> Given partisan polarisation, my guess is Democrats will take an axe to veteran benefits next cycle
I highly doubt it. The Senate “Democrat” in charge of the VA is Bernie Sanders himself, and he’s been a stalwart supporter of improving veteran benefits his entire career. There’s also the whole “it would be political suicide” thing.
Partisan polarization is a good way to predict a lot of things, but if you lean into it too much you will in fact be wrong.
It was political suicide because the 18% of Americans who are veterans turn out to vote, are seen sympathetically by other voters [1] and were often swing voters.
The last part was critical: veterans are already turning out, so offending them was less about turning out votes for your opponent than losing your own votes. But if they aren't voting for you [2], you aren't losing anything by them. Meanwhile, the resources they're getting could help you gain votes (or turnouts) with others.
I feel like you might be contradicting yourself a bit there, though. If veterans mainly don't vote Democrat, then sure, pissing them off isn't a problem. But if veterans "are seen sympathetically by other voters", then you maybe won't want to piss off those other voters, unless we know that they also primarily vote Republican.
Or you could just not assume some random unsignaled shift in own goaling might not happen? What's your goal to argue this hypothetical with no evidence or reason so hard?
I highly doubt it. The Senate “Democrat” in charge of the VA is Bernie Sanders himself, and he’s been a stalwart supporter of improving veteran benefits his entire career. There’s also the whole “it would be political suicide” thing.
Partisan polarization is a good way to predict a lot of things, but if you lean into it too much you will in fact be wrong.