How the Gaza conflict influenced Trump’s victory
The United States (US) concluded its presidential elections amid a brutal war between Israel and Palestine, along with intense debates about the superpower’s role in this conflict. While early exit polls predicted a narrow victory for the Democratic party, the results ultimately favored the Republicans. This article seeks to understand how the Palestinian issue swayed votes away from the Democrats and contributed to Trump’s success.
This election marked a pivotal moment for both Trump and the Republican party. Trump reversed the losses experienced in the 2020 elections against Joe Biden, while the Republicans reclaimed the Senate and moved closer to a majority in the House. With over 77 million votes in his favor compared to nearly 75 million for Harris, Trump became the first Republican candidate to win the popular vote since George W. Bush.
As post-election analyses emerge, several key points highlight Trump’s strengthened performance across various demographics, including the Republican base, working-class voters, Latinos, African-Americans, college graduates, young male voters, and even urban populations in traditionally Democratic strongholds like New York, Chicago, and Miami. Despite Harris raising more campaign funds, she struggled to maintain the victory margins and counties secured by Biden in 2020.
Remarkably, for every 100 votes lost by Harris, Trump gained 78. The remaining 22 votes in this equation suggest that while public trust in Harris waned, it did not transfer proportionally to Trump. This gap reflects a broader disillusionment with the Democrats, particularly among their core supporters in swing states. Socio-economic issues, including migration, high inflation, and the backlash against “wokeness,” were critical in this electoral outcome. However, a notable aspect of the discussion surrounding the Democrats’ loss focuses on the Gaza crisis and the shift of Arab American and Muslim voters away from the party, driven by feelings of disenfranchisement due to pro-Israel policies.
The influence of the Gaza conflict on the 2024 US elections can be observed in two primary ways. Firstly, in Michigan—home to a sizable Arab American electorate—Democrats failed to secure as many seats as expected. Trump and third-party candidate Jill Stein collectively garnered nearly 70 percent of the vote in Dearborn, an Arab American stronghold. Voters in this area expressed strong discontent towards Harris, accusing her of neglecting their interests. Trump’s efforts made to connect with Arab and Muslim American communities, including endorsements from local Imams, contrasted sharply with Harris’s lack of engagement, furthering resentment among constituents concerned about the Democrats’ unwavering support for Israel.
Secondly, liberal and progressive voters disillusioned by the Democrats’ policies regarding Israel likely voted for third-party candidates, further disrupting the traditional voting patterns. The electoral influence of the Gaza conflict became visible through various polls administered in swing states such as Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Georgia. Insights from polling conducted in August 2024 revealed that between 30 and 39 percent of voters indicated they were more inclined to support Harris if the US were to withhold aid to Israel amid its actions in Gaza. This finding highlights an indirect yet substantial impact the Gaza situation had on American voting behavior.
Polls also showed a significant sentiment shift among young voters (aged 18-29) regarding the Gaza conflict. In June 2024, prior to Harris assuming the Democratic nomination, surveys revealed that 53 percent of young voters favored a ceasefire in Gaza. This generational shift appears connected to the rise of pro-Palestinian discourse on social media platforms like TikTok, reflecting a broader change in attitudes towards Israel’s actions among younger Americans.
It is important to note that no election is determined by a single issue. In a nation of approximately 337 million individuals from various ethnic and religious backgrounds, a nuanced understanding of election trends is crucial. Even though Trump’s victory in Michigan was bolstered by Arab American voters, it only provided 15 electoral votes, contributing to a total margin of 86 electoral votes. Trump’s overall success would have persisted even without Michigan’s support.
Several other factors contributed to the Democrats’ losses in 2024. Rising rents and prices nationwide emerged as pressing concerns for young voters. Additionally, critics have noted that an excessive focus on “woke liberalism” overshadowed the need to support economically disadvantaged segments of the working class. Trump supporters expressed deep frustrations with open borders and immigration, particularly as urban centers faced declining fortunes.
The Gaza conflict has underscored the importance of foreign policy in US elections—a trend reminiscent of historical precedents, such as the Vietnam War’s significant impact on electoral outcomes. Throughout this analysis of voting behaviors, certain insights become evident. The war in Gaza has highlighted foreign policy as a considerable factor in US elections, though it is not the sole determinant. Voters faced complex dilemmas regarding their stance on Palestine, resulting in varied electoral choices, including support for third-party candidates to express dissatisfaction with the Democrats.
In conclusion, while isolating the war’s specific impact on US electoral politics may be challenging, the growing Arab and Muslim American diasporas will likely shape future political dynamics. With an anticipated population increase to 8 million in the next two decades, and significant concentrations in key swing states, political parties in the US can ill afford to overlook Arab American perspectives on conflicts occurring in the Middle East. Consequently, the importance of these issues in shaping political landscapes will only intensify.
