Pick any issue. A person can support the issue and recognize it may have negative consequences. From there I'm making the distinct that beliefs on the issue can go (at least) two ways: 1) The issue is too important for those consequences to take precedence over fighting for the issue. OR 2) The consequences are too high to continue fighting for the issue and it would be wise to stop.
You seem to be saying that someone who supports the protests & believes it will lose votes must automatically jump to #2. That doesn't follow. A person can believe the lost votes are not important enough to override the importance of the protests.
That person will spend their time discussing the issues important to the protests, not spend their time discussing how the protests are actually hurting their greater cause.
The comment I was responding to seemed to be saying that a person cannot acknowledge that the protests would lose votes without automatically believing the protests should stop, even though they might support the issues being protested.
That's not true. A person can believe-- about any issue-- that fighting for that issue may have negative consequences but also that fighting for it is still the right thing to do, that the cost of the fight is worth the consequences.
Literally "it doesn't matter who was responsible for the violence, the left get blamed for it so it's their fault." Fuck that. The police are very often responsible for the violence, and you should not stop protesting because they can attack you and make you look bad. Suggesting they should stop is belittling their protest.
>You may not like the fact that you have to think about the median Oklahoman voter, but the reality is that that voter is much more important than the median say, NYC voter
You completely missed the point of what was said. Maybe in Oklahoma this was a net negative, but countrywide including many swing states it was essential.