This is an interview with Sanders’ chief campaign strategist about his new book dissecting the 2016 primary. If you don’t care about it then fine, whatever. But you’re clearly commenting on what you imagine the article is, not what it actually is
The article is really about how the situation informs the current landscape and strategy for 2026 and 2028, but I guess you didn’t read it before commenting
Well, they did learn from their mistakes. Most of the time these stories are like ‘it affects me now so I’m against it now’, but these people took that selfish starting point and unpacked all the fox propaganda and how it all happened
It is a cult; but some people leave cults
I get that we all have to be really sceptical of ‘reformed’ Magas. Most of them will just be rats fleeing the sinking ship, with no actual reflection or admitted culpability
But at the same time, I’ve marched with a block of skinhead ex-nazis who were violently opposed to racism now. People do change sometimes - people are able to unpick the propaganda they once bought into and grow
So scepticism, absolutely. But a life-long condemnation of anyone who ever bought into Fox News, without exception, is not the way to go
We’ve never been as two-party solidified as the US and our system isn’t thaaat similar really imo
They elect the president by state, with senate and house seats separately
We elect our priminister by voting in mps in constituencies and then the leader whichever party if any has enough mps to vote down the other members is the prime minister
It’s more like, for the US, if the leader of whichever party wins the most members of Congress appoints the president but there’s way more congressmen and smaller constituencies and the senate isn’t a thing
We’ve had hung parliaments and coalition governments - both recently and in the 40s, 10s, etc - and that just doesn’t exist in the US
Don’t get me wrong, our version of FPTP is bollocks and leans toward a two party system, it sucks
But I don’t think it’s really comparable to the US
It’s not a strawman, they’re directly responding to what you said. Regardless of how you voted
I didn’t finish watching it either, but I think the bare bones of it are covered under the Robotman heading of the Monty Wikipedia page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_(comic_strip)
The United Feature Syndicate “asked Bill Watterson to incorporate the character into Calvin and Hobbes as a condition of syndication, but Watterson refused”
The door is open for her
As far as I know, one could be elected as California Governer in 26 and still legally run for president in 28, but it would be a lot, and open to attack for using CA as a stepping stone etc
Kamala not going for CA governor in 26 is being used as evidence for a 28 presidential run - it is kinda tenuous, but not completely out of nothing
And their apology episode was very much ‘we would have believed you if you weren’t so annoying, geez, it’s still your fault’
I do not care about your opinion on an article you haven’t read
My point here has never been defending the article. It’s that you shouldn’t make wrong assumptions based on headlines and comment based on those. It’s bad form