I do think lots of people are paying attention. It's just that they don't know what to do about it and hate feeling like they're impotent (hence the reluctance to talk about it). But I would guess that these events are leaving a deep impression.

In other words, they felt the need to argue that Good used the car as a weapon. It was not sufficient to show only that she had it in her possession. Same should hold for the gun.

Yeah, I posted this before the better videos came out. Also, maybe if it's hard to make an argument don't make it? 🤷‍♂️

Fair point, but I'm also a little afraid that we've already realized those consequences and that there's no putting that genie back in the bottle.

Polls immediately after January 6 showed independents and even some Republicans broke against Trump. But that very quickly faded. There probably is a brief moment in which you can do it without any risk, but it's short and definitely won't last 3 years.

Yeah, you just have to have tact. It's a sensitive thing.

I don't think the goal is to persuade MAGA, but it should be to win on the margins, recognizing that that 20 percent is a wildcard and hates politics. Prosecution looks insane to these non-politicos, which is kind of why they've broken so hard against Trump in the polls.

Let's be precise: roughly 40 percent of the electorate is, as you say, immovable in support of Trump/GOP. Roughly the same percentage is immovable against it. Roughly 20 percent are in play. My hypothesis is that you lose more than 50 percent of these undecideds through systematic prosecution.

Problem is, you do this and you lose a not insubstantial proportion of the US electorate, which wrongly denies that there is anything worth prosecuting going on. I don't know that prosecuting and imprisoning actually has any hope of improving the trust situation. It might be irreparably broken now.

Roughly contemporary with the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Pendleton Act, but I'm guessing that's not important for some reason!

Out on SSRN?

You'd think they wouldn't mock the "public interest" either, but here we are.

This is a situation with two competing rights: the right of the property owner and the right of the gun owner. A presumption one way or the other is inevitable. Are we seriously going to lock in a default presumption based on history and tradition, blocking the operation of democracy? Absurd.