SLRPNK

I always figured if a protest is destructive, the display of extreme outrage must in some slight way benefit the protesters, if it makes any difference at all. Research shows the violence and destruction do have an impact, but it’s actually the complete opposite of my intuition -- to the protester’s disadvantage. From the article:

“Before the [MLK] assassination, there was no link between rainfall and voting — this was a control. But in the week after the assassination, places with less rainfall experienced more violent protests. Wasow linked this to a 1.5–7.9% shift in white votes towards the Republican party (seen as being tough on crime). According to Wasow, violent protests “likely tipped the election” to the Republican nominee, Richard Nixon, over the Democratic candidate, Hubert Humphrey.”

This means protesters of liberal causes like climate are at a disadvantage. It’s critical for the protest to be civil & peaceful so as to not encourage votes for that shitty “law and order” party. So protests like that of setting new SUVs on fire can actually work strongly against their cause.

Protests by right wing nutters tend to be uncivil, destructive, and violent. But they enjoy a double benefit: a swing voter’s reaction to the violence is to vote right wing anyway.