Schumer - Single Payer is on the table, target is to win back Obama/Trump voters

[OSR stands with Israel]

Going populist will cause them to get crushed in the suburbs like they used too meaning GOP will do better .

[OSR stands with Israel]

Going populist will cause them to get crushed in the suburbs like they used too meaning GOP will do better.

When was the last time Democrats got crushed in the suburbs during a Presidential election? 1988 I'm guessing?

Which was the last election before the New Democrats took over the party and moderated the party .

[OSR stands with Israel]

Pelosi said that they aren't looking for a course correction, so I wouldn't get my hopes up here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/343344-dems-to-announce-a-better-deal-economic-agenda-on-monday-report

When was the last time Democrats got crushed in the suburbs during a Presidential election? 1988 I'm guessing?

Which was the last election before the New Democrats took over the party and moderated the party .

And that's almost exactly when their 40 year control of the House came to an end.

Would you rather go back to a time when republicans had a huge advantage in presidential races so the democrats are dominant in congress .

[OSR stands with Israel]

Going populist will cause them to get crushed in the suburbs like they used too meaning GOP will do better.

When was the last time Democrats got crushed in the suburbs during a Presidential election? 1988 I'm guessing?

Which was the last election before the New Democrats took over the party and moderated the party .

I'll grant you this: Democrats need a crisis to win with a clear mandate in order to get their progressive populist agenda through. Reagan needed stagflation, Roosevelt needed the Great Depression, etc. These events don't happen easily and right now there's very little desire to do anything big. Our Government was purposely and deliberately designed to be slow moving and big things change only when we're forced to confront something head on ala 1980 and 1932.

So this populist agenda is go big or go home message. I don't think we'll get "crushed" in 2020 though even if we lose.

Pelosi said that they aren't looking for a course correction, so I wouldn't get my hopes up here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/343344-dems-to-announce-a-better-deal-economic-agenda-on-monday-report

We need Tim Ryan.

Populist will work in 2020 but in 2024 it will cause a huge defeat .


In my opinion You are right 2024/2028 will be a realignment ,just your wrong on which one it will be .
In my opinion 2 consecutive administrations of far right (2017-2021) and far left failures (2021-2025 /2029) it will result in a centrist realignment.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Pelosi said that they aren't looking for a course correction, so I wouldn't get my hopes up here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/343344-dems-to-announce-a-better-deal-economic-agenda-on-monday-report

When was the last time Democrats got crushed in the suburbs during a Presidential election? 1988 I'm guessing?

Which was the last election before the New Democrats took over the party and moderated the party .

And that's almost exactly when their 40 year control of the House came to an end.

Would you rather go back to a time when republicans had a huge advantage in presidential races so the democrats are dominant in congress .

George HW Bush had a 40% approval rating on election day. You didn't need a Clintonite to defeat him. Mario Cuomo would certainly have done the job.

You didn't answer my question of would u rather go back to a time when the GOP Dominated most presidential elections for democrats dominating congress again .

[OSR stands with Israel]

In my opinion You are right 2024/2028 will be a realignment ,just your wrong on which one it will be .
In my opinion 2 consecutive administrations of far right (2017-2021) and far left failures (2021-2025/2029) it will result in a centrist realignment.

Centrism isn't a coherent ideology; it's something that morphs with the times. Eisenhower Republicanism in the 1950's was created by the New Deal just as Third Way Democratic politics was created by the Reagan Revolution.

Our system of governance (along with the human psyche) is far too reactive to events that hit us hard. Any kind of centrism in the 2030's will be crafted by the GOP adopting to the new era.

I mean centrism like this


The vast majority of Republicans being like John Kasich /John McCain and the furthest right republicans being like George W Bush and furthest left being Bill Clinton (his policies not his personal views)

Most democrats being like Barack Obama with furthest left being like Jerry Brown (his current Cali tenure)and furthest right like Cory Booker

[OSR stands with Israel]

Pelosi said that they aren't looking for a course correction, so I wouldn't get my hopes up here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/343344-dems-to-announce-a-better-deal-economic-agenda-on-monday-report

When was the last time Democrats got crushed in the suburbs during a Presidential election? 1988 I'm guessing?

Which was the last election before the New Democrats took over the party and moderated the party .

And that's almost exactly when their 40 year control of the House came to an end.

Would you rather go back to a time when republicans had a huge advantage in presidential races so the democrats are dominant in congress .

George HW Bush had a 40% approval rating on election day. You didn't need a Clintonite to defeat him. Mario Cuomo would certainly have done the job.

You didn't answer my question of would u rather go back to a time when the GOP Dominated most presidential elections for democrats dominating congress again .

I reject the idea that only a 3rd wayer can win for the Democrats. Are you really going to claim that George HW Bush and his 40% approval rating would have beaten Mario Cuomo?

Would hw approval be so low without Perot keep attacking him (who may haven't run without a third way dem ) and his approval rose above 50 percent when he left office . Anyway if he won Dems wouldn't make the long term gains in presidential election they did under clinton .

So will u trade long term advantages for presidential elections for congressional and local elections .

[OSR stands with Israel]

In my opinion You are right 2024/2028 will be a realignment ,just your wrong on which one it will be .
In my opinion 2 consecutive administrations of far right (2017-2021) and far left failures (2021-2025/2029) it will result in a centrist realignment.

Centrism isn't a coherent ideology; it's something that morphs with the times. Eisenhower Republicanism in the 1950's was created by the New Deal just as Third Way Democratic politics was created by the Reagan Revolution.

Our system of governance (along with the human psyche) is far too reactive to events that hit us hard. Any kind of centrism in the 2030's will be crafted by the GOP adopting to the new era.

I mean centrism like this


The vast majority of Republicans being like John Kasich /John McCain and the furthest right republicans being like George W Bush and furthest left being Bill Clinton (his policies not his personal views)

Most democrats being like Barack Obama with furthest left being like Jerry Brown (his current Cali tenure)and furthest right like Cory Booker

How much in common is a George W. Bush style conservative gonna have with a Democrat who agrees with California governor Jerry Brown? That's still a very polarized political environment and nothing of that describes a centrist political atmosphere.

Except in this case they are the furthest right and left in their parties and not the dominant.

The overwhelming dominant will be Obama style Dems vs Kasich/McCain style dems

[OSR stands with Israel]

I don't think so. The underlying causes and aftereffects of the 2008 financial crisis haven't been adequately addressed beyond financial reform and it's gonna take us to get hit hard again to restructure our macroeconomy in a way that fixes it for good. And that President who solves it will be as beloved as Reagan and Roosevelt were and their legacy and policies will force the opposition Party to moderate.

I think these are the only things that need to be fixed : reinstate glass stegall and have Feds rate rates a few times . Other then that the current system will be fine.


Anyway people who live in the suburbs are usually benefit least from populism and there is no way Dems can win without the suburbs.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I don't think so. The underlying causes and aftereffects of the 2008 financial crisis haven't been adequately addressed beyond financial reform and it's gonna take us to get hit hard again to restructure our macroeconomy in a way that fixes it for good. And that President who solves it will be as beloved as Reagan and Roosevelt were and their legacy and policies will force the opposition Party to moderate.

I think these are the only things that need to be fixed : reinstate glass stegall and have Feds rate rates a few times . Other then that the current system will be fine.


Anyway people who live in the suburbs are usually benefit least from populism and there is no way Dems can win without the suburbs.

We aren't reinstating any kind of glass steagall and to be honest I don't even think the financial system crashing will be the cataclyst to the crisis. There's a few things to keep an eye on:

1. Private debt accumulation coupled with low inflation and no real wage growth is really taking a beating on tens of millions of people out there. I worry about this the same exact way hardline Tea Partiers worry about the national debt. Couple this with fairly crappy economic opportunities for young people, the gutting of the heartland through the opioid epidemic and economic decline, etc. has made a populace both here and in Europe that is very angry, very bitter, and is demanding for decent political solutions to their problems.

2. State pension systems are usually underfunded and given that economic growth has been concentrated more in certain states and regions of the country (rather than being dispersed fairly evenly), this is gonna cause some crises. Illinois is only one example; but plenty of states have older populations and underfunded pensions systems with limited economic growth and fleeing youth populations. They're gonna be in trouble soon.

3. Our politicians are completely dumbfounded on how to deal with the largest technological revolution since the industrial revolution unfolding before our eyes. A lot of Silicon Valley billionaires aren't taking this lightly either; they understand that this is going to uproot large segments of the American population not seen in a century. But this time unlike last we have a middle class, safety net, etc. People want those things and they're not gonna take technological upheaval well if it means that Republican or state level politicians insist on cutting the budget for these programs during the transitionary phase we're going through.

Supply side economics was created to deal with high inflation, high unemployment, and to create more capital. None of these are problems in today's world. The problems today include: no real wage growth, private debt accumulation plus extremely little inflation to help eat away at the debt, capital underutilization, displaced workers from globalziation, etc. The set of problems we have today are dramatically different than they were in the early 80's.

Yah I know but the suburbs get hit by far less of those problems than urban and rural areas . The Reagan Revolution didn't happen cause people in urban areas became more conservative it happened cause of the rise of suburbs which will keep a check on A leftist revolution from happening.

If you look at it Reagan mainly won on the same coaliton Nixon built except suburbs were much more influential  in the 1980s then when Nixon was in charge and Reagan was a lot more charismatic .