>there is no correlation between when a Dem condemned violent protest and whether they won their election Even assuming this unsupported claim is true, it's no

>there is no correlation between when a Dem condemned violent protest and whether they won their election Even assuming this unsupported claim is true, it's not necessarily relevant because correlation isn't the same as causation. For example, it could be that Dems are pretty good at reading their local electorate, and left-leaning areas are more tolerant of violent protest in the name of left causes. So Dems in lefty areas did not condemn violence, whereas Dems in swing areas did condemn violence. If this was true, ceteris paribus you would expect Dems who condemn violence to be more likely to lose, just because they're running more competitive races. BTW, I think people are unfortunately quite tribal nowadays, and tend to assume that extremists have control of the other side even if that's not the case. And disavowing extremists is only partially effective at changing that perception. Think about it--how much have Trump's many disavowals of the far right shifted your perception that he's in bed with them? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd0cMmBvqWc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd0cMmBvqWc Probably not much. >So either that’s not actually the critical factor, or it’s not possible to control for this factor in any sort of reliable way. One failed attempt doesn't mean that something can't be done.