> It's not clear who you ask to acknowledge the game but it's very clear that neither team is going to do it, much less to work for out benefit.

I see very people trying to define a new platform for the US that clearly redefines the terms in these ways. Mostly just fringe folks, closer to Yarvin than a politician. I don't think the ideas are hard to grok, or to package and sell, but I do believe it is possible to create alternative political beliefs and brands (e.g. MAGA), and fully co-opt an existing political party.

I don't even think it takes that long to get a train rolling if you have the backing money and fame/platform. If you look at polling results on policy instead of party, there are some alternative alignments that can be drawn that have broad population support across many of the hot button topics, and then you can enter a few new topics into the mainstream discussion point.

Barring that, it is millions of people who agree these things are bad (see No Kings protests, even if some are just anti-Trump and not actually aligned) and are willing to stand up for it.

> The game is well into its end stage and the people who defined it, play it every day. What are the chances of those who haven't even figured it out yet?

People are fickle, that plays against them as much as for them. Trump is proof you can shift the paradigm in less than a decade but, ironically given their slogans, opponents are stuck trying to take us back to "normal" instead of defining a new one. Old people die. Vision can overpower nostalgia.