1. The article argues campaigning with Liz Cheney seems to have no effect. Calling it an “electoral fiasco,” especially in the headline, clearly implies that it was detrimental in a significant way.
2. The evidence that the rallies were ineffective is comparing Harris’s results against Biden’s. This is terrible analysis. This should be at least a difference-in-difference comparison (the difference in the change vs Biden, using similar counties that were/weren’t visited). Useful evidence that their analysis actually works would be applying it to strategies they think were positive, and showing the relative improvement there.

An article about how we all need to come together opens with a salvo against all of their allies. Beyond parody

Also, he was suspended in July 2021, so the consequences were pretty quick, and only the final nail in the coffin was delayed.

Nah, that’s another cut up with very little of the interview

Here is the full interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80DaR2CVNNk

Humans have honored the dead since before homo sapiens. Laws can be complicated, contradictory, and confusing; respecting the dead is clear and primal.

Yeah, this probably won’t change a lot of minds, but some folks will see there is something wrong about a man who would dishonor the dead to celebrate himself.

If you return the tax to everyone as a dividend, then it becomes progressive, while still encouraging less polluting options

Effective systemic change requires changing the systems, not individual people or companies. If we want less virgin plastic or gasoline burning, it needs to be less profitable to extract oil, process it, and sell it to people who want it, otherwise somebody is going to do that.

This article is an abuse of the source data. “Working class” here is closer to manual laborer and excludes teachers, farm workers, military, emergency services, nurses, law enforcement, and others. The data is also fairly noisy, with typos and 2% of values being empty affecting the calculation.

To conclude that anyone not “working class” by this definition is “upper-class” is absurd. I guess for some it is hard to imagine the lofty former assistant manager at Burger King (D-AR) understanding the struggles of the common man.

There are certainly interesting discussions to be had about the disruptive influence of wealth on elections and about balancing representation with competence – and folks are having that discussion – but this article contributes less than nothing to those conversations.

I agree that saying gerrymandering affects everyone is sort of off-topic and distracts from discussing the precise impact being discussed, but it’s really not equivalent to “All Lives Matter”.

• “Black Lives Matter” => Stop police murdering black people
• “All Lives Matter” => La la la, I can’t hear you

• “Gerrymandering Denies Incarcerated People Fair Democratic Representation” => We should stop gerrymandering for the sake of prisoners
• “Gerrymandering denies everyone fair democratic representation.” => We should stop gerrymandering for the sake of everyone

The dinner example assumes only one person didn’t get dinner. If instead everyone went without dinner, wouldn’t it make sense to point out they weren’t the only one affected?

I doubt such information would be public, but given that Trump publically invited Russia to interfere in the campaign, I’d certainly consider it plausible he also did so in private. Seems like a heck of stretch to go from that to “liar” and “corrupt”.

Are you talking about the Russia collusion thing where his campaign staff were found guilty of a bunch of felonies and he wasn’t charged because a “president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office”? Where Mueller basically said: I’m not allowed to say he’s guilty, but I can tell you he’s not not guilty. That one?

You have neglected to note that the original comment violates rule 6 against celebrating death.

And through the whole thing she’s using her submissive wife voice https://jesspiper.substack.com/p/the-fundie-baby-voice

What she said was “I think we can certainly do more to be advancing our vision, and I believe we have a strong vision that we can run on.” She specifically calls out:

• Codifying abortion/reproductive rights [House and Senate races matter!]
• Lowering Medicare age
• Student loan forgiveness

Contrary to OP’s title, she actually pushes back on the false narrative that Biden is running as “not Trump”.

She does say that it will be important to demonstrate “what we are willing to do with” governing power between now and November.

Headline is an outright lie. The article literally quotes her saying she supports IVF. The author speculates that a bill she is co-sponsoring (that does not mention IVF) may accidentally ban IVF (if it passes and Biden signs it).

Certainly you could denigrate her intelligence, performative politics, or the logical incoherence between her abortion and IVF positions. But you cannot say she wants to do something contrary to her actual explicitly stated desire.