I was hoping to get something out of this but I haven't. I'm not buying at least not until I see more convincing elucidation of what she's saying about alternating turnout in decisive districts.  Seems to me she just got lucky on one prediction and that it's all about liking Trump or hating Trump and no other examples. We know Trump has been divisive, DOH. What else is new?  At the end of the article there's more of her fails. Just not at all convincing.

Largely agree with her. I'd add that when Bradley launched in 1999, the left largely dropped their agenda on him - it wasn't that he'd persuaded anyone - he was suitable to carry the mantle of their wishes. Bernie's more invested in the actual policies, but I don't think anyone's being persuaded so much by policies - they identify with their clique and the policies obviously were going to sound good or they mildly adapt.

The Republicans have been playing the "just show up" game with abandon - marginalizing the opposition and making their clques the most cultural. But sure, Obama was a cultural phenom, not a policies guy. 3 very different people would interpret his ideas by their own wishes - very much the blind man and the elephant. Look at how easy "conservatives" will plug in a non-conservative policy as justification. 

The biggest outcome of the impeachment ordeal would be a set of GOP/Independents reviving their allegiance values - perhaps to stay home, perhaps to revive the moderate wing. But the true believers are voting for smashball, not a specific policy. Some people just want to see the world burn. Similarly, Liz Warren needs to stop trying to out-Bernie Bernie, and instead build her aura - tougher for a woman, but she's much closer than most, and if she gets it right for women especially, they *will* show up.