(((Chesterton's Id)))

Oh.

Abdul El-Sayed said on a conference call that members of his team were worried about the supposed “risk” associated with condemning the antisemitic attack on Temple Israel. He says he decided to make the statement because he viewed making the statement as an act of leadership. From the article: “‘It was a risk,’ El-Sayed said. ‘All of our team was really worried about saying something, but leadership is being willing to say the thing if you believe it to be true that nobody else is going to say.’” Additionally, the article contains a link to an unlisted YouTube video. That video is the snippet of the Zoom call where he says this. While he is talking about this, one of the call’s participants comments “the synagogue raised funds for the IDF,” in an apparent effort to justify the attack. El-Sayed ignored this comment, refusing to give oxygen to the idea that there was any sort of justification for the attack. That’s good. But it’s also not good that there are people in high places within his campaign who would believe, let alone say, such a thing. I think Dr. El-Sayed is a good man. But I am supporting McMorrow in this primary, in part because I prefer a campaign that is not staffed by people who waver on whether antisemitism is bad.

Can confirm that this is how I made my decision on whether I should engage in premarital sex.

This data from The Economist provides the answer for what seems to have happened to blue states in the last decade.