I largely agree with this.
The debate over how Dems can win more seats through messaging — whether popularism or viralism or something else — reflect them proving unable to deploy my preferred strategy: Winning more seats through governing.
The debate over how Dems can win more seats through messaging — whether popularism or viralism or something else — reflect them proving unable to deploy my preferred strategy: Winning more seats through governing.
https://twitter.com/dhopkins1776/status/1447202023464656900
This was my first feature at the Times. In some ways, the Shor piece reflects an admission that Democrats aren't going to pull this strategy off. nytimes.com/2021/01/21/opi…
But two points of realism:
1. 50 Dems, given Manchin and Sinema, were not enough to pass many of the policies I'd prefer. That's why winning more seats matters.
2. The policy feedback loop is weaker than I'd like to admit. Child Tax Credit didn't drive Biden's numbers up.
1. 50 Dems, given Manchin and Sinema, were not enough to pass many of the policies I'd prefer. That's why winning more seats matters.
2. The policy feedback loop is weaker than I'd like to admit. Child Tax Credit didn't drive Biden's numbers up.
A very direct thing Democrats could do is to get rid of the filibuster, pass some version of the electoral reform legislation, and offer statehood to DC and Puerto Rico.
But to do that, they need to win more seats with candidates who believe in doing all that!
But to do that, they need to win more seats with candidates who believe in doing all that!
If this thread is confusing, here's the new piece I'm talking about! nytimes.com/2021/10/08/opi…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
