Once and for all: the country has not moved to the left

[OCinBuffalo]

New poll interviews over 70k Democrats and Democrat leaning independents.

 

Has a +/-1 margin of error, so it's going to be hard to dispute these results. Conservatives increased, Independents increased, Liberals shrunk, nationally. If anything the Democratic party is now even more liberal. Great, so, basically this is the beginning of the end. Actually, I am not happy about this, as I see the Democrats self-mutilation as not good for the country. We need both sides to be reasoned and to participate in how OUR system works. No good will come from the an unconstrained far-left taking the entire Democratic party out of the game.

 

The Democrats are FAIL because they have been highjacked by the far-left. There is a mountain of evidence to support this conclusion. Teddy Kennedy's seat(which I still can't believe), NJ and Va governors races, the 2010 midterms: if you go back and look, the far-lefts prints are all over each one. Now the far-left is keeping Obama from doing things to fix the economy: look at the Class problem with Obamacare. They can't implement it, because there's simply no money for it, yet the far-left is demanding that it not be dropped. So now what? Exactly. Nobody knows, and this is just one more issue creating the uncertainty that is keeping the economy from recovering fully.

 

And now, Democrats are even MORE liberal? You take this poll, and also take the fact that the "blue dog" Democrat coalition has been decimated by retirement(make no mistake, they were protest/no confidence in Obama retirements) and losses in 2010, and the result? Fewer Democrats in general, coming up and supporting policy that is even further to the left, with fewer numbers of reasonable liberal voices saving these Democrats from themselves. Auto-FAIL.

 

The great advantage that Democrats had in public opinion regarding the economy, that was slowly increased from JFK to James Carville, is now gone. Democrats are no longer trying to make the economy work for everyone, with everyone meaning everyone. Instead, they are trying to destroy it, and replace it with failed European systems. We also have Democrats abandoning the white working class, who was/is their bread and butter, in favor of what, exactly? College professors? Disaffected youth? And of course, just in case there was any doubt about destroying their white working class base, the foolish over-pursuit of ridiculous policies that both purposely raise gas prices, and, create opportunities for crony capitalism and corruption that are just begging to be exposed....ALL supposedly based on questionable global warming science, but really based on socialist and anti-USA ideology.

 

The only reason I can think of for why Democrats would do this to themselves? Money. You won't get anywhere near the same amount of money from the white working class as you will from Hollywood, etc. It appears the Democrats made a calculation: trade their economic credibility and a large part of their base voters, for the money of a small number of wealthy crackpots like George Soros, who demanded the stupidity of the last 4 years in return. The assumption being: it's all about media, and they can get back enough white working class voters and appeal to other demographics with marketing, such that they come out ahead in the end. It's an unbelievably stupid calculation, and worse, they still think 2008 proves them right, and they still think that the country wants to move to the left, its just that they haven't messaged us enough/properly, so it's back to Hollywood for even more money.

 

This is a recipe for Republican domination for the next 20 years, if not longer. This self-destruction is as unbelievable as it is hysterical. It's hysterical because: there are idiots who will tell me that I am a bad person...for doing nothing other than telling them the truth.

[/dev/null]

Similar arguments were made about Republicans with the Neo_Cons and Christian right. 2008 was supposed to bring the Age of Obama and Democratic dominance for the next generation.

 

It's all cyclical. The only difference being that the cycle length has been cut dramatically with the advent of the Intarwebs.

[OCinBuffalo]

Similar arguments were made about Republicans with the Neo_Cons and Christian right. 2008 was supposed to bring the Age of Obama and Democratic dominance for the next generation.

 

It's all cyclical. The only difference being that the cycle length has been cut dramatically with the advent of the Intarwebs.

 

No.

 

Those had to do with expanding the base, Neo-Con, or, consolidating it, Christian right, or both.

 

What the Democrats are doing destroys their base, in favor of more campaign $$$.

[UConn James]

Democrats are no longer trying to make the economy work for everyone, with everyone meaning everyone. Instead, they are trying to destroy it, and replace it with failed European systems.

 

Hammer ---> Nail

 

It will definitely not be Republican dominance for "the next 20 years" though. That doesn't happen anymore if it ever really did. It's four years at a time, and I'm sure if the Republicans get in power something will happen that might make people pinch their noses and vote for the Not-Republicans, and after that, the Not-Democrats....

 

What that means is that beyond the mundane bureaucracy that is the cogs and wheels of the federal system, there is almost no cohesive, long-term strategy for the functioning of this country.

[John Adams]

There is no chance that the Republican party, which is also strongly tied to its extremes, will dominate for 20 years. The Republican Part's answer to Democratic tax and spend economics has been to spend and spend (see Bush). Unless they show they have the stomach to make actual big time cuts, and deal with a lot of bad consequences of doing so (driving up unemployment), they are just offering up different flavors of the same plans as Dems.

 

Someone mentioned yesterday that just about the only politician who can change the way things are done are single term ones. The American public would be mortified by a hard cut on spending and what that would mean short term.

 

 

 

[DaveinElma]

The American public would be mortified by a hard cut on spending and what that would mean short term.

 

They'd be mortified by lower taxes and more private sector jobs?

[TPS]

Interesting. Survey shows Democrats tend to be female, non-white and college-educated. As the non-white population of the country increases relative to white, and as more female minorities go to college, maybe those demographic changes cause a change in the democrats %s? Naw, you're probably right, it's a Soros-funded conspiracy to make democrats more liberal...

[John Adams]

They'd be mortified by lower taxes and more private sector jobs?

 

You're an idiot.

[....lybob]

Even if I was to concede that America is overwhelmingly conservative I fail to see the advantage of Democrats being Republican-lite, why have political parties if you can't fit a sheet of paper between them. Actually if the Democrats self-destructed I don't think the Republicans would be far behind, a coalition of Christian fundamentalists, libertarians, and corportists can only be held together by their hatred of liberals, take that threat away and the coalition disintegrates.

[Jauronimo]

There is no chance that the Republican party, which is also strongly tied to its extremes, will dominate for 20 years. The Republican Part's answer to Democratic tax and spend economics has been to spend and spend (see Bush). Unless they show they have the stomach to make actual big time cuts, and deal with a lot of bad consequences of doing so (driving up unemployment), they are just offering up different flavors of the same plans as Dems.

Someone mentioned yesterday that just about the only politician who can change the way things are done are single term ones. The American public would be mortified by a hard cut on spending and what that would mean short term.

Why would either party want to raise taxes right now? When you're struggling to emerge from recession and at risk of stalling out and falling back into the same hole, you promote expansionary policies. I know its more complicated than just slash any and all taxes, but some tax cuts make sense. This is Econ 101 level stuff.

 

Instead of explaining to the public any of the ramifications of economic and fiscal policy, at the political level it becomes scatalogical warfare. The left has become the champion of tax the rich, never a bad time to tax, always raise the minimum wage. They do their best to dismiss the right with derisive terms like "trickle down" economics and have convinced their constituency that supply side economics only serves the elite, that a reduction in the corporate tax rate only means a bigger bonus for the execs. The right, for reasons that are inexplicable, ignores all the misinformation, declines to educate the public and instead tries to win favor with the working class who stand to be 0.5% richer if they vote for tax cuts party.

 

Neither side even attempts to explain to the public how our economy functions. Is this by design? Do they think that Americans are incapable of grasping Econ 101 or do they not want the public to know how things actually work? In my opinion, nearly all political discussions about the economy come across as peddling total fallacies and pandering for votes. Its either pandering for votes or Obama and his staff truly have no idea how the economy functions, and the latter is more difficult for me to believe.

Edited November 8, 2011 by Jauronimo

[B-Large]

Similar arguments were made about Republicans with the Neo_Cons and Christian right. 2008 was supposed to bring the Age of Obama and Democratic dominance for the next generation.

 

It's all cyclical. The only difference being that the cycle length has been cut dramatically with the advent of the Intarwebs.

 

I remember when Obama was elected, the consesus of the talking heads was the Death of the GOP, they are no longer relevant, etc.... until the Mid-Terms of course....

 

The Democrats are just fine. The Tops of the Party are Cozy with Big Business, Unions, Minorities, most of the Urban Centers, Women, etc.

 

I am going to predict the future, if a GOP POTUS gets elected and the GOP remains in control of congress. They will begin to chisel away at popular entitlements, begin to the take away the gifts in the tax code, do their best to repeal healthcare reform... and off the the sudden, people will freak out again and the Democrats will be popular again.

 

This is all a resulst of Federal Government where "power and control", eclipsed responsible representation of the US populace many, many moons ago. The R and D's are Net Expanders of Federal Government- they have been for 30 years.... ask youself why NOW would it change?

[KD in CA]

Why would either party want to raise taxes right now? When you're struggling to emerge from recession and at risk of stalling out and falling back into the same hole, you promote expansionary policies. I know its more complicated than just slash any and all taxes, but some tax cuts make sense. This is Econ 101 level stuff.

 

Because winning elections is more important than fixing the economy.

 

But JA is right. The Republicans offer no real alternatives; they are almost as fiscally irresponsible as the Democrats now. And they continue to pander to the wrong side of most of the social issues.

 

It's disheartening that intelligent people can't get a 3d party formed that has some basis in economic reality.

[B-Large]

Why would either party want to raise taxes right now? When you're struggling to emerge from recession and at risk of stalling out and falling back into the same hole, you promote expansionary policies. I know its more complicated than just slash any and all taxes, but some tax cuts make sense. This is Econ 101 level stuff.

 

Instead of explaining to the public any of the ramifications of economic and fiscal policy, at the political level it becomes scatalogical warfare. The left has become the champion of tax the rich, never a bad time to tax, always raise the minimum wage. They do their best to dismiss the right with derisive terms like "trickle down" economics and have convinced their constituency that supply side economics only serves the elite, that a reduction in the corporate tax rate only means a bigger bonus for the execs. The right, for reasons that are inexplicable, ignores all the misinformation, declines to educate the public and instead tries to win favor with the working class who stand to be 0.5% richer if they vote for tax cuts party.

 

Neither side even attempts to explain to the public how our economy functions. Is this by design? Do they think that Americans are incapable of grasping Econ 101 or do they not want the public to know how things actually work? In my opinion, nearly all political discussions about the economy come across as peddling total fallacies and pandering for votes. Its either pandering for votes or Obama and his staff truly have no idea how the economy functions, and the latter is more difficult for me to believe.

 

I find the posturing by our political leadership entertaining. Truth be told, IMHO, there is a fundamental fact we all must face in America.... that everyone, in general, is going to have to reduce their lifestyle in America.

 

As you can see in my Sig, the great credit expansion is over, and it is a fickle, unsustainable policy for this country. A Majority of Citizens have failed to use it repsonsiblly.... our Government, at least Federal, has 100% failed to respect credit.

 

The problems we have in the US today are a combination of massive fixed expenses, and a list for money now, even if it has not been earned yet.

 

As for the first sentence in your response, we have raised taxes in this country, we are not paying for it now.... we have borrowed in order to lower the rate we are paying, but the tab has ot dispppeared.

 

I have been in favor of taxes = expenditures, and I don't care of that tax rate is 75%, because that is the only way people are going to realize we have to bgin living with less... and to me, that is the big 3... Medicare, SS and Defense. To keep charging the operation is paramount to recklessnes...

[/dev/null]

It's disheartening that intelligent people can't get a 3d party formed that has some basis in economic reality.

 

Intelligent people can't get a viable 3rd party formed is the economic reality created by the 2 party system.

 

While we all piss and moan that the system is broken, few realize that it's working quite well for the 2 party system.

[B-Large]

Intelligent people can't get a viable 3rd party formed is the economic reality created by the 2 party system.

 

While we all piss and moan that the system is broken, few realize that it's working quite well for the 2 party system.

 

If there was ever an opportunity to emerge a 3rd political party, now is the time.

 

But I hear people all the time say "a vote for a 3rd party is just a wasted vote"

 

Really... isn't voting the current system kind of a wasted vote?

[DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry]

Framing it as a 2 party problem is a mistake. The two party problem doesnt CREATE the problems, the problems create the two party system. Like it or not, people are going to associate politically. They'll do so on account of any number of factors but ultimately, if you eliminate use of the D/R/I label you're still going to end up with conservatives on one side and liberals on another. It has everything to do with differing values and the tension simply comes from self interest. "My values are better than yours"

 

Do you think if we eliminated political parties that candidates would magically care about effective governance all of a sudden? Of course not....if anything their self-interested motives would become stronger as now they're out there without a net. One could argue that would lead to more thought being put into governance but I don't really think thats the case. Campaign rhetoric would increase, coalitions would form that would look exactly like political parties and we'd be in the same situation that we are now.

 

Ultimately, conservatives and liberals will continue to demonize each other rather than attempt to find common ground. Some do it openly and ignorantly while others do it just as substantively however have the "foresight" to cover it up with a shiny veneer of moral superiority. When people actually realize that GASP other people may have different values/thoughts/ideas we'll possibly move closer toward effective governance.

[OCinBuffalo]

Interesting. Survey shows Democrats tend to be female, non-white and college-educated. As the non-white population of the country increases relative to white, and as more female minorities go to college, maybe those demographic changes cause a change in the democrats %s? Naw, you're probably right, it's a Soros-funded conspiracy to make democrats more liberal...

So lets get this straight: young black females are the reason gas prices are being held hostage? Did young black females decide that white working class men don't matter anymore? Did young black females demand that Obamacare get passed? How about cap and trade? How about card check? How about gay marriage? Yeah, the black female is the biggest proponent of gay marriage, while the Hollywood producer, who gave 2 million has no opinion on the matter.

 

The population increase you are talking about is 2-3 points. That's the justification for throwing away 18-25 points worth of general election voters who have been consistently voting for you since they turned 18?

 

Yeah, that's makes a lot more sense than: George Soros/Hollywood will give you a ton of money for your campaign, provided you tow their retarded line.

 

TPS: time to give it up on trying to pretend that Soros is some made-up person, or that I am suggesting a conspiracy. It's not a conspiracy if you come right out and say what you are doing and why. Youtube George Soros. He is who he says, not I say, he is. Soros IS Moveon.org. Without him they are just a pissant message board. PPP has more credibility than MoveOn without Soros money. MoveOn.org is where the $$ comes from for OWS. So, really, George Soros is also OWS.

Even if I was to concede that America is overwhelmingly conservative I fail to see the advantage of Democrats being Republican-lite, why have political parties if you can't fit a sheet of paper between them. Actually if the Democrats self-destructed I don't think the Republicans would be far behind, a coalition of Christian fundamentalists, libertarians, and corportists can only be held together by their hatred of liberals, take that threat away and the coalition disintegrates.

First of all, and I cannot believe I am saying this, .....lybob has made an accurate observation! What is happening?

 

But of course, you are also wrong: I don't want liberals for their party. I couldn't care less about the concept of a "party", and therefore I care even less how close the 2 parties are to each other. The point is not to simply contradict the other party. The point is: I want REASONABLE people on the left to bring their point of view, not necessarily their crappy solutions, to any problem that is being discussed. I don't want groupthink from either side, or the center, period.

 

Something you can relate to: JFK was smart guy who did a dumb thing, Bay of Pigs, and the reason why? Groupthink.

 

And finally, don't misrepresent people in the middle and right: they don't hate liberals. They are not you. You probably hate them, but they simply don't care enough about you to hate you. What they hate is the fact that you won't hold yourselves accountable when you demand the implementation of crappy solutions we know won't work, and they FAIL, and then you keep doubling down on them. Also, claiming to be "forward thinking", while selling ideas from the 1930s and 1960s doesn't get you a lot of love either.

Edited November 8, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[OCinBuffalo]

There is no chance that the Republican party, which is also strongly tied to its extremes, will dominate for 20 years. The Republican Part's answer to Democratic tax and spend economics has been to spend and spend (see Bush). Unless they show they have the stomach to make actual big time cuts, and deal with a lot of bad consequences of doing so (driving up unemployment), they are just offering up different flavors of the same plans as Dems.

 

Someone mentioned yesterday that just about the only politician who can change the way things are done are single term ones. The American public would be mortified by a hard cut on spending and what that would mean short term.

 

This is pure "dollars for doughnuts" analysis on my part, as in where the dollars are coming from, and what kind of doughnuts they are buying. The Republicans will simply win by forfeit if the Democrats keep taking money from the "fundamental transformation of America" wingnuts and acting accordingly. So perhaps "Republican domination" isn't the right word. Perhaps "Republicans merely showing up... with just a few reasonable ideas....and winning by default for the next 20 years" is better.

 

 

I still believe what I wrote yesterday, but that's predicated on both sides remaining viable. It is not predicated on one side committing suicide, and having the other be able to do whatever it wants.

[TPS]

So lets get this straight: young black females are the reason gas prices are being held hostage? Did young black females decide that white working class men don't matter anymore? Did young black females demand that Obamacare get passed? How about cap and trade? How about card check? How about gay marriage? Yeah, the black female is the biggest proponent of gay marriage, while the Hollywood producer, who gave 2 million has no opinion on the matter.

 

The population increase you are talking about is 2-3 points. That's the justification for throwing away 18-25 points worth of general election voters who have been consistently voting for you since they turned 18?

 

Yeah, that's makes a lot more sense than: George Soros/Hollywood will give you a ton of money for your campaign, provided you tow their retarded line.

 

TPS: time to give it up on trying to pretend that Soros is some made-up person, or that I am suggesting a conspiracy. It's not a conspiracy if you come right out and say what you are doing and why. Youtube George Soros. He is who he says, not I say, he is. Soros IS Moveon.org. Without him they are just a pissant message board. PPP has more credibility than MoveOn without Soros money. MoveOn.org is where the $$ comes from for OWS. So, really, George Soros is also OWS.

 

First of all, and I cannot believe I am saying this, .....lybob has made an accurate observation! What is happening?

 

But of course, you are also wrong: I don't want liberals for their party. I couldn't care less about the concept of a "party", and therefore I care even less how close the 2 parties are to each other. The point is not to simply contradict the other party. The point is: I want REASONABLE people on the left to bring their point of view, not necessarily their crappy solutions, to any problem that is being discussed. I don't want groupthink from either side, or the center, period.

 

Something you can relate to: JFK was smart guy who did a dumb thing, Bay of Pigs, and the reason why? Groupthink.

 

And finally, don't misrepresent people in the middle and right: they don't hate liberals. They are not you. You probably hate them, but they simply don't care enough about you to hate you. What they hate is the fact that you won't hold yourselves accountable when you demand the implementation of crappy solutions we know won't work, and they FAIL, and then you keep doubling down on them. Also, claiming to be "forward thinking", while selling ideas from the 1930s and 1960s doesn't get you a lot of love either.

Wow, Soros is a liberal democrat and uses his money to support his beliefs? Next your going to tell me someone like the Koch brothers does that on the right...

 

Soros is OWS? Now you are a conspiracy nut.

[OCinBuffalo]

Wow, Soros is a liberal democrat and uses his money to support his beliefs? Next your going to tell me someone like the Koch brothers does that on the right...

 

Soros is OWS? Now you are a conspiracy nut.

 

Dude, the money from OWS comes from MoveOn, and Moveon's money comes from Soros.

 

This is common f'ing knowledge. Why are you denying reality? Or, is this a difficult concept for you? I thought you were one of the reasoned, and therefore, tolerable, leftists on this board.