He’s Baaaaack
Why Gaza (Probably, Definitely) Caused Harris’ Defeat
So it looks like I was right after all. To be fair, I had a 50:50 shot, so no magical foresight there I suppose.
The aftermath has been what you might otherwise expect. Jubilation from some right wing corners and lots of frustration, anger, and misery from the left. Business as usual.
What has been a tad unusual, however, has been the postmortem Harris dialogue in Muslim spaces. Some are taking victory laps, pointing to Harris’ unwillingness and inability to play ball on Gaza as a cause of her defeat. In response, others are absolutely adamant that no one cares about Gaza in this country and that Trump’s victory had to do with ‘more important’ issues to the average voter like the economy and immigration.
Given this dialogue, I’m going to attempt to attend to and offer some thoughts on the topic of defeat causes. Proceed with caution.
Causes of Defeat
To be blunt, no one knows for sure why a candidate wins or loses. And it almost never has to do with actual policy anymore. I’m sure before television and mass media people were far less superficial in their political choices. But when you account for material decadence and the creature comforts of American society, the vacuous reality tv theater of campaigning, the establishment media apparatus that is increasingly ignored and hostage to partisan interests, and more, something as immaterial as a candidate's looks or perceived “aura” probably means a whole lot more than what he or she says about tariffs.
But what about exit polls, you ask? Numerous studies have come out over the past few years calling into question their reliability, a topic that is getting increased attention in mainstream media. Matthew Yglesias observed in 2020 on this topic, “as we all keep learning over and over again, it is difficult to conduct accurate surveys of voters’ opinion. Nothing about conducting an accurate exit poll is any easier than conducting an accurate pre-election poll. If anything, it’s harder.” You also have the problem of exit poll dishonesty, with some demographics lying en masse to avoid the inevitable questions that come with being a Trump supporter. And if all these problems exist with the mere question of “who did you vote for?”, the subsequent question of motivations is far more elusive.
Following the Bush v. Kerry election of 2004, George Bishop, a professor of political science at the University of Cincinnati, wrote the following:
“...when respondents tell us that an issue mattered the most in deciding how to vote, they are not giving causal reasons. Instead, they are merely selecting plausible reasons, justifications or after-the-fact rationalizations for their behavior.
It may make for a good story line for journalists and pundits to proclaim what was the defining issue of the 2004 presidential election, but it makes for lousy political science. A lot of exit poll respondents picked one issue that mattered most in deciding how they voted for president, but such an explanation is misleading because any broad issue is an ambiguous catch-all that could mean different things to different people.
Voters were subject to numerous influences on their voting preferences, all of which will take months and probably years for analysts to sort out. The truth is we really don't know yet why George Bush won this election. We have but a few clues as to how it happened.”
Bland exit poll reasonings given around the economy as a driving factor, therefore, shouldn’t be taken at face value. “The economy” is a safe issue, and although many are invariably affected by economic conditions, I suspect most voters who selected the economy in an exit poll would be hard pressed to explain a single thing Trump said about the economy during his campaign.
Gaza Mattered!
Probably. I mean, it almost certainly, probably, definitely mattered.
Why, you ask? Well, if we can’t rely on exit polls (which do not evidence Gaza mattering a great deal to voters), then how can anyone suggest Gaza as a factor in Trump’s victory? Especially when his margin of victory was so large?
Let’s break it down.
Firstly, the margin of victory is entirely irrelevant to whether Gaza factored into the election. The margin of victory only matters if you believe the sole correlation between the election and Gaza is the Muslim vote. If you’re trying to dunk on the irrelevance of the “Muslim vote,” feel free. But the actual numbers of the Muslim vote and exit polls rarely tell the whole story.
So if we’re not going to take the margin of victory of specific numbers of Muslim voters (which continued to largely vote for Harris, if exit polls are to be believed, lol), on what grounds can we make such a claim? Consider the following.
Anti-genocide protesters absolutely dogged Harris’ campaign. It was more than a thorn in her side. Her campaign was an absolute mess trying to prevent anti-genocide protesters from gaining access to her protests, and her attempts to quell their interruptions were awkward, alienating, and demoralizing for a campaign that needed to build enthusiasm among the base. The New York Times ran a piece during her campaign arguing that she needed to listen to protesters rather than shut them out.
Trump ran an aggressive antiwar campaign. In fact, it became one of the key themes of his rallies, interviews, and speeches in the lead up to the election. He spoke out against the Cheney doctrine and painted Harris as a warmonger. He railed against Liz Cheney and said she wouldn’t be a “radical war hawk” if she was in a war and had guns trained in her face, a comment that received considerable media coverage and was absurdly misreported as a call to take Liz Cheney’s life. He was questioned about the Middle East and Ukraine during his infamous interview with Joe Rogan which garnered nearly 40 million views in three days. “Peace” and opposition to neocons was not a pet issue or ancillary to Trump’s campaign this time around. It was arguably a higher priority and fronted more regularly than immigration.
Trump spent the final days of his campaign speaking with, sitting and standing alongside, and boasting his support from Muslims. His courting of Muslims and public declarations of their support and how “honored” he was by it was literally unprecedented in American history. We have never had a presidential candidate openly seek out Muslim support as actively as Trump did, let alone one who embraced that support, took photo ops with practicing Muslims (imams, in fact), and spoke about that support both on the eve of the election and during his victory speech.
JD Vance went on Tim Dillon’s podcast and reinforced this same message, saying, “Even though they say they want to minimize Palestinian civilian casualties, they pursued the pathway that maximizes those casualties. They say that they're pro-Israel. They've pursued the pathway that has prolonged the war as long as possible, which is bad for Israel.”
Two weeks ago the New York Times reported that “the Trump campaign’s research found that up-for-grabs voters were about six times as likely as other battleground-state voters to be motivated by their views of Israel’s war in Gaza.”
So whether exit polls say it or not, Gaza clearly factored into Trump’s campaign. And although many have been saying it was all a ruse, early indications are that Trump is taking the prospect of peace at least somewhat seriously (how he intends to advance it remains to be seen). The Times of Israel has reported that Trump told Netanyahu that he wants the “war” over by the time he enters office. There are also rumors now that Massad Boulos, Trump’s Lebanese-American in-law, will play some role in negotiating with Lebanon in the coming weeks, though Boulos has denied possessing a formal role as of yet.
It Mattered If I Say It Did
Following any election, pundits partial to the losing side spend days grievance peddling, and this election has been no different. The LGBT folks have blamed Harris’ lack of trans support. Climate activists are decrying her support for fracking. Centrists say she should have gone on Joe Rogan. Progressives are saying she abandoned the working class. Abortion advocates say she ignored “reproductive rights.” The list goes on.
Of course, most of these grievances have no exit poll validation. The arguments are made without reference to data or statistics that immediately relate to the election. Nevertheless, the confidence with which they are asserted is uncanny.
For various reasons, a group of Muslim pundits believe that we alone need water-tight proof to suggest Gaza played a role in the election. Anything other than a razor thin election margin, singularly decided by Muslim and Arab votes more broadly in the state of Michigan as the sole deciding state, accompanied by widespread reporting about the impact of the “Abandon” movement is being framed as a failure and indicative of the Muslim community’s irrelevance. Some of these voices believe in accurate political analyses. Others are just garden variety liberals angry at Trump’s victory and are lashing out, bitterly I might add, at Muslims who believe they might have had a hand in it. It’s all rather petty.
Even if we take the strongest possible case that Gaza played absolutely no role at all – I mean, zilch, nada, nothing - then I would suggest it still makes sense to insist that it did. Why? Modern western politics are predicated far more often on perception than reality. In fact, our political perceptions can be so powerful so as to entirely deform our view of what is real. The power of Zionism, as an example, rests in great measure on the perceived invincibility of its political machinery. You don’t need public opinion on your side to assert your view as an unimpeachable political convention. You only need to have a somewhat persuadable case that can be confidently projected to others.
As a matter of realpolitik, it makes little sense to own your political irrelevance in the public square and cower away into a corner reveling in how little you matter. It makes even less sense when the winning presidential candidate has spent the better part of two weeks courting your vote and pandering in some measure to your concerns. It makes even less sense yet again when pluralities — including conservative groups — agree with at least some of what you’re fighting for.
Closing Thoughts
If we’re being candid, there are plenty of reasons Harris lost that no exit poll will mention. She is a poor politician who lacks charisma. Her personality is unlikable. She struggles with softball interviews and refuses to do difficult ones. Her political persona is inauthentic, cosplaying as a story of black american triumph when her parents are first generation wealthy immigrants from Jamaica and India. She was profoundly unpopular when she ran for the Democratic nomination in the past and was handed it undemocratically this time around.
She is also a member of a party that more Americans are growing to resent. The Democratic Party and its prominent surrogates, media arm, and major candidates come off patronizing, out of touch, and elitist. Perhaps there will be some soul searching for the left in the days ahead. But if Gaza is not part of that conversation, it won’t be because an exit poll didn’t list it as a cause of defeat, but because we didn’t continue to hammer home that it matters to us and therefore should matter to them too.
As always, Allah Knows Best.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on whether you believe a trump presidency would be better or worse for Muslims and the world at large than a Harris presidency?
Thank you for writing! This was insightful for me.