On the Washington Post editorial page, no Republican ever just does something bad; their action must have been prompted by an equally bad thing done by a Democrat. So who's really to blame? It's the perfect example of brain-dead centrism. Both sides suck, so who's to say which is worse?
Know who's more likely to be a "Fetterman" if they win their primaries?
Chris Pappas in New Hampshire.
Haley Stevens in Michigan.
Angie Craig in Minnesota.
Cindy Burbank or Dan Osborn in Nebraska.
Josh Turek in Iowa.
But I don't hear a damn word from people on this app warning about them.
BTW this error illustrates a trick I've noticed in these editorials: Any criticism of a Republican must be accompanied by criticism of a Democrat, and the Democrat will often be blamed, at least in part, for whatever bad thing the Republican did. I see why "tearfully conceded" was so tempting here.
Journalists used to complain that Twitter was their assignment editor. Elon's manipulation of the algorithm to punish real reporting actually freed us from that loop. But for some reason the WaPo editorial board evidently remains glued to X as a reliable barometer of public sentiment. It just isn't.
More broadly, the WaPo editorial board has adopted a certain tone and set of fixations that are rewarded by the X algorithm. Haughty, dismissive, obsessed with trivial stuff they deem offensive to free market dogma (a burger ad ban in Amsterdam? really?) while studiously ignoring Trump's corruption.