All electorates are imperfect. People with bad priorities get to vote still. Representative democracy is about acknowledging that and having the better policy candidates build a coalition that can win in an imperfect electorate. That is literally the job candidates sign up for.
You've set up a false dichotomy. Voters can do harm AND the primary blame can still be Harris as the candidate who failed to properly navigate an imperfect electorate in predictable (and predicted) ways.
You are deeply mischaracterizing my point by saying its "the voter is never wrong". If we're going to have this conversation engage with what I'm saying not the easily dismissed point I'm not.
Not acknowledging that is a form of authoritarian thinking, that those seeking power have less responsibility than the broad society that has a huge diversity of information and needs.
It reflects even worse on a candidate who could not make that problem clear to enough people to win.
The only races she won were either non-competitive (being a Democrat in California) or with the assistance of an existing political machine (her primaries in CA). But you can't enact policy if you can't build a coalition that is winning.
To someone like you or me. The entire idea of a pluralistic society is there are a huge diversity of people at differing levels of knowledge, information environments, and personal priorities and the job of a candidate is to navigate that to get a winning coalition. Harris was never good at that.
Then you're bad at assigning blame.
That's not understanding the argument. Many voters are dumb that's true, and accounting for that is part of winning! Its the candidate's fault when they fail at that. The candidate is ALWAYS the one with primary responsibility to win.
Nope, sorry. Burden of proof remains with those claiming it is. They need fo explain their theory of consciousness and why Claude meets it. Because otherwise they're either claiming an extraordinary breakthrough needing extraordinary evidence; or they're describing a threshold that's unremarkable.
This framing is wrong. Of course the world’s richest economy "can afford" an insane war that wrecks global trade. The right way to frame this is regular people globally, including in the US, are being made to pay costs to advance the interests of US and Israeli elites.
We pay so they can play god.
They've been sending a lot which is the only reason the island has any power at all, but integrating everything into the grid takes time and is tougher with no oil for construction vehicles.
LMFAO! The FT daily podcast today was saying that the actual amount needed to cover the liabilities for tankers through Hormuz would be $350 billion dollars! This reinsurance doesn't cover 6% of that!
Oil execs: Renewable are so unreliable! What do you do when its night or the wind isn't blowing?
*one week of air war later*
Oil execs: gas ran out sorry
Average American swing voter: "Huh, gas is going up kinda quick. Wait, why are there explosions on the TV? Wasn't Trump supposed to be against middle east wars?
Holy shit wtf is happening to my 401k?!?!"
Yep, that's the most convincing take I've seen. Let him get the crap for a local election meltdown and then have the party rally around someone to replace him.
Which Labour's best option (Andy Burnham) got kneecapped by Starmer so not sure they've got someone good enough to turn things around.
The only good bet to make right now about the next UK election is that Keir Starmer will not win it (either by getting removed early or by staying on while getting slammed for a recession and being popular with nobody)
Folks who moved from transit rich cities to Texas get to enjoy the consequences of their life choices ❤️❤️❤️
The president has been trying so hard to find a way to break the stock market and it just keeps refusing to die. So maybe a 70s style oil crisis can finally do it!
All central banks target positive inflation, therefore prices will always be higher in the future, thus the act of selling is always irrational.
We must make the act of selling anything illegal!
NASA* needs to launch a mission immediately to redirect that rock. We deserve to see an asteroid strike the moon!
*more realistically China's space agency
Car folks be like "yeah grocery stores be like that" and I hit 'em with a 1000 yard stare remembering that I actually walk places and this guy is on all our city sidewalks!!!
@joevonhoff.bsky.social believes it is acceptable to go to the supermarket in pajamas. This is the fall of civilization
That's not even the half of it with rising oil prices and reduce US oil sanctions on them. Losing a source for shaheed drones is small potatoes in comparison to the economic bonuses.
Listen folks, there are a lot of reasons this will be bad for folks...but if the Ukraine War wasn't your sign to pick up an e-bike and switch over to a heatpump, this is absolutely the time to do those things
Guy must have a dog he needs to get rid of
"Ancient hatreds" with Iran is even more recent, its 1979.
I do think one way of understanding the West's reactions to Trump is that most western leaders are on autopilot for any issue that's low priority for them personally and going with their bureaucracy canned responses. And the West's bureaucracy has been deeply anti-Iran for decades.
Older Americans want a constitutional monarchy under the Kennedy dynasty so bad lmao
And this is why we need to take away pa-pa's car keys
Y'all know what time it is:
