Honestly, this is a moment when specialists in American politics may want to take some time to bone up on their Comparative subfield, particularly those who have worked on hybrid regimes/electoral authoritarianism elsewhere
Reposted from
Pwnallthethings
Like, it can /both/ be the case that "he can't break the law, that'd be illegal" is naïve *and* that legal pushback has value and isn't a lost-cause, for example. It can both be the case that he is anti-democratic, and that elections will exist that could still be won. Need to hold both ideas firm.
Comments