200
[alt text: a screenshot of a tweet by @delaney_nolan, which says, "Biden/Harris saw this polling and decided to keep unconditionally arming Israel". Below the tweet is a screenshot from an article, which states: "In Pennsylvania, 34% of respondents said they would be more likely to vote for the Democratic nominee if the nominee vowed to withold weapons to Israel, compared to 7% who said they would be less likely. The rest said it would make no difference. In Arizona, 35% said they'd be more likely, while 5% would be less likely. And in Georgia, 39% said they'd be more likely, also compared to 5% who would be less likely."]
I mean, I feel like it is quite fair to blame the people who voted for Trump for Harris's loss tbh. I don't really buy the "the dems would win if they didn't just refuse to try to win over conservatives and instead promised to go all-in on progressive policy that I've seen lately. I wish we got more progressive policy too, but it's not like they don't have any idea what people want, they have whole teams of people whose job it is to figure out that kind of thing. If promising some more progressive policy was a clear winner, why wouldn't they do it? The answer I generally see implied or stated is that the dem establishment doesn't want that policy, but that isn't really an adequate explanation, because politicians are perfectly familiar with dishonesty. If supporting some progressive policy they didn't like would win them power, they'd just promise it and then just not do that thing upon getting elected. It's happened for state and congressional races before, so it's not like that's never been thought of.
I don't think Harris's loss is down to refusing to say the right words to inspire her base or anything like that, it's down to the fact that, somehow, Trump is very good at inspiring his. She gave it a decent shot, but it's very hard to win an election against a massive cult of personality. He, and the people that support him, are the problem here.
Because their personal motivations are not "maximize the chances for a Democratic win", but preserve the power of themselves and their allies with money and influence. If these policies become a centerpiece of the election and broadly popularized, it becomes dangerous to ignore it and advances the saliency regardless of the outcome, pushing it closer to someone actually doing it. A campaign that says "the rich are abusing workers to fill their pockets and the government should tax their wealth until there are no billionaires and provide benefits to the workers" is dangerous to the rich people, even if its initially proposed by someone with no intention of following through.
In an election with stakes like this one though, doesnt maximizing their chances for a win also serve that? Like, being rich offers you some protection from the law, especially in a corrupt regime, but when the other side is an actual authoritarian, half-assing it so that they win while also being publicly against them is dangerous to one's personal safety. Even rich people dont tend to get away with being against authoritarians, when they are in charge. If all you care about is power and influence, and you dont actually have any values beyond that, and one side is an authoritarian, then being on their side serves your interest, and being put in power to stop them serves your interest, but publicly failing to stop them puts a target on your back and gives you no power and influence by which to ward it off.