The Genocide in Gaza May Keep the Democrats from Regaining Congress
Despite polling well in ways which should give them a chance at winning both houses of Congress, the Democrats have two significant challenges heading into this year’s midterm elections. The first one is a problem of nostalgia narrative.
The Democratic Party faces two major obstacles in the 2026 U.S. midterm elections. First, they lack a compelling nostalgic narrative like they had in 2018 when Barack Obama’s presidency was used as a contrast to Donald Trump. Obama’s legacy provided a unifying symbol for Democrats, but Joe Biden’s presidency—marked by the COVID-19 pandemic, cognitive concerns, and unconditional support for Israel’s actions in Gaza—offers no similar appeal. Second, the issue of Palestine has become a significant liability. The party’s reluctance to take a firm stance against the perceived genocide in Gaza has alienated progressive voters, particularly young people and pro-Palestinian activists. This stance has also cost the Democrats support, as seen in polls where voters linked Kamala Harris’s 2024 presidential loss to her refusal to oppose the Gaza conflict strongly.
The ongoing conflict in Gaza has deeply divided the Democratic Party’s base. While progressive candidates like Abdul El Syed in Michigan and Melat Kiros in Colorado have gained traction with strong pro-Palestine platforms, the national party and many congressional candidates have avoided taking a clear position on the issue. This hesitation is seen as both a moral failure and an electoral miscalculation. Polls indicate that a majority of Democratic voters support a stronger stance against Israel’s actions in Gaza, and the party’s failure to align with this sentiment risks losing key demographics, especially young and college-educated voters. Additionally, the party’s perceived abandonment of transgender rights, as seen in policies by figures like Gavin Newsom and James Talarico, further alienates progressive voters.
Joe Biden’s presidency has been marred by controversies that weaken the Democratic Party’s electoral prospects. His administration’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which resulted in the deaths of over a million Americans, and his unwavering support for Israel’s military actions in Gaza have drawn widespread criticism. These issues, combined with concerns about Biden’s cognitive ability, contributed to his decision not to seek re-election in 2024. Even if Biden were physically able to campaign, his involvement could harm Democratic candidates due to his unpopularity. The article highlights that Biden’s legacy is defined by these failures, which contrast sharply with the nostalgia for Obama that helped Democrats in past elections.
Three books—How to Sell a Genocide by Adam H. Johnson, Don’t Say Palestine by Assal Rad, and Crossing the Red Line by Akbar Shahid Ahmed—critically examine the media’s complicity in shaping public perception of the Gaza conflict. Johnson, a journalist and media critic, argues that U.S. media outlets portrayed Israel as a victim while downplaying Palestinian suffering, using quantitative analysis to show disparities in coverage. For example, in the first 100 days of the Gaza assault, over 10,000 Palestinian children were killed, but mentions of child deaths were 33.4% higher for Ukraine’s war than for Gaza. Rad, a historian, focuses on how mainstream media language, such as headlines, reinforces biased narratives. Ahmed, a reporter, provides an insider’s account of the Biden administration’s actions, though his use of terms like war instead of genocide has drawn criticism.
The three books differ in their use of terminology to describe the events in Gaza. Johnson and Rad explicitly use the term genocide to describe Israel’s actions, arguing that it accurately reflects the scale of violence and deprivation inflicted on Palestinians. Johnson’s book includes visual data showing how media coverage minimized Palestinian suffering, while Rad critiques the language used in headlines to obscure Palestinian perspectives. Ahmed, however, avoids the term genocide, instead using war to describe the conflict. He frames his choice as a way to present the Biden administration’s perspective, though this decision has been criticized for downplaying the severity of the situation. Despite these differences, all three books agree that the Biden administration and media played significant roles in shaping public opinion about the conflict.
The Democratic Party’s failure to address the Gaza conflict and other progressive issues could have significant electoral consequences in the 2026 midterms. The party risks losing support from young voters, college students, and progressive activists who feel betrayed by the lack of action on Palestine and transgender rights. The article notes that support for Palestine has grown steadily among the U.S. public, and the Democrats’ inability to align with this sentiment may hinder their ability to regain control of Congress. Additionally, the party’s reliance on nostalgia for Obama in past elections is no longer viable, leaving them without a unifying narrative to mobilize voters. The failure to address these issues could result in a repeat of the 2024 presidential loss, where Kamala Harris’s refusal to take a strong stance on Gaza was cited as a key factor.
