According to the often-cited 3.5% rule, if 3.5% of a population protests against a regime, the regime will fail. Developed by political scientists Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan, who researched civil resistance campaigns from 1900 to 2006, the rule has seen renewed interest in leftist circles recently, especially with No Kings protests attracting historic numbers.
…
This shows the outsize impact a single protester can have, the study’s authors say. That’s because having one more attender at a demonstration rallies more support for a political cause than acquiring one more vote during an election does.
…
In the context of civil rights, the movement’s ability to elicit violence from its opponents – such as in 1965, when armed police violently attacked peaceful protesters crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama – only strengthened public support for the cause. “When the state is perceived as engaging in excess use of force, that tends to generate very sympathetic coverage, and that drives concern,” explained Wasow.
One of the recent examples of pulling more mindsets to your side is the “copy paste” trick with the Epstein files.
Some have theorized that the person who redacted them knew this, and that they were achieving malicious/minimal compliance by highlighting in black. It’s likely that no one would have risked such an act if they didn’t already believe such a large number of Americans would be on their side.
They might not believe that if protests were so rare that the administration’s control of journalism allowed them to pretend them absent.
I’ve heard old stories of people doing No Kings protests in red states, and getting more on the next go; because the dissent was already there, but needed a bit of public encouragement.