FlowVoid

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.

You assume that US democracy is failing because it hasn't delivered progressive goals. But the reason it hasn't delivered progressive goals is that it's a democracy, about half the country is not progressive, and there is no national consensus on those goals.

It's true that in multi-party democracies, it is easier for a progressive minority to make its voice heard and achieve its goals. But it's also easier for a right-wing minority to make its voice heard and achieve its goals. For example, in both Italy and Israel.

First of all, in a presidential democracy the president keeps their powers regardless of the composition of Congress (not just the Senate).

It's true that in order to pass legislation, the President has to cooperate with Congress. But I'm not sure why you think that a more diverse Congress would "force" anyone to compromise. What actually happens is that nothing gets done.

In fact, this is why the purest multiparty democracies, like Italy and Israel, constantly fail. Multiple parties are "forced" to compromise. They can't or won't, blaming their opponents. The government is paralyzed and falls. New elections are held. The composition of the legislature changes (or not). Multiple parties are "forced" to compromise. They can't or won't, blaming their opponents. The government is paralyzed and falls. New elections are held. Repeat ad infinitum.

There are lots of competitors in US elections, but most are eliminated during the primaries.

When you have more than two candidates in the final round, the winner may not represent the will of the people. You can end up with a majority preferring A to B, a majority preferring B to C, and a majority preferring C to A. No matter who wins, the majority can identify a preferable candidate.

In fact, Kenneth Arrow mathematically proved that multiparty elections will always produce paradoxical results like that. That's why the winners of multiparty elections are often decided by elite kingmakers, eg Macron.

Her first album is old enough to vote

Even if he was the only one saying that, why are we giving him credit for it?

Maybe he was the first, but going forward anyone can follow his example and say things like, "Harris has a very real chance of winning. So does Trump. Also, Cruz and Allred both have very real chances of winning. So do Elizabeth Warren and her opponent, John Deaton".

Silver showed that if you hedge by replacing a testable prediction with a tautology, then you can avoid criticism regardless of the result. I don't think that is useful political analysis.

They can. IIRC, Amazon apps would check to make sure the Amazon App Store was still installed. And I'm pretty sure Netflix games stop working when you unsubscribe from Netflix

Because the developers want to check whether you got the app from the Play Store.

If the developers don't care where you get the app from, then they won't check.