The last Democratic candidate to appeal to the white working-class voter was Bill Clinton. He needed every one of those voters in his 1992 and 1996 races. Yet he still failed to win 50 percent of the popular vote because of Ross Perot’s third-party candidacy.

Hunting for the Left-Wing Blue-Collar American

Since then, the Democratic brand has lost the white working-class vote in nearly every presidential election. Yet this demographic still makes up 40 percent of the electorate and registers and votes at much higher rates than non-white groups.

Apparently, during the Biden-era influx of 10 million illegal aliens, Democrats really believed their own slogans about an “Emerging Democratic Majority” and how “Demography is destiny.” They therefore confidently abandoned most efforts to recruit white working-class voters.

In 2017, the then-neocon—and now leftist Mamdani supporter—Bill Kristol (who has advocated abolishing ICE altogether) spoke of the need to open the borders to replace the “lazy” American worker: “Look, to be totally honest, if things are so bad as you say with the white working class, don’t you want to get new Americans in?”

Kristol then characterized this apparently dispensable group as “decadent, lazy, spoiled.”

And yet, until the novelty of Barack Obama’s candidacy and the demographic overconfidence it inspired, Democrats regularly lamented that, aside from the moderate Bill Clinton interlude, their steady leftward turn was becoming both irreversible and electorally costly.

[TTP:  Long, but sometimes the truth takes a while.]

If you want to understand why the Middle East is trapped in an endless cycle of violence—and, on a much more urgent note, why I am still single—you only need to look at dating apps like Tinder, Bumble, or Hinge.

We are told dating apps are digital cupids designed to cure our loneliness, just like we’re told certain political institutions are here to bring peace.

It’s a beautiful lie.

In reality, dating apps are meticulously engineered casino games designed to monetize our single nights.

A dating app that actually finds you a lifelong partner is one that loses paying subscribers.

From a corporate revenue perspective, a happy, committed marriage is a catastrophic system failure, so the engineers didn’t build an engine for love; they built a breeding ground for chronic hope. . .

The Middle East conflict runs on that same logic. You invest. You draft the agreements. You fly delegations to Oslo, Camp David, Annapolis, and Sharm el-Sheikh. You offer concession after concession — land, sovereignty, shared holy sites, billions in aid — and for one shining moment, it looks like this might actually be the time to hold hands and ride into the Mediterranean Sea. And then, like clockwork, it collapses. The rockets start again, the funerals start again. The whole exhausted machinery resets to zero so everyone can do it all over again in another decade, with another summit, another handshake photo, another round of the exact same promises.

A Russian warship has opened fire off the coast of Devon while being shadowed by a Royal Navy patrol ship.

Neustrashimy, a Kremlin frigate, was around 40 nautical miles south-east of Plymouth when it carried out a gunnery exercise shortly after 9am on Monday.

The vessel’s actions, which have been called “highly unusual” by defence sources, are being seen as a way for Russia to challenge Andy Burnham, who entered Downing Street on Monday.

At the time of the drill, which took place in international waters, the Russian warship was being closely shadowed by HMS Tyne at a distance of two miles, The Telegraph understands.

Russian commanders warned the Navy vessel to move back before the gunnery exercise, with Tyne pulling back to a distance of around five nautical miles.

According to the BBC, climate change has become more alarming during the 21st century.

What they once called global warming they now call global heating; what they once called climate change they now call the climate crisis.

If it is a crisis, then official estimates of the damage that climate change has done and will do if the models prove accurate should be easy to obtain.

They are not.

The technical term for this damage is “the social cost of carbon,” meaning the net value in dollars of harm done today and in the future by each tonne of extra carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere.

This includes damage to people’s living standards, to infrastructure, to peace of mind, to the natural environment, to everything.

Yet here is a strange thing. The British Government, though obsessed with carbon, no longer estimates or considers the social cost of carbon — at all.

Its official position is that “carbon valuation for policy appraisal no longer uses the social cost of carbon.” It gave up estimating this measure of the net harm from future climate change in 2008.

Why? That’s easy: because scientists and economists just could not get the number up high enough to surpass the cost of reducing emissions.

[A Response to Craig Considine]

There is a particular move in Western academic writing that I have come to recognize on sight.

It arrives whenever a pattern of violence associated with one civilization becomes inconvenient for a certain kind of argument.

The move goes like this: locate a comparable act of violence from a different civilization, describe it with maximum rhetorical force, and present the comparison as analysis. You are not explaining anything. You are manufacturing a tie. And a tie, in this context, is not a draw. It is an acquittal.

When two defendants are declared equally guilty, the one you came to prosecute walks out the side door while everyone is still looking at the other one.

Dr. Craig Considine makes this move in a 2015 piece titled “Why Celebrating Columbus Day is Like Celebrating ISIS Day.”

The core argument is that Christopher Columbus and the Spanish Catholic Monarchy carried out a holy war against indigenous peoples that is morally equivalent to what ISIS was doing in the Levant in 2015, and that critics who point to Islamic violence as a distinctive problem have either forgotten or chosen to ignore the West’s own record of atrocity.

Considine is a sociologist at Rice University with twenty years of published work on Christian-Muslim relations, so this is not a casual social media take. It is a considered academic argument by a credentialed scholar, and it deserves a considered response.

Let me say first that the history Considine describes is not fabricated.