I think that clearly stating there will be political consequences for not changing course on an issue (such as the uncommitted vote drive) and then exacting those consequences by withholding your vote makes your constituency one that must be dealt with next time.
There's an argument that credibly "threatening" not to vote if your policy demands are not met has a tiny but real impact. Actually not voting achieves nothing except to empower the policies of that politician's opponent. Your best approach is to threaten not to vote and then to do so anyway.
There is no next time for the additional Palestinians who die under Trumps much worse genocide, genius. There is no next time if Trump wins and becomes a fascist dictator genius. Sorry about your IQ!
Do you think Gaza goes into a freeze frame for four years while Democrats work up a tearful apology to these leftist non voters?
Are there any consequences in Gaza with Trump in power or nah?
Or, hear me out - The candidates just pursue the votes they CAN get, which means moving right to get centrists and unhappy Republicans.
Thus making the left unnecessary.
Suppose there are two people who threaten to withhold their vote unless Biden stays the course with Israel for every one person who makes the same threat re Gaza? Who is he supposed to capitulate to?