Read on Twitter
I think there’s good evidence that visible, tangible policies create feedback loops - Clinton failing to pass HC isn’t contrary evidence on this score.
But even if I’m wrong, then at least you passed good policies and helped a lot of people before losing! https://twitter.com/awprokop/status/1352300536842887172
But even if I’m wrong, then at least you passed good policies and helped a lot of people before losing! https://twitter.com/awprokop/status/1352300536842887172
One other possibility I take seriously but don’t argue in the piece: The book “Stealth Democracy” has a lot of evidence for the idea that what people hate is long, drawn out, angry legislative fighting. Policy preferences are weak, but process aversion is strong.
I suspect that getting rid of the filibuster and just passing lots of big stuff is a better looking process, for all the carping Republicans will do, then fighting in Congress endlessly and not getting much done.
At any rate, the likely scenario is Democrats lose Congress in 2022. To avoid that, they need to try something radically different. This is my suggestion, and even if it fails to hold Congress, it would at least make the country better off.
One other point: There is very good evidence that policy wins create political feedback loops over time. Medicare, Social Security, and in recent years, Obamacare, are all examples. My argument in the piece is you can speed that cycle up by accelerating benefits delivery.
Here’s the thought experiment: If Obamacare had expanded Medicaid to 200% of the poverty line and dropped Medicare to 55 *in 2010*, would Dems have been better off in the midterms? I can’t prove it, but I think so.
