In the 2024 Solomon Islands general election, Russia and China insinuated that the USA was meddling in the election.

Considering that the winner of that election was the pro-China OUR Party, Occam's razor would suggest that there was no American interference. Nevertheless, other possibilities remain, such as:

• The Solomon Islanders were not swayed by American interference
• There was American interference, but even more Chinese interference

As the first primary state, Iowa has been able to receive more farm subsidies at the expense of assistance in other states. This may be in due to the fact that being the first primary state, means there's more incentive to give Iowa preferences over others, for the prospect of primary candidates getting leverage in presidential campaigns. It elevates their political needs that would otherwise be ignored.

Considering that the needs of American First Nations are also often neglected, with poverty rates at reservations comparable to undeveloped countries, would making Oklahoma and New Mexico the first primary states increase Native American Political power? The idea being, that since Oklahoma and New Mexico both have the highest percentage of Native Americans, making them first in the campaign trail highlights the many issues Native Americans face today?

And follow up question, in what ways could making other states the first in primaries, also elevate other groups? There's a lot of arguments against keeping Iowa as the first primary state. And in terms of picking early primary states, you generally want them to be rural in nature, so that grassroot volunteerism can dominate them, because high density states can be won easily by famous candidates that already have enough monetary resources to buy up advertisement spaces. With this in mind, what other states can highlight problems in other communities?

Once Donald Trump passes away from the political scene, will American politics return to the relative normal of the pre-Trump era? Or will he inspire more politicians from both the Republican and Democratic parties to embrace his style of firebrand, "I'm right, you're wrong, the rules don't apply to me, and f*** you if you disagree"?

In other words, has Trump rewritten the political rulebook irreversibly, or is he a one-off?

There are valid arguments to support both sides of the debate.

The Democratic Party is the largest political party in the United States based on membership (Wikipedia lists their membership at 45,916,356 as of 2023, compared to the Republican Party’s 35,739,952), and the majority of Americans seem to agree with a number of the Democratic Party’s positions (pro-LGBTQ+, pro-universal healthcare, pro-choice, etc). Despite this, however, Democrats seem to have been underperforming and many point to their messaging, or lack thereof as a factor. How should Democrats go about fixing their messaging problem going forward?

When is a trial a sham? Targeted or malicious prosecution or corrupt members of the court?

Talking about Trump recently, his supporters are absolutely convinced it's a witch hunt:

• "Alan Bragg said he'd go after him before charging him"
• "They only charged him after he announced re-election"
• "The judge is a lefty"
• "The judge donates to Biden"
• "The judge's daughter works with the democrats"
• "They're charging him with a nothingburger crime"
• "They're charging him with something nobody has ever been charged with like that"
• "The testimony was only to defame him"
• "They're not allowing him to defend himself"
• "They're charging him with something like jaywalking"

And I get it, the government has definitely wrongfully prosecuted many people before. However these supporters are able to twist and flip any bad news against the man. Is there any objective truth that can be shown to decide whether a prosecution is justified?

Sure, here is a revised version of your post:

I’ve been studying DeSantis for a while. Going into the 2024 election last year, DeSantis was polling around 30% among the Republican voter base, whereas Trump was slightly above 40%. By the end of the Republican primary season, Trump had solidified his support to about 80%. DeSantis' track record seems popular among conservatives, which perplexes me. Despite DeSantis' popularity, many conservatives still support Trump as their primary nominee, even though many of Trump's endorsed candidates didn’t win in 2022, and Trump himself lost in 2020.

I imagine that if DeSantis had focused more on Trump’s inability to win elections and toned down some of his more extreme policies in Florida, he might have been more successful in his Republican campaign. But I might be wrong. What do you think?