194
[alt text: a screenshot of a tweet by @delaney_nolan, which says, "Biden/Harris saw this polling and decided to keep unconditionally arming Israel". Below the tweet is a screenshot from an article, which states: "In Pennsylvania, 34% of respondents said they would be more likely to vote for the Democratic nominee if the nominee vowed to withold weapons to Israel, compared to 7% who said they would be less likely. The rest said it would make no difference. In Arizona, 35% said they'd be more likely, while 5% would be less likely. And in Georgia, 39% said they'd be more likely, also compared to 5% who would be less likely."]
Okay, how about the 34% of voters in PA as mentioned in the OP? Or the black Americans who said Gaza was important to them?
The quote is deliberately misleading by leaving out that they were only asking Democrats and independents. It also doesn't mention that it (leading questions and all) was commissioned by the Institute for Middle Eastern Understanding Policy Project, which is a self-proclaimed pro-Palestinian group that opposed protections of Jewish Americans from antisemitism. Hardly an unbiased entity.
The war against Hamas ranks 15th among all issues to American voters. It's not entirely unimportant, but don't kid yourself by making the unfounded claim that it had any significant influence on this election.
How does the IMEU oppose protection against antisemitism, specifically
Here's the initiative:
https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism
Here's how the organization reacted to it:
https://imeu.org/article/imeu-policy-analysis-9-ihra-definition-silences-speech-for-palestinian-righ
That's what I thought you meant. Sorry, not remotely buying it