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.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
I mean, actually yes, it was. Obamacare was too much of a government intrusion, and the deficit spending was bankrupting America. That’s what the Tea Party et al ran on. What they MEANT was “I hate that black guy” but what they ran on was anti-economic populism.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @csilverandgold
As far as I’m concerned, Dems lost so bad in 2010 bc a) we relied heavily on a coalition that has lower midterm turnout, b) the president’s party ALWAYS loses in midterms, and c) racism. With a fig leaf of “stop spending money on poor people.”
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Lol. Maybe if your preferred marginalized group is in the majority. Tell me about the Democrat that will win running on reparations, lol.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Yeah but that’s not an electoral strategy per se. It’s a coalition management strategy. You can’t satisfy the policy preferences of your whole coalition, so you tell your far flank (left OR right) “we won’t do anything good for you, but they’ll do a LOT bad for you.”
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @csilverandgold
It’s literally what politicians on both sides did for 24 years.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Really more like 30+ if we’re being all the way real and evaluating Actual Historical Record Reagan rather than Imaginary Conservative Hagiography Reagan.
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.