Hegseth's testosterone fueled briefings have energy somewhere between shouting hysterically threatening to sue someone after some minor inconvenience and full pro wrestling bluster. Seriously, how far off of "if you smell what the bombs are cooking" are we?
Thank you!
That number may be misleading. @priceoffootball.bsky.social or @swissramble.bsky.social bat signal to clarify here, but I strongly suspect that is an accounting loss that includes stadium depreciation, and not a cash flow loss from operations. (Not an accountant, so apologies if incorrect jargon).
Agree! That’s how I chose frontline, even with Richy on the weaker right side. Palace are counter attacking team that exploit transitions rather keeping possession. IMHO, Spurs need most technically gifted players available on the pitch to keep possession and get ball into threatening positions.
Trying to keep some Spurs optimism. Tricky to figure out an XI w/ ~14 outfield players, who are mostly are left wingers or box-to-box midfielders.
Kinsky*
Porro Danso VdV Souza
Sarr Gallagher
Richy Xavi Tel
Solanke
*per FB London
4-2-3-1 in hopes it gives more midfield control against 3-4-3.
My guess is 4-2-2-2
Vicario
Porro Dragusin VdV Gray
Palhinha Biss
Gallagher Xavi
Dom RKM
Or maybe 5-3-2 (or 3-5-2)
Vic
Porro Palhinha Dragusin VdV Gray
Gallagher Biss Xavi
Dom RKM
Not sure there is that much meaningful difference.
Antonio Guterres is up first at this Security Council meeting. He condemns this morning’s strikes by Israel and the US on Iran, and the return strikes by Iran on countries in the region. There is, he says, no alternative to the peaceful settlement of disputes
I could totally believe Hegseth chants “champions of war-fighting, we know who we are” in the bathroom mirror in a testosterone fever dream Truman Show/Fight Club mash-up.
bsky.app/profile/jaso...
In some circles, the chant “champions of destruction, we know who we are” might really take off.
Thank you so much for the kind words about my work (all of it with great coauthors)!
This also assumes they actually understand preferences regarding immigration. Color me skeptical that this is a reasonable assumption. Pandering is bad. Poorly informed pandering is probably worse.
To be sure, missiles and airstrikes will be supported more than sending troops. Those who approve of Trump generally will also likely approve of this action. But, the aspects that build — and sustain — support beyond core supporters are conspicuously absent.
(Attacking a country repeatedly might even increase perceived need for that country to have a nuclear deterrent!)
Moreover, trying to create regime change—either directly with troops on the ground or indirectly by bombing in the hopes of sparking domestic uprising—is an incredibly uncertain path.
Attacks might destroy critical infrastructure for a nuclear weapons program, but can never ensure that efforts won’t restart. Indeed, if the last bombing was as successful as claimed, the current operation simply wouldn’t be necessary.
-Without clear goals, it’s hard to evaluate the prospects for success — which is a critical component of support for military missions.
-Regime change is also at least partially articulated as a reason — but these are the types of missions that generate the least amount of support. (But “boots on the ground” to actually change the regime don’t seem part of the plan , at least at the moment.)
-There is no clear domestic consensus or authorization of force from Congress.
-There is no international consensus or authorization (e.g., via Security Council vote).
-There is no clear strategic rationale. (Not clear that stated purpose holds up to scrutiny, especially imminent threat).
A lot of my academic focuses on public attitudes about foreign policy and the use of force. The just initiated bombing of Iran lacks many of the components that build and sustain domestic support for military action.
Which nepo bay can have the more spectacular crash — Lance Stroll or David Ellison?
Carey and Hix! Stupid typo and/or autocorrect!
(I really want some kind of "stop breaking Duverger's Law"/"in this country we obey Duverger's Law" Dad joke here -- especially for UK. But not sure the exact wording. Imagine it was hilarious and you're laughing out loud.
Keeping same district magnitude (5), UK probably doesn't need to as many additional districts. But apply same basic idea.
In House, this approach *probably* dilutes power of partisan gerrymanders. In Senate, small population states keep disproportionate influence, but maybe dilutes partisan effects. Maybe experiment with primaries as some kind (advisory?) list position ranking exercise.
Having read my Carey and His (2011), here is one way to try and improve both US and UK politics.
Multimember districts with low district magnitude and PR. For the US, increase the size of the House and Senate five fold -- making multimember districts with 5 representatives.
doi.org/10.1111/j.15...
Seriously, am I misremembering all the pearl clutching — disproportionately but not exclusively from the right — that blaming losses on “dumb racists at the polls” is the true scourge on society?
Badenoch statement on by-election inclucdes this line:
“Clearly this election was not about who would be the best MP. But there was only one sensible candidate standing in Gorton and Denton”
I’m not an electoral strategy genius or anything, but calling the voters dummies seems suboptimal.
5) Please stop referring to the Greens as having a 4000 vote majority. They have a 4000 vote margin.
(Greens won decisively in a district they probably shouldn’t. But they are a plurality winner, not majority. This is what British politics is going to look like for the foreseeable future.) (6/6)
4) This raises the question of whether allowing Burnham to run would have kept the Greens from being seen as tactically viable. I suspect so, but it is not inconceivable that Greens would have won anyway, which would have been at least as catastrophic for Burnham as for Starmer. (5/6)
3) When voters in a district can tactically identify a competitive alternative to the left of the Tories, Reform's electoral power suddenly looks drastically weaker. Getting district level info to voters for effective coordination is a real challenge, but this by-election shows it's possible (4/6)
