But, as the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan used to say, those narrative-spinners “are entitled to their opinions, but not to their own facts,” which are at odds with the available data. Whatever success they have now had among Democratic primary voters in dishonestly demonizing Israel instead of America’s actual enemies, the Khanna-Rhodes 2024 election myth is wrong.

To the contrary, polling done shortly before the 2024 election and soon thereafter showed that Harris’s actual problem was not support for Israel, but that she routinely waffled, trying to oppose Iran and Hamas, while regularly attacking Israel’s measures to win the war that Hamas and Iran started.

It now seems forgotten that in the fall of 2024, despite the barrage of anti-Israel messaging, an Associated Press-National Opinion Research Center survey reported that a majority of all voters continued to support Israel, and to view Iran, Hamas, and Gaza very negatively, with 52% also saying that Israel’s response in Gaza had either been “just right” or “not gone far enough”, and only 42% saying it had “gone too far.” Indeed, polling by a Democratic group, Blueprint, confirmed something similar, with 56% taking a favorable view of Israel and only 27% unfavorable.

Ignoring the realities of that time, the revisionist myth usually starts with Harris’s loss in Michigan, partly as a swing state and partly due to Dearborn and the state’s Muslim voters, even though they constitute less than 3% of Michigan’s voting population, not much different than the state’s Jewish population.

Unlike in Democratic primaries, Michigan general election polls in 2024 demonstrated that Harris would not have gained by more strongly denouncing Israel or supporting Iran, Hamas, and Gaza.

First, New York Times-Siena College polls that fall revealed that less than 1% of voters for either candidate even saw the Middle East as a top-10 concern, and Harris lost by more than that margin.

Second, Quinnipiac University reported in late October 2024 that while 46% of Michigan voters planned to vote for Trump, 49% preferred Trump’s Middle East policy, meaning some of Harris’s voters actually preferred Trump’s pro-Israel views, and Harris would have risked losing some of those supporters.

Third, support for Israel was weakest on the progressive Left, but the New York Times-Siena late September polling showed that only 12% of Michigan voters considered themselves “very liberal,” and Harris already had their votes.

In short, there is no evidence that Harris would have gained votes by abandoning support for Israel more explicitly at that time. More likely, doing so would have lost her some pro-Israel voters, particularly given that the majority of all voters at that time supported Israel.

Indeed, Harris’s waffling and perceived lack of support for Israel, the only consistent U.S. ally in that region, likely hurt her, as shown by polling in nearby Pennsylvania. Before October 2023, Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) was strongly supported by liberals, but Quinnipiac now measures his overall approval rating in Pennsylvania at only 39%.

As is well-known, Fetterman became an unequivocal supporter of Israel and opponent of Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas. Unlike Harris, Fetterman did not waffle, and he stood by Israel despite criticism from leftists in his own party. By the time of the 2024 election, MorningConsult polling showed that Fetterman’s support among some Democrats had declined, but his overall approval had surged to 48%, later increasing to 51%. Why?

Fetterman did what Harris failed to do. Harris looked weak — not because she supported Israel, as the revisionist myth claims, but because she visibly weaseled and straddled as to her position. Given the opportunity for a “Sister Souljah” moment, Harris instead pandered even to rude protesters disrupting her own rallies — something no one on either side admired.

Moreover, if Harris had taken the revisionists’ position fully hostile to Israel, she likely would have been even worse off: a Democratic poll taken in October 2024 revealed that 30% of voters already believed Harris had not supported Israel enough, compared to only 10% who said too much.

Polls conducted soon after the election confirmed what was already evident. A Democratic poll in November 2024 showed that out of 25 factors exploring possible reasons for Harris’s loss, being too “pro-Israel” was a non-factor, about as rare a consideration as Harris “being too conservative.” In fact, polling that showed Harris being “too pro-Palestinian” ranked as a considerably more notable factor in her loss, albeit still far less consequential than inflation, immigration, cultural issues, and other factors.

IF ‘WOKE 1’ WAS ‘CRAZY’, WHAT DOES AOC CALL THE DSA?

In the 20 months since the 2024 election, a new coalition of would-be congressional Corbynites, such as the now-disgraced Graham Platner and Khanna on one side, and the now-defeated Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene on the other, have coalesced in their anti-Israel and anti-Jewish narratives. El Sayed now carries their banner.

Will it work? In today’s environment, it certainly can’t be counted out, but it is worth remembering that in 2016, Sanders himself narrowly won the Democratic primary in Michigan, after regularly denouncing Israel, but a Republican then won Michigan in the general election that year for the first time since 1988.

Jeff Rosen is a nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.