A.
@strandedblossom.bsky.social
Reposted by A.
I haven't spent a ton of time working through this, but it draws heavily on national party insights to make recommendations for Dem candidates... who are already doing these things?
Over three-quarters of Ds discuss economics, healthcare etc....
campaignview.org
www.nature.com/articles/s41...
Over three-quarters of Ds discuss economics, healthcare etc....
campaignview.org
www.nature.com/articles/s41...
October 27, 2025 at 7:03 PM
I haven't spent a ton of time working through this, but it draws heavily on national party insights to make recommendations for Dem candidates... who are already doing these things?
Over three-quarters of Ds discuss economics, healthcare etc....
campaignview.org
www.nature.com/articles/s41...
Over three-quarters of Ds discuss economics, healthcare etc....
campaignview.org
www.nature.com/articles/s41...
Reposted by A.
watergate was in 1972
One of the most exhausting things here is the idea that one thing leads to the next thing without any time in between. Bork was turfed in 1987. Would it have mattered? I don't know. But I do know that the Bork drama helped pave the way for a win-at-all-costs mentality, and Dems helped that.
I'm 45. Democrats have been trying to meet Republicans halfway my entire life. Do you sincerely believe that compromising on Bork would've prevented McConnell from kiboshing Garland's nomination? Would've prevented the rise of Trump and MAGA? Come on.
August 14, 2025 at 12:42 AM
watergate was in 1972
Reposted by A.
Some discussions I hope we’ll get to over time:
-is there public support to raise trillions of dollars of revenue over 10 years via tax hikes?
-if not, can Dems really roll back the tariffs and give up the $2-3 trillion in revenue they’re set to generate?
-what else do Dems want fiscally?
-is there public support to raise trillions of dollars of revenue over 10 years via tax hikes?
-if not, can Dems really roll back the tariffs and give up the $2-3 trillion in revenue they’re set to generate?
-what else do Dems want fiscally?
July 23, 2025 at 1:43 PM
Some discussions I hope we’ll get to over time:
-is there public support to raise trillions of dollars of revenue over 10 years via tax hikes?
-if not, can Dems really roll back the tariffs and give up the $2-3 trillion in revenue they’re set to generate?
-what else do Dems want fiscally?
-is there public support to raise trillions of dollars of revenue over 10 years via tax hikes?
-if not, can Dems really roll back the tariffs and give up the $2-3 trillion in revenue they’re set to generate?
-what else do Dems want fiscally?
Reposted by A.
I'm going to try and communicate with my Republican colleagues in a new way.
June 26, 2025 at 9:44 PM
I'm going to try and communicate with my Republican colleagues in a new way.
Reposted by A.
It's a sign of how unsatisfied the public was in 2024. But this also means that it would be a mistake to think there is a permanent realignment of disengaged voters. The key characteristic of disengaged voters as a group is that they swing easily and don't align long-term with either party.
May 16, 2025 at 5:08 PM
It's a sign of how unsatisfied the public was in 2024. But this also means that it would be a mistake to think there is a permanent realignment of disengaged voters. The key characteristic of disengaged voters as a group is that they swing easily and don't align long-term with either party.
Reposted by A.
Trump is one highly atypical person. It's arbitrary and baseless to say that in particular is why he won. Who else ever did that? Reagan didn't even renounce Nixon. He backed him until resignation, then didn't discuss him. Media are creating this because of their personal resentments.
May 15, 2025 at 2:43 AM
Trump is one highly atypical person. It's arbitrary and baseless to say that in particular is why he won. Who else ever did that? Reagan didn't even renounce Nixon. He backed him until resignation, then didn't discuss him. Media are creating this because of their personal resentments.