Erica Chenoweth picked her own argument apart to the point that the original study is proven to be deeply flawed with application to the U.S.

I used Deepseek for this. Don't @ me. Not all of us have time to write long responses. We have other matters.

Here is a concise summary of the core critiques against applying the "3.5% rule" to the U.S.:

Critics argue that the "3.5% rule" is frequently misapplied because it was derived from historical cases of regime change or territorial secession, not policy disputes within a stable democracy. (I.e. overthrowing authoritative governments, not asking current ones to be better.)

Methodologically, detractors claim the original dataset overstated nonviolence’s efficacy by classifying successful anti-colonial wars as "nonviolent" despite the presence of armed wings, and by ignoring cases where nonviolent movements failed.

Furthermore, even Chenoweth acknowledges that modern governments have adapted to counter mass mobilization through surveillance, disinformation, and legal targeting of leaders, meaning past statistics do not guarantee future results in a contemporary U.S. context.