Biden took Michigan by 154,188 votes. According to the Arab American Institute, Michigan has 392,722 Arab-Americans though other sites put that number at around 221,631 or 310,087 or 211,405...So lets just say 220k - 400k. Though it's not accurate to say just because they're all Arab-Americans they won't vote for Democrat. We do have the 100,000 protest voters in the Democrat Primary but again, it's not accurate to say they all won't vote Democrat come election day.

According to American Community Survey there are 784,200 Polish-Americans in Michigan, US 2000 Census listed 854,844 so lets just say 780k - 854k. Now just as there's a conflict in the Middle-East that may sway the decisions of Arab-Americans there's also a conflict in Europe which may sway the decisions of Polish-Americans. Roughly 30-40k Ukrainians in Michigan too. Polish-Americans also have a strong population in Pennsylvania too which is the most important state but again, it's not necessarily all going to convert into votes for Democrats but it could have just as much of an impact as the Middle-East crisis.

I don't know how it's ultimately going to affect things but making claims like she has lost Michigan is jumping to conclusions very quickly and yes I think there should be a ban on offensive weaponry to Israel. I say this as someone who doomed the Democrat Party after Trump's assassination attempt. It's not even the first time Iran has attacked Israel this year...

(i was more asking for your stance on the fact that RolStoppable literally just said polls can't be trusted b/c i found a single poll refuting something he believes to be true. (i.e., I tagged you as a means to "clown" on him.))

fair enough. I was being a bit exaggeratory in saying "it's [completely] joever" for Harris in Michigan admittedly (especially knowing how liberal y'all are on here lol), and I don't compeltely buy into the theory of the Polish-American vote outweighing the >100k protesting Muslim-Americans. I would need to look at data, specifically to see if there is evidence of (a.) substantial shift in voting trends amongst this demographic of ppl specifically in Michigan (or anywhere in the USA) and (b.) if there is any increase in motivation for these ppl to go out to vote. Intuition may tell you that there are obvious answers to these question, though intuition tells me that Ukraine-Russia is a bit more multifaceted of an issue amongst the American voters, hence potentially explaining a situation where the answers these questions is "no". Hundred thousand protesters in Michigan is gonna be a very tall obstical to overcome, especially in a state which only voted 2pts in favor of Biden in 2020 in a country that has seen a 5pt swing rightward.

Key Findings

• The majority of Americans (61%) believe the United States is playing a somewhat (46%) or very (15%) positive role in resolving key problems in the Middle East.
• When asked about specific US policies toward the Israel-Gaza conflict, nearly a third of Americans decline to give their opinion.
• A plurality of Americans (42% combined) think the United States is either striking the right balance (22%) in its overall support for Israel or not supporting it enough (20%). However, a significant share also think it is supporting Israel too much (30%). A similar plurality (43% combined) say the United States is giving Israel either the right amount (26%) or not enough (17%) military aid, while a third (34%) say it has given Israel too much.
• Six in 10 Americans (60%) favor the United States supporting Israel militarily until the hostages are returned and about half (49%) favor such support until Hamas is dismantled.
• Americans are also concerned about Palestinians, and especially civilians. A narrow majority (53%) think the United States should restrict its military aid to Israel so it cannot use the aid in military operations against Palestinians.
• Three in 10 Americans say the United States is not providing enough humanitarian assistance to Gazans, while a quarter say it has been the right amount (25%).
• The majority (57%) oppose the United States taking a leading role in postwar reconstruction efforts.

Americans See United States Playing Positive Role in Middle East | Chicago Council on Global Affairs

Independents Specifically.

• 33% think America is supporting Israel either the right amount or not enough.
• 34% think America is supporting Israel too much.
• 39% think America is providing too much military aid to Israel.
• 36% think America is providing Israel either the right amount or not enough military aid to Israel.
• 52% think America should support Israel militarily until all hostages are returned.
• 44% think America should support Israel militarily until Hamas is either destroyed or dismantled.
• 54% think America should place restrictions on Israel aid*

*Question is specifically stated as "Do you support or oppose putting restrictions on US military aid to Israel so that it cannot use that aid toward military operations against Palestinians?"

This feels a bit open to interpretation...I think the question should have been "Do you support restricting offensive weaponry to Israel" rather than "so it cannot use that aid towards military operations against Palestinians" because that sounds like "Do you support placing restrictions on Israel military aid if they use it to target Palestinian civilians" in my mind...? What of Lebanon and Iran as well?

Conclusion

For the most part, Americans believe the United States is playing a positive role in mitigating the key challenges facing the Middle East and is giving Israel the right amount of—or not enough—military aid and support. Most Americans favor supporting Israel militarily until the hostages remaining in Gaza are released and, to a lesser degree, until Hamas is dismantled. At the same time, a substantial share of the population supports placing restrictions on military aid so it cannot be used in operations against Palestinians and thinks the United States could send more humanitarian aid to Gazans.

Democrats are more likely than other partisans to express criticism of the United States’ support for Israel and support humanitarian efforts in Gaza. While Vice President and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris’s stance on the Israel-Gaza war does not deviate significantly from President Joe Biden’s, she has been more vocal about the humanitarian impact of the war and has urged senior officials in the administration to be tougher on Netanyahu. Harris’s recognition of Palestinians’ plight and right to freedom, dignity, and self-determination could draw support from Democratic and Independent voters discontented with Biden’s Gaza policy.

I think that you're right in that aggressively pushing for a ceasefire is more beneficial election-wise. 

But your data doesn't definitively point to that. Being a popular position isn't the same as being an election changer.

You need to take it a step further beyond popularity, and you need to find the data that shows for what percentage of Americans are these issues complete deal breakers. 

For instance, I have a number of in-laws that are extremely pro-life, they proudly talk about it being their only political issue. It literally overrides everything else for them. You might find that they're against some Republican proposal, that it's very unpopular for them. But as long as Republicans are the ones pushing anti-abortion laws, they are 100% going to show up on election day.

Gun rights are another big thing. Most people are in favor of stronger gun control laws, but it's a difficult thing to push, because the people that are opposed to that, are absolutely guaranteed to show up on election day. Gun control is popular with most Americans, but it's a deal breaking issue for a solid portion of people. 

Suppose 90% of Democrats are 100% in favor of an absolute cease fire, but it's only a deal breaker for 5% of Democrats. And suppose for the other 10% of Democrats, for every one of them, the opposite is their deal breaker. 

The 10% is more advantageous than the 5%, even though the proposal is completely unpopular overall. 

Does this make sense?

To be clear, I do agree with you. I do wish the Democrats would push harder on this. But your data isn't enough to say that definitively. 

"I think that you're right in that aggressively pushing for a ceasefire is more beneficial election-wise. But your data doesn't definitively point to that. Being a popular position isn't the same as being an election changer." Being a popular decision can certainly be an election changer in a race as close as this one, especially when (i) you would appease to the >100k uncontested voters and (ii)...the decision is popular lol. The uncontested vote demonstrates evidence of such a call flipping a key swing state, no? I don't buy into your suggeston that the ceasefire *could* do more harm than good electorally under the evidence I have provided: Moderate voters would overwhelmingly swing to Harris, Dems will follows like sheep under whatever their party leadership chooses to do (Trump is an extestential threat in their eyes after all lol). The only ppl who would be upset are the repubs. Again, polls demonstrate this such as the one I have already provided.

Not sure what else to say...you say you agree with me, though you argue that my evidence isn't sufficient. Ig I could provide more poll findings? idk I feel like you're just arguing b/c you don't wanna be caught agreeing with the punching bag of these forums lol.

One thing that nobody seems to be talking about is the port strike in the Eastern US. The West Coast ports are still open as they’re under a different union. People are already panic buying toilet paper and bottled water, and Los Angeles and Long Beach can’t handle all the overflow from the East, not to mention trucks and rail. Hopefully this won’t be another supply chain snarl that raises prices.

Harold Daggett, the president of the Easten port worker’s union, the Internatinal Longshoremen’s Associaton (ILA), is a friend of Trump. However, a lot of the timing is bad luck, as the most recent ILA contract expired just a few days ago.

The strike puts Biden, and by entension Harris, in a precarious situation. So far, Biden has signaled support for the union and prefers to let collective bargaining run its course. If the strike goes on long enough to impact consumer prices, Trump’s campaign will jump on it to hammer Biden. On the other hand, if Biden takes the nuclear option and invokes the Taft-Hartley Act to try and force the dock workers back to work - which is what Reagan did to resolve the PATCO strike, ultimately resulting in the striking ATCs being fired - he’ll lose critical union support. 

This was always about Michigan, because it's the only state where we have seen voters make a statement in the primaries. Everywhere else the suffering of Gaza is not going to change voters' opinions on who they'll vote to a degree that could potentially matter.

I answered your question about what my evidence is, so what else do you want? I even mentioned the margin of error myself.

The evidence for Biden reaching a ceasefire agreement in Israel is the behavior of Netanyahu who wants war, not peace; he has kept turning down ceasefire proposals several times and is now in the process of expanding his war. Biden would have to make such big moves that the Democrats' pro-Israel voters would be at risk, and make no mistake, the pro-Israel group is much bigger than the pro-Gaza group in the USA. Any big change in Biden's policies right now would be used against Harris's candidacy.

Just going to throw these out there:

I agree with you on my gut feelings. 

I mostly argued with you, because I think you're being overly pessimistic. 

If Rol was doomposting, I'd spend more energy arguing with him instead.

Also, sorry to disappoint you, but you're not in the top 10 for punching bags here. 

I'm not sure that you're understanding what I'm meaning. 

It's not enough for a position to be popular, it has to be an outright deal breaker for enough people.

Anti-abortion laws are unpopular. Only like 35% of people are in favor of them, and yet they're frequently winning in a lot of states, because for those people it's an absolutely critical issue. 

Gun control laws are popular. Yet, it's an absolute deal breaker for like 20% of the population, and that's enough to push things over the edge. It's a relatively tiny chunk of Americans, but they vote hard, and they spend money lobbying on the issue. The NRA makes up a tiny chunk of politics, yet we frequently see gun controls laws overturned because that tiny chunk shows up.

This is a very common issue with American politics. It's not enough for a position to be popular, it has to be important enough to affect how they're spending money and it has to affect how they're voting. 

Find a poll that shows what percentage of people is this a deal breaking issue for. That's what you need to show. What percentage of people will 100% not show up because of that issue. Unfortunately that's a very different question than whether that issue is popular or not.