Weak and apologetic. This piece read like a "brave" article from the Times, showing that they could step a toe outside the insitutional line. Come on Free Press. A poor use of my time.
Weak and apologetic. This piece read like a "brave" article from the Times, showing that they could step a toe outside the insitutional line. Come on Free Press. A poor use of my time.
I personally disagree, I thought it was illuminating. That even if RJKJr and MW have low chances of winning, there is a shift among Dem voters and even elites privately recognize it. It means that 2024 is up for grabs even with an incumbent running.
I don't disagree entirely with your few comments above. Notwithstanding, I don't find it illuminating to read that the Dems are are up for grabs. It's like finding it illuminating to read an article on wind and solar which has as its central argument that these power alternatives are subject to a lack of wind, cloudy days, poor integration with the grid, and are subject to fantasy ideas that battery storage might solve for any of these problems. Ie. "no shit sherlock." Tell me something I don't know. Dem problems are deeper than any of the insights you mention gaining from the article, and institutional Dem players, who should all be run out of town on a rail, are causing those problems for themselves to the detriment of all voters. Real journalism would dig in to that, name names, and seek to hold those responsible for Dem dysfunction accountable.
I too found the article lacking. It meandered here and there with no clear direction and inconsistent evidence. I donтАЩt understand quite what the author meant to tell us.
Weak and apologetic. This piece read like a "brave" article from the Times, showing that they could step a toe outside the insitutional line. Come on Free Press. A poor use of my time.
I personally disagree, I thought it was illuminating. That even if RJKJr and MW have low chances of winning, there is a shift among Dem voters and even elites privately recognize it. It means that 2024 is up for grabs even with an incumbent running.
I don't disagree entirely with your few comments above. Notwithstanding, I don't find it illuminating to read that the Dems are are up for grabs. It's like finding it illuminating to read an article on wind and solar which has as its central argument that these power alternatives are subject to a lack of wind, cloudy days, poor integration with the grid, and are subject to fantasy ideas that battery storage might solve for any of these problems. Ie. "no shit sherlock." Tell me something I don't know. Dem problems are deeper than any of the insights you mention gaining from the article, and institutional Dem players, who should all be run out of town on a rail, are causing those problems for themselves to the detriment of all voters. Real journalism would dig in to that, name names, and seek to hold those responsible for Dem dysfunction accountable.
I too found the article lacking. It meandered here and there with no clear direction and inconsistent evidence. I donтАЩt understand quite what the author meant to tell us.