The article was using beef and lamb as an example. It holds across much more than those

Plant-based protein sources – tofu, beans, peas and nuts – have the lowest carbon footprint. This is certainly true when you compare average emissions. But it’s still true when you compare the extremes: there’s not much overlap in emissions between the worst producers of plant proteins, and the best producers of meat and dairy.

If you want a lower-carbon diet, eating less meat is nearly always better than eating the most sustainable meat.

It's worth noting the deal also specifically increases taxes for animal agriculture above a certain size/emission threshold

For farmland type, they are specifying low-lying soils as primary targets. Low lying soil specifically because reforestation/rewilding can have higher impact

Another important thing to note is that a large amount of farmland is used for feedcrop production in general around the world. For instance, around 90% of Denmark's cereal crop production goes to animal feed

Denmark is primarily an agricultural exporter. They produce more than they use domestically

We already have solutions, they are largely not technological, but in changing what we consume and produce. Animal products produce substantially worse results compared to any plant-based foods across virtually every metric. Technological solutions don't move the needle much as even worst case production of plants comes out ahead of the best case production of animal products

If I source my beef or lamb from low-impact producers, could they have a lower footprint than plant-based alternatives?The evidence suggests, no: plant-based foods emit fewer greenhouse gases than meat and dairy, regardless of how they are produced.

https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat

It was decided by a margin of 664 votes (0.21%) according to the article

State Party Chairs have a good chunk of the votes, yes. Along with the vice chair and a mixture of others. I am assuming you are from Texas in which case, while the Texas democratic party chair will step down, it's after the DNC chair elections. You can also reach out to the Texas Democratic Party Vice Chair Shay Wyrick-Cathey (shay@txdemocrats.org)

Also consider running yourself too for those local down ballot races and or encouraging progressives you know to do the same!

https://runforsomething.net/

https://wherecanirun.org/

If you're a US citizen living abroad, there's the Democrats Abroad party chair to reach out to, there are also various US territory chairs too (Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, DC, etc.)

Reading more about DNC chair elections, the state party's vice chair usually also votes for chair too (among others). For Texas, that's Shay Wyrick-Cathey (shay@txdemocrats.org)

For what it's worth it looks like his comments about trans people are what produced a large push to get the Texas Democratic party chair to step down. He said he was stepping down the day after he gave an apology

chair@cadem.org or also rusty@cadem.org seemed to be listed on various California Democratic Party documents for him

If anyone else is having any issues finding the contact emails, reply to me with a state and I can try to help you find it!

Then make sure to tell the people actually voting for the chair to give the pushback they need to see that's a mistake. Change is only going to come when we speak up

It's not voted on directly, you are going to want to talk to your state's party chair to try to convince them vote on the type of chair like you would a congress person on a vote for something. In the body of the post, you can find how to find your state's party chair

Here's the table copied over:

No, no it made your other comment funnier

It's probably a reference to when Trump called Tim Cook, Tim Apple by accident

Yes, they did really buy Info Wars. Here's a serious site talking about it:

https://www.axios.com/2024/11/14/alex-jones-infowars-the-onion

That's assuming that all Trump supporters vote down ballot. I've been reading that a non-negligable percentage of Trump voters just voted for president and left down ballot races blank. Considering Trump only won the swing states by tiny percentages, a small percentage of Trump voters leaving blank the rest is easily enough to sway it

For instance, if we look at Wisconsin senate, we see that Tammy Baldwin has almost exactly the same number of votes as Harris (only a couple hundred more), but Eric Hovde shows less substantially votes than Trump got

Results with ~99% reported:

Donald Trump: 1,697,769

Kamala Harris: 1,668,082

(And about 40k for third party)

Vs senate

Tammy Baldwin: 1,668,545 [+436 from Harris]

Eric Hovde: 1,641,181 [-56,615 from Trump]

The best time to plant a tree was twenty years ago. The second best is now

Separate from the Dems, but The Lincoln Project did run some ads aimed literally just at Trump to make him angry at his campaign staff. Here's one example that ran on Fox News during the hours that Trump was most likely to watch it. The Trump campaign ended up sending a cease and desist over it

We have avoided some of the worst case this election. Down ballot dems have done a lot better than for president and that's going to matter to keep them from being able to do anything without infighting fears. We could've been looking at a 57-43 senate should the swing states not have largely split their votes between senate and president. Instead we're likely looking at a 53-47 or 52-48 senate.* The house could've also been worse too.

In state legislatures, dems did fairly well all things considered. State legislatures are the place that resistance to Trump is most likely to really be effective. We've managed to keep a lot of state legislature seats and even flip some in other areas. For instance, we broke up North Carolina's republican super majority for instance which means the Democratic governor-elect can have effective vetos. We kept the 1 seat majority in the PA state house in a funny way of having two seats flipped in opposite directions and canceling each other out

*The Associated Press has called PA for McCormick, but Decision Desk actually thinks that Casey has a ~66% chance of winning still and neither campaign has conceded. McCormick is saying he thinks the call was incorrect and thinks things will could actually flip with the last 100,000 or so votes left to count and or may go to recount

EDIT: and to add on for further context, Decision Desk is usually some of the first to call any race - to the point where some people say their calls are premature. The AP usually calls races after Decision Desk. The AP usually is much more slow on their calls which is why this situation is so strange where the AP has called it but Decision Desk hasn't and thinks it actually has 2/3 odds of going the opposite way that the AP called it

They will probably at least slow themselves down at minimum, though and that will matter. Their majority is already narrow and there are good odds of cutting into that majority further or potentially even flipping the house if we're very lucky. They had house speakership fights for a while in 2022 with a narrow majority

They are already having some signs of potential infighting in the senate where some Republicans are trying to claim McConnell is holding a "coup" against trump by having earlier senate leader elections (McConnel is not running for senate majority leader so it's a bit more competitive)

It saw some big growth after Brazil banned twitter and network effects make platform changes take longer