The “other party” doesn’t necessarily need to win next cycle.
But they do. They invariably do, if you look at history. And so, if your choice is between deterioration and stagnation, the net result over time is deterioration.
The only reason Democrats can afford to not increase welfare is because of Republican voters.
Could you elucidate on this point a bit? I could see how democratic politicians are beholden to their corporate donors first, and democratic voters second. But to imply that they somehow answer to people who don’t vote for them (republican voters) is a perspective I haven’t really ever heard before.
But they do. They invariably do, if you look at history. And so, if your choice is between deterioration and stagnation, the net result over time is deterioration.
Could you elucidate on this point a bit? I could see how democratic politicians are beholden to their corporate donors first, and democratic voters second. But to imply that they somehow answer to people who don’t vote for them (republican voters) is a perspective I haven’t really ever heard before.
He thinks giving people who run on decreasing welfare a mandate will stop them from decreasing welfare.