Angela Paxton has released a YouTube video of an earlier speech called The Elephant in the Room, in which she calls the GOP "the party of values", but then admits that "we have some real vulnerabilities on our side", before advising Republicans to vote for the "vulnerabilities" anyway. Meaning of course, "Yes, I have been claiming my soon-to-be husband is a scumbag adulterer, but Talarico would be worse."
Not sure how Talarico is addressing any of this. I will confess that I do regret that it's not Jasmine Crockett getting to be the main opposition point-person. She'd probably be more entertaining, though possibly more reckless.
Just started watching Ms. Paxton's speech, delivered to a gathering of GOP women. She opens by saying she used to be a high-school counselor, and wishes to open with a meditation. So she tells the listeners to imagine that they are in a beautiful place by a stream where "the water is so clear, you can easily see the person you're trying to hold underwater", thus prompting general laughter.
(IME, this kind of jocular misandry is common among conservative political couples, presumably intended to soften the reactionary nature of the politicians' overall agenda. I remember a male Republican during the Clinton impeachment telling an audience "Hoo boy, you don't wanna know what my wife said she'd do to me if she found out I was doin' the kind of stuff that guy was doin' with his intern!")
Just started watching Ms. Paxton's speech, delivered to a gathering of GOP women. She opens by saying she used to be a high-school counselor, and wishes to open with a meditation. So she tells the listeners to imagine that they are in a beautiful place by a stream where "the water is so clear, you can easily see the person you're trying to hold underwater", thus prompting general laughter.
(IME, this kind of jocular misandry is common among conservative political couples, presumably intended to soften the reactionary nature of the politicians' overall agenda. I remember a male Republican during the Clinton impeachment telling an audience "Hoo boy, you don't wanna know what my wife said she'd do to me if she found out I was doin' the kind of stuff that guy was doin' with his intern!")
I don't think that's misandry, just weird straight people humour.
Angela Paxton has released a YouTube video of an earlier speech called The Elephant in the Room, in which she calls the GOP "the party of values", but then admits that "we have some real vulnerabilities on our side", before advising Republicans to vote for the "vulnerabilities" anyway. Meaning of course, "Yes, I have been claiming my soon-to-be husband is a scumbag adulterer, but Talarico would be worse."
Not sure how Talarico is addressing any of this. I will confess that I do regret that it's not Jasmine Crockett getting to be the main opposition point-person. She'd probably be more entertaining, though possibly more reckless.
Given Jasmine Crockett's support for violent woman-beating singer Chris Brown, I disagree.
I will confess that I do regret that it's not Jasmine Crockett getting to be the main opposition point-person. She'd probably be more entertaining, though possibly more reckless.
Just started watching Ms. Paxton's speech, delivered to a gathering of GOP women. She opens by saying she used to be a high-school counselor, and wishes to open with a meditation. So she tells the listeners to imagine that they are in a beautiful place by a stream where "the water is so clear, you can easily see the person you're trying to hold underwater", thus prompting general laughter.
(IME, this kind of jocular misandry is common among conservative political couples, presumably intended to soften the reactionary nature of the politicians' overall agenda. I remember a male Republican during the Clinton impeachment telling an audience "Hoo boy, you don't wanna know what my wife said she'd do to me if she found out I was doin' the kind of stuff that guy was doin' with his intern!")
I don't think that's misandry, just weird straight people humour.
Well, yeah, but in that particular version of weird straight people humour, it's specifically the man who's the object of the hostility, which has the purpose, or at least the effect, of appearing to soften the misogyny of the overall worldview.
IME apologists for patriarchal cultures of various sorts like to pull out arguments such as "Hoo boy, you better believe it's really the women who wear the pants in the family over there", with the listener expected to warmly approve of the image of the fiesty-grandma lording it over everyone at the big family dinner.
Angela Paxton has released a YouTube video of an earlier speech called The Elephant in the Room, in which she calls the GOP "the party of values", but then admits that "we have some real vulnerabilities on our side", before advising Republicans to vote for the "vulnerabilities" anyway. Meaning of course, "Yes, I have been claiming my soon-to-be husband is a scumbag adulterer, but Talarico would be worse."
Not sure how Talarico is addressing any of this. I will confess that I do regret that it's not Jasmine Crockett getting to be the main opposition point-person. She'd probably be more entertaining, though possibly more reckless.
Given Jasmine Crockett's support for violent woman-beating singer Chris Brown, I disagree.
Could very well be. I haven't been following that particular issue. Crockett was my prefered candidate for the primaries, mostly because, from my admittedly limited exposure, she seemed to have a better public command of the issues than Talarico. I did think the latter was slightly closer to my position on the issues, though.
I will confess that I do regret that it's not Jasmine Crockett getting to be the main opposition point-person. She'd probably be more entertaining, though possibly more reckless.
I will confess that I do regret that it's not Jasmine Crockett getting to be the main opposition point-person. She'd probably be more entertaining, though possibly more reckless.
And probably have less chance of winning.
What are your reasons for thinking that?
Any Democrat running for statewide office in Texas has an uphill battle, the ever-elusive “this is the year Texas will turn blue” notwithstanding. For Democrats to win, the perfect combination of a flawed Republican candidate, a statewide and national dynamic that doesn’t favor Republicans, and a Democratic candidate who can appeal to a sufficient number of Independents and swing voters is needed. The overall national dynamic is unquestionably unfavorable to Republicans. And Texas Republicans have certainly offered up a flawed candidate; if Cornyn had won the primary, I don’t think we’d be talking about a possible Democratic win in Texas.
My take is that Talarico is more likely to appeal to the needed number of Independents and swing voters than Crockett would have been. Unfortunately, I think that’s partially for reasons that I very much wish weren’t in play, like sexism and racism. And there’s the question of whether some voters, Hispanic voters in particular, might think Talarico is an Hispanic surname. (It’s not; it’s Italian.)
But I also think Talarico’s approach stands a better chance of appealing to a broader swath of the Texas electorate than Crockett’s approach would have. In particular, Talarico’s ability to talk about his faith in an articulate and thoughtful way can appeal to a lot of Texas voters.
Yeah, I believe the last Democrat to win the governorship was Ann Richards, who was up against a rather...unsuitable Republican candidate(I won't repeat his self-immolating joke here).
...Talarico's ability to talk about his faith in an articulate and thoughtful way can appeal to a lot of Texas voters.
I HAVE been wondering how big an overlap Texas has between A) voters for whom hearing Jesus or other Bible stuff(*) mentioned in a speech could make a pivotal difference in swinging their vote over to the Democrats, and B voters who would ever consider voting Democratic in the first place.
(*) Yes, "Jesus or other Bible stuff" was written with protestant voters in mind, but I do know enough about inter-sectarian cultural bleedover to guess it could appeal to some Catholics as well.
Not entirely comfortable with how certain liberal outlets(lookin' at you, Slate!) are now talking about a Democratic sweep in November as if it were a foregone conclusion, eg. "Will the blue wave hit Texas?" Note the definite article there.
Even setting aside the possibility of federal/MAGA interference, some of you may recall the recent example of 2022 expected to be a Republican triumph due to the Democratic-helmed economy, followed quite casually by Joevember.
Parties and supporters who exhibit excessive optimism about their own prospects are essentially doing own-goal voter suppression.
[Tangent... I worked in Texas for a couple of years in the mid 1980s when Ann Richards was approaching the peak of her political career, and so was Molly Ivins, the happily outrageous opinion columnist (or calumnist, according to some). I remember one of my colleagues assuring me that Texas would never vote for the party of Abraham Lincoln, but along came Reagan, and there was less laughter in Texas.]
I remember one of my colleagues assuring me that Texas would never vote for the party of Abraham Lincoln, but along came Reagan, and there was less laughter in Texas.
Even assuming that 1928 was an outlier provoked by babylonian machinations within the Democracy, there would still be 1952, 1956, and 1972 standing as pre-Reaganite infidelities.
...Talarico's ability to talk about his faith in an articulate and thoughtful way can appeal to a lot of Texas voters.
I HAVE been wondering how big an overlap Texas has between A) voters for whom hearing Jesus or other Bible stuff(*) mentioned in a speech could make a pivotal difference in swinging their vote over to the Democrats, and B voters who would ever consider voting Democratic in the first place.
(*) Yes, "Jesus or other Bible stuff" was written with protestant voters in mind, but I do know enough about inter-sectarian cultural bleedover to guess it could appeal to some Catholics as well.
Probably not a huge overlap. (And it could indeed appeal to some Catholics.) But the relevant question is whether, when combined with GOP voters who decide to sit the Senate race out because, while they’d never vote for a Democrat, also can’t stomach Paxton, it’s enough of an overlap to give Democrats a win.
And the other relevant question, in the context of how this discussion arose, is whether it enables Talarico to attract more voters who might not otherwise be inclined to vote Democratic than Crockett would have attracted.
Latest polls indicate up to five Senate seats could go Democrat. There could be eleven House seats that could go Democrat as well. My impression is things are pretty malleable right now. Three weeks to go.
Could someone please define Mid Terms for this Brit. Do the houses get voted on half way through a house term? If this is the end of one term and the beginning of another why is it mid terms. If it is mid Presidential term that seems to make little sense because the vote is for the houses. How does it work?
Could someone please define Mid Terms for this Brit. Do the houses get voted on half way through a house term? If this is the end of one term and the beginning of another why is it mid terms. If it is mid Presidential term that seems to make little sense because the vote is for the houses. How does it work?
All seats in the United States House of Representatives are for two-year terms, and elections for those seats are held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November in every even-numbered year. Half the time, those elections coincide with the election of the president and vice president. The other half of the time, they occur midway between the election of the president and vice president. That is the sense in which the elections held this year are “midterm elections”—midway through the president’s four-year term.
Seats in the United States Senate are for six-year terms, with elections for one-third of the Senate seats being held in every even-numbered year. Each state has two senators, and the pattern is that each state will elect one senator, two years later will elect its other senator, and then two years after that will not have a senatorial election. Two years after that, the cycle will start over.
The designation “midterm” reflects that one of the dynamics in elections for the House and Senate in the middle of a president’s term is the way in which the elections serve as a sign of support of or opposition to the president. The normal pattern is for midterm elections to favor the party that doesn’t hold the presidency.
Could someone please define Mid Terms for this Brit. Do the houses get voted on half way through a house term? If this is the end of one term and the beginning of another why is it mid terms. If it is mid Presidential term that seems to make little sense because the vote is for the houses. How does it work?
All seats in the United States House of Representatives are for two-year terms, and elections for those seats are held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November in every even-numbered year. Half the time, those elections coincide with the election of the president and vice president. The other half of the time, they occur midway between the election of the president and vice president. That is the sense in which the elections held this year are “midterm elections”—midway through the president’s four-year term.
Seats in the United States Senate are for six-year terms, with elections for one-third of the Senate seats being held in every even-numbered year. Each state has two senators, and the pattern is that each state will elect one senator, two years later will elect its other senator, and then two years after that will not have a senatorial election. Two years after that, the cycle will start over.
The designation “midterm” reflects that one of the dynamics in elections for the House and Senate in the middle of a president’s term is the way in which the elections serve as a sign of support of or opposition to the president. The normal pattern is for midterm elections to favor the party that doesn’t hold the presidency.
Thanks. It sounds complicated but if is your usual system then you will be used to it.
The US typically has far more elected officials than the UK does - for eg state governors, sherriffs, local school boards, often specific town council positions and not just the mayor, etc. Imo having more elections rather than fewer is generally a good thing. Voter turnout is generally relatively low especially for local elections, though.
If you live next to it, it is less complicated. We Canadians have a Westminster system yet those of us who are political junkies have no problem following the US system at the federal level.
The US typically has far more elected officials than the UK does - for eg state governors, sherriffs, local school boards, often specific town council positions and not just the mayor, etc.
And one major difference from the UK’s system is that we tend toward multiple elections at the same time. My ballot this go-around will have 18 offices (US Senate, state and local offices), three (state) constitutional amendments and four local bond referenda.
It’s more in years with presidential elections, when we also elect 10 state officeholders.
The US typically has far more elected officials than the UK does - for eg state governors, sherriffs, local school boards, often specific town council positions and not just the mayor, etc.
And one major difference from the UK’s system is that we tend toward multiple elections at the same time. My ballot this go-around will have 18 offices (US Senate, state and local offices), three (state) constitutional amendments and four local bond referenda.
It’s more in years with presidential elections, when we also elect 10 state officeholders.
Yes, I had forgotten about state constitutional amendments - state constitutions aren't much known about here as we don't have any equivalent. The nearest thing would be local laws around things like ancient animal grazing rights, but those are never voted on.
I miss 538. Is there any other decent source which considers information from a variety of polls?
Along with from Nate Silver’s Silver Bulletin and RealClear, both already mentioned, I’d suggest FiftyPlusOne. Mary Radcliffe, who was head of research at FiveThirtyEight, is there.
I’d also recommend two podcasts of FiveThirtyEight alums: Galen Druke’s GD Politics Podcast, and Nate Silver, Clare Malone and Druke’s Still Counting.
Could someone please define Mid Terms for this Brit. Do the houses get voted on half way through a house term? If this is the end of one term and the beginning of another why is it mid terms. If it is mid Presidential term that seems to make little sense because the vote is for the houses. How does it work?
All seats in the United States House of Representatives are for two-year terms, and elections for those seats are held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November in every even-numbered year. Half the time, those elections coincide with the election of the president and vice president. The other half of the time, they occur midway between the election of the president and vice president. That is the sense in which the elections held this year are “midterm elections”—midway through the president’s four-year term.
Seats in the United States Senate are for six-year terms, with elections for one-third of the Senate seats being held in every even-numbered year. Each state has two senators, and the pattern is that each state will elect one senator, two years later will elect its other senator, and then two years after that will not have a senatorial election. Two years after that, the cycle will start over.
The designation “midterm” reflects that one of the dynamics in elections for the House and Senate in the middle of a president’s term is the way in which the elections serve as a sign of support of or opposition to the president. The normal pattern is for midterm elections to favor the party that doesn’t hold the presidency.
Thanks. It sounds complicated but if is your usual system then you will be used to it.
The easiest way to think of it, if you are not a political geek or forced for other reasons to get really granular, is to see the midterms as a halfway through evaluation of the president. He isn't on the ballot, but how people feel about him is the primary driver of how they will vote in that collection of (mostly Congressional) elections.
Unless I'm mistaken, "midterms" is not the formal constitutional phrasing anyway, so the elections are not technically framed as a referendum on the president's performance. That's just sort of how people think about them.
The easiest way to think of it, if you are not a political geek or forced for other reasons to get really granular, is to see the midterms as a halfway through evaluation of the president. He isn't on the ballot, but how people feel about him is the primary driver of how they will vote in that collection of (mostly Congressional) elections.
Mostly congressional elections in the sense that elections for the US House and Senate are the elections most likely to be affected by feelings about the president, yes. But since each voter in a given election only votes for one member of the House, and maybe one Senator, the collection of offices voters will vote on this year are state and/or local offices.
Thanks for the links. I knew about Real Clear politics but the others were new to me. I’m impressed with FiftyPlusOne and recognise some of the methodological similarities with 538.
It's a gubernatorial election, not a midterm, but LA mayor Karen Bass has just opined about GOP candidate Steve Hilton...
A Republican cannot win in this state, yet a Republican with a British accent?!
(Punctuation in the original article.)
While I am pretty negative about the mocking of ANY accents in political debate, doing it to a wealthy, expat British Tory is pretty much the definition of punching up. And since Republicans are the ones always telling everyone else how cool it is to engage in culturally based insults, they really have no cause to complain here.
(And now I have a sudden desire to hunt down a copy of The Loved One and give it a re-read.)
Anyone else see Hilton's outreach to the lesbians-till-graduation community?
YouTube "Hilton ad: Just Try It"
I suspect this will antagonize both Democrats and Republicans, but for different reasons. For myself, I'll just say that voyeuristic portrayals of sapphic encounters masquerading as social liberalism is just SOOO 1999.
Hilton has released an apology-to-anyone-who-might-have-been-offended type thing.
It grieves me that you have been upset by this. But I I also want to understand what we are doing, why we are doing it, and ask for some grace and understanding as we fight this campaign.
Maybe it's just my tendency to see everything as a potential pond rivalry, but my N. American ears are rather impressed by the relatively sophisticated vocabulary("grace and understanding") employed here. Granted, that makes the contrast with the defended material especially lopsided.
That said, "what we are doing, why we are doing it" does convey a nice tone of urgency, as if he were already an elected official trying to contain a genuinely drastic emergency situation.
"As mayor, I fully respect your frustration at the water-ration, but with the drought going on for weeks, I ask you to understand what we are doing, and why we are doing it."
Hilton has released an apology-to-anyone-who-might-have-been-offended type thing.
It grieves me that you have been upset by this. But I I also want to understand what we are doing, why we are doing it, and ask for some grace and understanding as we fight this campaign.
“It grieves me that you have been upset by this” is not an apology; it sidesteps taking any responsibility.
An apology would be something more like “I regret running this ad and I’m sorry that what I and my team have done was upsetting to many.”
As for “grace and understanding,” I’ve heard that kind of request many, many times. It rings hollow to me when not accompanied by taking responsibility.
Hilton has released an apology-to-anyone-who-might-have-been-offended type thing.
It grieves me that you have been upset by this. But I I also want to understand what we are doing, why we are doing it, and ask for some grace and understanding as we fight this campaign.
“It grieves me that you have been upset by this” is not an apology; it sidesteps taking any responsibility.
An apology would be something more like “I regret running this ad and I’m sorry that what I and my team have done was upsetting to many.”
Yes. I meant it's a non-apology. "Sorry if anyone was offended" being the most common exemplification of the trick.
re: "grace and understanding"
It was mostly just that I wasn't sure if I'd ever heard the word "grace" employed by North American politicians in that manner. To the extent it's heard at all, it's usually more in generic, non-specific sloganeering, eg. "God shed his grace on thee", rather than indicating the quality as something one wishes to see more of in a particular, actually existing situation.
"Instead of just looking at this one ad, we ask you to look at the bigger picture" is more the phrasing I'd personally expect to hear. Granted, "understanding" is pretty common.
One of the Republican critics of the Hinton ad(a candidate for some lower office, I believe) complained that the ad menaced "the innocence of children". While that does strike me as a populist distortion of possibly legitimate issues, I'm guessing she might have a shrewder idea of what will alienate her base.
It was mostly just that I wasn't sure if I'd ever heard the word "grace" employed by North American politicians in that manner. To the extent it's heard at all, it's usually more in generic, non-specific sloganeering, eg. "God shed his grace on thee", rather than indicating the quality as something one wishes to see more of in a particular, actually existing situation.
Perhaps in the parts of North America where you’ve spent time. I’ve heard quite a few disgraced or supposedly apologetic politicians in the American South ask for grace and understanding.
It was mostly just that I wasn't sure if I'd ever heard the word "grace" employed by North American politicians in that manner. To the extent it's heard at all, it's usually more in generic, non-specific sloganeering, eg. "God shed his grace on thee", rather than indicating the quality as something one wishes to see more of in a particular, actually existing situation.
Perhaps in the parts of North America where you’ve spent time. I’ve heard quite a few disgraced or supposedly apologetic politicians in the American South ask for grace and understanding.
I guess that rings pretty plausible. You might hear it in Canada as well, I suppose. Something I'd associate more with a Pierre Trudeau than a Doug Ford, but that could be confirmation bias(or whatever).
Trump-related, but since the more direct impact will be on the midterms...
Eager to display his willingness endure sacrifice in prosecuting the war on Iran, Trump said yesterday...
Let 'em take out Los Angeles. Let 'em take out San Diego.
Seems to me the main worry here is not that Iran might be emboldened to do that(I doubt very much they have the capacity), but that Trump might some day say that sorta thing about a nemesis with the power to make it happen.
I suspect there is private GOP anxiety about Trump’s increasingly active midterms campaigning. He’s capable of saying many things likely to increase GOP vulnerability. The economic, political and humanitarian damages arising out of the Iran conflict have been very wounding. He’s bounced back before of course, but maybe his bouncing days are finally coming to an end?
With a month to go it looks very likely that the Democrats will gain a safe majority in the House, with control of the Senate looking too close to call.
Comments
Not sure how Talarico is addressing any of this. I will confess that I do regret that it's not Jasmine Crockett getting to be the main opposition point-person. She'd probably be more entertaining, though possibly more reckless.
(IME, this kind of jocular misandry is common among conservative political couples, presumably intended to soften the reactionary nature of the politicians' overall agenda. I remember a male Republican during the Clinton impeachment telling an audience "Hoo boy, you don't wanna know what my wife said she'd do to me if she found out I was doin' the kind of stuff that guy was doin' with his intern!")
I don't think that's misandry, just weird straight people humour.
Given Jasmine Crockett's support for violent woman-beating singer Chris Brown, I disagree.
Well, yeah, but in that particular version of weird straight people humour, it's specifically the man who's the object of the hostility, which has the purpose, or at least the effect, of appearing to soften the misogyny of the overall worldview.
IME apologists for patriarchal cultures of various sorts like to pull out arguments such as "Hoo boy, you better believe it's really the women who wear the pants in the family over there", with the listener expected to warmly approve of the image of the fiesty-grandma lording it over everyone at the big family dinner.
Could very well be. I haven't been following that particular issue. Crockett was my prefered candidate for the primaries, mostly because, from my admittedly limited exposure, she seemed to have a better public command of the issues than Talarico. I did think the latter was slightly closer to my position on the issues, though.
What are your reasons for thinking that?
My take is that Talarico is more likely to appeal to the needed number of Independents and swing voters than Crockett would have been. Unfortunately, I think that’s partially for reasons that I very much wish weren’t in play, like sexism and racism. And there’s the question of whether some voters, Hispanic voters in particular, might think Talarico is an Hispanic surname. (It’s not; it’s Italian.)
But I also think Talarico’s approach stands a better chance of appealing to a broader swath of the Texas electorate than Crockett’s approach would have. In particular, Talarico’s ability to talk about his faith in an articulate and thoughtful way can appeal to a lot of Texas voters.
Thanks.
re: the elusive blexas...
Yeah, I believe the last Democrat to win the governorship was Ann Richards, who was up against a rather...unsuitable Republican candidate(I won't repeat his self-immolating joke here).
I HAVE been wondering how big an overlap Texas has between A) voters for whom hearing Jesus or other Bible stuff(*) mentioned in a speech could make a pivotal difference in swinging their vote over to the Democrats, and B voters who would ever consider voting Democratic in the first place.
(*) Yes, "Jesus or other Bible stuff" was written with protestant voters in mind, but I do know enough about inter-sectarian cultural bleedover to guess it could appeal to some Catholics as well.
Even setting aside the possibility of federal/MAGA interference, some of you may recall the recent example of 2022 expected to be a Republican triumph due to the Democratic-helmed economy, followed quite casually by Joevember.
Parties and supporters who exhibit excessive optimism about their own prospects are essentially doing own-goal voter suppression.
Even assuming that 1928 was an outlier provoked by babylonian machinations within the Democracy, there would still be 1952, 1956, and 1972 standing as pre-Reaganite infidelities.
Just saw some Democratic YouTube channel gleefully quoting an unnamed Republican operative in a bar lamenting "We're all going to lose."
And the other relevant question, in the context of how this discussion arose, is whether it enables Talarico to attract more voters who might not otherwise be inclined to vote Democratic than Crockett would have attracted.
Seats in the United States Senate are for six-year terms, with elections for one-third of the Senate seats being held in every even-numbered year. Each state has two senators, and the pattern is that each state will elect one senator, two years later will elect its other senator, and then two years after that will not have a senatorial election. Two years after that, the cycle will start over.
The designation “midterm” reflects that one of the dynamics in elections for the House and Senate in the middle of a president’s term is the way in which the elections serve as a sign of support of or opposition to the president. The normal pattern is for midterm elections to favor the party that doesn’t hold the presidency.
Thanks. It sounds complicated but if is your usual system then you will be used to it.
It’s more in years with presidential elections, when we also elect 10 state officeholders.
Yes, I had forgotten about state constitutional amendments - state constitutions aren't much known about here as we don't have any equivalent. The nearest thing would be local laws around things like ancient animal grazing rights, but those are never voted on.
I’d also recommend two podcasts of FiveThirtyEight alums: Galen Druke’s GD Politics Podcast, and Nate Silver, Clare Malone and Druke’s Still Counting.
The easiest way to think of it, if you are not a political geek or forced for other reasons to get really granular, is to see the midterms as a halfway through evaluation of the president. He isn't on the ballot, but how people feel about him is the primary driver of how they will vote in that collection of (mostly Congressional) elections.
Much appreciated.
Anyone else see Hilton's outreach to the lesbians-till-graduation community?
I suspect this will antagonize both Democrats and Republicans, but for different reasons. For myself, I'll just say that voyeuristic portrayals of sapphic encounters masquerading as social liberalism is just SOOO 1999.
It grieves me that you have been upset by this. But I I also want to understand what we are doing, why we are doing it, and ask for some grace and understanding as we fight this campaign.
Maybe it's just my tendency to see everything as a potential pond rivalry, but my N. American ears are rather impressed by the relatively sophisticated vocabulary("grace and understanding") employed here. Granted, that makes the contrast with the defended material especially lopsided.
That said, "what we are doing, why we are doing it" does convey a nice tone of urgency, as if he were already an elected official trying to contain a genuinely drastic emergency situation.
"As mayor, I fully respect your frustration at the water-ration, but with the drought going on for weeks, I ask you to understand what we are doing, and why we are doing it."
An apology would be something more like “I regret running this ad and I’m sorry that what I and my team have done was upsetting to many.”
As for “grace and understanding,” I’ve heard that kind of request many, many times. It rings hollow to me when not accompanied by taking responsibility.
Yes. I meant it's a non-apology. "Sorry if anyone was offended" being the most common exemplification of the trick.
re: "grace and understanding"
It was mostly just that I wasn't sure if I'd ever heard the word "grace" employed by North American politicians in that manner. To the extent it's heard at all, it's usually more in generic, non-specific sloganeering, eg. "God shed his grace on thee", rather than indicating the quality as something one wishes to see more of in a particular, actually existing situation.
"Instead of just looking at this one ad, we ask you to look at the bigger picture" is more the phrasing I'd personally expect to hear. Granted, "understanding" is pretty common.
One of the Republican critics of the Hinton ad(a candidate for some lower office, I believe) complained that the ad menaced "the innocence of children". While that does strike me as a populist distortion of possibly legitimate issues, I'm guessing she might have a shrewder idea of what will alienate her base.
I guess that rings pretty plausible. You might hear it in Canada as well, I suppose. Something I'd associate more with a Pierre Trudeau than a Doug Ford, but that could be confirmation bias(or whatever).
Eager to display his willingness endure sacrifice in prosecuting the war on Iran, Trump said yesterday...
Seems to me the main worry here is not that Iran might be emboldened to do that(I doubt very much they have the capacity), but that Trump might some day say that sorta thing about a nemesis with the power to make it happen.
With a month to go it looks very likely that the Democrats will gain a safe majority in the House, with control of the Senate looking too close to call.