So why have the Dems had trouble in a "center-left" country?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

The answer: Half have been well-intentioned but asleep at the switch, and half have been secretly complicit with Republican aims.

They let themselves become a yuppie party and didn't stick up for working class Americans when they could have by providing low-interest loans to distressed farmers, by refusing to ratify trade agreements with Third World countries, by acting all timid on universal health care, passing the repeal of Glass-Steagall, and continuing to feed the military-industrial complex, which foments wars that working class youth die in.

Furthermore, by compromising too eagerly with the Republicans, they provided support for the Republicans' positions. Instead of forthrightly proclaiming the New Deal legacy, they mouthed meaningless platitudes and/or acted as if they basically agreed with the Republicans (for which the DLC is forever on my shit list).

For example, in the Bush-Gore debates, whenever Bush came out with a strong position, Gore would say, "Me too, only not so much." When asked to present his own positions, he'd say things like, "We're for policies that help working families." He said that over and over without explaining what that meant. That's why 1/3 of the voters were still undecided a few days before the election.

In the Bush-Kerry contest, I could go to Bush's website and find out on the front page exactly what his positions were. With Kerry's website, there was a lot of meaningless policy wonk gobbledygook, and you had to go deep into the website and download PDFs (and everyone just loves PDFs, right?) of more policy wonk gobbledygook to find out what Kerry's positions were. When he spoke (and I heard him in person twice), he seemed to be just going through the motions and mouthing more platitudes.

Polls show overwhelming support for universal health care, other than among the AM radio/Fox News zombies who swarm the online readers' comments of local newspapers. So what did the Obama administration do with popular approval and majorities in both Houses?

They came up with a plan that was 1) basically Republican (the Republicans have been urging compulsory private health insurance since the Reagan administration, and their "opposition" was all theater) and 2) so complicated and negotiated so secretly that the public couldn't tell what was in it, which allowed the Republicans to make up all sorts of scare stories, based on Americans' ignorance of how foreign health systems actually work.

I actually searched the web for information about the Obama administration's proposal, and information was hard to find. The text of Conyers' single payer bill was easy to find and easy to understand, but there were no official editions or even official executive summaries of the Obama administration's initial proposal. Finally, I found an executive summary by the Kaiser Family Foundation, and I saw a complicated, patchwork bill that would place severe financial burdens on middle-middle-income people (those too "rich" to qualify for subsidies and too poor to really afford insurance) and shore up the position of the vultures in the private insurance industry.

Yes, there were some good provisions, but the overall concept was horrible, although not in the way the Republicans told their followers. The Republicans spread scare stories about "government health care," when the Obama bill was so plainly just the opposite.

The SMART thing to do would have been for Obama to announce that his administration was going to institute a single-payer health plan that would cover all Americans. It would have been describable in no more than five short sentences (as the health care systems of other countries, such as Canada, the UK, Japan, and Germany are) and as the Conyers bill could have been. It should have been published far and wide, with the added comment, "This is what we will fight for, and if you don't get this, it will be the Republicans fault."

Then he should have mobilized all his eager campaign workers, the ones still basking in the electoral victory, and urged them to go out into their neighborhoods and advocate for single-payer health care. The volunteers would have stamped postcards addressed to their local Congresscritters and Senators, both R and D, on which people who agreed with them could write personal messages.

Every time the Republicans lied, the Democrats should have jumped on them with simple facts--and boldly stated that they were LYING.

The "compromise" position would have been:"Anyone who likes their current private insurance may keep it, but most people will prefer this system, which covers all legal residents of the U.S. at a much lower cost."

But alas, that's only my fantasy. The Dems remain wishy-washy, when the current roster of loonies of the Republican side should have them in a strong position.

No wonder 50% of Americans don't vote, and no wonder some of the people I know who were avid Obama supporters are stating that they won't vote in 2012 (a position I try to argue them out of, since the down-ballot races are extremely important).

Yes, I know that Obama can't wave a magic wand, but he has not sufficiently used the powers that he does have: veto power, executive orders, the bully pulpit, rallying supporters to flood Congress with phone calls, e-mails, and letters (something Reagan excelled at).

[xchrom]

1. du rec. nt

[RC]

2. Well researched, factual post.

It will sink like a rock.

[Morning Dew]

3. Hope not.

kick.

[Bryn]

46. another kick

K&R

[hfojvt]

5. I think that is nonsense

The public wanted single payer? Really, because a bunch of Republicans got swept into Congress campaigning against a "government take over of healthcare". Not just the magical Obamacare. No, they basically equated Obamacare with single payer, with socialised medicine - and they won.

I cannot remember the Bush-Gore debates. I don't think I even watched them. Why should I when I was not at all undecided about who to support?

As for Gore's performance - Gore won those debates, but then the MEDIA started spinning - Gore sighed, Gore lied.

To ignore the media is ridiculous. The media went all in FOR Bush and all in AGAINST Gore. Somerby calls in the "war on Gore" and details it quite thoroughly on his two sites, particularly "How he (Bush) got there" where he has just posted Chapter 6 of 12. http://www.howhegotthere.blogspot.com/

However, the media painted Bush as some kind of moderate. Bush ran as a "compassionate conservative" and the media, as well as Nader, pushed the idea that "there is barely any difference between Bush and Gore". Why did they do that? I think it is very simple. They all make multiple millions of dollars, and they did very well with the Bush tax cuts. At $5 million a year, Chris Matthews has saved about $3,000,000 in taxes over the last ten years of the Bush tax cuts. Hell, for three million dollars, even I might help to elect George W. Bush. Let's face it, that is a lot of coin.

Then, of course, there was Nader. Gore won by over 500,000 votes, but lost the electoral college because of Nader. Nader on the ballot and the Nader campaign were indisputably responsible for putting Bush into 1600 Pa, although I can hear the denial machine cranking up even as a type this - people will jump in with SCOTUS and Florida as if that explains New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Oregon, New Mexico and Iowa.

As for Kerry. For one thing, I think he should have EMBRACED the flip-flopper label. That makes you a person who can learn from and admit your mistakes. For another though, I think he shot himself in the foot, big time, when Kerry said that he would have voted for the Iraq war anyway. When I head that I smacked myself in the forehead and said "you have got to be fucking kidding me!"

Finally, there is money. Republicans have lots of it, to get their message out and Democrats don't have nearly as much, and sorta have to sell out the message in order to get it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

15. I DO remember watching the Bush-Gore debates and tearing my hair out

in frustration.

As for Oregon, I was living there in 2000, and Gore carried it. There was a large Nader vote, to be sure, but Gore did carry the state.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

21. A bunch of Republicans got swept into office because

1) Obama and the other Dems never explained their health care plan in a simple, concise, easily-understood language, leaving the Republicans leeway a) to dig up every horror story about Canadian and British health care from the past fifty years, and b) to raise the specter of "illegal immigrants" crossing the border to have "anchor babies" and free health care and "welfare mothers" having "one kid after another' on the taxpayers' dime (Never underestimate the appeal of racism.) and c) To cite bogus statistics.

2) Meanwhile, the lefties, who were expecting a real health plan, as opposed to an insurance company corporate welfare plan, were angry about this, the continuation of the Iraq War, the expansion of the Afghan War, the coddling of Wall Street as opposed to the "tough love" for the GM rank and file workers, and they stayed home, which was dumb, but that's what they did.

[Cosmocat]

37. All due respect to the OP - fantasy

They could not even get a single payer out of the house - I wrote to friggen Heath Shuler, the head of the blue dog caucus and included information where people would support single payer, and he had their block vote against the final bill that, as noted, was FAR SHORT of single payer.

Single payer was NEVER, NEVER, NEVER going to get out of the senate - see Max Baucus, who was in charge of the committee which drew up their version of the bill and took more money from the insurance industry than any other politician.

The final bill - again, FAR SHORT of single payer never fully passed, and only slipped through under reconciliation.

BO actually, you know SERVED IN THE SENATE, and knew what he could and could not get through, and as it turned out, he barely got it through.

Just absolute fantasy that somehow BO would have sheparded single payer through by the "bully pulpit" and telling people to e-mail and call legislators. Legislators were BOUGHT, the media that reported the ridiculous BS the right wing spewed as fact was BOUGHT, and the media which never refuted the nonsense the right wing spewed INCLUDING the corrections Obama and other democrats made was BOUGHT.

As noted, Gore killed Bush in the debates. Coming off a period of peace and great economic times, our populace was fat, lazy and more than willing to buy the load of crap about how Bush was a "guy you would like to have a beer with" while Gore was some kind of arrogant DC insider - and the right wing had the BOUGHT media in line with their nonsense about Clinton, and how Bush would "restore dignity and honor" to the white house, not to mention their BS about, of all things "not engaging in nation building."

Kerry lost because of 9-11, pure and simple. The right wing, and again, the BOUGHT MEDIA said, "well, yeah, Bush was a disaster, but "HE KEPT US SAFE!" while portraying Bush's negatives of being a thoughtless blowhard as "a straight shooter who goes from his gut!" while painting a decent, honorable and thoughtful veteran who actually SERVED, was wounded in battle and honored as being weak. The country was still traumatized by 9-11 just enough for the Rs to keep power for two more year - it caught up to them in 06 and 08.

This is the kind of shiite that separates Rs from us in a big way. Rs stood behind Bush 100 percent, BO has to pull the knives out of both sides of his back.

Practically speaking, it is reflected by the parties. The main issue here is that more so than at any time in our history, one party has near unanimous control of all of its congressmen and women. The Rs more than any party in our history, stay in line and vote as one. Ds actually now are two parties - the liberal and progressive party AND the mushy center party.

It is better to have the Blue Dogs as Ds than Rs, because again, you lose them IN TOTAL. But, you have to realize that half the party is not going to go out on a limb, to them, for strong progressive and liberal issues.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

39. You must have been in an alternative universe, because in my universe

the president still has the power to veto legislation he doesn't like and send it back. As Obama should have done with any health care bill that didn't have a public option.

As Obama should have done with any legislation that retained the tax cuts for the rich or the extension of the Patriot Act.

Also, did you actually WATCH the Bush-Gore debates? Bush would make a strong statement, and Gore would either agree or say, "Well, not quite so much." Instead of presenting a specific agenda, he'd just say, "I'm for policies that benefit working families." He said that every time and never explained what it meant.

[onenote]

44. In which case there would have been no health care legislation or even more tepid legislation

If there wasn't enough pressure on members of either party to pass a single payer, then vetoing something that was short of single payer wasn't going to create that pressure. Indeed, the bill that you think the President should've vetoed wouldn't have been enacted if there was any thought that it was going to be vetoed. So you'd have nothing, and members would have been scrambling to come up with something far lamer than what we ended up with.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

50. if Obama had started by insisting on single payer, then a public option would have been

the compromise position.

Obama compromised pre-emptively, which is a horrible negotiating tactic if he really wanted to improve the health care system and not just provide corporate welfare for the insurance companies.

[Major Nikon]

79. It could have also died in committee had he pushed for too much

Should FDR have vetoed the Social Security Act if it covered less than half the workers in the US?

Well it didn't, and he didn't. The program evolved and got better, and the reason it got better is because people came to recognize it as an extremely successful program.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

87. Social Security is the wrong analogy

The Obama plan is as if the first Social Security system had been a requirement for everyone to invest in a private pension plan.

Social Security was public from the start.

[Major Nikon]

89. No analogy is perfect match

Pointing out irrelevant differences in the analogy is disingenuous. The point was FDR didn't get everything he wanted with Social Security and improvements didn't come for many years. That doesn't mean it wasn't a worthwhile endeavor.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

91. A publicly financed old age insurance plan vs. a requirement to buy private insurance

with very few limits on what the vultures can charge and the promise of government subsidies in case the insured can't afford the premiums?

[Major Nikon]

93. Yes, you can pretend that's the issue if you like

But I'm not going to go there with you.

Cheers!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

94. And you can pretend that it's not

but I wonder what people are going to say in 2014 when all of a sudden they are forced to buy high-deductible insurance that doesn't necessarily guarantee medical care.

[Major Nikon]

100. The reason all of this is disengenuous is because it completely ignores political reality

The issue at hand is did the President get the best deal he possibly could under the circumstances? I say he did. I say he did a damn fine job under the circumstances, and I point to relevant historical perspective to support that assertion. Now certainly you can talk all day about how the law would be better if we had this or that, and you may very well be correct. But that doesn't mean you can get that all at once given our current political climate. It also doesn't mean we won't get there eventually. California does have a public option in some areas, because at least one county has formed a non-profit and is doing just that. Once news of those successes get out, other places will be doing the same thing. Health insurance in the US will evolve eventually and the bill we have now will force that evolution. The ball is already rolling.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

104. "Some men see things as they are and say why - I dream things that never were and say why not"

George Bernard Shaw, as often quoted by Robert Kennedy.

[Major Nikon]

119. And there's nothing wrong with that

But if you ever want to actually figure out how to get from the dream state to implementation, you have to deal with reality at some point. The reality is that the private health insurance industry is a multi-billion dollar operation that is not going to go down quietly. The reality is that you have politicians who can be heavily influenced by political contributions. The reality is you have a public than can be heavily influenced by grossly misleading information that fits into a 30 second television commercial and will never take the time to actually read and understand what the real issues are. The reality is that a very larger percentage of the population has been brainwashed into thinking private industry always does things better than the government.

[TheKentuckian]

117. How is the basic structure of a program "irrelevant"?

Saying how a program works isn't important indicates that we aren't even having the same conversation. What can turn to shit real, real fast if you insist on ignoring how.

"Adding later" to a fundementally flawed and counter-productive structure cannot fix it, it remains broken with a series of add on features that are perverted to serve systemic entropy.
You are arguing there is no such thing as a bad plan, only one without enough bells and whistles.

Even when fewer vocations had access to Social Security, it was working as planned for those in the system. Adding additional benefits and expanding access built onto a sound foundation, not the reverse of the program sucked until the additions were in place. This train of thought seems to be really stuck in "how much" that actual direction cannot be considered, much less discussed. Anything will do, if you do enough of it.

[Major Nikon]

118. Go back to post 50

The poster was alleging all Obama had to do was veto the bill and hold out for a better plan, or he should have asked for single payer up front and the result would have been a public option. This is a poor assumption as the result could have also been nothing at all.

Now if you want to argue that what we got was worse than nothing, I'm not going to go there with you on that subject either. Those arguments have already been made from both directions ad nauseum and I'm not going to dredge them up.

[TheKentuckian]

129. I'm saying we don't have a structure that is fit to expand on. We will have to replace it

as surely as we needed to replace what we have now, in fact they are very close to the same critter.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

124. Yes, that's what I was trying to say

The fundamental concept is flawed.

When millions are suddenly forced to buy insurance that they can't afford, they will be pissed off, and for them, it WILL be worse than nothing.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

97. The president has the power to VETO legislation. He doesn't MAKE legislation.

That job belongs to the Congress. Before he can veto anything, it's got to get through Congress.

*sighing*

[Cosmocat]

103. Veto the only HCR to clear congress in 4 decades?

He would have committed political suicide if he vetoed the bill that passed, to both the left and right.

Large disconnect from reality to suggest it.

As was, just dragging this bill over the finish line was enough fuel to give the lunatic right wing and the MSM the energy to sweep the house and darn near take the senate in 2010.

I know you can't believe this, but covering your ears, jumping up and down and screaming na, na, na does not change the fact that there was NO WAY single payer or universal care was going to come ANYWHERE near passing congress.

Both Gore and Kerry killed Bush on substance in debates - I noted why they lost their elections.

Absolutely agree that he should have let the Bush tax cuts expire.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

105. For a while it looked as if he was committing political suicide

with all those secret meetings and the lack of any explanation to the public what was contained in the bill.

The righties railed against "government health care." Meanwhile, many people I talked to THOUGHT that Obama was working on single-payer health care, due to the righties' propaganda.

You may find some really pissed off people in 2014 when they learn that they're forced to buy private insurance that costs more than they can afford and doesn't cover them for very much.

Of course, by then, it will be too late for political suicide, as Obama will be unable to run again. I wonder if that's why the implementation was delayed till 2014.

A few provisions of the bill are good, but the rest of it is a stinking pile of corporate welfare that neither covers everyone nor cuts out-of-pocket costs to the individual.

[Lionessa]

90. I didn't see the takeover quite the way you do.

What I saw was quite a bit of lying about government take over of insurance, and a genuine uprising about the mandate. At the same time iirc, there was something akin to 76% of us that were being polled as being in favor of Medicare for all, or single payer.

The mandate I think is what gave the Repubs their stick, not fear of government programs.

This is my impression, not a researched POV.

[hifiguy]

6. K&R

[former9thward]

7. You start out with a bad assumption.

No poll has ever suggested this is a 'center-left' country. That is the root of the problem.

[HughBeaumont]

8. K & R.

Wishy-washiness: Intended to accommodate everyone and eventually helping NO one.

[PDJane]

9. From personal experience, the US is a centre-left country,

Brainwashed by the media and the corporate oligarchy into believing that it is a centre-right country.

America is a country brainwashed and incredibly, outrageously naive.

[kctim]

10. Center-left country?

"Polls show overwhelming support for universal health care?"

Less than half who 'said' they supported it were willing to pay for it.
As stated above, Republicans won big time in 2010 because of the HCR being 'socialist' universal health care.

We are not a center-left country, yet.

[Rex]

11. Because we don't really live in such a country?

We live in a plutocracy wherein the GOP feels right at home.

[bullwinkle428]

12. K&R. This post does an excellent job of illustrating how lousy

the Democratic party is when it comes to messaging.

[RainDog]

13. the population polls center left. the electoral college votes center right

I think the way our voting system is structured allows too much governing power to small populations that are right wing while denying the rights/concerns of larger populations that are far more liberal.

[jwirr]

14. Asleep at the switch is a good discription. I once took a group of teens to see the Iowa legislature

at work. We sat in the gallery over looking the floor. Three fourths of the seats were empty and a lot of the other congress persons were setting around talking to each other while some slept and the bill was being read at the podium. No one was paying any attention to the speaker. I know this happens on the federal level also. Great job!

[ProSense]

16. Interesting

In the Bush-Kerry contest, I could go to Bush's website and find out on the front page exactly what his positions were. With Kerry's website, there was a lot of meaningless policy wonk gobbledygook, and you had to go deep into the website and download PDFs (and everyone just loves PDFs, right?) of more policy wonk gobbledygook to find out what Kerry's positions were. When he spoke (and I heard him in person twice), he seemed to be just going through the motions and mouthing more platitudes.

So this is why Bush won?

The entire OP reads like a rewrite of history.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

18. My analysis at the time was that Kerry won over the people who were already

against Bush. They were pumped. But he didn't make a persuasive case to the fence sitters as to why Bush needed to be replaced. He was too careful and nice.

[ProSense]

22. Well,

My analysis at the time was that Kerry won over the people who were already
against Bush. They were pumped. But he didn't make a persuasive case to the fence sitters as to why Bush needed to be replaced. He was too careful and nice.

...given that more people than ever voted in that election, not as many as 2008, but millions more, I'm not sure Kerry is to blame for voter apathy.

Also, he did establish the online fundraising record that Obama shattered.

The outcome of the 2004 election no doubt spurred a lot of people to pay attention to 2008, and Obama's candidacy served as a huge inspiration.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

24. Obama won because he pretended to be a left populist

and most of the Obama enthusiasts I knew (and I knew a lot of them--I could hardly step out of my apartment without getting campaigned at, since one of the neighborhood organizers lived in my building) thought he was that.

They wanted a complete change from Bush. No more foreign wars. No more coddling of the banksters. Real single-payer health care. No more tax cuts for the rich. A WPA-like jobs program.

Not the half-assed measures and continuations of Bush policies that we actually got.

Right now, the ONLY thing that is motivating the people who still intend to vote for Obama is fear of the fascists on the Republican side.

I'm sorry, but that's the truth here outside the Beltway and outside the think tanks and outside the party headquarters.

[ProSense]

25. Wait

"Obama won because he pretended to be a left populist"

...some people will say Obama is center right, and always has been. Some say he did exactly what he said he would do. Still, that comment is odd given the title of the OP: So why have the Dems had trouble in a "center-left" country?

Evidently, Obama found the formula needed to do well in a "center-left" country.

They wanted a complete change from Bush. No more foreign wars. No more coddling of the banksters. Real single-payer health care. No more tax cuts for the rich. A WPA-like jobs program.

Not the half-assed measures and continuations of Bush policies that we actually got.

Right now, the ONLY thing that is motivating the people who still intend to vote for Obama is fear of the fascists on the Republican side.

I'm sorry, but that's the truth here outside the Beltway and outside the think tanks and outside the party headquarters.

It seems that you're arguing that Obama won based on his appeal to the above sentiments.

Also, I don't buy that last line. That may be motivating some people, but it also did in 2008. The vast majority of Democrats are voting for Obama because they want to ensure that he gets a second term.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

36. But only because the alternatives are so much worse

In 2008, most of the people I know here in solidly Democratic Minneapolis were ecstatic about Obama's win. Each time there was a disappointment, they made excuses.

But as of this past summer, I began noticing a change. There's no more enthusiasm, more like a resigned, "Well, he's not as bad as the Republicans." Some of the former enthusiasts are feeling downright betrayed. (I don't, because I never was an enthusiast, nor was I a Hillary Clinton supporter. I saw through his left populist shtick.)

Betrayal is hard to overcome.

Now maybe in YOUR environment people are pumped up for Obama's re-election. I'm not seeing it here. It's nothing like 2008. Not even close.

[ProSense]

52. Nope

"But only because the alternatives are so much worse"

...don't buy it. Feingold lost in WI.

The notion that people are out there voting for Democrats because the alternative is worse flies in the face of facts. Also, party confusion is not the reason people keep voting for Republicans. It's that Republicans lie, the media is complicit (a whole network devoted to lies), and interest groups spend lots of money to get people to believe those lies.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

98. SPOT ON!!! +1!!!!!!!!!!

[Armstead]

113. Except that the Democrats do not tend to make strong counter arguments

The problem is that rather than clearly calling out GOP lies, Democrats too often tend to echo their bullshit in slightly gentler terms. They fail to clearly pount out and the utter bullshit behind the GOP talking pounts, or offer a clear alternative.

[Major Nikon]

121. Would you prefer they yell out "you lie!" during the state of the union?

I've seen numerous Democrats in television interviews that do a very good job of callling bullshit on GOPher 'arguments'. The problem is not how well they do or don't articulate their points, the problem is that you have a public that can't understand any concept that requires more than 2 synapses to fire at the same time. As someone else pointed out when you have an entire network dedicated not only to perpetuating GOP lies, but even to develop new ones.

[dflprincess]

56. "The vast majority of Democrats are voting for Obama because they want to

ensure that he gets a second term."

Don't kid yourself. The Democrats I know, most long term activists, - agree with Lydia Leftcoast. They're voting for Obama only because the Republican will be horrible and certifiable.

[ProSense]

57. Well,

"Don't kid yourself. The Democrats I know, most long term activists, - agree with Lydia Leftcoast. They're voting for Obama only because the Republican will be horrible and certifiable."

..."don't kid yourself" that you know the vast majority of Democrats.

Progressives are voting for Obama. They're all over the Internets, they're in grassroots organizations, and in poll after poll, the group that registers as the staunchest supporters of the President are liberal Democrats.

Still, the most important thing, and to the point of the OP, which is doing well in the election, Obama will get the votes.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

65. If the definition of "progressive" is as in Progressive Policy Institute

(the home of the DLC), then I'm not surprised.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

99. Actually, that is true of the Republican base who is NOT enthusiastic about Romney

the candidate.

Every exit poll thus far has shown that they ONLY reason why voters are choosing him is because they think he can beat Obama.

The polls are also showing that the Democratic Party is MORE energized, not less. Look at the turnout during the Iowa Caucus and NH primary with Obama running unopposed.

Just because voters may be disappointed in some of the decisions that Obama has made doesn't mean that they don't support him, or that their support is tepid.

I live in a very blue and liberal area and we are not only estatic about voting for the president again, we are going out to campaign vigorously for him and other progressive Democrats...rather than complaining on some message board.

[dflprincess]

122. I have been active in the party for 40 years

and for most of that time held a party office of one kind or another. I've worked on more campaigns than I can remember - so don't imply that all I do is "complain on some message board". I'll admit, I'm mostly sitting this year out and any money I can spare for politics will go to Bernie Sanders rather than to the party or any right wing Democrat.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

123. Was I specifically calling out names? No. So, if my post doesn't apply to you, then no reason

to get defensive.

I've also worked in politics all my life. We should be working together to get MORE progressives elected to office. That's for sure.

[karynnj]

109. "Your analysis" - there is no analysis here

Last edited Wed Feb 1, 2012, 10:55 PM - Edit history (1)

There have been analyses done - and they dispute what is really your observations. The fact is that Bush's favorable numbers were in the low 50s - higher than his approval ratings which bounced around 50. Now, in 2004, I was not as happy as others when Bush's numbers fell to 48 or 49 - and people were convinced that this meant that Bush would clearly lose. This year, PPP has done something I really really wanted to see in 2004. They asked the people who did not approve of Obama how likely they were to vote for him. The numbers showed that Obama could estimate that he would get about 3 or 4 percent more of those who disapprove . The same was likely true in 2004, when there were people - like Pat Buchanan - who disapproved of Bush who would NEVER vote for any Democrat.

A later study showed Kerry got some votes from people who actually also said they approved of Bush. This means he not only won some people on the fence, he won some who actually could easily have voted for Bush. He could not have done this had he NOT been seen as "nice" and "Presidential". The President got a lower percent than the percent who said they had a favorable opinion of him. The truth is that there were likely still too many people who still were responding to 911 and were still rallying around the leader of the time.

Did you watch any of the Kerry rallies? Although most had a topic that he spoke of in detail, he also - in every rally - he covered in succinct summaries the key points of his position on every major platform issue. Comparing Kerry to Obama, Clinton, Dean etc, he was no more vague than any of them. In fact, the one who stayed away from many details on anything was Obama - and that was not a negative. The one who lost the point in detail the most in recent years was Gore. Kerry's segments combining the environment/energy/national security/health ended up the highest ranked of any 2004, 2008 sound bite - and that was done by Luntz.

I think the biggest problem Kerry had, other than the fact that the nation was still traumatized, was that the media severely edited what they showed of Kerry. This was such that in 2007, people were surprised that Teresa and John Kerry wrote a book on the environment. This means they missed that both Kerrys were lifelong environmentalists. In fact, Kerry was involved in the protesting for earth day before he protested the war.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

111. I not only "watched" Kerry rallies

I attended two of them in Minneapolis.

[T S Justly]

17. And, because the Party leadership has adopted Republican policies. K&R (nt)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

19. That too

The Democratic Party leadership is like the Republicans of forty years ago, even to the right of them in some ways, while the Republicans are in Cloud Cuckoo Land.

[JoePhilly]

20. Theater criticism.

And I'm curious ... when you try to talk folks out of staying home ... are you also encouraging them to vote for the Democratic nominee, President Obama ... or do you leave that "up to them" so long as they vote "down ticket"?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

23. I have no control over how they vote

Some of them are so angry at Obama that they will vote third party no matter what I say. (NONE of them would be caught dead voting Republican, if that's any consolation. Their view is that the Dems won't stop their rightward rush unless it costs them, but it seems not to have stopped their rightward rush after 2000 and 2004...and 2008.)

Here in Minnesota, I remind people that there are two nasty ballot measures up for a vote: 1) A state constitutional amendment bannig same-sex marriage, and 2) A voter ID law, which requires a person to have a government-issued picture ID to vote. Also, our state legislature needs to go back to the Dems and stealth fundie schoolboard members need to be rejected.

[JoePhilly]

26. But you did not really answer my question ...

You said you are encouraging them to vote for Dems "down ticket" ... are you also encouraging them to vote for Obama??

Because to be honest ... neither of those really work, if we don't do the other.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

28. If they won't be persuaded to vote for Obama (and most of them won't)

then I urge them not to stay home but at least vote in the down ticket races.

The Dem establishment may not be aware how many bridges Obama has burned with his continual caving in to the Republicans.

[JoePhilly]

31. I've yet to meet ONE liberal who will not vote for Obama in 2012.

I've talked to plenty who wanted him to do more ... but not one who says they will not vote for him at all, period.

Can you explain the specific CAVES, that he performed for all of these liberals you refer to? So far, you are speaking in nothing but generalities.

If you can, please indicate both the issue(s) which drive these folks to vote "3rd party" and who specifically they plan to vote for.

I'm assuming you can answer those questions because you seem to be saying that you are having deep discussions with these folks who "won't" vote for Obama no matter what.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

33. Caving to the Republicans on:

1. The bank bailout (a Republican initiative) with no conditions or penalties placed upon the banksters, who were allowed to keep their gazillion dollar bonuses because "contracts are sacred."

2. Then in the GM bailout (which they otherwise approved of), all of a sudden the contracts of the auto workers weren't "sacred."

3. The health care bill, in a form advocated by the Republicans since the 1980s, which was bad enough, but then Obama caved on the public option. Since most of the bill was not going to go into effect till 2014 anyway, he could have afforded to veto any bill without a public option.

4. Continuing the Iraq War way beyond what was necessary.

5. Expanding the Afghan War.

6. Continuing the Patriot Act.

7. Allowing the Bush tax cuts to continue. Yeah, yeah, I know about the unemployment benefits issue, but framed right, it could have backfired against the Republicans by highlighting what greedy bastards they are.

8. Not closing Guantanamo and continuing the bogus "war on terror" by ordering summary assassinations.

9. Creating a Deficit Commission that was packed with people devoted to destroying Social Security and had only one liberal Democrat (Schakowsky) on it.

That was after inviting that homophobic fundie minister to pray at the inauguration and packing his Cabinet and staff with DLCers and Republicans.

[JoePhilly]

40. This is the best you've got???

This is the lamest and more transparent attempt to discourage Dem voters I've seen in a long, long, time.

Wait wait ... Obama is about to KILL Social Security!!!!



On edit: .... This is just one reason I break up ... your #8 is closing Gitmo. CONGRESS blocked doing that. And yet YOU are claiming that folks should vote Dem "DOWN-TICKET".

Do you not notice that. Same is true of a number of your points ...

And I do love ... Did not end Iraq fast enough. The BASTARD!!!

And also ... escalated Afghanistan ... he RAN on increasing troops there ... are these liberals you claim to know STUPID?? Did they vote for Obama in 2008 and not know that???

The more I think about your response, the harder I laugh.

And again ... these liberals you know who will not vote for Obama ...WHO are they going to vote for?? Ron Paul????

I'm dying to know!!!!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

42. If you don't understand how upset solid Dems are about these things

all the ridicule in the world won't help you or Obama.

[JoePhilly]

43. Why should Dems vote "down ticket" when Congressional Dems blocked Obama on ...

Closing GITMO.

Clearly, THAT is a reason for them to STAY HOME and not vote DOWN TICKET.

BTW ... what is a solid Dem? One that doesn't know what Obama planned to do as a candidate but still voted for him, relative to Iraq and Afghanistan?

Oh ... SOLID Democrats that I know are THRILLED that Obama saved the US auto industry from total collapse. I'm not sure which SOLID Dems you are talking to on that point.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

45. Thrilled that he saved the auto industry, not thrilled that he

forced the auto workers to make concessions while leaving the banksters unscathed.

[JoePhilly]

48. Every good must be refuted ...

Frank Dodd never happened.

Elizabeth Warren does not exist.

And Obama did not just place Eric Schneiderman in a position to go after the "banksters".

Like I said ... your attacks seem to be old ... rehashed ... the kind of stuff used to discourage Dems just before the 2010 elections.

Won't work in 2012.

[fascisthunter]

58. refute her list or save the blah blah

She's being objective and being honest with you. Show a little respect and stop pretending to yourself that the criticism levied at Obama is somehow a plot, or agenda to take the man down. In fact, grow the fuck up.

[JoePhilly]

66. I did refute the list. But I will endulge you further ... using >>> where I respond.

1. The bank bailout (a Republican initiative) with no conditions or penalties placed upon the banksters, who were allowed to keep their gazillion dollar bonuses because "contracts are sacred."
>> What penalties should have been imposed and using which laws?
>> Gazzillion?
>> Sacred??
>> This is all ranting with no reality attached.


2. Then in the GM bailout (which they otherwise approved of), all of a sudden the contracts of the auto workers weren't "sacred."
>> Obama saved the auto industry ... maybe he should have let it DIE. What alternative plan do you propose?

3. The health care bill, in a form advocated by the Republicans since the 1980s, which was bad enough, but then Obama caved on the public option. Since most of the bill was not going to go into effect till 2014 anyway, he could have afforded to veto any bill without a public option.
>> More BS. A PO was NEVER going to pass with 60 votes (to stop a filabuster) and you can prove me wrong by explaining how you as President get Lieberman to vote YES on it (there were actually 4 or 5 other Dems who would not vote yes on it, but I only ask you to obtain a YES from Lieberman because its impossible to do so ... but PLEASE feel free to try).


4. Continuing the Iraq War way beyond what was necessary.
>> Obama is shutting Iraq down on almost the exact time line he said as a candidate ... if you are PISSED OFF now, then I'm sure you did not support him as a candidate.

5. Expanding the Afghan War.
>> Said he would do so as a candidate ... only fools did not hear him say so.

6. Continuing the Patriot Act.
>> Congress was going to extend it no matter what. Bad Obama.

7. Allowing the Bush tax cuts to continue. Yeah, yeah, I know about the unemployment benefits issue, but framed right, it could have backfired against the Republicans by highlighting what greedy bastards they are.
>> This is your best argument. But you miss the real reason he allowed them to be extended. The dem congress should have forced a vote which extended the middle class tax cuts, but not those for those above 250k. The Dem congress punted. Obama had made 2 promises as a candidate ... (1) no tax increase on those under 250k, (2) drop the tax break for those above 250k. The Dem congress ensured that he could not keep both. If Obama breaks #1, the media and DU crucifies him for raising taxes on the middle class. It becomes his "read my lips" moment. If he breaks #2 ... the middle class gets to keep their cut ... and yes, some on DU still scream. Oh well.

8. Not closing Guantanamo and continuing the bogus "war on terror" by ordering summary assassinations.
>> He needs congress to close gitmo. And oh no ... not the "summary assassinations" argument!!!! OBL is dead, and he should be, as should so many of the Al Qaeda leaders. If this is what keeps your friends home ... again ... oh well.

9. Creating a Deficit Commission that was packed with people devoted to destroying Social Security and had only one liberal Democrat (Schakowsky) on it.
>> I've been hearing how Obama is about to kill Social Security ANY SECOND for about three years now ... and yet here it is again as if it was actually about to happen. This prediction is NONSENSE!!!! It is NOT HAPPENING. But I do worry about those who are so pissed about something that has not, and is not happening, that they won't vote as a result of its not happening.

Geeeze. As I said "Theater Criticism".

[Lydia Leftcoast]

67. My rebuttals to your rebuttal

1. At least lay down the condition that banks that received bailouts must give no bonuses till all the money had been paid back. That should have been the minimum.

2. Why save the auto industry on the backs of the rank-and-file workers, who just did what they were told, instead of on the backs of the executives who made lousy decisions?

3. I repeat: If Obama had come on strong from the beginning insisting on single-payer and mobilized the same volunteers who were fresh from his election campaign to mobilize their neighbors to badger their Congresscritters and Senators, and if the Dems had mounted a huge publicity campaign showing what other countries have, we could have ended up with at least the public option as the compromise position. You're correct in saying that we'd never get a public option...in the half-assed, pussy-footing way that Obama advocated it (until he didn't advocate it anymore).

By the way, his closed-door meetings with insurance company executives left a very bad taste. DUers objected strongly to Cheney's closed-door meetings with energy company executives. How were the closed-door meetings with insurance company executives any different?

Both were reminiscent of the old British comedy series Yes Prime Minister, in which the PM meets with industries to determine how much regulation they will agree to and what regulations they will refuse to abide by. Only these two cases were real.

4. I don't care what he said. The war was inexcusable and the withdrawal timetable should have started the day after inauguration, 2009. Two years worth of young Americans and innocent Iraqis died because Obama was held to no higher standard than what he happened to say in a campaign speech. It's as if he didn't realize that he's the commander-in-chief (except that he realized it when sending troops to Libya)

5. Just because it was his intention doesn't make it right.

6. So, Congress was going to extend the Patriot Act? So Obama forgot that he had veto power? Some Constitutional lawyer!

7. "Raising taxes on the middle class." The benefit most people got from the Bush tax cuts was so small that it was barely noticeable. And shame on the Dem Congress (what good are some of the Congresscritters?). And shame on Obama and the Congressional and Senate leadership for not whipping/horsetrading their people into line. (The Republicans would have done it.)

8. Did Congress establish Guantanamo as a holding tank for suspected terrorists (or random sheepherders whose personal enemies turned them in for a bounty)? If not, then no permission should be needed to close it.
I was talking about summary assassinations of U.S. citizens. Just because they're bad guys doesn't remove them from Constitutional protections. We're talking assassinations, not battlefield deaths. Remember that Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy were given all the due process of law, even though we were 100% sure that they were monsters. There should be no exceptions for political crimes.

9. He put people on that deficit commission who were known advocates of privatizing Social Security. With all the other pandering to the Republicans he has done, what were we supposed to think?

[JoePhilly]

70. Ok ...

1. The bailout was created under Bush. How does Obama add this "new condition" you demand.

2. Was saving the auto industry good or bad? from what I hear, the WORKERS in the auto industry applaud Obama's effort. Do you disagree with them?

3. Obama did not campaign on single payer. And for all of your clamor for a bully pulpit effort ... you still can't answer the simple question as to HOW you get Lieberman to go along. Skip all of your abstract argument and get serious! Let's imagine we need ONE VOTE ... Lieberman ... how do YOU as President get that YES vote ... none of what you wrote answers that question because (a) Lieberman is known as the "Senator from Aetna", (b) he had already he said he is not running again, and (c) he campaigned AGAINST Obama in 2008. Bottom line, for all of what you said .. you have NO WAY to make Lieberman vote YES!!!!

4. Obama did not start the Iraq war ... and he ended it on the same time-line that he RAN ON. What kind of IDIOT voted for Obama knowing what his time-line was NOW screams that they won't vote for him for actually sticking to that time line ... its NONSENSE. If you won't vote for him NOW, then you should not have voted for him in 2008. I call BS!!

5. Again ... this also sums up why I call your attack "theater criticism". You CLAIMED that these people you talk to voted FOR OBAMA. And yet you list THIS as a key reason ... which is SILLY ... he held this position as a CANDIDATE. Are these people you refer to stupid, ill-informed, delusional??? How can they be MAD at him for doing EXACTLY what he said he would do.

6. There were enough votes to surpass a veto.

7. Your argument here misses the fact that those in the middle class do not see their tax break as "small". I do agree that it is relatively smaller, no argument. But, when you look at the polls, the middle class did not want their own tax break to go away because while a $400 tax break is small in comparison to the one the rich get ... $400 is not SMALL to most middle income families. And most of them did not want to lose their $400 to ensure that the rich lost the larger tax break. That is simply a fact.

8. If you close gitmo, you have to move the people somewhere. Congress is unwilling to fund doing so. Obama did not create Gitmo, and he can't make it disappear. And I'm sorry if you are upset that OBL and those like him are getting killed. The Taliban could have transferred OBL to the US back in 2001. Maybe there could have been a trial. Terrorist intentioanlly blur the line between civilians and soldiers. It is a tactic. OBL and Al Qaeda members do so to protect themselves. I have little issue with going after them.

9. Again, theater criticism. For 3 years I've heard how Obama is about to end Social Security any second. Has he done so? No. Apparently, he SUCKS at killing Social Security.

Or maybe, some want to be angry at him no matter what he does. He gets us out of Iraq ... but it was too slow!!!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

71. He doesn't QUITE get us out of Iraq, because there will still be

thousands of "security contractors" in the country.

[JoePhilly]

74. again ... this is the BEST you could come up with?

I refute all that nonsense ... and this is where you end up.

These people you claim to know who will vote 3rd party because Obama is leaving contractors in Iraq ... please encourage them to do so.

No wait ... tell them to vote for Ron Paul!!.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

75. When in doubt, be snide

I guess.

[TheKentuckian]

120. Plus, #4 isn't even true. Obama ran on 16 months at first and bumbed up to 18 or 20

By any measure we are talking double.

[onenote]

51. I'm a pretty "solid" Dem and I'm not hesitating a bit in supporting Obama's reelection

And I know a lot of other "solid" Dems -- Dems who contribute their time and resources to the party, its candidates, and its legislative agenda. And they are supporting Obama as well.

Indeed, in my experience its the less "solid" Dems that are the first to declare how disappointed they are with Obama and how they can't support him anymore.

[dflprincess]

59. That has not been my experience with "solid Dems"

at least in my area.

I can name at least 6 people just in my area, myself included, who have resigned party offices because we can no longer provide blind support for right wing Democrats like Obama and Amy Klobuchar. A few of us will still caucus because we have some hope for the the Congressional District race and some of us have state legislative races to work on. Sure, most of us may hold our noses and vote for those two at the top of the ticket - but only as the lesser of evils.

[karynnj]

112. Many of those are not what you think

1) The bailout was passed in 2008 under Bush. The fact is that the Democrats DID push back on the original Paulson proposal, but with the financial markets in uncharted waters, the not yet President could not have made more changes than made.
2) According the right, Obama gave GM to the unions - neither is true, but as the alternative was complete collapse of the companies, I think the union workers are better off with jobs - even with somewhat worse contracts.
3) The HCR bill narrowly passed both houses of Congress. Did you watch the hearings in the House or Senate? The fact is that on EVERY thing you would have considered even a minor improvement would not have gotten the 60 votes. Your comment that he could have vetoed it and it would not have hurt ignores that doing that would more likely have resulted in getting nothing. As it is, the states can add a public option or - as Vermont is doing - single payer. The structure that Baucus worked so diligently on can accommodate that. In addition, there are the tapered subsidies for people above the Medicaid level but still too poor to afford it.
4) I agree that he could have tried to negotiate a shorter time line - as Kerry and Feingold had proposed. The advantage of not doing that is that they already had the Iraqis on board and they could say that Bush had agreed to it (giving some political cover) Democrats can take credit for pushing Bush to agree to a timeline - even if he refused to use the word.
5) Obama ran on putting more into Afghanistan - although I agreed with the more limited proposals by people like Kerry and Reed. Obama went with Clinton and Gates.
6) The Patriot Act renewed in 2006 removed many of the worst provisions - and more were fixed under Obama.
7) The economy badly needed some continuing stimulation to keep recovering and we needed to extend the longer unemployment. The only way to get that was to give the Republicans 2 more years of teh Bush tax cuts.
8) The War on terror is a stupid name, but there are non-state terrorists. Congress prevented the closing of Gitmo.
9) Durbin is not a liberal Democrat? Who knew - his record looks like one.

[WI_DEM]

27. because it isn't a center-left country. It's center-right

every poll indicates that when asked what your political persausion is--either conservative, moderate or liberal--the top two categories are conservative and moderate with about 20% saying they are liberal.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

29. Why would they want to say "liberal"

when

1) The Republicans have made it one of the worst insults

and

2) The mainstream Dems have spent the past thirty years going, "Liberal? No, not us!"

The proper response when Reagan began using "liberal" as an insult would have been, "You say 'liberal' as if it's a bad thing. Liberal? Damn right we're liberal! And we're not ashamed!"

Instead, as they have often done in the past thirty years, the Dems acted as if the Republicans had a valid point.

If you talk to people who call themselves "moderate," you'll find that it usually means that they're liberal but don't like the label.

Also, we have to be careful about our definitions. There are personal liberals and socioeconomic liberals. Personal liberals don't want to regulate anyone's sex life or ingestion of any substance, and they're against all kinds of discrimination, but they're basically yuppies and completely out of touch with the working class and poor. They're the type of Dems who run as being for a strong defense and being pro-business, which means that they basically agree with the Republicans on foreign policy and economic issues.

Then there are the socio-economic liberals. They're the ones who are pro-union, pro-public education, pro-progressive taxation, pro-living wage, pro-jobs programs, pro-single payer health care, etc. If you'd ask the average American, "Should people who work a full 40-hour week be able to support themselves at a modest level without needing food stamps?" the overwhelming majority would say "yes."

[kctim]

102. So wrong.

"If you talk to people who call themselves "moderate," you'll find that it usually means that they're liberal but don't like the label"

I am proud to call myself a "moderate" Democrat and it has NOTHING to do with fearing being labeled a liberal.

And, just so you are aware, almost every Dem I know is VERY happy with the job President Obama is doing and we will all be supporting him on the trail and in the booth this year.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

106. You must work in very rarified Democratic circles, because

the Democrats I know came in two varieties until the Republican field revealed itself:

1. Blissfully ignorant, the type of voter who pays attention once every four years.

2. Really pissed off.

Both types have been freaked by the Republican field of candidates, and most will vote for Obama, not out of great love and admiration, but more to keep the Republicans at bay.

Others are too pissed off even to do that.

cf. dflprincess's posts. She's much more of an insider than I am, having served on the state central committee, and her view is similar.

[kctim]

108. Great love and admiration?

We are eager to support and vote for President Obama due to the fact that we approve of the job he is doing. We don't fear the Republican sideshow either.
I can't imagine being pissed off all the time or voting out of fear. Wow.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

110. Whatever

[kctim]

126. Whatever?

Last I saw, 86% of liberal Dems approved of the job President Obama is doing.
9 out of 10 moderate Dems that I know, approve of the job President Obama is doing.
It seems the vast majority of the Party are satisfied with what President Obama is doing for them, while the rest are all pissed off for what he hasn't given them.

It is very obvious for ALL to see: Democrats aren't having trouble in this country, the far-left is.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

127. People keep citing that figure, but it's meaningless without context

How was the question worded?

What are the definitions of "liberal" and "moderate"?

I would say that at least 80% of the Dems I know plan to vote for Obama, but the enthusiasm they had last time is gone. It's more like, "I hope the Republicans don't get in."

[ClassWarrior]

47. That's based on labels. Based on values and policies, sans the labels...

...polls overwhelmingly place the American people squarely on the left.

NGU.

[bvar22]

54. Try this:

Here is what the MAJORITY of Americans (Democrats AND Republicans) want from OUR government!

In recent polls (2005!!!) by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News, the American majority has made clear how it feels. Look at how the majority feels about some of the issues that you'd think would be gospel to a real Democratic Party:

1. 65 percent (of ALL Americans, Democrats AND Republicans) say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.

2. 86 percent favor raising the minimum wage (including 79 percent of selfdescribed "social conservatives&quot .

3. 60 percent favor repealing either all of Bush's tax cuts or at least those cuts that went to the rich.

4. 66 percent would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

5. 77 percent believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.

6. 87 percent think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80 percent (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on alternative fuels.

7. 69 percent agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."

http://alternet.org/story/29788/

On issue after issue, the American People side with these "Liberal" positions.
The problem is that these Working Class solutions are no longer being championed by the Democratic Party.


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[redqueen]

30. I disagree that we're center-left.

I do realize there are several big issues that people identify with which would seem to indicate that we're center left, but it seems to me that those are the exceptions.

[JoePhilly]

32. I think the whole "center left" vs "center right" discussion is nonsense.

It started as a way for the GOP to avoid talking about SPECIFIC issues ... they would just claim that the US was really "center-right".

They never define how they come to that conclusion they just assert it. And the intent is to get folks at home who pay ZERO attention to say ... ummm, yes, I'm "center-right too". It is an attempt to manipulate those who pay little attention, and nothing more.

Specific issues are what matter.

[redqueen]

34. Exactly,

without a detailed list of whatever issues are being referred to, it's meaningless.

[JoePhilly]

41. A specific list of nonsense was provide when I asked for same up thread.

Lame is a nice word to use.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

101. It's also nonsensical to those of us who call ourselves political scientists.

The liberal-conservative dichotomy is outdated.

We tend to view ideology as residing along a continuum, governed by specific policy issues and the nuance associated with subject matter.

For example, someone who is pro-choice is often labeled as taking the "liberal" position on an issue. However, that pro-choice individual may favor various limitations and regulations on reproductive rights, such as a ban on late-term abortions for instance.

So the OP believes that he/she knows who a "Solid Democrat" is. I'm still waiting on that definition.

[kentuck]

35. In fact, the next election shouldn't even be close...

If we had Democrats that actually stood for something, there would be no polls showing Obama and Romney running almost even. Romney wouldn't even be in the discussion.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

38. Right!

Facing the worst candidate and worst president in our lifetimes, either Gore or Kerry should have won in a landslide.

Just as Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber in the 1990s won two races, one against an idiot (Denny Smith) and one against a fundamentalist fanatic and Grover Norquist clone (Bill Sizemore), both 2 to 1.

But Gore and Kerry did not attack Bush in the way that he attacked them.

This made them look weak, and if there's anything the American electorate hates, it's "weak."

They did not formulate a strong, bold platform and defend it tirelessly. They let the Republicans set the agenda and then responded to them in ways that suggested that the Republicans were right.

And all the protestations to the contrary won't change that.

If Obama wants the same kind of enthusiasm he enjoyed in 2008, he'd better start working overtime mending fences.

[Art_from_Ark]

61. I've got to disagree with you about Gore

I think you underestimate how bad the situation was in 2000. The media had it in for Gore, they constantly played the "Clinton fatigue" card and tarnished Gore with Bill's indiscretions. At the same time, they treated bu$h with kid gloves, and ignored all the shenanigans in Florida, including bu$h's brother running the crucial state and his Florida campaign manager being in charge of counting the votes and setting arbitrary deadlines, not to mention the felonious obstruction of vote counting in Miami-Dade by a band of Republican thugs, plus all the teahadists who were outside of the Naval Observatory yelling at Gore to "get out of Cheney's house" even though Gore was still Vice President at the time. Given all that crap, there's no way Gore could have won by a landslide. But he still won a half million more popular votes than the other guy (much more, if all the votes had actually been counted).

[mmonk]

49. Because they end up center right with "bi-partisan" bills

that don't address our problems.

[mvd]

53. K&R

I agree with everything you said. Now the President even endorsed private insurance in his SOTU address. How far he has come on this issue - the wrong way. I do like the way Obama is standing up for government (we are the REAL values people - for some, government is the only thing between starving and having a slim chance in life) and talking about the income gap. The investigative teams could be good depending on scope. I think Occupy has actually driven him left. But who knows if it is temporary, so we have to keep the pressure on.

[bvar22]

55. DURec.

I couldn't agree more.
Your post is a good companion thread
for the one about Molly Ivins posted yesterday.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101610677




---bvar22
formerly a mainstream, center FDR/LBJ Working Class DEMOCRAT
now relegated to the Fringe Left Wing of the New Democrat Centrist Party
I haven't changed.





[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22 at the Labor Day Picnic in St Paul
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]



[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[limpyhobbler]

60. "Yes We Can" turned into "Oh Sorry there was nothing we could do about it".

[treestar]

77. Who's "we" then?

[limpyhobbler]

78. "We" progressives voted for Obama but get taken for granted as he governs from the center.

"Yes we can" was Obama's campaign slogan in 2008.

After he got into office he governs from the middle and takes progressives for granted.

What are you asking me, or what point are you trying to make?

[treestar]

84. You're going with "yes, I can"

You elected him to do it all himself.

Even if he's had trouble with that, you abandon him because of it?

Just seems like you really don't believe in "we the people" but instead in picking someone else to do it all.

[limpyhobbler]

92. What does than even mean?

You elected him to do it all himself.

He's only the president. He only has Presidential powers nothing more. He can't "do it all himself". In my view he does not even attempt to enact progressive policies. He fights for centrist corporatist policies because that is what he believes in. Despite republicans calling him a radical socialist, he just is not.

Even if he's had trouble with that, you abandon him because of it?

Who's abandoning?

Just seems like you really don't believe in "we the people" but instead in picking someone else to do it all.

Picking someone else is called "electing people". That's why we have elections. To pick someone else to represent us. Is there something else you think I should be doing?

[ProSense]

62. For years,

I've been making the argument that America isn't becoming more conservative. The last paragraphs of this piece by Krugman really lay out the problem.

Getting to Crazy

By PAUL KRUGMAN

<...>

Here’s the point: those within the G.O.P. who had misgivings about the embrace of tax-cut fanaticism might have made a stronger stand if there had been any indication that such fanaticism came with a price, if outsiders had been willing to condemn those who took irresponsible positions.

But there has been no such price. Mr. Bush squandered the surplus of the late Clinton years, yet prominent pundits pretend that the two parties share equal blame for our debt problems. Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, proposed a supposed deficit-reduction plan that included huge tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, then received an award for fiscal responsibility.

So there has been no pressure on the G.O.P. to show any kind of responsibility, or even rationality — and sure enough, it has gone off the deep end. If you’re surprised, that means that you were part of the problem.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/15/opinion/15krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

It's just that the Republicans and their funders have been testing the electorate with every right wing policy they can advance. They lie their way into power. Once elected, they push the envelope some more.

People don't support the RW crap that's being advanced (see Wisconsin). Stop electing them and it would be clear that this isn't a RW country. Stop justifying their success at fooling the public. The 2008 election should have been enough proof, but the RW voices and their supporters in the media are very loud and powerful. They have Fox Noise pushing their agenda 24/7, and don't leave out the Murdoch rags.

Still, think about where this country is. There were more progressives in the House Democratic caucus in the last Congress, and that number has grown. In fact, the Progressive Caucus still outnumbers the blue dogs in the current Congress. There are more Democrats, even among Senators, who support marriage equality. That is in stark contrast to 1990. There are more pro labor Senators. President Obama has been able to reverse or is making progress toward reversing/improving many of the damaging policies of the last 40 years, and he's doing it with little to no Repubican support.

It doesn't matter how much the country tries to move left, Republicans continue to test the electorate with every right wing policy they can advance. They go unchallenged, and as Krugman stated, they even get rewarded. Keep electing them and Democrats have to deal with them. When the GOP gained control of the House, it was just another opportunity for them to move the needle toward crazy.

Imagine if they had gained control of the Senate.

A slew of Republicans are retiring this year, what's puzzling is that for all the talk or grassroots movements and working from the ground up, no one appears to be cultivating progressive replacements.

[Capn Sunshine]

73. It's the same problem over and over with progressives

And I say this as a member of the Progressive Caucus of the Democratic Party. They are balkanized into these little cliques (often single issue )and it's contrary to their nature to compromise to move things down the road in the political landscape.

So progressive candidates are few and far between. It's really hard to suck it up and raise the money, and fundraising is an area where progressives are hesitant unless things address their pet issue.

The net is that progressives don't step up like they should, because becoming a part of the process means you have to water down your ideas. Not a good mix. Refusal to accept this also results in the frustration du jour with the President or Congress.

[barbtries]

63. one word:

media.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

64. And the Dems were asleep at the switch when they

failed to develop their own media while the Republicans were busy buying up all the AM radio stations and starting Fox News.

[bvar22]

68. Even with the Right's efforts to OWN all the Media,

there ARE Celebrity Dems who can DEMAND Face Time on all the stations every single week.

IF, and THAT is a BIG "IF", the Democratic Party had a cohesive platform of working FOR the 99%,
AND the ability to point to specific FIGHTS where they, as a party, STOOD up against the forces of the 1%
and, as a party, defended the traditional Working Class/LABOR Democratic base, they could have a blunting effect on the Conservative ownership of the Media.

It would require a Keep it Simple, Everybody on the Same Page, Marketing Approach, but it could be done.
However, it would depend on some effort from the Celebrity Democrats,
a willingness to lose some Special Interest Big Business Money,
and a Hold the Line performance in Congress that could be highlighted.

America LOVES a FIGHT,
and Heroes that STAND for Something.
If the party leadership decided to give America one (a fight),
and visibly fought FOR the Underdog (the 99%),
the party would reap huge rewards.

[Uncle Joe]

69. The corporate media is not center left and when Al Gore strongly disputed Bush's assertions

during the 1st debate, the corporate media after determining that Gore won along with their focus groups turned a 180 within 48 hours and declared Bush the winner because someone heard Gore sigh.

During the second debate Bush would do better by basically stating that water was wet and to strongly disagree with that would not have helped Gore particulary against an obviously hostile corporate media.

Thanks for the thread, Lydia Leftcoast.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

72. Not to strongly degree made Gore look weak and made it look as if Bush's

points were valid.

And the Dems didn't take on the corporate media the way the Republicans do. You say anything bad about a Republican candidate in the media and all hell breaks loose. Not only do their PR shills spring into action but their AM radio zombies are urged to bombard message boards and call editorial offices protesting. Say something bad about a Democratic candidate in the media, and ....crickets.

Otherwise why would 1/3 of the electorate be "undecided" three days before the election?

That's never happened that I can remember. There have been close races (Nixon-Humphrey), but never one where 1/3 of the electorate didn't have strong feelings about either candidate.

I'm really sick of the "it's no use. The deck was stacked against us" excuse, which seems to be the reason for everything nowadays.

[Uncle Joe]

80. Gore did state his differences during the second debate but Bush didn't

say outlandish things during that debate and Gore knew he needed to have strong legitimate grounds to dispute or argue with Bush after the corporate media's behavior from the first debate. Gore knew how the corporate media would paint it if he wasn't on strong grounds to dispute.

Your first paragraph makes my point about the corporate media's allegiance, the Republicans don't have any special PR skills, they just have the corporate media on their side, whether it be editorial, pundit, scheduling, last word, etc. etc. and I know you know this to be true. The Republicans can take on the corporate media more aggessively because the corporate media want them to when the Democrats do, they're more likely to be condemned or ignored but that is changing in large part because of Al Gore.

Don't make the mistake of believing that I or Al Gore ever stated or believe there is "no use," he didn't believe it when he lead the way to opening the Internet to the people. An act which earned undying enimty from the corporate media because this First Amendment enhancing technology did more to threaten, eliminate or minimize their one way, top down monopolistic business plan of controlling and diseminating information to the American People.

And Gore knew the corporate media was heavily skewed to the authoritarian, Republican side, when he started his Current News Network? That wasn't just some cosmic coincidence.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

81. In starting his highly vaunted "Current" network, he destroyed one of the best news sources

namely News World International, which used mostly Canadian content but also had news from other countries. It was the only news source on cable that didn't cheerlead for the Iraq War.

The excuse for destroying it was that it had few viewers, but honestly, it was never promoted. I found it only by accident. Same as Current. How would I know it even existed (I had cable when it started up, although I no longer do) if I hadn't seen the discussions of it on DU?

[Uncle Joe]

83. Current is being better promoted in large part

just because Gore owns it, the dumb ass Republicans serve to promote it for free calling Current; Gore's network, not once have I heard Limbaugh promote NWI.

The Internet is the new wave and it's no coincidence you found out about Current via the Internet.

FOX "News" is obvious propaganda promoting the authoritarian Republicans but the other corporate media networks are just a paler shade of gray, more subliminal but nonetheless in favor of the right wing, authoritarian quadrant of the political spectrum.

An opposing point of view was desperately needed and Current serves that purpose although I wish it reached more homes as well.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

88. But isn't it pathetic that the right-wing slams do more to promote the Current

than the Dems do?

[Uncle Joe]

96. Yes but I do believe that dynamic will change,

as more liberals, progressives and left leaning libertarians come to office as a result of Current and the Internet.

[treestar]

76. I don't know if your plan is really the best way

I think that if it was, Obama would have done it that way. I just think he has more political savvy than DU posters and that standing firm for single payer would not have worked. We'd just have nothing. I don't get how you can be so sure of being right over the elected officials we have. The media would have had a great time making fun of Obama's obsessions and how he got nothing from Congress. People in Congress are not weaklings. And the people who vote for them are not going to be for single payer just because Obama stood on it and wouldn't compromise.

It is so tempting to think we must be right and therefore the right person with charisma can easily sweet talk the nation into whatever it is - single payer or whatever else. Not likely. We have to keep working for it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

82. If they had tried and failed to get single payer, and had discussed the issues openly

and made it clear who the obstructionists were, then I would have some respect for the effort.

As it was, they gave up before they had even started. Reagan got what he wanted out of a Congress that was initially Democratic, and Obama couldn't?

Are today's Dems just lame or secretly complicit with the Republicans? I've been frustrated with them since, oh, about 1980.

[treestar]

85. You'd rather have nothing than any progress at all

Just for the sake of the "show" is what you're really getting across. You have more "respect" for poseurs than for people who actually make a real difference.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

86. They wouldn't have gotten "nothing"

That's dramatic hyperbole.

But by publicizing the advantages of single payer they would have

1) Laid the groundwork for popular support

2) Made the obstructionist, corrupt Republicans and ConservaDems look like the greedheads that they are

3) And most likely ended up with a public option as the compromise position from an initial position of single payer.

But by dropping the public option without a fight, they doomed us to further enslavement by the private insurers.

In negotiations, your starting point has a lot to do with where you end up. We ended up with a tweaked version of Mitt Romney's plan.

(I had a useless high-deductible policy for years and dropped it because the premiums were getting in the way of affording actual care--You should see what the premiums for individual policies are like when you're my age. I dropped it and went without for a year, because meeting the deductible would have bankrupted me anyway. Then I inherited a small amount of money, and my financial advisor told me to get some form of insurance because any serious illness would wipe that out almost overnight. So now I'm once again paying for the policy with the highest deductible available in Minnesota, strictly as asset protection, not because it makes health care any easier to obtain.)

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

95. The Dems aren't "wishy-washy"! We have a big, open tent. The party is NOT a

monolith. And as much as I would like to see more progressives/liberals in the party, until we work to make that a reality, I don't see how things change.

We can sit and complain about issues that we care about not seeing the light of day, but again, nothing will ever change unless and until we get busy and work to elect more progressives to office.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

107. You know what happens when real progressives run for office?

The Dem establishment tries to undermine them if it's for anything about House member.

I've seen this happen again and again.

Right now, the Dems are everybody who isn't freakin' out of their mind fascist/religious fanatic.

That's too big a tent. We should really have four parties in this country, not two.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

114. There's no excuse, and I don't buy that. The fact the Russ Feingold lost in WI proves my

point.

When are WE going to stand up and work to get progressives elected to office, regardless of what the Democratic Party establishment says and does?

It's no excuse!

[Hippo_Tron]

116. The establishment undermines them because usually they can't raise any money

And you can't win an election without raising any money. Admittedly it's much harder to raise money as a progressive than it is as someone who will bend to the will of every corporate or special interest. Unfortunately, it's still a fact that you can't win an election without raising money.

When the establishment sees a progressive as their most likely shot to win or keep a seat, they will back them. Case and point: The DSCC got behind Bernie Sanders almost immediately after he announced his candidacy and he's not even a Democrat. He was obviously the most viable choice to keep that seat in the Democratic caucus and that's what the party is looking for. Ideology is not a direct factor in those decisions.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

125. In the end, what candidates need are votes, not money

If they can get the votes more cheaply--as Peter DeFazio of Oregon does with his beer and pizza fundraisers--then they're in.

But so few candidates even try the up-close-and-personal fundraising tactic. Having only $1000 a plate dinners and $25,000 receptions or even, as the Minnesota DFL does to its shame, have $50 a plate dinners but you get to talk to the candidate only if you pay at least $1500--that just isolates the politicians and ENSURES that they listen only to the 1%.

A thought experiment: Say that candidate A thinks he needs to raise $1 million to win because he has to buy TV ads.

Now he could talk 1,000 rich people and/or corporations out of $1000 each. This would ensure that he's a captive of the special interests.

Or, realizing that he needs money only because he needs votes, he could have a series of pizza and beer fundraisers or a series of coffee and cookie fundraisers. This wouldn't get him any TV time, but 1) Everyone who put down $10 for coffee and cookies or $35 for pizza and beer would be almost certain to vote for him, and 2) He would be mingling with ordinary people and listening to their concerns, and 3) The attendees would tell all their friends what a great, approachable, sincere, caring guy he is.

In m ideal system, we would put ceilings on campaign spending. Say 10 cents for each registered voter in their city, state, county, nation, whatever. The 10 cents per voter would include personal wealth, party subsidies, and contributions. No person could contribute more than $100, and no group--no corporation, no PAC, no non-profit, no industry group--could contribute a cent. This would drastically limit the amount of TV ads the candidates could buy--which would be a GOOD thing.

[Hippo_Tron]

128. You could do two pizza and beer fundraisers a day every day starting two years before the election

And you wouldn't be able to personally talk to enough voters to win a state senate race in many states let alone a congressional race. You probably would get to the point where you'd pretty much be tapped out on people who come to your fundraiser. It's particularly difficult in large rural districts where people are so spread out and there aren't good central locations to have these sorts of things.

I worked on a congressional race some years back. My candidate absolutely LOVED talking to voters. If he could win an election by spending 20 hours a day just talking to voters and not spend a second on the phone asking for money, he absolutely would do that. The fact of the matter, though, is that voters have jobs and lives and there just is not possible way to meet enough to them face to face to win a congressional election. Going door to door on weekends and evenings when they are actually home will reach enough people to tip the balance in a local election. But the scale is too big in a congressional race, again ESPECIALLY if it's a spread out rural district where it's very hard to go door to door.

The other way to reach voters directly is events like county fairs. But again, if you talk to 300 people at a county fair (and that would probably have to be a multi-day county fair to do so), you're still reaching a very small amount of people. And far from all of those 300 people will vote let alone vote for you. Talking to a voter in person is absolutely no guarantee of anything. It's helpful certainly, but not a guarantee.

Additionally, seldom does a congressional candidate have 1000 donors who can give $1000. There are a lot of low dollar as well as high(er) dollar fundraisers. Most fundraisers ask somewhere between $100-$500, usually several different "supporter level" options. The fundraisers is generally hors d'ourves and MAYBE an open bar in a hotel ballroom or a supporter's home. The multi-thousand dollar a pop black tie dinners you read about generally don't happen at that level.

Bottom line is that the only possible way to reach enough voters to win a congressional race is with television. To get television you need money. You get that money in just about any way you can: big bills, small bills, and everything in between.

I'd love ceilings on campaign spending. But that's not the world that we live in, nor will it ever be unless the Supreme Court overturns Buckley v Valeo. And considering we just went in the opposite direction with Citizens United, I don't see that happening any time soon.

[TheKentuckian]

130. I see what you are saying but it would seem to mean that our only hope for the "henhouse" is

big money from the "foxes".

Which strongly indicates that our only hope other than dumb luck or some magic hocum baked into the cake is something describable as "conscience predators" and that by some force at work there will be reasonable to scale equality in resources within predator circles between the raw predators and the "conscience predators" available to those asking for money (which seems as much a flight of whimsy as "the
Invisible Hand" and all the secular religious babble related to the economy).

I'm interested in your perspective on how such a structure is even within hope of being managed even not to the detriment of the people, much less for their benefit.

I agree with what you lay out, what is their really to argue, but it does seem to be the the political equal of being in a singularity. What is next?

[99Forever]

115. An excellent post..

.. it states mine and many other Democrats thoughts quite well. You are absolutely correct that we MUST get out and vote the down ballot issues and candidates.