Assuming he is sincere, then I'd assume that he would say that it's not "their" protests at that point but the participation of others.

Under Harris, they stay isolated without energized allies as most people are relieved with the status quo. They hope that Trump pushes things so far to perhaps even cancel elections and trigger a violent uprising that opens the door for them to ultimately win and that is their opportunity to finally replace the status quo. A very dangerous game where a more likely outcome is a far right authoritarian state with lots of suffering and lives at stake, but that's a risk they are glad for everyone to take.

You see this in their rhetoric, that it's not their fault for failing to support a viable alternative to Trump, it's everyone else's fault for failing to agree with them, and maybe now everyone will learn their lesson and agree with them.

I've had conversations with them and they hold that democracy is the wrong way. Essentially they think the citizenry are too stupid and/or lazy to decide how things should be governed. This is pretty much the horseshoe effect, both the far right and far left want to replace the democratic system with something else. If someone doesn't 100% agree with them, they must be wrong and their perspective must be ignored, and democracy means actually trying to work with such people. So they prefer to take their chances with prodding a violent conflict since they've figured they can never win peacefully. If they can't have the presidency, then who cares. No patience for capturing local and legislative offices.

The far right was more effective strategically, playing the game until they could unleash. They played the game with the republican party according to the rules, and then won.

Sounds like the voting system needs an overhaul if those are your two options don't ya think?

Those literally don't exist, what are you talking about?

Yeah, didn't you hear the news, Gaza is saved!

Oh wait...