Now you’re pushing cautious optimism?

In OP’s defense, the description here is the subheading for the article. Thus me saying

posting this without comment

Wrong? Certainly not. But do you think spending the entire election demoralizing closest-to-the-left had no effect? (note: the iceberg of non-voters who aren’t directly counted in the uncommitted movement)

This is not to say that the DNC strategy was great, but I am not sure by what metric your own was much better. Particularly as even from the beginning it seemed like a gamble, requiring Harris to win while also having notably high 3rd-candidate turnout.

EDIT: Newer headlines make this even more obvious:

‘Very troubling’: Leader of ‘Abandon Harris’ movement now anxious about Trump appointees

Key leaders of the “Abandon Harris” movement, which encouraged voters to oppose Kamala Harris due to U.S. support for Israel during the Gaza war, are now expressing unease about Trump’s incoming administration.

concerns are growing over his Cabinet picks, such as Mike Huckabee and Tulsi Gabbard, which some see as troubling for Muslim communities.

You of all people posting this without comment. The only thing funnier (and sadder) is “cautious optimism about Trump”.

A new YT video by a chemist (NY66qpMFOYo, go to 6:35) just came out highlighting that the acidity causes sucrose to invert into 50:50 glucose:fructose over time anyways, so it makes even less sense. And there’s more sodium.

I like Isomaltulose (glucose-fructose with a stronger bond, making it metabolize slower) but it’s expensive and not as sweet. Though maybe other types of sweeteners could be used like this, perhaps in combination for a better flavor profile.

My assumption here is that sugar would need to be dissolved, mixed, and emulsified with more care/difficulty than hfcs. Though if there is any issue here it might not be present until a product has sat on the shelf (or in your house) for too long. Also for gritty, I was thinking more for something like ketchup or other sauces.

I’m also not saying this is a fault of sugar itself, but that hfcs allows highly sweetened products to be produced more easily (which may present said issue if high sugar content is kept 1:1 despite no longer using hfcs).

Agreed, but I have doubts that this will be a massive improvement if the same amount of other sugars are used. I’m sure some things would reduce sugar to fit with production, but if some foods just became gritty (or, soda with sugar sinking to the bottom) I would not be shocked.

Particularly because that seems like the easy-but-wrong-answer. Not that “maybe we shouldn’t make sugar cheaper than water” and “food doesn’t need to be loaded with sugar to taste good” should be unpopular opinions.

This sounds completely backwards, like if you are talking purely about investment.

If not it seems to completely ignore that high prices alone would discourage spending, particularly on non-essential things (even then, don’t think for a second that there aren’t people skipping healthcare or meals).

The only other way I could interpret would be that high prices force people to spend more money on just essentials (even if they’re buying less than they otherwise would), somehow painting living paycheck-to-paycheck as a good thing because it means more money in the economy.

In an alternate universe:

“Why’d he do that?”

“Why wouldn’t he?”