Sent out: Aug 15, 2026, 11:15 AM TDT / 4:15 PM UTC
Submitted by: Alexandreu Davinescu on behalf of the Progressive Alliance
Count: 2 of 2 allowed

---

<PROG logo>

As the election winds to a close, we want to ask you one more time to help us keep things moving and to help us save the Senäts. This storied institution is in danger, since our main opposition has vowed to destroy it and turn it into a powerless advisory committee.

Vote Progressive & Save the Senäts!

Yes, we plan to have real physical embassies, beautiful paper maps, and a new approach to our national website. But we also want to fight to preserve what's already been built. We don't subscribe to the philosophy that you cannot move forward unless you burn the past down -- we want to hold on the achievements of the past.

Click here to vote on the database:
https://database.talossa.com/elections/august-2026-elections

or click here to vote on Wittenberg:
https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=5436.msg44709#msg44709

For more about our platform:
https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=5411.0

Final reminders going out by email right now, as well as the second PROG mailer. Two days and six hours left to vote.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Today at 09:24:06 AMI think you might be conflating two things. There's a difference between criticizing policies or ideas, and attacking people personally. We see some of that in this election, too, because the main criticism that I've seen of the Progs is noting how dominant I am when it comes to government activity.

It may be difficult to tell the difference between valid criticism of your government's record and personal attack when the line between individual and Government has been allowed to blur so much, but I can assure you, this is the former.

When you are in government and are running for re-election, one thing you must address, in addition to things like ideology and future plans, is past performance. Some governments likely find this quite easy; this government will have a harder time of it:

- Formation reliant on a politically extreme party, producing a narrow and often-unstable majority;
- Intentional exclusion of skilled and cooperative administrators on the basis of personal spite;
- Employment of individuals rightly condemned for sexual harrassment;
- Failure to deliver on multiple self-imposed goals related to immigration, culture, etc. (see point #2 for a major cause);
- Abuse and improper politicization of non-partisan institutions, including the CRL process and claiming Government credit for work of the Royal Civil Service;
- We can now add to the list "overzealous attempts to prosecute someone who does not actually exist".

I do not envy the Sisyphean task before you.

QuoteBut that's different than saying that it would be a bad idea to establish physical embassies, or that it's unrealistic, or that people would hate it. That would be focusing on our policies and challenging them.

On the contrary, we've said very explicitly that the few and modest objectives your party is offering are generally acceptable, but that if one wants something a bit more forward-thinking, the URL is the correct choice. If we're offering any big criticism of these objectives, what we're noting is that the shift in tone between your previous platform of promising the world and this platform is the implicit recognition that last time, you bit off more than you could chew, and failed to deliver.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on Yesterday at 04:25:38 PM

Quote from: Glüc on Yesterday at 04:30:39 AMThere hasn't been much election debate going on so far. Although admittedly I probably missed some of it due to not paying attention. I've read the mailers, but I think party leaders questioning each other about what and how they intend to do things (or for example how they would approach the next government formation) might be more informative.

This is one of those "can't win for losing" situations. In previous elections people have complained that Talossans are too mean and personal and combative. We were told explicitly that in the last election, the URL's sharp critiques of Progressive politics lost us the election. So this election we've made a special effort to pivot to constructive "this is what WE'LL do" stuff rather than bashing the Progs. And that's the wrong rock too, apparently :D

I think you might be conflating two things. There's a difference between criticizing policies or ideas, and attacking people personally. We see some of that in this election, too, because the main criticism that I've seen of the Progs is noting how dominant I am when it comes to government activity. And that's a completely fair critique, and it's usually true whenever I'm in government because I have a hyperabundance of energy and like to do a lot of stuff. It's certainly not coming off as nasty, when compared with the last election, when a lot of this kind of criticism was focused on my character personally. I'm grateful for that!

But that's different than saying that it would be a bad idea to establish physical embassies, or that it's unrealistic, or that people would hate it. That would be focusing on our policies and challenging them.

For myself, I think that comes from what seems to be a very fundamental difference in the approach of the two parties. Our party is overwhelmingly focused on building things and offering new programs, and the URL is focused on changing laws. That was true in the last election, as well. I don't think either of those approaches are wrong, but they are so different that they are different visions of government, more than different programs.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on Yesterday at 04:25:38 PMCan I also notice that there is a real problem implicit in Glüc's comment about "Miestră and AD" cooperating. The leader and Seneschal candidate of the URL is Mic'haglh Autófil. The extent to which Mic'haglh is not seen as a separate entity to myself is regrettable, and something we've been trying to counteract, but it seems that that can't happen until I leave Talossa altogether :D

I think the perception is that you provide a lot of the main energy for your party. You're on Witt easily twice as much as he is, so people just see a lot more of you.

5 votes in with 2 days to go.

These are the standings so far (with some hints):

1. - 31 points - Only 1 top-3 vote
2. - 26 points - Got points from all 5 voters so far
3. - 24 points - Not in the top 20 last year
4. - 22 points - Highest standard deviation
5. - 21 points - Eliminated in Round 2 last year
6. - 21 points - Artist has a song in the hall of fame
7. - 20 points - Second highest standard deviation
8. - 19 points - Two 1 point votes
9. - 19 points - Highest to get no top-3 votes
10. - 18 points - Has been in top 20 more than 3 times before
11 - 18 points - Nominated before 2020
12 - 17 points - First place in the semifinal
13. - 15 points - 5th place in the semifinal
14. - 13 points - Lowest to get 12 points
14. - 6 points - Top 5 last year!

Stage 8  »  Puçol  ›  Xeraco

Fuller update later but the main news, Pogacar's retirement, is already out anyway.

REX wins the stage thanks to Pedersen finally getting a result on the board (2nd behind non-TCAT Coquard at his first grand tour stage victory at 34). Brennan only managed 10th due to poor positioning; De Jong got 15th. The final of many crashes took out Groves and De Schuyteneer.

Standings after stage 8:

Pos	±		Team	Pts Ove	Pts Today
1st	(=)		Cézembre Caçeirs dals Mailintzarăs (BDC)	3578	+144
2nd	(=)		Gordon Hiatus Support Team (GHS)	3192	+159
3rd	(=)		The Manilows (MAN)	2957	+124
4th	(=)		Cyclohexane (CHX)	2795	+62
5th	(=)		Velociposse Florencia (VFL)	2654	+76
6th	(=)		Port Maxhestic AC (PTM)	2635	+79
7th	(=)		Naziun Cjovani (CJO)	2513	+141
8th	(=)		Maritiimi-Maxhestic Mençeis (MMM)	2472	+198
9th	(+1)		Cézembre Fieschā (CFA)	2118	+245
10th	(-1)		Dirnalaiset Mortescu (DED)	1923	+24
11th	(=)		Els Talossaes Rexhital (REX)	1836	+277

I am also trying to get Crement to allow me use of his recipe for okonamiyaki. It's either that or butter mochi. If I am lucky perhaps both.

Quote from: Glüc on Yesterday at 04:30:39 AMThere hasn't been much election debate going on so far. Although admittedly I probably missed some of it due to not paying attention. I've read the mailers, but I think party leaders questioning each other about what and how they intend to do things (or for example how they would approach the next government formation) might be more informative.

This is one of those "can't win for losing" situations. In previous elections people have complained that Talossans are too mean and personal and combative. We were told explicitly that in the last election, the URL's sharp critiques of Progressive politics lost us the election. So this election we've made a special effort to pivot to constructive "this is what WE'LL do" stuff rather than bashing the Progs. And that's the wrong rock too, apparently :D

An actual leader's debate was scheduled, but didn't happen for whatever reason. But the constructive answer to Glüc's question is that the URL have emphasized government formation, in the sense that we keep going on and on about team government, and criticized the incumbent's tendency to "one man band" forms of organization.

Can I also notice that there is a real problem implicit in Glüc's comment about "Miestră and AD" cooperating. The leader and Seneschal candidate of the URL is Mic'haglh Autófil. The extent to which Mic'haglh is not seen as a separate entity to myself is regrettable, and something we've been trying to counteract, but it seems that that can't happen until I leave Talossa altogether :D

On behalf of the people of Norway, I express my gratitude for your solidarity and comfort.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 07:54:13 AMwe do better with higher turnout.

Turnout has indeed been low so far. Only 4 votes yet on the Talossan Music Top 20 Final. Lets hope the final days see another burst of voters.

I still intend to do a TMT20 broadcast in the voice channel on discord on election night, if there's enough people around who are interested.