Democrats in recent years win elections based on hatred of the incumbent Republican president but then quickly lose power once in office. Author Ed Burmila argues these defeats are in part because Democrats are addicted to a safe, milquetoast approach of casting themselves as centrist and competent, instead of pushing a core set of values and policies.

I agree with the sentiment, but it's not a "mistake." Centrists are beholden to billionaire dollars and therefore can't address the systemic problem caused by inequality. We have to correct the legalized corruption to address the situation.

Controlled opposition acts like controlled opposition.

Cute that the author thinks it's a mistake and not the whole core of the grift...

Author Ed Burmila says Democrats must get out of the pattern of winning elections based on anti-GOP sentiment but then governing in a milquetoast way that helps Republicans get back in power.

He's so close!

I'm sorry to tell you, Ed, but that pattern is their job. Good cop/bad cop, it's worked since ancient Rome, and it's working now.

An example... The Republicans pass wildly unpopular legislation that favors Amazon with A, B, C, D, the public suffers. The public votes against the Rs, and the Ds take office. They make a small concession for the voters against Amazon, who loses A, but keeps B, C, and D; the public suffers. The next generation of voters wants the suffering to end, so they vote in the Rs, and the process repeats.

bOtH pArTiEs use key popular issues to influence the next generation of voters as needed. For example, "the border" has been very reliable for at least 50 years.

The pattern is not an illusion. One hand takes, the other gives; both hands belong to the same interests. Think of the FED as a man; the Rs are the "bad" left hand, the Ds are the "good" right hand. The man has gotten very fat and is always hungry.

(look at who "serves" at the FED if you'd like more insight)