The issue of what to do or say regarding Israel's war on Gaza has raised concerns among founding "Democratic" advisors and the elected officials they work with. A recent news report indicated that leaders of the "Democrats" in both the Senate and the House are worried about the "Mamdani effect"—their concern that Zahran Mamdani's victory in the 2025 New York City mayoral election could deter "moderate" voters from supporting Democrats in November 2026. Additionally, a series of analytical articles warned "Democratic" candidates against adopting "progressive" policies, urging them instead to adhere to more centrist positions.
While other issues contribute to this concern, at the top of the list is the criticism of "Mamdani" and other progressives towards Israel and their support for Palestinians, both of which are seen by founding "Democrats" as too extreme for voters. In this context, it was notable that during a recent debate in the Democratic National Committee regarding a resolution criticizing Israel and calling for a halt to U.S. military aid, the main argument put forth by advisory groups was that passing the resolution would harm the chances of "Democrats" winning control of Congress in the 2026 elections.
Articles have also emerged suggesting that "leftist Democrats" are trying to make Israel's position and its war against the Palestinians a "litmus test" for candidates in the 2026 elections. These articles discuss several elected "Democratic" officials or prominent candidates for the 2026 elections who have felt, in recent weeks, that they are compelled to retract their pro-Israel comments in the face of strong backlash from voters. However, the advisors and leaders of the "Democratic" party in Congress are mistaken. It is not a "malicious leftist conspiracy" that has driven candidates to change their positions. Rather, it is a shift in voter sentiment, and candidates who have a sense of the public pulse know they must keep pace with this change.
We have recently witnessed polls showing a significant shift in voter sympathy towards Palestinians at the expense of Israelis, and support for halting military aid to Israel. To understand how this shift might translate into electoral behavior, the Arab American Institute commissioned the firm "John Zogby Strategies" at the end of August to conduct a national survey of 1,005 voters. The survey did not ask participants whether they supported Israel or its policies or the aid it receives from the United States. Instead, they were presented with a set of positions that a political candidate might adopt and were asked whether these positions made them more or less likely to support that candidate. The questions included the following:
1- Would you be more or less likely to support a candidate if they supported reducing or halting military aid to Israel?
2- Would you be more or less likely to support a candidate if they called for an end to Israel's war on Gaza?
3- Would you be more or less likely to support a candidate if they described what Israel is doing in Gaza as genocide?
4- Would you be more or less likely to support a candidate if they received support from a pro-Israel lobbying group like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)?
The response to questions 1, 2, and 3 showed that the majority of participants were more inclined to support the candidate who adopted these positions. The majority were also less likely to support a candidate receiving funding from "AIPAC." As expected, a partisan divide emerged: "Democrats" were more likely to support candidates who criticize Israeli policies. However, there were exceptions, such as the issue of ending the war, where both "Democrats" and "Republicans" agreed. When analyzing the survey data, we found that the percentage of those who identified as conservatives (39%) was higher than the percentage of liberals (26%). Moderates formed the second-largest group (34%). While the positions of liberals and conservatives sometimes aligned perfectly, it was notable that the positions of liberals and moderates were quite similar.
Sixty percent of voters in both groups showed a greater willingness to support candidates seeking to end Israel's war on Gaza, compared to only 10% who said they would be less inclined to do so. Among conservatives, positions were almost evenly divided. The same result was repeated regarding reducing military aid and describing Israeli policies in Gaza as genocide. The conclusion: when "Democratic" advisors try to push candidates toward what they consider "safe centrist ground" to appeal to "moderates," they merely demonstrate how out of touch they are with the true opinions of voters. The "Democratic" establishment should stop worrying about losing elections if candidates take positions that criticize Israel and support Palestinian rights. Instead, they should encourage them to do so. Because this is the position
