No, it's the idea of "getting in their minds" and understanding what their perspective must be from the inside that I object to. It's not the right time for that. If a bully starts punching the guy who lives one house north of me, I need you to help get the bully off of him, not start theorizing about why bullies act this way and why people might support them.
Who is the singular bully in this analogy? It seems to me the choice is between "civil war" and "influencing people to vote differently" -- the latter of which requires understanding them (for example, the common theme seems to be screaming "change, any change")
It seems to you incorrectly. The President of the United States is going to declare a civil war when he loses the 2028 election, perhaps as soon when his party loses the 2026 election. There's no choice we have in that, only in how we respond.
