He said that the current state is the worst possible. That means that, out of all the situations that could have occurred up to now, this one is the worst.

This is not an assessment of how bad the situation could eventually become.

If you want to be pedantic, at least be right about it.

It is so wild to me that in the US it is phrased as party identification. That implies, that who you are voting for is a deep part of your identity.

In my country it is the ‘Sunday Question’, because people are asked ‘If an election would be happening on this sunday, who would you vote for?’ If you would ask people what party they identify with, the vastly majority would say ‘none of them’

If I want to identify with a party, I would join them as a member. I am voting for the guy/party, that would be the best fit in my opinion. That can be vastly different in federal, state or local elections. My election choice is not my identity. I don’t identify with a party.

I just skimmend the article and the accompanying report. But the analysis of what happened is contrary to my understanding. As far as I’m aware voter turnout in swing states (aka the ones that are actually important) was actually higher in 2024 compared to the few last election cycles.

Compared to Clinton and Biden, Harris was able to draw from the not-voting pool in states, where it mattered. Just Trump did it better.

The conclusion, that following the populist narrative of your enemy instead of drafting your own looses you votes, may be right, but I think the analysis, how they got to that conclusion is not what actually happened.

Not a US citizen or particularly versed with US politics, so I would be happy to hear something contrary.