tongue and watched what was happening, and said nothing but silently stewed about what the IDF was and is doing in Gaza.

[yardwork]

8. So they voted for Trump. That makes perfect sense.

/sarcasm

[Prairie Gates]

10. It cost the Dems something to believe that sentiment could be ignored and belittled

That's for sure. And the Harris campaign absolutely made the calculation that they could ignore those people and those sentiments far more easily than they could ignore AIPAC. And here we are.

[yardwork]

12. How do you know they made that calculation?

Are you a member of her team?

Look, I agree that the DNC is dominated by old white dudes who are still using outmoded, unsuccessful campaign strategies and messaging. I agree that that approach doesn't serve us well. We need an overhaul of Democratic campaign strategies.

But this idea that Harris deliberately alienated voters by calling for a reasonable approach to the decades-long mess in the Middle East is bullshit.

Voters had a clear choice between pure evil and "not perfect but sincerely working on a solution" and they chose evil.

I will never forget or forgive.

[Mz Pip]

11. How did that work out for them?

This is a fine example of of the perfect being the enemy of the good.

[Prairie Gates]

13. Allowing a genocide isn't good

[Mysterian]

14. Can't find it at the link

Where is it?

[Grins]

16. Sufficient to change the outcome?

Doesn’t say. Exactly how many votes and where?

This is a non-story.