Yeah, it’s hard to win when a third of your guys stay home. But I’m sort of wondering whether the party registration is a consistent sign voting intentions.

In the past, there were a lot of pre-southern strategy registered democrats that started voting consistently Republican from the 1970s on, but these would all have to be over eighty years old. So that can’t explain the whole gap, even if they count twice (one less Dem, one extra gop).

My guess is that Texas is neatly segregated by race thanks to aggressive redlining in the past, and it’s very easy to do voter suppression operations that target black folk with surgical precision.

These things were always really hard to fight. Now, thanks to the VRA getting demolished, it’s perfectly legal.

REMEMBER THIS WHEN YOU SAY PEOPLE IN RED STATES GET WHAT THEY VOTE FOR.

I feel like not mentioning voter suppression high on that list is a major omission.

There’s a reason the Roberts court gutted the voting rights act.

It was right for the time. The original mass effect was a reaction to the slower games of the previous decade. The first person shooting and the quick dialog system were an integral part of it.

Now the pendulum swings back. As it should.

Why aren’t democrats winning statewide races then? If it was all about gerrymandering they would have two Dem senators and a Dem governor who could veto the gerrymandering.

Watch John Roberts declare pre-election child abuse as “within the confines of the duties of the president and therefore immune from prosecution”.

JFC what is with social democrats and running completely brained campaigns?

The have a lot to offer voters, and 80% of the policies would draw large majorities, but they never seem to want to talk about it. Instead they let the agenda get hijacked by the far right and they get beat up on national tv.

Wake up you bunch of useless cunts! Pivot! Pivot to stuff you stand for. Pivot to stuff that you know is popular. You decide what comes out of your mouth.

Or, maybe, you know, you try and do the right thing and explain and convince people? You know, engage in rhetoric and persuasion?

Opinions are not static. Abetting war crimes and worse is not the only option. Also, genocide generally has horrible approval numbers, even on the right. Choosing not to fight here is a) morally corrupt and b) politically asinine.

Regarding your edit: fuck all the way off. You don’t know what I do and don’t do. Also, making the argument “if you don’t post about everything wrong you have no right to post about anything wrong” is just revolting.

It’s “British establishment left”. So slight left unless we’re talking about transgender people, then they align fully with Fox News.

The only, little, tiny thing is that she’s abetting the single worst man made humanitarian tragedy in recent memory?

What’s a bunch stick in the muds!

I imagine Ireland of all places has very strong feelings about occupation.

No, not in any real sense. Not since the Clinton administration.

It’s British “liberal”, meaning free market economic right in the British frame of reference.

I readily accept that fact that to a modern day American audience, this is just your average Democrat.

Not saying what you stand for in a futile attempt to appel to the “middle” (which doesn’t take exist, it’s just right wingers hiding their power level) is also how you lose an election.

“Eat the rich” is great messaging for the radical wing of your party. Then the main group has to hem and haw a bit and talk about actual policy. Then the radical guy goes “of course that’s what I mean (wink wink).

Then the radical guy goes “ACAB”, and the main group has an opening to talk about how the administration of justice works in practice for people that don’t look like me. And then again, radical guy goes “yeah that (but also ACAB)”.

The right has been doing this for literal ages with way less popular things. It’s how you get the fringes inside the big tent.

If you really think a guy going “eat the rich” loses elections, you have NOT been paying attention.

There is no environmental policy that is compatible with the existence of individuals with the net worth of a small sovereign nation.

Yes, eat the rich.

New York Times?

I’m not being facetious here. They have made a big rightward lurch, and are basically sitting where the WSJ used to sit.

You mean the center that has been plowing rightward for decades? How about no. Also, fuck you.

That’s how password recovery works on most services. So if it’s any consolation, it’s not a new security vulnerability. We are just skipping the charade where I pretend to remember a password.

It happens sometimes.

I really enjoyed the movie Arrival, so I picked up the story collection it’s based on. My, what a load of genre fiction in the worst possible meaning of the word.

UK try to go a day without banning something challenge: impossible

AI isn’t good, but it deals with typos extremely well for some reason. Probably a combination of context statistics, tokenization effects and informal training data (aka scraped off the internet, where people, as evidenced by OP, can’t spell worth shit).

So yeah, I have no doubt it would try and render sweaty balls.