On the menu today: Joe Biden won the Democratic presidential primary in Michigan last night, with a bit more than 81 percent of the vote. Many Democrats, however, will interpret the 13.2 percent voting for “uncommitted” as a flashing danger sign, indicating that Palestinian, Muslim, and Arab-American voters could stay home on Election Day, concluding that Biden is too supportive of Israel. But if Biden changes his stances and tone to placate those fuming 100,000 or so voters in Michigan, he risks alienating the much larger pro-Israel portion of the electorate all across the country, including in several crucial swing states. They say, “You’ve got to dance with the one that brung ya,” and Biden defies that axiom at his peril.
The Danger in Overinterpreting the Michigan Results
Last night, in the Democratic presidential primary in Michigan, more than 100,000 Democrats voted for “uncommitted,” votes that were widely attributed to Palestinian, Muslim, and Arab-American voters who oppose Biden’s policies in the conflict between Israel and Hamas. Biden still won the primary comfortably; more than 617,000 Democrats voted for Biden; 22,000 voted for Marianne Williamson, who withdrew from the race February 8; and 19,441 voted for Minnesota congressman Dean Phillips. But the “uncommitted” vote is going to be interpreted as a shot across the bow of the Biden campaign, and a sign that Biden must shift his positions on Israel and the Palestinians or risk losing this key swing state and its electoral votes in November.
The truth is likely the opposite: that if Biden abandons Israel and attempts to embrace the Palestinian leadership, he’ll wreck his chances in an already shaky-looking general election.
There’s a saying in politics, “You’ve got to dance with the one that brung ya,” meaning that once you’re elected to office, you must vote the way those voters who elected you would prefer. If you change direction and alienate the folks who voted you into office, you will lose their votes, without winning enough votes among those who voted against you the first time to offset those losses.
Whatever Joe Biden’s other flaws — and he has many — he’s always been pro-Israel, particularly by the standards of the Democratic Party in recent years. Biden has described himself as a Zionist many times; here are his remarks at a campaign reception in Weston, Mass., on December 5:
Without an Israel that’s free and secure, I don’t think there’s a single Jew in the world that would be fully secure. That’s why I’ve been such an overwhelming supporter.
I got in trouble many times for saying you don’t have to be a Jew to be a Zionist, and I am a Zionist. I make no apologies for that. That’s a reality.
But, you know, when this last event occurred on the 6th [7th], I spent — I immediately got on the plane and went over to Israel to meet with Bibi with his Cabinet.
And I’ve known Bibi for 50 years. There’s a photograph he keeps on his desk — at least when I’m there, he puts it on the desk — (laughter) — and it’s 8.5 by 11. It’s a picture where he — he was a young member of the Israeli office in Washington and — ambassadorship — and I was a young senator. And I — it was 8.5 by 11, and I wrote in the top. I said, “Bibi, I love you, but I don’t agree with a damn thing you have to say.” (Laughter.)
There is no way, this late in his career and his first term, that Joe Biden can plausibly reinvent himself as a steadfast friend of the Palestinian people and a fierce critic of Bibi Netanyahu and the Israeli government. It doesn’t matter how many times Biden’s staff leaks that the president privately calls Netanyahu an “asshole.” It doesn’t matter if Biden and his administration slap sanctions on dozens of Israeli settlers in the West Bank, blocking travel and financial transactions. It doesn’t matter if the Biden administration declares Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories “illegitimate” under international law.
It doesn’t matter if Biden talks up the prospects of another cease-fire in between licks of a mint-chip ice-cream cone while hanging out with Seth Meyers.
Biden can try, but he will not succeed. Many Palestinian, Muslim, and Arab-American voters in Michigan and elsewhere will see Biden’s actions as too little, too late. Most of these voters won’t see Biden’s change of heart as genuine or convincing. It will strike many of them as clumsy, desperate, election-year pandering to shore up a key swing state . . . because it is clumsy, desperate, election-year pandering to shore up a key swing state. When November rolls around, many of these voters are likely to support another candidate — perhaps Cornel West — or stay home or leave that part of their ballot blank.
The thinking of many Palestinian, Muslim, and Arab-American voters in Michigan and elsewhere is straightforward — wrong, but straightforward: The military actions of Israel in the Gaza Strip amount to genocide; the U.S. government provides roughly $3.6 billion to $4.8 billion in aid to Israel each year, including military aid; and Biden has not changed policies of U.S. support for Israel in any meaningful way. Therefore, in these voters’ minds, Joe Biden supports genocide.
In these voters’ eyes, “Zionist” is just about the worst slur imaginable, and Joe Biden still runs around the country describing himself as a Zionist. They’re not going to forgive Biden supporting what they believe is genocide because the president denounced Netanyahu or made some window-dressing changes to U.S. policy toward Israel.
The raging furies on Twitter and other social-media platforms would have you believe that support of Israel is controversial and that public opinion has dramatically shifted against the Jewish state and in support of the Palestinians. In fact, opposition to Israel is relatively rare in the real world of the American electorate.
In the new Harvard-Harris poll, when asked about their feelings about Israel, 55 percent of registered voters say they feel favorably about Israel, and 28 percent feel unfavorably. Just 11 percent say they feel favorably about Hamas — that’s still eleven percentage points too high — and 66 percent feel unfavorably. When asked, “In this conflict do you support more Israel or more Hamas?” 82 percent of respondents said Israel, and just 18 percent said Hamas. When asked, “Do you think Israel is trying to avoid civilian casualties in fighting its war against Hamas or not trying to avoid such casualties?” 68 percent said Israel was trying to avoid civilian casualties, 32 percent said they were not.
When asked, “Do you favor an unconditional ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas war that would leave everyone in place, or do you think any ceasefire should happen only after the release of all hostages and Hamas removed from power?” two-thirds of registered voters preferred that “a ceasefire should happen only after the release of all hostages and Hamas being removed from power,” and only a third preferred an “unconditional ceasefire that would leave everyone in place.”
What happens on Twitter and in threads and comment sections is not only not representative of the viewpoint of the entire American electorate, it is often the opposite.
“But Jim, you’re talking about national polling numbers. The Biden team has to worry about Michigan!” Okay, fine. Let’s look at the results of a January WDIV/Detroit News poll:
-
38.3% of Michigan voters said Israel’s response “has gone too far.”
-
22.1% of Michigan voters said Israel’s response to the attack “has been about right.”
-
13.6% of Michigan voters said Israel’s response “has not gone far enough.”
Regarding U.S. support of Israel:
-
31.7% of voters said the U.S.’ support of Israel “has been about right.”
-
28.1% of voters said the U.S.’ support of Israel “has been too much.”
-
16.4% of voters said the U.S.’ support of Israel “has not been enough.”
Regarding U.S. humanitarian support in Gaza:
-
28.8% of voters said the U.S.’ humanitarian support in Gaza “has not been enough.”
-
26% of voters said the U.S.’ humanitarian support in Gaza “has been about right.”
-
11.6% of voters said the U.S.’ humanitarian support in Gaza “has been too much.”
Those are not the numbers of a state with an overwhelming majority opposed to Israel. Those are the numbers of a state roughly evenly split on the issue.
The Arab-American community in Michigan may be getting more outspoken and visible than in previous cycles, but it’s not necessarily large, or at least as large as is widely perceived. “About 300,000 people in the state claim ancestry from the Middle East and North Africa, and more than 200,000 voters identify as Muslim — groups in which there is large overlap.” That may sound like a lot, but Michigan has 8.2 million registered voters, and 5.5 million voted in the last presidential election. Oh, and an estimated 105,000 or so Michigan voters are Jewish. (No, not every Arab or Muslim voter in Michigan is motivated by animus to Israel, and not every Jewish voter is motivated by support of Israel. But it is reasonable to conclude that if Biden shifted U.S. policies in an anti-Israel direction, Jewish voters would be among those who objected the most to the shift.)
To win back the 100,000 “uncommitted” voters from yesterday, Biden would have to enact policy changes that would alienate and repel other voters in Michigan and in other states. In order to win back Arab-American votes in Michigan, how many votes is the Biden campaign willing to lose among the roughly 672,000 American Jews in Florida, the 434,000 in Pennsylvania, the 141,000 in Georgia, the 123,000 in Arizona, the 79,000 in Nevada, and the 33,000 in Wisconsin? (For those scoffing at what may initially appear to be a modest number in America’s Dairyland, remember that Biden’s margin over Donald Trump in 2020 in Wisconsin was 20,682 votes.)
Remember, Trump doesn’t need Muslim Americans, Arab Americans, or American Jews to vote for him. He just needs those demographics to not vote for Biden in the same numbers as last cycle.
ADDENDUM: National Review’s editors, with some advice for House Speaker Mike Johnson:
Johnson should be willing to see if there is a package that includes some of the Freedom Caucus demands that could secure a majority in the House and, if so, pass a bill that could be used to increase leverage with Senate Democrats. But barring that, he will have to cut the best deal that he can with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Biden, and rely on Democrats to secure the votes needed for passage.
If that is the case, Republican opponents of the deal should be content with the ability to vote “no” rather than threaten to force out Johnson and thus create another chaotic speaker fight.
To allow the government to shut down would be yet another indication of dysfunction among House Republicans that would serve as a life raft to Democrats at a time when Biden is flailing in polls.
I marvel at how many Republicans can convince themselves, “Sure, we’ve lost the messaging war on every other government shutdown that’s occurred, and we always end up blamed and politically damaged, and we always end up looking like recalcitrant stumblebums who can’t handle the basic duties of governing, but this time it’s going to be different!”