So my basic response to this is I think extended periods of divided government are much worse now than they were in past eras.
If you care about, say, climate action, 10 years of divided government is a disaster.
If you care about, say, climate action, 10 years of divided government is a disaster.
https://twitter.com/DaveAHopkins/status/1446932001735446530
But you don't even need to get to the really big legislative priorities for it to be a problem.
Can you effectively staff the government and replace court vacancies amidst extended, divided government?
Probably not.
Can you effectively staff the government and replace court vacancies amidst extended, divided government?
Probably not.
https://twitter.com/awprokop/status/1446493705167331331
The alarm I raise in the piece is that if you care about the governance outcomes I do, the Democrats' Senate outlook is *very* worrying.
That's different than a party being doomed, and people with different governance views will see this one differently!
That's different than a party being doomed, and people with different governance views will see this one differently!
But I do think it'd be better if people evaluated politics from the perspective of likely outcomes for governance than likely outcomes for power.
Why We're Polarized is all about how divided government now leads to weak and unstable governance.
Why We're Polarized is all about how divided government now leads to weak and unstable governance.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
