This echoes my latest piece on non violent resistance. In the game of politics, we’re often mislead into zero sum beliefs linked to short term simplified games with poor predictive capacity on bigger outcomes because we don't have a tested causal mechanism or theory of change.
Most changes aren't what they appear, most apparent causes aren’t actual causes and although determining directional causality in complex games is hard, you can bet proximal events aren't causing much of anything. We need to look deeper.
In poker and other complex, high-variance, incomplete-information games, bad players often think they're winning players. Politics is also a high-variance "game." And high polarization makes political outcomes even more volatile and “swingy.”
Political activists/operators will sometimes be overly results-oriented (also a problem in poker …