Democratic consultants in the US and the elected officials for whom they work are in a tizzy regarding what to do or say about Israel's war on Gaza.
One recent news account reported that Senate and House Democratic leaders are worried about the “Mamdani effect” – meaning their concern that should Zohran Mamdani win the November mayoral race in New York City, it may scare “moderate” voters away from backing Democrats in November next year.
In addition, a string of commentary pieces in the American press has cautioned Democratic candidates against embracing “progressive” policies, urging them instead to stick to more centrist positions. While other issues factor into this concern, at the top of the list is Mr Mamdani’s and other progressives’ criticism of Israel and support for Palestinians, both of which establishment Democrats view as too radical for voters.
In this context, it was interesting to note that during the recent Democratic National Committee debate over a resolution criticising Israel and calling for an end to US arms supplies to that country, the major argument raised by consultant groups was that if the resolution were to pass it would damage the prospects of Democrats’ winning control of Congress in next year’s midterm elections.
Then there are the articles suggesting that so-called leftist Democrats are pushing to make Israel’s war against Palestinians a litmus test for 2026 candidates. Many of these pieces report on a few elected Democratic officials or leading 2026 candidates who, in recent weeks, have felt forced to retract comments supportive of Israel in the face of backlash from voters.
The consultants and Democratic Party congressional leaders are wrong. It’s not some insidious leftist conspiracy that has caused candidates to change their views. Rather it’s the mood of voters that has changed, and candidates who have their finger on the pulse of the electorate know they must change too.
We’ve seen recent polls that show a dramatic shift in voter sympathy for Palestinians over Israelis and support for stopping military supplies to Israel. To learn how these shifting attitudes might translate into voter behaviour, at the end of August, the Arab American Institute commissioned John Zogby Strategies to conduct a nationwide poll of 1,005 voters.
The poll did not ask whether or not respondents were supportive of Israel, its policies, or the support it receives from the US. Instead, voters were given a number of positions that might be taken by a candidate for office and asked whether, given that position, they were more or less likely to support that candidate.
Those polled were asked questions that included the following: would you be more or less likely to support a candidate if they were in favour of reducing or ending military aid to Israel?
Would you be more or less likely to support a candidate if they spoke out to stop Israel’s war on Gaza?
Would you be more or less likely to support a candidate if they spoke about what Israel is doing in Gaza as a genocide?
Would you be more or less likely to support a candidate if they received support from a pro-Israel lobbying group, such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee?
In response to questions one, two and three, it was revealed that a plurality of all voters would be more inclined to support the candidate who took these positions. A plurality would be less inclined to support candidates who received funding from the American Israel Public Affairs Committe.
As expected, there is a partisan split; Democrats are more likely to support candidates who are critical of Israeli policy. The one exception is in response to stopping the war – where Democrats and Republicans agree.
In analysing the data from this poll, we found that the percentage of voters calling themselves conservative (39 per cent) was greater than those who termed themselves liberal (26 per cent). But, at 34 per cent, those who said they were moderates were the second largest group.
While the views of liberals and conservatives were at times mirror-images of one another, what was striking was the degree to which, on these issues, the attitudes of liberals and moderates were largely the same.
Sixty per cent of voters in both groups were more likely to support candidates who seek to stop Israel’s war on Gaza as opposed to only 10 per cent who would be less likely to support a candidate who takes such a view. Among conservatives, attitudes are evenly divided. Much the same holds true with regard to decreasing military aid to Israel and calling Israel’s policies in Gaza a genocide.
The bottom line is that when Democratic consultants try to steer candidates on to what they consider safe, centrist ground by appealing to moderates, they are only establishing how out of touch they are with the views of the electorate.
The Democratic establishment should end their fretting about candidates losing this election because they may take positions that are critical of Israel and supportive of Palestinian rights. Instead, they should be encouraging them to do so. It is where the majority of voters are – liberals and moderates included.
