“We recognize that, in the next four years, our decision may cause us to have an even more difficult time. But we believe that this will give us a chance to recalibrate, and the Democrats will have to consider whether they want our votes or not.”
That’s gotta be one of the strangest reasonings I’ve heard in a while.
If Biden’s stance on Israel is driving away voters, that’s just normal. This is one of those important polarizing issues, and he can’t avoid accountability, for good or bad. The death count and coverage has guaranteed that.
As for “America wants” language, that doesn’t mean anything. Different people have different goals.
Who are Zionists actually voting for? If it’s not the Democratic party, then why would he continue to be pro-Israel? Whom is he pandering to with that stance?
There are many reasons politicians might be pro war. The military industrial complex is too powerful, among other things.
Sure, it’s shorthand, but the idea is that the Democratic Party might nominate a presidential candidate who has harsher views about Muslims and Palestine, if they see those views being the reason they lost, or among the reasons they lost.
They would see that they had the “better” policies and still didn’t get the votes from the people who care most passionately about them, so their approach did not work. Maybe they go closer to the protesters view to try to get their votes, or maybe they give up on the protesters as a voting bloc since they couldn’t even get their vote when they had the “better” policies. That would entail going further away from the protesters views.
Either could happen, I don’t know the polling, but my point is that it isn’t just “we will take 4 years of Trump to make our point and make Democrats listen,” they may be taking 4 years of Trump and then proving that no one should align their policy views with theirs going forward because it hurts more than it helps.