Yes, it’s possible to make up whatever statistics you want, that is true.
The reality is most people who are going to vote for him don’t care about foreign affairs or that he’s committing genocide, which is different than actively being pro-genocide. Foreign policy is towards the bottom of many people’s list during elections.
He could stop his support for genocide tomorrow and the “vOtE bLu nO mAtTeR wHo” morons would still vote for him like trained seals. So he has little to lose by going anti-genocide and a lot to lose by cintinuing to support it and alienating huge swaths of his base.
Let’s say he loses 10% of his supporters from supporting Israel, but 20% not supporting them.
Either way he loses the general election. But it doesn’t mean he’s not doing the most popular thing. Both options suck for him, politically.
Yes, it’s possible to make up whatever statistics you want, that is true.
The reality is most people who are going to vote for him don’t care about foreign affairs or that he’s committing genocide, which is different than actively being pro-genocide. Foreign policy is towards the bottom of many people’s list during elections.
He could stop his support for genocide tomorrow and the “vOtE bLu nO mAtTeR wHo” morons would still vote for him like trained seals. So he has little to lose by going anti-genocide and a lot to lose by cintinuing to support it and alienating huge swaths of his base.
I’m using an example to illustrate that losing the election wouldn’t necessarily mean he did the most unpopular thinh.