Ultimately, I guess, I think power is not static and tactics can build or lose power in cycles that don’t align with electoral cycles, and it’s worth thinking about whether that is happening and what it means if it is, rather than necessarily trusting initial instincts, whatever they are.

Thinking about what that means (if the shifts actually do show that, what the implications are if so, etc)

Well, if there is an instinct that it doesn’t and won’t work to organize people to rank all of the progressive candidates and we should narrow it down to one leftist candidate (or a left center one or whatever), but the shifts over time show that power is being built over time, it’s worth

So good. I also still think about the shrimp and grits at Six Feet Under.

Are you at the Flying Biscuit or another apple butter spot? I loved the Flying Biscuit when I lived there.

also: "The gigawatt data center is an evolutionary dead end. When the AI hype-bubble bursts, they are going to be multi-billion-dollar white elephants full of chips that are best simply turned off and the money regarded as wasted" Great piece by @ncweaver.skerry-tech.com via @davidgerard.co.uk

Got it. I think that was my confusion earlier: what is the win that Walz and Ellison were referring to, or it is no longer relevant anyway based on what has already changed.

100%. Do you think this means it doesn’t affect MN because there was already a court win? Or is that uncertain like many things seem to be?

Yeah. I guess my curiosity is whether that has to be the case or not. And maybe it does, at least for the foreseeable future. But certainly we haven’t given that strategy a try.

The flip side of “pick the candidate closest to the center who leftists will support” I guess.

I am curious whether it is possible to win with a “this is the one leftist candidate” strategy instead of a “rank all of these candidates” strategy. Is it possible for that to open up some other kind of organizing possibilities that lead to a win (and maybe isn’t yet! I don’t know)?