20% of voters who voted for Biden but didn't vote for Harris in the swing states had the Gaza genocide as their top reason. 33% said the economy but she couldn't do anything about that. She could have chosen to stand against killing children and won, but she chose genocide.
The difference was 1.5%, and .5% went to Stein. You really think ending the genocide wouldn't have made even a 1% change?
www.imeupolicyproject.org
It might have. But of course, a 1% change wouldn't win her the presidency anyway because of the electoralcollege.
That post you linked to pointed to the 50% of third party voters who said they would have been more likely to vote for Harris.
If you give ALL OF THEM to Harris (in other words, take "more likely to vote for" and turn it into "Absolutely would vote for") she still loses the same states.
The 20% who voted for Biden but didn't vote for Harris switching is interesting.
The problem you have there is -- how many people is that?
Your article says 19 million, but as I mentioned elsewhere, where does that number come from?
Let's take Michigan, where Biden got 67,507 more votes than Harris.
Give 20% of those to Harris based on this poll.
She still loses Michigan to Trump, who beat her by 80,103 votes there.
I am not saying that there is no evidence she would have done better if she and Biden had been better on the Gaza situation.
What I am saying is that the "proof in the numbers" you are pitching here doesn't add up the way you think it does.
