His entire methodology is contingent on history repeating itself.

Any prediction is based on history. Even pollsters believe the history of polling results before an election can predict how people will actually vote on election day.

What people usually don’t realize about the “keys” is that they aren’t advocating some political position, like “incumbency is good”. It is more like a retrospective clinical study, where you look at a bunch of factors (smoking, exercise, TV watching, eye color) and see which ones best predict some outcome of interest (lifespan). If smoking has an association with lifespan and eye color doesn’t, then smoking is a predictor and eye color isn’t.

It doesn’t matter if people don’t understand why smoking would affect lifespan. It doesn’t matter if people think eye color should be more predictive than smoking. It doesn’t matter if people think cigarettes today are not the same as they used to be, so smoking should no longer be a predictor for lifespan. Predictors are predictors until they actually fail to predict.

He is similar to popular non-Americans like Berlusconi, Meloni, Le Pen, and Kickl. Americans aren’t unique in that regard.

arbitrary interpretation

They aren’t as arbitrary as they seem, it’s just that the media don’t go into the full detail.

For example, key 2 is actually “The candidate is nominated on the first ballot and wins at least two-thirds of the delegate votes”, which is clearly true

Furthermore, the entire point of this method is that it ignores opinion polls. So it makes no difference whether the public actually wanted a primary contest or not. Likewise, it doesn’t matter whether scandals have “lost meaning”.

Holding a contempt vote while they are in government is kind of pointless, because the DoJ is unlikely to prosecute its own.

Anyway let’s put it this way: in the past ten years only one Democrat has been found in contempt of Congress.

Then ask Pete Navarro or Mark Meadows.

Eh, not always. Just ask Steve Bannon, federal inmate #05635-509.

If Republicans are planning to shut government and anger the public so that a new Democratic Congress can solve the problem immediately after they take over, thus earning the gratitude of all Americans… I’d call that a massive GOP self-own. So it’s definitely possible.

Kamala Harris just did a Wired autocomplete interview.

Sorry, NYT. Get in line behind Hot Ones.

“Harris has a consistent platform and refuses to flip-flop the second time she is asked about it”

It’s not up to Congress, states decide how to run their elections.

For reasons that should be obvious an individual protest, no matter how extreme, will never be a factor in foreign policy decisions.

Yes

Tout creating clean energy jobs and training for them

In other words, do what HRC did.

“We are going to train you for different jobs” does not inspire as much optimism as you seem to think.

deleted by creator

Can’t believe it’s already brat girl autumn.

I think it might make more sense to view MAGA as the “senior” partner in the Republican party at the national level, whereas normal conservatives are the “junior” partner at the national level. Hypothetically I think MAGA could get 30-40% of the national vote, with 10-20% for normal Republicans and 50% for Democrats.

That means normal conservatives have some influence in the party overall, but ultimately they are not in control and are always at risk of being discarded. At the local level, normal conservatives might be the senior partner or not exist at all, depending on where you look.

If you are a “normal” conservative, you can vote for the “normal” conservative in the primary. And there are plenty of places where most conservatives are “normal” conservatives, like New Hampshire and Maine. They tend to elect “normal” Republicans to office, like Sununu and Collins.

Whereas places where most conservatives are MAGA, like Florida, tend to elect MAGA Republicans to office, like Gaetz. When “normal” conservatives run in Florida primaries, you can vote for them but they will lose.

So it’s not true that “There is no conservative without that nazi bullshit”. In fact, if you wanted a non-MAGA conservative president, you could have voted for Nikki Haley. But she was ultimately eliminated by MAGA voters.

There are many more like her in power elsewhere in government. Unfortunately they are mostly cowards (like Haley herself), and prefer to remain silent than to challenge MAGA in public.

There are already factions of “normal” Republicans and “MAGA” Republicans under the Republican banner. Their disagreements are internal but occasionally visible. They were on full display earlier this year, when they couldn’t decide who would lead the House.

Another example: this week the Republican speaker advanced a MAGA friendly position on the budget and then immediately withdrew it, presumably due to internal pressure from the “normal” faction.

He didn’t get abortion rights overthrown single-handedly. Anti-abortion activists have been working on that for decades, starting with the appointment of Clarence Thomas in 1991. Trump was simply responsible for the final step.

Progress is slow. But in a democracy, your opponents will inevitably have some victories. Fortunately those are slow too.

If your country is making progress towards a better future, then you should thank your fellow voters not your election system. Because a different group of voters could use the same election system to make things much worse, and in fact they have done so elsewhere. What have people like Trump achieved when they won elections in your country?

Anyway, the US is stuck with American voters. So I’m glad our election system enforces patience.

We had a right wing government under Trump, yet somehow Trump didn’t achieve most of his goals.

He couldn’t repeal progressive health care legislation. He couldn’t leave NATO. He never built that stupid wall on the Mexican border.

He did manage to enact tariffs against China. But only because Democrats supported them too.

Finally, he got a tax cut for the rich without support from Democrats. That’s his main legacy.

And that’s the difference between your country and mine. In yours, a junior party can achieve its goals. That’s great when you agree with those goals. Not so great when you don’t agree with them, like in Israel right now.

In the US, often even a majority is not enough to get what you want. It means progress is very slow, but we’ve avoided several potential catastrophes.