Well, if they're so keen on old news
Authoritarian they may be, but I can name two presidents who have term limits. I recently bumped into a reminder of people who don't have such restrictions. (Hint - they can be found both within and outside these borders, and only two of the people I'm thinking of are heads of state.) Once again, this is an example of something learned from a meme with a point - to me, the optics don't look good for people with decades in office who use structural problems against someone with less than four years.
When one has undermined one's arguments by one's choice in an election, it becomes a sign of weakness to attack those who expose the weakness in those arguments. (The author of that new book isn't voting for either main candidate, it seems. Could those considering a vote for the challenger make the same choice that author did, or is defeating the incumbent more important than the hashtags that were used so freely not so long ago?)
It also becomes difficult to find supporting voters when the platforms they're on suppress their voices. (Surprising how much this sounds like what I've heard around here, with the only difference being the side of the divide.) Despite the worthiness of a movement, when the leaders of that movement themselves speak of being driven by something other than the cause itself, it's something else that doesn't help the optics.
Enjoy those unused tickets, but I'd have those who oppose these views consider that the bully they seek to fight just might be in their mirror, and that their drinks just might be in a pitcher with a smiley face on.