what you say is entirely consistent. it's a strong belief in democracy as a process with no bounds/constraints, as an ultimate good in and of itself. and it's sort of my point: in the "civil war" frame, Democrats are super unlikely to instigate violence. your neighbors will vote away all the things you value, out of religious beliefs you disagree with or merely out of spite, but that's okay, so long as they do so democratically.

i meet enough democrats (little d) who say they wouldn't comply with a draft, even if enacted democratically. my thoughts are that there's at least a few things similar to that: decisions where your own interests shouldn't be subservient to the will of an abstract majority. the surprise with abortion for me is that for my whole life, that was de-facto such an example. it wasn't treated as a thing that had been decided democratically, just as a thing which was. then some people far away said "abortion should be decided democratically", and the number of people around me saying "actually no it shouldn't" was way smaller (i.e. zero) than the number of people who say that about things like the draft. i still don't know how to square that, but to answer your "what were your expectations towards the Democrats here" question, well, you asking that is the answer to why i think "civil war" talk is so beyond the pale.

I promise you that even if everyone in my state turned up to vote, we'd still elect fascists. This is clearly a system failure.