> everyone addressed what she said.  no, because youre still ignoring it. again the point that youve failed to address for the second time now is that all the polling data contradicts what youre saying and the thing is shes using history combined with current polling data. kamala was beating trump by double digits when she first announced she was running, but now its taken a nose dive and theyre neck and neck in key must win states, and when polled she would gain more than enough voters to win if she simply changed her stance on israel, and conversely she wouldnt lose nearly as many voters as to offset it- i think the numbers they polled were 72% said they would vote for her when they previously wouldnt have if she did that, whereas only 7% said they would no longer vote for her if she did. that is enough to turn the election, and its the glaring reason why she was polling historically high in august, and now theyre neck and neck
United States