In most presidential US elections, some portion of the electorate votes against their own political self interest in order to feel better. Why do they feel better? They've hurt the mainstream candidate most closely aligned to their interests, in order to get revenge for the fact that mainstream candidate isn't perfect. Such voters probably wouldn't feel good about their votes if they could think things through more clearly; it's a very emotional voting strategy. However, one can see this in election after election and talk about it endlessly with no effect. No degree of observation is going to change the situation unless we implement Ranked Choice Voting, where such voters can vote with the hearts for their first choice, and vote with their minds for their second choice.
For example, today, many voters are opposed to
the Harris/Waltz ticket as being too pro-Israel. On the other hand,
it's generally believed by the same group (and most of the rest of us)
that the alternative, Trump, is more in favor of Israel.
The leaders of such movements often try to change direction at the last
moment, to swing their followers toward the candidate who would best
represent the movement's interest, but such attempts usually fail. Many
of their followers are still too pumped up with the previous messages
to shift course emotionally. This appears to have happened, for
example, with followers of Bernie Sanders when he advised his followers
to support Hillary Clinton. Many seemed unable to shift course
emotionally even though it would be difficult to imagine that the
positions of Sanders were better aligned with Trump policies that what
would have happened under Clinton. Not even close.
