Chris Murphy

If we did that, yes, you're right, we would probably lose some piece of our coalition. There would probably be a handful of voters in Greenwich, Connecticut, I'll name it, right, that would be Right. That would be unhappy with the way in which we were, you know, calling out and naming certain companies or certain industries that were harming voters.

But I think the net benefit to the party, that kind of confrontational politics, explaining who's screwing you, which is what voters want. They want you to explain who's screwing them.

But I think the net benefit to the party, that kind of confrontational politics, explaining who's screwing you, which is what voters want. They want you to explain who's screwing them.

And an opening up of the tent would net far more voters into the coalition that it would lose in a group of very, very wealthy individuals who were probably with us only because of Trump's ethical problems and social issues that made them very distasteful.

And an opening up of the tent would net far more voters into the coalition that it would lose in a group of very, very wealthy individuals who were probably with us only because of Trump's ethical problems and social issues that made them very distasteful.

Well, the bet that Kamala Harris made in 2024 was that the democracy coalition would be bigger and stronger than the populist coalition. That's why Liz Cheney was inside the tent, not outside the tent. That was a bad bet in 2024. They were wrong. Whether or not a different coalition based around a more confrontational populism would have won the election, we'll never know.

Well, the bet that Kamala Harris made in 2024 was that the democracy coalition would be bigger and stronger than the populist coalition. That's why Liz Cheney was inside the tent, not outside the tent. That was a bad bet in 2024. They were wrong. Whether or not a different coalition based around a more confrontational populism would have won the election, we'll never know.

It is true that the threat is now much more real. And so you could make the argument that a coalition really focused on saving democracy might be bigger today because folks now know that he is truly serious. And that's probably a prescription to win favor.

It is true that the threat is now much more real. And so you could make the argument that a coalition really focused on saving democracy might be bigger today because folks now know that he is truly serious. And that's probably a prescription to win favor.

the House back, it's not really a prescription to win any meaningful, enduring majority in the Senate, because in the Senate, we need to win states like Missouri and Iowa. And in those places, I just don't think

the House back, it's not really a prescription to win any meaningful, enduring majority in the Senate, because in the Senate, we need to win states like Missouri and Iowa. And in those places, I just don't think

You can be competitive unless you are picking up those pieces of the Trump base that do want a more robust government role in the economy to make it fair, but who aren't necessarily with us on the social and cultural issues.

You can be competitive unless you are picking up those pieces of the Trump base that do want a more robust government role in the economy to make it fair, but who aren't necessarily with us on the social and cultural issues.

That's why I argue that you should risk losing a handful of people who think that the economic message is too spicy or at least push them to make a decision as to whether they care enough about democracy to stay in the coalition, even if it maybe is even more apparent now that they might have to pay a little bit higher tax rate or their company might get broken up a little faster if it's too big, if Democrats win.

That's why I argue that you should risk losing a handful of people who think that the economic message is too spicy or at least push them to make a decision as to whether they care enough about democracy to stay in the coalition, even if it maybe is even more apparent now that they might have to pay a little bit higher tax rate or their company might get broken up a little faster if it's too big, if Democrats win.

Yeah, the Declaration of Independence is a radical document for a number of reasons, but maybe the most radical phrase in that founding document is the government owes a right to its citizens to pursue happiness. And the underlying assumption is that the government has a responsibility not to deliver you the last mile, but

Yeah, the Declaration of Independence is a radical document for a number of reasons, but maybe the most radical phrase in that founding document is the government owes a right to its citizens to pursue happiness. And the underlying assumption is that the government has a responsibility not to deliver you the last mile, but

towards a happy, meaningful life, but to set the conditions upon which individuals can pursue happiness. It is true that this is a much less happy nation than at any time before in recorded data. We are a much more lonely nation. We are a much more disconnected nation.

towards a happy, meaningful life, but to set the conditions upon which individuals can pursue happiness. It is true that this is a much less happy nation than at any time before in recorded data. We are a much more lonely nation. We are a much more disconnected nation.

And I think it's OK for leaders to talk about that and to talk about the fact that there are more people waking up every day who don't feel a sense of purpose like they may have 50 or 60 years ago. And I think this is a conversation that either the Republican Party or the Democratic Party could have. But right now, in a vacuum lies opportunity.