I think this is debatable, and we won't know the answer for a while. There are two possible trajectories here. 1/x

Trajectory 1: The attack becomes a signal event like Ruby Ridge or Waco, and extremists use it as a rallying point going forward. They will certainly try to do this, but there are some key differences.
Primarily, the tepid federal response (which is bad on most levels) doesn't compare to those events, where LE screwed up and people died as an unambiguous result of questionable or straight bad LE action rather than the melee situation here.
Also those cases were the result of proactive federal enforcement, as opposed to a clearly defense posture here.
Trajectory 2 is backlash. There's some growing evidence for that in the snap polls from the last couple days. See:

https://t.co/lOi6DCZ9CK

https://t.co/lOi6DCZ9CK

This won't affect the diehards, but it might suggest the event won't bring a lot new blood into the movement.
I suspect the backlash will grow if, as seems likely, more violence and/or intimidation occurs on Jan. 17 and Jan. 20.
It is possible, of course, that the trajectory will thread the needle between these poles, as the Unite the Right rally did. It didn't touch off a new golden age of extremism, but the pot has been simmering since then, with a longer-term effect.
And one point of value in these events, especially as the online crackdown grows, is that people meet and make connections IRL, some of which will be enduring connections.
On the other hand, a few people (and hopefully a lot by the end) are getting introduced to the idea of consequences for their actions, which may have a chilling effect.
Ultimately, none of this is likely to be clear until the Trump presidency is over, and maybe not then. But we've never had an extremist leader who was President (or ex-President) of the United States. And much will ride on what he does.
Ultimately, all bets are off until after the inauguration
Or more accurately, we can't assess the impact of this event until it's over, and it's not over yet.
Muting this thread because y'all can't stop feeding the trolls

More from Politics

"3 million people are estimated not to have official photo ID, with ethnic minorities more at risk". They will "have to contact their council to confirm their ID if they want to vote"

This is shameful legislation, that does nothing to tackle the problems with UK elections.THREAD


There is no evidence in-person voter fraud is a problem, and it wd be near-impossible to organise on an effective scale. Campaign finance violations, digital disinformation & manipulation of postal voting are bigger issues, but these are crimes of the powerful, not the powerless.

In a democracy, anything that makes it harder to vote - in particular, anything that disadvantages one group of voters - should face an extremely high bar. Compulsory voter ID takes a hammer to 3 million legitimate voters (disproportionately poor & BAME) to crack an imaginary nut

If the government is concerned about the purity of elections, it should reflect on its own conduct. In 2019 it circulated doctored news footage of an opponent, disguised its twitter feed as a fake fact-checking site, and ran adverts so dishonest that even Facebook took them down.

Britain's electoral law largely predates the internet. There is little serious regulation of online campaigning or the cash that pays for it. That allows unscrupulous campaigners to ignore much of the legal framework erected since the C19th to guard against electoral misconduct.

You May Also Like

Ivor Cummins has been wrong (or lying) almost entirely throughout this pandemic and got paid handsomly for it.

He has been wrong (or lying) so often that it will be nearly impossible for me to track every grift, lie, deceit, manipulation he has pulled. I will use...


... other sources who have been trying to shine on light on this grifter (as I have tried to do, time and again:


Example #1: "Still not seeing Sweden signal versus Denmark really"... There it was (Images attached).
19 to 80 is an over 300% difference.

Tweet: https://t.co/36FnYnsRT9


Example #2 - "Yes, I'm comparing the Noridcs / No, you cannot compare the Nordics."

I wonder why...

Tweets: https://t.co/XLfoX4rpck / https://t.co/vjE1ctLU5x


Example #3 - "I'm only looking at what makes the data fit in my favour" a.k.a moving the goalposts.

Tweets: https://t.co/vcDpTu3qyj / https://t.co/CA3N6hC2Lq