Let’s consider the counterfactual: is it possible that this was a calculated decision about a complex topic and that abdicating led to a more positive outcome than not?

The subtext of this post seems to be: if only harris hadn’t ignored the Gaza problem! And I reject that as a premise

By the way, let’s consider another counterfactual: is it possible that Harris (the sitting VP) was privy to more information about the conflict than voters were?

Occam’s razor still applies. Your alternative explanations require additional and sometimes obscure factors, whereas the direct experience of the Uncommitted folks (actual Democrats! With previous Democratic campaign experience!) already gives an explanation that hasn’t been shot down by Harris campaign insiders either.

Can you tell me what you think the confounding factors are?

For example, you’re assuming the Harris campaign knew something we don’t. That’s adding extra variables.