So now it's 40 years, and not 60? Pretty explicit. The last party realignment was 1968, by the way. Which is why you're previous pick of 60 was so difficult to defend. I would expect you to know that, because you're such an informed voter, but I guess I should never underestimate the ignorance of my fellow Americans.

Regardless, in PR it's important that one plays their role. The Democrats need the Republicans to start the wars in order to maintain their grip on the anti-war vote. The Ds are obviously not anti-war, as evidenced by the fact that they don't ever reduce the military budget and they never hold Republicans accountable for breaking the law to launch wars. The Democrat stance on war is "well, we have to finish what our opponents started!" That includes genocide against Palestinians as much as it includes launching net new campaigns that were planned by Republican administrations, like Libya.

But we can also look at non-war deaths too. Economic sanctions from the US have killed way more than wars have. The research published by the Lancet showed an average of 800K dead per year for the last 50 years. Bi-partisan consensus in those sanctions, by the way. Way more devastating than wars. And sanctions kill children, pregnant women, the elderly, and the sick way more than war does.

And before you ask, the solution is ending the USA entirely.