Assuming public opinion is static and must be chased, never led? Flies in the face of evidence. Concede to an opponent’s strength rather than attack to reduce the advantage? Bad strategy. Doing both of those on issues that have moved in favor of politicians you supposedly want to win? Nonsensical.

Why would a political writer keep arguing that Dems should go along with Trump’s harsh immigration crackdown, cruelty to trans people, and climate change-worsening stances as politically necessary, no matter what public opinion data shows? One logical answer is the writer agrees with those stances. View quoted note →

Russian leaders keep saying they aim to conquer Ukraine because they want it, and hope to get concessions from the West too. US leaders keep saying Russia wants peace and deserves accommodation. Ukraine’s leaders try to sound reasonable in that impossible situation. “Peace talks” farce continues. Putin Reaffirms Broad Military...

Nothing Merrick Garland could’ve done would’ve stopped the Supreme Court majority from putting Trump above the law. Doesn’t mean Garland is above criticism. Hardly. But it does mean there was no move—no matter how fast—no strategy, no One Weird Trick. SOCTUS would’ve done whatever they needed to.