I don’t really think that’s true either, honestly. Again, Dems should have a more aggressive economic agenda bc it is smart and good, but I’m not all that convinced it’ll motivate many new voters til it gets passed, if then.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
I think the argument boils down to this: we don’t know how much a populist argument fuels turnout. The populist economic policy planks are now (thanks in part to Obama btw) not so far apart from the nominally centrist ones.
So what it boils down to is trust more than policy, I think. And I happen to think what politician you trust has more to do with the dreaded identity politics (and who speaks to your identity/culture) than with class because *waves hand at US history*.
-
-
I’m not saying more progressive economics couldn’t help Dems pick up various seats in various places. But I really believe the best that’s going to get you is a 2008 scenario where Dems have a LOT of political power for 2 years and then a big backlash.
-
If what you want is a new stable political situation, where the government isn’t completely paralyzed by the two parties refusing to let each other govern, you have to tackle the cultural issues. Dems aren’t going to reshape American politics with more populism.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.