A question for those who lean left...

[SanDiegoTim]

Indulge for a moment in this hypothetical scenario: Come November 2nd the Democrats lose control of one or both houses of Congress.

As an intellectually honest left-leaning citizen, and setting aside all personal preferences, could you agree to the following explanation: the current administration and congress leaned too far left for the electorate?

[SpoilerVirgin]

No. A major recession just ended, with residual effects that are still being felt. Because of a serious divide between the goals of Democrats and Republicans, as well as differences in the approaches that they felt were necessary to deal with the economic situation, the Democrats were not able to accomplish as much as they would have liked to. Americans are notoriously uncomfortable with incumbents, and even more so when both houses of Congress and the presidency are held by a single party. These factors would all be much more significant causes of a loss by the Democrats in Congress than any particular policies of the Congress or the administration.

There were far left policies enacted? I must not have seen the news that day.

[Ludovic]

There were far left policies enacted? I must not have seen the news that day.The health care bill, for one. No sensible Republican would ever think of proposing anything like it.

[DigitalC]

Indulge for a moment in this hypothetical scenario: Come November 2nd the Democrats lose control of one or both houses of Congress.

As an intellectually honest left-leaning citizen, and setting aside all personal preferences, could you agree to the following explanation: the current administration and congress leaned too far left for the electorate?

No, as an intellectual honest left-leaning citizen i know damn well there was nothing "left" to the current administration, if we did i would be a lot happier. We have a center right government that would make republicans of the past decade or so thrilled.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

There were far left policies enacted? I must not have seen the news that day.The health care bill, for one. No sensible Republican would ever think of proposing anything like it.


Is Newt Gingrich "sensible"?

[Ludovic]

The health care bill, for one. No sensible Republican would ever think of proposing anything like it.


Is Newt Gingrich "sensible"?Marietta is by a rather large airport, no?

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Is Newt Gingrich "sensible"?Marietta is by a rather large airport, no?


Who put the wrong color cap on this Sharpie?

[River Hippie]

Honestly, I believe a spectacularly effective propaganda campaign by the right has convinced a large portion of the population that our slightly left of center president is a far left socialist, bent on the destruction of capitalism and America.

[gonzomax]

They actually got elected to institute change. A year and a half later, they pissed off 2 groups, those who really wanted change and those who make money off status quo. Changes were made ,but they were too weak for most of us.
Fox and the big networks love the way things were during Bush. They got richer and more powerful. Some Americans are dumb enough to think the interests of the wealthy are theirs too. They too think we're moving the wrong way. Those people are hurting the country and their own interests.

[BayouHazard]

What Gonzomax said...and furthermore...

I think that what's going to happen is the scapegoating of the Left, when what we have is a centrist administration, and a Right-Wing trend to our ccountry's policies both foreign and domestic.

So the tea party/hard right types will scream for more of the same that's hurting them, them wonder why they're getting more impoverished and miserable, blame Leftwingers, and repeat, until it could escalate to violence, insurrection, and/or rounding up "enemies" and putting us into camps.

Which is why I'm getting a 12-gauge pump action shotgun, and I advise all lefties to invest in firearms. It might come to that.

[dzero]

I try to ignore the TP'ers as much as possible. I saw the 'great rant' by Santelli on CNBC (when i still watched that shit channel) which is supposedly one of the seminal events leading to the formation of an organized TP. His rant was all about the moral responsibility of people who had bought at the top of the market in housing and were now looking for help from the government - which basically meant giving money to people who made bad choices. You can see it here - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/20/rick-santelli-i-sparked-t_n_731249.html

I see the tea party as being all about government actions that amount to transfers of wealth to people who don't deserve it - whether banks, borrowers, whomever.

Since the rant, it has however been co-opted in many ways by other groups who this as potential power base. But the initial motivation was the idea that people should accept the consequences of their actions and not get a govt handout every time they do something stupid.

The problem with that attitude, and you see it even in people like Santelli who really should know better, is that had the govt not bailed out Goldman, AIG and the rest, the credit crisis started by Lehman folding would have been much worse. It would have been the 1920's all over again with rampant deflation, bank runs, etc, etc. If you know anything at all about monetary theory you can see that.

But the TP anger is misdirected. The govt, and in particular the Federal reserve under Bernanke, literally pulled our fat out of the fire. They are the heros. The people who are to blame are all of the banks, rating agencies, hedge funds, etc who were leveraged out the ying-yang. It was literally a house of cards. And, take note, it was all made possible by a decision by the Bush admin to reduce capital requirements for things like derivatives. So you could sell a credit default swap on Portugese govt paper that would obligate you to pay say $10M on default but only have a few hundred thousand in capital to back that obligation.

That's what led to an explosion of the money supply and further fueled the frenzy in the housing market. The lower rates went, the higher house prices went since they canceled each other out resulting in the same monthly payment. So Greenspan has to take a big chunk of the blame too.

The point is that the current admin walked into the mother of all financial cluster fucks. And while they have made their own mistakes along the way, they have at least done some important things right. Otherwise, we wouldn't even be looking at projected growth of GDP in the 2% range. We'd still be bouncing along the bottom of the great recession.

[Fear Itself]

As an intellectually honest left-leaning citizen, and setting aside all personal preferences, could you agree to the following explanation: the current administration and congress leaned too far left for the electorate?
If the GOP does not take over the Senate, will you concede that the Obama Administration has not moved far enough to the left?

[E-Sabbath]

The health care bill, for one. No sensible Republican would ever think of proposing anything like it.


Is Newt Gingrich "sensible"?

Is Richard Nixon "sensible"?

[Ludovic]

I see the tea party as being all about government actions that amount to transfers of wealth to people who don't deserve it - whether banks, borrowers, whomever.

Sure, but what are they against?

[Ludovic]

Is Newt Gingrich "sensible"?

Is Richard Nixon "sensible"?Nope, like I was trying to say, there was never ever any republican that ever increased the deficit, or instituted wage and price controls like the socialist Obama wants to do, or proposed health care reform remotely like the bill that was just passed.

[Frank]

Nope, like I was trying to say, there was never ever any republican that ever increased the deficit, or instituted wage and price controls like the socialist Obama wants to do, or proposed health care reform remotely like the bill that was just passed.
It's hard to believe that the second most infamous Congressional Red-baiter of all time would have lost his primary to a tea partier these days. But still, there it is.

[dzero]

I see the tea party as being all about government actions that amount to transfers of wealth to people who don't deserve it - whether banks, borrowers, whomever.

Sure, but what are they against?
I think originally they were against the moral and financial irresponsibility that got us into the mess in the first place and against giving borrowers, lenders or anyone else an easy way out by letting them suck from the govt teat.

[kfraser34]

I don't think the results of the upcoming elections (which I am quite confident will be a loss for dems) will have anything to do with the actions of the Obama admin...

Obama won the presidency, handily, because he wasn't what was usually offered up as a choice for president (old white male)... he didn't merely offer change, he was change... so many people became interested and mobilized to vote who other wise would not have cast a ballot...

Well, those previously untapped voters probably don't care as much about the mid-term elections, if they are even aware of them at all... combine this with the fact that the right will be heavily mobilized by this perceived "threat of growing socialism" you are looking at a healthy republican win in November...

but don't get too excited if you are a conservative... I also think Obama will be re-elected in 2012, probably with another large margin of victory and the largest voter turn out in the history of presidential elections...

FWIW... ya Obama is left of what most Americans are used to, but from a Global perspective he is not very far from centre, and hardly deserves the label of Socialist...

[Askance]

Is Richard Nixon "sensible"?Nope, like I was trying to say, there was never ever any republican that ever increased the deficit, or instituted wage and price controls like the socialist Obama wants to do ...
What!?! Can you really believe this? Republican presidents almost invariably increase spending and reduce taxes; what do you think that does to the deficit?
http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html
The first seven years of the G.W. Bush presidency increased the deficit by half again as much as the 32 years from JFK through G.H.W.Bush combined, and somewhat more than the 24 years from Harding through FDR combined (remember, this is in inflation-adjusted dollars).

If one includes fiscal year 2008-2009 as part of the G.W. Bush administration (consistent with my treatment of all the previous administrations), that administration oversaw twice as much increase in Federal budget deficits as Presidents Kennedy through G.H.W.Bush put together.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_Shock
on August 15, 1971, President Nixon imposed a 90-day wage and price freeze, a 10 percent import surcharge, and, most importantly, “closed the gold window”, ending convertibility between US dollars and gold.

[Starving Artist]

Indulge for a moment in this hypothetical scenario: Come November 2nd the Democrats lose control of one or both houses of Congress.

As an intellectually honest left-leaning citizen, and setting aside all personal preferences, could you agree to the following explanation: the current administration and congress leaned too far left for the electorate?Can anybody here give this man a straight answer? He asked if the Dems lose one or both of the houses does that mean the administration and congress are too far left for the electorate!

He didn't ask if they were "far left" in fact, or if they were left compared with the handful of countries in Europe that people here love to point to as being the political norm. He didn't ask about details of the bailout, he didn't ask about the machinations of the media, and he didn't ask about the activities of and/or the makeup of the Tea Party, and he didn't ask who would win the White House in 2014. He simply wants to know whether, if the elections don't go their way, does that mean congress and the current administration are too far left for most of the people in this country who vote.

So, can we get a "Hell, yeah! "

Didn't think so. :p

[kenner116]

It's not about left or right, but the current state of the economy. It's the reason the Dems won two years ago, and is the reason they will lose this November. It's not complicated.

[Measure for Measure]

Is Richard Nixon "sensible"?Nope, like I was trying to say, there was never ever any republican that ever increased the deficit, or instituted wage and price controls like the socialist Obama wants to do, or proposed health care reform remotely like the bill that was just passed.Weird.

Health Care:
1. The health care plan that passed was a variant of the plan put forth by Mitt Romney (R) or Massachusetts. FYI.

Deficit:
2. TARP was passed under George Bush. Obama inherited the worst recession since WWII, largely due to regulatory failure. It's not surprising that a large stimulus package would be required. Nonetheless, state level contraction has largely offset federal expansion: the stimulus hasn't been all that much, actually. We need more.

Wage and Price Controls:
3. Nixon instituted a price freeze. Nixon was a Republican. Assertions that Obama would do so are pure paranoia. I'll ask for a cite on that: it should be entertaining.
--------

Re: The OP: As others have noted, a) midterm losses are the rule, not the exception and 2) larger midterm losses occur during recessions. Obama's mistake was not leaning too far left: rather he and Congress made the stimulus package too small, and put insufficient effort into filling 3 vacant slots at the Federal Reserve in the face of Republican mendacity.

[E-Sabbath]

Psst. I'm pretty sure Ludovic knows all that

[Fear Itself]

He simply wants to know whether, if the elections don't go their way, does that mean congress and the current administration are too far left for most of the people in this country who vote.

So, can we get a "Hell, yeah! "Yet you are incapable of offering any reason why the poor economy is tied to liberal policies or the Obama administration. It is nothing more than an article of faith with you. Conservative, gooood! Liberal, baaaaaad! That is the sum total of your argument, which reasonable people find unpersuasive.

[Baboonanza]

Indulge for a moment in this hypothetical scenario: Come November 2nd the Democrats lose control of one or both houses of Congress.

As an intellectually honest left-leaning citizen, and setting aside all personal preferences, could you agree to the following explanation: the current administration and congress leaned too far left for the electorate?Can anybody here give this man a straight answer? He asked if the Dems lose one or both of the houses does that mean the administration and congress are too far left for the electorate!

He didn't ask if they were "far left" in fact, or if they were left compared with the handful of countries in Europe that people here love to point to as being the political norm. He didn't ask about details of the bailout, he didn't ask about the machinations of the media, and he didn't ask about the activities of and/or the makeup of the Tea Party, and he didn't ask who would win the White House in 2014. He simply wants to know whether, if the elections don't go their way, does that mean congress and the current administration are too far left for most of the people in this country who vote.

So, can we get a "Hell, yeah! "

Didn't think so. :p
SpoilerVirgin gave a reasonable answer, but I guess you ignored that because it doesn't agree with your worldview.

The problem is that if you asked large portions of the electorate if the Obama administration was too far left for them they would say 'hell yes, he's a Socialist' without any understanding of what that means, what policies they are talking about, or even whether they might actually support those policies themselves if they were explained to them without the partisan bullshit. The political debate in America has degenerated to such a point that the actual polices are unimportant.

Besides, issues of political ideology never, ever decide elections. It's all about the economy, farcical 'social values', misperception, personality and tribalism.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

To directly answer the first post: no. The average person would be better right now with some kind of employment. If we could do it over again, the TARP would have created a second WPA to keep us afloat. When better jobs come back in the private sector, people slide over and fill those jobs.

[BrainGlutton]

There were far left policies enacted? I must not have seen the news that day.

Apparently elected officials just occasionally, and mostly off the record, talking about moderate left policies was scary enough.

[jayjay]

Can anybody here give this man a straight answer? He asked if the Dems lose one or both of the houses does that mean the administration and congress are too far left for the electorate!

He didn't ask if they were "far left" in fact, or if they were left compared with the handful of countries in Europe that people here love to point to as being the political norm. He didn't ask about details of the bailout, he didn't ask about the machinations of the media, and he didn't ask about the activities of and/or the makeup of the Tea Party, and he didn't ask who would win the White House in 2014. He simply wants to know whether, if the elections don't go their way, does that mean congress and the current administration are too far left for most of the people in this country who vote.

So, can we get a "Hell, yeah! "

Didn't think so. :p

Okay, but what are you talking about? Whether the actual policies are too far left for the electorate, or whether the electorate thinks the Democrats are too far left because they've been lied to constantly about who Obama is and what his political stances are? Because Obama is NOT a leftist. Nothing he's done is "too far left" by any objective standard. If anything, he's a centrist who's continued quite a few of the more egregious Bush administration attacks against civil liberties and has melted under the onslaught of lies and attack ads when it comes to actual domestic policies.

[BrainGlutton]

Can anybody here give this man a straight answer? He asked if the Dems lose one or both of the houses does that mean the administration and congress are too far left for the electorate!

That question was straight-answered in the negative in post #2, with which I substantially agree.

[CandidGamera]

I think the majority of Democratic losses can be attributed to the sluggish economy and the party's utter inability to form a coherent message in the face of shameless pandering and dishonesty by the opposition. Death panels and Birth certificates, feh.

[Acsenray]

As an intellectually honest left-leaning citizen, and setting aside all personal preferences, could you agree to the following explanation: the current administration and congress leaned too far left for the electorate?

First of all, I predicted to myself on election day 2008 that 2010 would be a disaster for the Democrats because there was no way the utter catastrophe created by the Bush administration could be cleared up to any extent by then.

Second, the Obama administration has been nearly as conservative as the Bush administration, so it's impossible that the Democratic party's current state has anything to do with being "too far left."

Third, the policies that are now being labeled as "too far left" by the right now are policies that the right itself advocated just a couple of years ago. It's all just propaganda bullshit.

[DigitalC]

I think a far more liberal president would have somewhat blunted the losses they are sure to have this year. It's not just Republican enthusiasm that they have going against them this year, its Democrats lack of it because we got nothing of what we really wanted.

[BrainGlutton]

I think a far more liberal president would have somewhat blunted the losses they are sure to have this year. It's not just Republican enthusiasm that they have going against them this year, its Democrats lack of it because we got nothing of what we really wanted.

I agree perfectly . . . but that raises an interesting strategic question for 2012. Should the left-progressive wing try its own "Tea Party" movement to take control from the established Dem leadership? In all probability, that would only produce left-insurgent nominees who would have little chance in the general election -- just as with most Tea Party nominees this year. But if the left-progressive wing does not try to take control, what can we expect out of a post-2012 Congress or WH but more of the same? It is a puzzlement.

[jayjay]

I agree perfectly . . . but that raises an interesting strategic question for 2012. Should the left-progressive wing try its own "Tea Party" movement to take control from the established Dem leadership? In all probability, that would only produce left-insurgent nominees who would have little chance in the general election -- just as with most Tea Party nominees this year. But if the left-progressive wing does not try to take control, what can we expect out of a post-2012 Congress or WH but more of the same? It is a puzzlement.

As frustrating as it is for those of us on the left to be patient while incremental change happens, imagine how much more frustrating it is for those on the right, who are demographically losing what little remains of their ideology as slowly as we're gaining ours. I do believe that's a major root of the Tea Party pathology, actually.

[gonzomax]

The argument distills down to whether you believe the Fox mantra that America is a slightly right leaning country. I do not. When the people were energized last election , they showed a powerful rejection of the right wing Bush/Repub agenda. The problem is we expected a strong effort for change. We are upset because Obama did not do enough of it. Somehow we did not anticipate the Repubs would vote against every damn program as a bloc .
Who could side with the financial whores and bankers that trashed the world economy against the benefit of the people? The Repubs. Who would back the health care companies that helped make an industry that delivered poor health care at huge prices. The Repubs. Who insisted that 1/3rd of the stimulus to save the economy had to be another stupid tax cut that increases the deficit? The Repubs.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

No. The Obama adminstration has been moderately conservative. If anything, he's bent over backwars to try to please the right. Even the Health Care bill was a Republican bill. there just isn't any justification for arguing that Obama has been at all leftist. Any change in the midterms will be partly a function of the normal dynamic that follows the election of a new President (the out party is more motivated to go out and vote than the in party and gets more people showing up at the polls), and partly a result of a sustained (and really unprecedented) right wing media campaign to demonize Obama beyond all reason.

[DigitalC]

No. The Obama adminstration has been moderately conservative. If anything, he's bent over backwars to try to please the right. Even the Health Care bill was a Republican bill. there just isn't any justification for arguing that Obama has been at all leftist. Any change in the midterms will be partly a function of the normal dynamic that follows the election of a new President (the out party is more motivated to go out and vote than the in party and gets more people showing up at the polls), and partly a result of a sustained (and really unprecedented) right wing media campaign to demonize Obama beyond all reason.

I'd say the economy will play a large part also. A lot of Obama supporters really did expect for him to come into power, wave his huge black dick around and fix the country in about three months, the fact that did this not happen is going to make a lot of them stay home this time around.

[BrainGlutton]

No. The Obama adminstration has been moderately conservative. If anything, he's bent over backwars to try to please the right.

Nitpick: I think you mean "forwards."

[Jas09]

I think many of these answers are good (some more than others). No election is summed up by one catch-phrase. They are a reflection of the predominate issues of the day combined with the perceived performance (note: not necessarily ideology) of the party in power on those issues. Currently those are the economy (jobs in particular), and poor, respectively.

I will offer this counter-question though, if the OP will oblige: Did the Democratic victories of 2006 and 2008 mean that the Bush administration and GOP-controlled Congress leaned too far to the right of the electorate?

I think you will find your answer to that question is largely in line with liberals' answers concerning the upcoming election.

[BrainGlutton]

I agree perfectly . . . but that raises an interesting strategic question for 2012. Should the left-progressive wing try its own "Tea Party" movement to take control from the established Dem leadership? In all probability, that would only produce left-insurgent nominees who would have little chance in the general election -- just as with most Tea Party nominees this year. But if the left-progressive wing does not try to take control, what can we expect out of a post-2012 Congress or WH but more of the same? It is a puzzlement.

As frustrating as it is for those of us on the left to be patient while incremental change happens, imagine how much more frustrating it is for those on the right, who are demographically losing what little remains of their ideology as slowly as we're gaining ours. I do believe that's a major root of the Tea Party pathology, actually.

Agreed.

In the 1890s, a new religion called the "Ghost Dance" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_dance) swept through the Plains Indians nations. They seem to have had the idea that if enough of them danced the Ghost Dance, the palefaces would just go away and everything would be as it was before they came.

The Tea Party is the Ghost Dance of the American right.

[NDP]

I think the majority of Democratic losses can be attributed to the sluggish economy and the party's utter inability to form a coherent message in the face of shameless pandering and dishonesty by the opposition. Death panels and Birth certificates, feh.

That's pretty much what I think. However, assuming that the Democrats take big hits in the House and Senate in November, the political conventional wisdom will be that it was because Obama's and his party's policies were far too liberal for the American public.

I agree perfectly . . . but that raises an interesting strategic question for 2012. Should the left-progressive wing try its own "Tea Party" movement to take control from the established Dem leadership? In all probability, that would only produce left-insurgent nominees who would have little chance in the general election -- just as with most Tea Party nominees this year. But if the left-progressive wing does not try to take control, what can we expect out of a post-2012 Congress or WH but more of the same? It is a puzzlement.

And where exactly is this "left-progressive wing" you speak of? I have yet to see any significant left-wing equivalent of the Tea Party holding large public rallies and constantly prodding the Administration and Congress from the left. Also, who could viably challenge Obama from the left? The situation in the Democratic Party is not like 1979 when liberals could turn to Ted Kennedy or even Jerry Brown when they became with disappointed by Carter's ineffectualness.

[BrotherCadfael]

If the GOP does not take over the Senate, will you concede that the Obama Administration has not moved far enough to the left?No. But, if the Democrats were to increase their majority, then I might concede that.

[BrainGlutton]

And where exactly is this "left-progressive wing" you speak of? I have yet to see any significant left-wing equivalent of the Tea Party holding large public rallies and constantly prodding the Administration and Congress from the left. Also, who could viably challenge Obama from the left? The situation in the Democratic Party is not like 1979 when liberals could turn to Ted Kennedy or even Jerry Brown when they became with disappointed by Carter's ineffectualness.

No, it isn't. The highest-profile progressive in the Democratic Party is Dennis Kucinich (Bernie Sanders being an independent). And there's the Congressional Progressive Caucus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Progressive_Caucus) (all Dems save Sanders). But, really, the left-progressive faction of politically interested Americans is sort of half in the party, half out of it (Greens, Socialists, Ralph Nader, unorganized lefties, etc.).

However, taking that into account, there are a lot more of them than you might think. In the Pew Political Typology, (http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=949) they would be included under the heading of "Liberal" (although they probably don't make up that whole group) -- 17% of population, 19% of registered voters -- a group that nearly doubled between 1999 and 2005. (The next update of the study, BTW, is to be done at the end of this year and released early 2011.) The Disadvantaged Democrats are 10%/10%, and while they might have an old-fashioned social outlook they probably can be relied on to take that left-progressive side on economic issues. And I think the left-progressives have the best chance in the long run of picking up the Disaffected vote, if not the Bystander vote.

See also the Center for American Progress "State of American Political Ideology, 2009" (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/03/political_ideology.html) study.

For years, traditional public opinion polling has broken down ideology into three distinct groupings: liberal, moderate, and conservative. Based on this categorization, there has been remarkable stability in ideological orientation, with roughly one-fifth of Americans identifying themselves as “liberal” and about four in 10 classifying themselves as “moderate”
or ”conservative,” respectively, according to Gallup polling from 1992 to 2008.

In this study, however, the electorate is broken down using a more expansive five-point scale of political ideology that reflects the variety of approaches people ascribe to today. Employing this more calibrated measure, 34 percent of the country identifies as “conservative,” 29 percent as “moderate,” 15 percent as “liberal,” 16 percent as “progressive,” and 2 percent as “libertarian.” After moderates are asked which approach they lean toward, the overall ideological breakdown of the country divides into fairly neat left and right groupings, with 47 percent of Americans identifying as progressive or liberal and 48 percent as conservative or libertarian. The rest are unsure or scattered among moderate and other approaches.

Powerful base, if ever it can be properly mobilized.

[Jas09]

If the GOP does not take over the Senate, will you concede that the Obama Administration has not moved far enough to the left?No. But, if the Democrats were to increase their majority, then I might concede that.So this is what you thought in 2006 and 2008? Do you really believe that the political "center", if you will, moves so dramatically in such a short time period?

I guess if you suppose that people truly vote predominantly based on political ideology that might make sense. But even then it seems very odd that folks ideologies change so dramatically so quickly. Seem rather more likely that outside of the 25-30% on each end the center doesn't give two shits about political philosophy and just votes based on how the country is doing, and which party is in control.

[sleeping]

No. The Obama WH been center-right on domestic issues and continued Bush's far-right foreign policy. So, to say that he is too far left would be absurd, since he is not even left of center.

As for what the populace thinks, I would say that, despite an enormous propaganda campaign by the right-wing, most Americans still do not consider Obama too far left. Now, the Democrats may lose the House, and that would indicate a (well-justified) disgust with most of the party. But note that people's opinions of Democrats are rock bottom and even lower for Republicans.

There is only two ways the country can go in the next few years. Toward truly radical reform of our socioeconomic structure, or a descent into all out fascism. The Glenn Becks are doing their best to stretch the Overton Window in their preferred direction.

[Robot Arm]

I think the majority of Democratic losses can be attributed to the sluggish economy and the party's utter inability to form a coherent message in the face of shameless pandering and dishonesty by the opposition. Death panels and Birth certificates, feh.

That's pretty much what I think. However, assuming that the Democrats take big hits in the House and Senate in November, the political conventional wisdom will be that it was because Obama's and his party's policies were far too liberal for the American public.Why? When the Democrats made big gains in 2006 and 2008, was there any talk that the Republicans' policies were too conservative? Has there been any effort or suggestion that they moderate their views more toward the center? If anything, they've moved to the right, digging their foxholes a little deeper and yelling a little louder; but it's the same message they've been campaigning on for my whole life.

[septimus]

There were far left policies enacted? I must not have seen the news that day.The health care bill, for one. No sensible Republican would ever think of proposing anything like it.

I hope it isn't snarky to ask the relative rare clueful Dopers to include an appropriate emoticon when posting satire. (For those not in on the joke, Nixon's plan, rejected by Demos 36 years ago as not-liberal-enough, was much more liberal than the plan now rejected by almost the entire GOP as too liberal! Even in the 1990's GOP was proposing plans at least as liberal as this one.)

OP's question itself is too flawed to bother answering....

[Measure for Measure]

Psst. I'm pretty sure Ludovic knows all that Woosh! Dang, and I thought I had a perfectly operational irony meter.

SanDiegoTim: You appear to have some misconceptions about US politics. Elections swing to a large extent on the basis of the economy, incumbency and a standard midterm loss by the governing party. This has been shown statistically by Ray Fair (http://fairmodel.econ.yale.edu/vote2008/index2.htm) and others. The stuff they jabber about on TV might swing the vote by a couple percentage points. It's kind of sad, but unfortunately most reporters shy away from numeracy.

Lest you be wary of liberal bias, here's what The Economist has to say about Obama's presidency. The Economist is considered a conservative magazine in Europe, though admittedly some argue that it is left of center in the US: Mr Obama has consistently made it clear he favours a mixed capitalist economy. The big incursion of the state into finance took place on his Republican predecessor’s watch. And although he doubtless went further than a McCain administration would have done to help GM and Chrysler survive, he has stuck to his pledge to return them quickly to private ownership. He used this year’s state-of-the-union message to commit himself to helping corporate America double its exports, and has appointed a council to propose ideas for promoting more innovation (though, says one member, “The administration is doing more talking than listening, and several of us are already worried we’ve been suckered into a PR exercise.”) The idea that the Obama admin has been especially radical is silly. Conservatives trot this argument out during every Democratic Presidency since Roosevelt. There's always a fat-cat backed movement that makes its way out of the woodwork purporting to be grass roots that consists of warmed over nativism, empty sentimentality about the consititution, and a motley collection of conspiracy theories. The Liberty League flourished under Roosevelt, John Kennedy was accused of treason(!) by the Birchers and Clinton was accused of causing about 60 people to die prematurely. Now it's the Tea Party's turn. Ugly, nutty stuff. Cite: Old Whine in New Bottles (http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/08/history-of-the-tea-party). Smart consumers of information learn to ID those who consistently make claims that fall apart under scrutiny.

[BrainGlutton]

. . . John Kennedy was accused of treason(!) by the Birchers . . .

Many Birchers thought Eisenhower was a Communist. (See Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus, (http://www.amazon.com/Before-Storm-Goldwater-Unmaking-Consensus/dp/080902859X) by Rick Perlstein.)

[rivulus]

Psst. I'm pretty sure Ludovic knows all that Woosh! Dang, and I thought I had a perfectly operational irony meter. It's not your fault. Today's political realities put a lot of wear and tear on the ol' irony meter. It's likely to break down every so often.

[Starving Artist]

It appears that the president, vice president, and a former Democratic presidential nominee agree with most of the posters to this thread (and its political siblings): anyone voting against the Dems has either been swayed by campaign slogans or they're just too stupid to know what they're doing.

Cite (http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/09/29/rollins.democrats.voters/index.html?hpt=T2)

The thing that remains certain is that liberals are always correct and there is no legitimate reason for dissenting political beliefs or points of view.

[Fear Itself]

The thing that remains certain is that liberals are always correct and there is no legitimate reason for dissenting political beliefs or points of view.I would be the first to concede we don't have a perfect record. But we are way ahead of whoever is in second place.

[Starving Artist]

Case in point.

[Fear Itself]

Look! Hippies fucking in the mud!

[Starving Artist]

Nah, most of 'em can't do that anymore (at least not without Viagra or Replens :D). Whether this is due to past drug use or the passing of the years is anyone's guess, but these days the former mud-fuckers have either come to their senses and become more conservative, or they're voting for Obama, et al. and looking down their noses at anyone who doesn't share their views politically.

So we're still back to where we started, which is that Democrats and liberals believe - and I think they believe it with all their heart and soul - that they are simply smarter than everyone else. This self-deceit would be not only laughable but tolerable if not for the fact that they are so quick to use their self-perceived superiority as the basis for hatred and insults toward anyone who disagrees with them.

[Little Nemo]

How many conservatives were saying "We went too far to the right. We need to pull back to the center to win back the voters." in 2008? No, the main line was "The voters rejected us because we didn't follow our principles. We didn't go far enough to the right."

And that's what liberals will say if they lose influence in 2012. (I say influence because I don't feel liberals really have power. Obama is no liberal and has never claimed to be one.) The liberal wing will move further to the left.

[Little Nemo]

Nah, most of 'em can't do that anymore (at least not without Viagra or Replens :D). Whether this is due to past drug use or the passing of the years is anyone's guess, but these days the former mud-fuckers have either come to their senses and become more conservative, or they're voting for Obama, et al. and looking down their noses at anyone who doesn't share their views politically.

So we're still back to where we started, which is that Democrats and liberals believe - and I think they believe it with all their heart and soul - that they are simply smarter than everyone else. This self-deceit would be not only laughable but tolerable if not for the fact that they are so quick to use their self-perceived superiority as the basis for hatred and insults toward anyone who disagrees with them.This is the ugly truth of the modern Republican Party - they court the stupid vote.

Do you honestly think Barack Obama was born in Kenya? Of course not - you're intelligent and no intelligent person would believe that. So why do people keep saying it - even people who are themselves smart enough to know it's not true? Because they know that stupid people will believe stupid things. And the Republican Party has a policy of telling stupid people lies that will get them to vote Republican - Barack Obama was born in Kenya, gay people want to marry dogs, atheists want to abolish Christmas, Mexicans want to kill your family.

Democrats have their flaws. But at least they don't pander to ignorance.

[BrainGlutton]

So we're still back to where we started, which is that Democrats and liberals believe - and I think they believe it with all their heart and soul - that they are simply smarter than everyone else.

Yes, perhaps, it is a sound general rule that:

Liberals think conservatives are stupid.

Conservatives think liberals are evil.

I mention this pair of truisms mainly because, for some reason, a lot of people seem to get it exactly backward, and I see it given as, "Liberals think conservatives are evil. Conservatives think liberals are stupid."

[Jas09]

It appears that the president, vice president, and a former Democratic presidential nominee agree with most of the posters to this thread (and its political siblings): anyone voting against the Dems has either been swayed by campaign slogans or they're just too stupid to know what they're doing.

Cite (http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/09/29/rollins.democrats.voters/index.html?hpt=T2)

The thing that remains certain is that liberals are always correct and there is no legitimate reason for dissenting political beliefs or points of view.Wow. That cite doesn't say anything like what you claim it does. It's an opinion piece, for one. Two, Obama called Republicans "irresponsible", not stupid.

Maybe you will answer the question, since none of the other righties in the thread have. Did the GOP losses in 2006 and 2008 mean that the Republican party had gone too far to the right for the American people?

[BrainGlutton]

So we're still back to where we started, which is that Democrats and liberals believe - and I think they believe it with all their heart and soul - that they are simply smarter than everyone else.

And, actually, there may be something to such a belief -- with qualifications. (http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=945)

Liberals have the highest education level of any typology group. 49% are college graduates and 26% have some postgraduate education. But the Enterprisers also include a relatively high percentage of college graduates (46%), although fewer Enterprisers than Liberals have attended graduate school (14%).

[Digital Stimulus]

Wow. That cite doesn't say anything like what you claim it does. It's an opinion piece, for one. Two, Obama called Republicans "irresponsible", not stupid.
Thank you. I started on that one, but gave it up as not worth it. I still should've posted as you did.

Three, what Kerry stated was fact, not opinion. Politically stupid to say it, but cognitive studies have shown it to be fact.

Four, Russ Feingold did appear at the rally. Yes, he had scheduling conflicts. Things got resolved quicker than planned and he made it.

And that's where I stopped reading. It's just not worth it...

[Starving Artist]

You know, the number of truly stupid people in the population is really pretty small. Most conservative voters are just normal people going about their lives in normal, ordinary ways. A relatively small percentage listen to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, and most of those who do have the ability to weed out, mentally, the wheat from the chaff when Limbaugh says something nutty or they see a misplaced "D" under the name of a Republican miscreant on the Fox network. Some conservatives even voted for Obama in the last election.

I think it's a result of the liberal propensity to regard itself as superior intellectually that leads so many people of a liberal mindset to swallow the idea that every conservative exposed, however minimally if at all, to the shenanigans of Limbaugh or the Fox network fully accept what they hear and adopt it as heartfelt belief.

Further, not that many conservatives watch and/or listen to these programs anyway. IIRC, Limbaugh pulls a weekly audience of twenty million listeners. And if I also remember correctly this is the aggregate of his daily listeners. So in reality he is only reaching four million listeners a day, and many of them only on a hit and miss basis as he is on in the background as they go about their work or daily business.

So he only reaches four million people a day and most of them hear only snippets of his program. And then among those four million are a great many who perfectly capable, like I said above, of separating the wheat from the chaff in what he's saying. They're likely to see his point on subjects that they already agree with and to smile and shake their heads when he's spouting something that has been distorted or what is obviously nonsense.

So when you look at the total number of conservatives in this country, which numbered at least sixty million if you go by voters in the last election and don't take into account youthful conservatives and/or those who didn't vote, and you consider that of those who are exposed to right wing nonsense only a small percentage actually believe it, you are left with a large number who are unaffected by it - probably 95% at least.

So the average conservative voter is the small business owner, the small business manager, the busy soccer mom, etc. None of these people are particularly stupid and most of them by far are unaffected by the machinations of the right wing media - a media which is far offset by the more insideous though lighthanded (IMO :D) mainstream media, which has been subtly promoting liberal positions on philosophy and lifestyle for decades anyway.

So when you get right down to it, only a very small percentage of the conservative population actually believes nonsense like Obama is a Kenyan or that some Republican politician is really a Democrat because Fox put a "D" under his name four or five or however many times it was.

But all these criticisms are fairly recent anyway and yet the liberal tendency to label its opponents as stupid and backward goes all the way back, apparently. William F. Buckley railed against it in the early fifties and cited instances of it going back to the early decades of the twentieth century. Thus it's become apparent to me that whatever it is in the human brain that results in a person's having become a liberal is also responsible for the liberal propensity to view their opponents as stupid and hateful. But for every stupid or hateful thing a liberal can point to as typical of conservatives, I could show you an equally stupid and/or hateful thing that I can point to as being typical of liberals.

And on preview, Brainglutton, I've never heard any conservative make the claim that liberals are evil. That isn't to say that none ever have, but it isn't part of the mainstream conservative outlook. Frankly, it's been my experience that liberals believe that conservatives are stupid, evil (or at least to the extent their stupidity allows them to be) and hateful, and conservatives believe liberals are pie-in-the-sky idealists who favor unworkable solutions that create more problems than they solve.

Essentially, the conflict between conservatism and liberalism is very similar to the conflict between generations. Conservative philosophies, beliefs and ways of life align more with the adults; and liberal philosophies, beliefs and ways of life align more with youth. It's the generation gap writ large.

And on further preview:

Wow. That cite doesn't say anything like what you claim it does. It's an opinion piece, for one. Two, Obama called Republicans "irresponsible", not stupid.Please point to the part of my post where I said Obama called Republicans stupid.

Maybe you will answer the question, since none of the other righties in the thread have. Did the GOP losses in 2006 and 2008 mean that the Republican party had gone too far to the right for the American people? No, it means that people were tired of the war, politics as usual in Washington, and they fell for Obama's message of hope and change...a message that has now morphed into such silly and meaningless platitudes as his recent "Reach for hope" speech. :rolleyes:

And frankly, much of the problem for the Republicans is that for the last few decades they've been liberal-lite. Limbaugh was correct when he urged Republican politicians and voters to get back to basic and fundemental conservative priciples, principles they had long ago abandoned in the belief that that veering leftward was the only way to get elected in this day and age. If you look at JFK's "Ask not what you're country can do for you" speech and contrast it with today where the question has literally become "How much can and will the government do for me?", and you'll see how much Republicans have had to move leftward to get elected. Now, with the Dems firmly in control and defying the will of the electorate, and being exhorted to do so by the rise and popularity of the Tea Party, Republicans are finally beginning to see that the correct course of action is to get back to the basics of conservatism rather than trying simply to be not quite as liberal as the liberals.

Yee-haw!!!

And now I'm out for the day. I gots chit to do.

And on yet further preview (dammit! :smack:), I would point out, Brain Glutton, that merely attending college is not any kind of reliable measure of innate intelligence, and intelligence alone is not any kind of measure of judgement, wisdom, self-discipline and things like that. And then you have to consider that a certain number of these students are taking liberal arts classes that are a total waste of time and money in terms of the job market (and how smart is that?), and a certain number are 'professional students', staying in school as long as possible to avoid having to contend with the real world.

It ain't for nothin' that William F. Buckley once said that he'd "sooner be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston telephone directory than by the faculty at Harvard University". :D

And besides, how many of these college and university students are being outpaced in income and lifestyle by conservatives who've gone into business and worked their ass off and are far outpacing them in terms of homes, cars, retirement programs, college for their kids, etc.

I hate to say it, but having a larger percentage of liberals in college doesn't really mean anything except that there's a larger percentage of liberals in college. ;)

And now, serially, I am out of here.

[jayjay]

And frankly, much of the problem for the Republicans is that for the last few decades they've been liberal-lite. Limbaugh was correct when he urged Republican politicians and voters to get back to basic and fundemental conservative priciples, principles they had long ago abandoned in the belief that that veering leftward was the only way to get elected in this day and age. If you look at JFK's "Ask not what you're country can do for you" speech and contrast it with today where the question has literally become "How much can and will the government do for me?", and you'll see how much Republicans have had to move leftward to get elected. Now, with the Dems firmly in control and defying the will of the electorate, and being exhorted to do so by the rise and popularity of the Tea Party, Republicans are finally beginning to see that the correct course of action is to get back to the basics of conservatism rather than trying simply to be not quite as liberal as the liberals.

I'm sorry...I must be losing my eyesight, because that paragraph is the single most contrary-to-fact piece of writing I've seen in a long time. "Liberal-lite"? Republicans?! What alternate universe have you been living in? The Republicans have doubled DOWN on crazy right-wing crap. Real-Reagan (as opposed to the Apotheosized St. Ronald) couldn't get a speaking invitation in the modern Republican party! They'd kick him out for being a California liberal Republican. The Republicans have harried the moderates out of the party. There are 3 in the Senate right now, all from New England and all in danger, the Maine senators from Tea Party challenges from the right and Scott Brown because the only reason he won in the first place was that the Mass Democrats nominated a REALLY STUPIDLY BAD campaigner.

The very idea that the Republicans have stepped left in the last 30 years or so is simply idiotic. When the John Birch Society was talking up charging Eisenhower with treason, the Republican Party of the 50s rightly dismissed them as nutcases. Now the Birchers' ideological descendants CONTROL the Republican Party! And you're saying they've moved leftward?

[Jas09]

Please point to the part of my post where I said Obama called Republicans stupid.Your post wasn't that long... but I'll highlight the part where you said what you claim you didn't say:
It appears that the president, vice president, and a former Democratic presidential nominee agree with most of the posters to this thread (and its political siblings): anyone voting against the Dems has either been swayed by campaign slogans or they're just too stupid to know what they're doing. Of course your cite didn't really back you up.
Maybe you will answer the question, since none of the other righties in the thread have. Did the GOP losses in 2006 and 2008 mean that the Republican party had gone too far to the right for the American people? No, it means that people were tired of the war, politics as usual in Washington, and they fell for Obama's message of hope and change...a message that has now morphed into such silly and meaningless platitudes as his recent "Reach for hope" speech. :rolleyes:So you disagree with the OP then, that a loss this year means Dems are too liberal for the voters?

Or, is this a correct set of statements in your opinion:

1) When the GOP loses it is because they are not conservative enough for the voters.
2) When the Democrats lose it is because they are not conservative enough for the voters.

Or perhaps it is this:

1) When the GOP loses it is because voters "fell for [a] message of hope and change".
2) When the Democrats lose it is not because the voters "fell for" the GOP message.

[BrainGlutton]

And on yet further preview (dammit! :smack:), I would point out, Brain Glutton, that merely attending college is not any kind of reliable measure of innate intelligence, and intelligence alone is not any kind of measure of judgement, wisdom, self-discipline and things like that. And then you have to consider that a certain number of these students are taking liberal arts classes that are a total waste of time and money in terms of the job market (and how smart is that?), and a certain number are 'professional students', staying in school as long as possible to avoid having to contend with the real world.

I was expecting something like that. Look, I hope you will concede in principle that whether and what correlation exists between intelligence and political views is a pretty damned important question -- so, if not general education levels, what measure of intelligence would you propose using? (And please don't open the IQ test can-o'-worms!)

[Starving Artist]

Please point to the part of my post where I said Obama called Republicans stupid.Your post wasn't that long... but I'll highlight the part where you said what you claim you didn't say...I'm sorry, but you've done no such thing. I'm beginning to wonder if you have macular degeneration or some other eye ailment that prevents you from seeing the part of the sentence that preceeds what you've bolded. You've missed it twice now. Look again, and think about it, and I think you'll see that I'm right.

I don't have time right now to go into the questions part of your post. You asked if I'd answer your original question when no other conservative apparently has, and I've done that. It wasn't my intent to get into a parsing contest.

I was expecting something like that. Look, I hope you will concede in principle that whether and what correlation exists between intelligence and political views is a pretty damned important question -- so, if not general education levels, what measure of intelligence would you propose using? Let me ask you a question that pretty much goes to the heart of my opinion on the subject. Black people vote Democratic in an overwhelming majority, something like 95% - but white people don't vote 95% Democratic.

So does this mean that black people are smarter than white people?

I don't think there's a whit of difference between liberals and conservatives in terms of intelligence. For every conservative idiot you can show me, I can show you a liberal idiot; for every liberal intellectual you can show me, I can show you a conservative intellectual. Etc., etc.

Of course that raises the question of what does account for the difference between the two, and the best way I could describe it would be that it's the same sort of thing that make some people artistic and others not, or some people practical and others not, or some people outgoing and gregarious and others introverted and withdrawn. None of these qualities is the result of innate intelligence and yet they are all very significant in determining the way a person lives, what he can accomplish, and, in many cases, how he will vote.

To use the analogy of the arts, the conflict between artists and the businessmen who run the companies that distribute that art is well known, and it isn't much of a stretch to say that the artists are likely to be liberal and the businessmen are likely to be conservative. Yet I've never heard anyone claim that musicians and painters are innately smarter than business executives or finance guys, or vice versa. People just look at things differently and to a certain extent they seem to be born that way. They can be influenced and molded to a certain extent by their environment and life experiences (and university propaganda :D), but whatever it is that determines whether a person will be a liberal or a conservative, it has very little to do with innate intelligence.

And now I'm out! I really am! Don't talk to me for fifteen minutes, okay? Okay? (Wait, don't answer that!)

[Wesley Clark]

Indulge for a moment in this hypothetical scenario: Come November 2nd the Democrats lose control of one or both houses of Congress.

As an intellectually honest left-leaning citizen, and setting aside all personal preferences, could you agree to the following explanation: the current administration and congress leaned too far left for the electorate?

No. The intellectually honest answer is they did not lean far enough to the left, and as a result many democrats felt no urge to go out and vote for the lesser of two evils. That is the honest answer. It may not be the Sean Hannity approved answer, but nearly all the leftists I have met who are disaffected it applies to.

Among registered voters the dems are even or slightly ahead. Among likely voters the GOP wins. So it is more a question of who is going to bother to vote, not what voters in general think.

Not only that but polls show the public don't like the dems, but they like hte GOP even less. So the concept that this is a grassroots right wing movement doesn't strike me as true. The GOP is motivated, the dems are not.

Personally I think whatever gains the GOP make will partly/mostly be wiped out in 2012, since it being a presidential election year dem turnout will be much higher. Will that be because the GOP is too far tot he right?

[Wesley Clark]

There were far left policies enacted? I must not have seen the news that day.The health care bill, for one. No sensible Republican would ever think of proposing anything like it.

Obama's health care bill is largely identical to the bill proposed by the GOP in 1993.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Graphics/2010/022310-Bill-comparison.aspx

But the GOP has move to the right since then. And in 1993 the GOP was already to the right enough that Barry Goldwater wanted nothing to do with them. the overton window keeps moving further and further to the right. I have no idea why.

[Robot Arm]

Or perhaps it is this:

1) When the GOP loses it is because voters "fell for [a] message of hope and change".
2) When the Democrats lose it is not because the voters "fell for" the GOP message.Of course that's it. Don't you see? Most conservatives have the ability to discern when someone is using hyperbole and exaggeration, but liberals have been completely blind to the agenda of the mainstream media.

And it's the liberals who think the conservatives are stupid. It's all so obvious.

[Starving Artist]

Of course that's it. Don't you see? Most conservatives have the ability to discern when someone is using hyperbole and exaggeration, but liberals have been completely blind to the agenda of the mainstream media.

And it's the liberals who think the conservatives are stupid. It's all so obvious.The thing you're missing is that you're really talking about two completely different kinds of persuasion here. Any dentist will tell you that a slow, steady pressure will do a better job of moving teeth than will a hammer. "Hussein Obama was born in Kenya, dur, dur" is more akin to a hammer. But one television show after another, one news outlet after another, and one entertainment magazine after another, portraying liberal attidutes, goals and proponents in a sympathetic and likable way, while portraying conservatives in a skepticas, negative way, is the kind of slow, steady pressure that is more effective in persuading people to the liberal point of view no matter how intelligent they are.

So it's a hammer/braces kind of thing. Just because the one doesn't work very well it doesn't mean the second one won't either.

[Robot Arm]

So why isn't everyone a liberal, then? While some folks were led down the primrose path, what made it possible for conservatives to resist this slow, inexorable persuasion of the liberal media?

Or what does your argument say about conservative commentators? If the steady pressure of braces is the way to re-shape teethopinions, why do the Limbaughs of this world employ the hammers of birth certificates and death panels? If the liberal method of shaping opinion is so successful, and there for all to see, then the conservatives must be doing it all wrong.

[elucidator]

How, you ask? How do morally strong conservatives stand up against the relentless pressures of liberal power? You may well ask, how? How did David defeat Godzilla? Ask yourself that!

[BrainGlutton]

So why isn't everyone a liberal, then? While some folks were led down the primrose path, what made it possible for conservatives to resist this slow, inexorable persuasion of the liberal media?

Purity of bodily fluids.

(Not, however, their own. It's complicated.)

[Measure for Measure]

Maybe you will answer the question, since none of the other righties in the thread have. Did the GOP losses in 2006 and 2008 mean that the Republican party had gone too far to the right for the American people? I know this wasn't directed at me, but to answer this question, we would have to control for the state of the economy. Which candidates punched above their weight?

I discussed this issue on another message board (http://65.69.77.33/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20621&highlight=presidential+vote+equation) in Jan 2009. Bush I creamed Dukkakis: it was ugly. Clinton beat Dole, even after economic factors (and incumbancy) are considered. In fact, recent Democratic Presidential candidates have done ok. Moving further back, Reagan punched above his weight against Carter and below his weight against Mondale (though the latter race was a landslide). Nixon was also a stronger candidate than his opponents.

Anyway if Obama wants to win in 2012, he and the Fed have to pursue economic policies that actually work.

[Little Nemo]

Let me ask you a question that pretty much goes to the heart of my opinion on the subject. Black people vote Democratic in an overwhelming majority, something like 95% - but white people don't vote 95% Democratic.

So does this mean that black people are smarter than white people?I'd guess that there is probably an equal percentage of stupidity among black and white people. But look at the overall numbers. You're going to get more votes appealing to the ignorance of white idiots than you will appealing to the ignorance of black idiots.I don't think there's a whit of difference between liberals and conservatives in terms of intelligence. For every conservative idiot you can show me, I can show you a liberal idiot; for every liberal intellectual you can show me, I can show you a conservative intellectual. Etc., etc.Who's the liberal Glenn Beck? Who's the liberal Ann Coulter? Who's the liberal Sean Hannity? Who's the liberal Rush Limbaugh? Who's the liberal Michelle Malkin? Who's the liberal Bill O'Reilly?

[Measure for Measure]

Who's the liberal Glenn Beck? Who's the liberal Ann Coulter? Who's the liberal Sean Hannity? Who's the liberal Rush Limbaugh? Who's the liberal Michelle Malkin? Who's the liberal Bill O'Reilly? Michael Moore. Michael Moore. Michael Moore. Michael Moore. Michael Moore. Michael Moore. They always trot out Michael Moore, because that's all they got.

[Little Nemo]

I'll give them Moore. He fits into that group. But as you noted there's only one Michael Moore.

The next response usually is to name somebody who's either left-wing and obscure or mainstream but not liberal.

[Acsenray]

Actually, Michael Moore is politically pretty mainstream. He has been accused of some misleading practices in his movies, but other than that I don't see any comparison with Glenn Beck or the others.

[elucidator]

Moore exaggerates, Hannity lies. Looks you right in the eye, and lies through his teeth. Beck is harder to pin down on the truthiness thing, because he's nucking futs.

[BrainGlutton]

Who's the liberal Glenn Beck? Who's the liberal Ann Coulter? Who's the liberal Sean Hannity? Who's the liberal Rush Limbaugh? Who's the liberal Michelle Malkin? Who's the liberal Bill O'Reilly?

I give you all in one. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_colbert)

[BrainGlutton]

Actually, Michael Moore is politically pretty mainstream. He has been accused of some misleading practices in his movies, but other than that I don't see any comparison with Glenn Beck or the others.

I would agree -- but, let's face it, by American standards, anyone who posits "capitalism" and "democracy" as antonyms or as alternatives to choose between, as Moore did in his latest movie, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism:_A_Love_Story) is to say the least breaking new ground.

[Jas09]

Maybe you will answer the question, since none of the other righties in the thread have. Did the GOP losses in 2006 and 2008 mean that the Republican party had gone too far to the right for the American people? I know this wasn't directed at me, but to answer this question, we would have to control for the state of the economy. Which candidates punched above their weight?See, I would argue you don't have to control for the economy; you have to control for the ideology. That is, the performance of the country as a whole (foreign and domestic) is an order of magnitude more important than just how far left or right the candidates are on the political spectrum. Elections are by and large won by the group of voters that don't have a strong political ideology, but definitely know whether they perceive the country to be headed in the "right direction", whatever that means for them.

Or, to answer my own question:

1) In 2006 and 2008 the Democrats won because Iraq was going very poorly, the economy was stalling (and then crashing), and (at least in 2006) political corruption was seen as a GOP failing.

2) In 2010 the Republicans will win because the economy has not recovered quickly, BP dumped oil into the gulf for months, we still have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and political corruption (and "politics as usual") is seen as a Democratic failing.

Presidential elections are quite a bit different, because personal character and charisma is much more of a factor.

"Left" and "right" have little to do with it, IMO. The country didn't swing from Commie Pelosi to Mama Bear Palin in just two years, ideological.

[Ludovic]

political corruption ...is seen as a Democratic failing.It appears that you're just trying to shoehorn in your theory into the "perceptions" you've been seeing. Compared to how Congress is normally seen, I don't see even a lot of generalized complaints of corruption (which there usually are,) let alone specific accusations of corruption by Democratic Congresspeople. This, despite the obvious displeasure with the electorate with their decisions.

Heck, I don't even recall any Teabaggers accusing the Democrats of being corrupt -- stupid, socialist, and not representing the voters, yes. Corrupt, no (well, possibly there might be some, but I'd expect them to be the No True Scotsman sort of crazy type that the Teabaggers generally try to disown.)

[Jas09]

political corruption ...is seen as a Democratic failing.It appears that you're just trying to shoehorn in your theory into the "perceptions" you've been seeing. Compared to how Congress is normally seen, I don't see even a lot of generalized complaints of corruption (which there usually are,) let alone specific accusations of corruption by Democratic Congresspeople. This, despite the obvious displeasure with the electorate with their decisions.I agree that "corruption" is the wrong word - that's why I added "political", but that doesn't fully capture it etiher, so I added the parenthetical "business as usual" - still clumsy.

What I was getting at was the general sense that Congress is broken, not helping, cronying, unresponsive, etc... the generic sense that government = Democrat and government = bad. Or, more specifically, the way things like Health Care Reform were brokered, pushed, pulled, and generally coaxed through the legislative process. A generic "vote the bums out" feeling.

At least here in MO the big push on both sides of the Senate race seems to be who can tie the other to Washington DC (Blunt as a GOP House member for years, Carnahan as a political dynasty who'll rubber stamp the "Obama/Pelosi/Reid axis of evil").

I may be off-base re: the ubiquity of these type of campaigning nation-wide.

Also, in many right-wing circles there are specific corruption complaints against Reid, Rangel, and a few others I can't remember.

[AHunter3]

Indulge for a moment in this hypothetical scenario: Come November 2nd the Democrats lose control of one or both houses of Congress.

As an intellectually honest left-leaning citizen, and setting aside all personal preferences, could you agree to the following explanation: the current administration and congress leaned too far left for the electorate?

Nope. The currrent administration and congress didn't do a damn thing and THAT is what is annoying the electorate. They don't like ineffectual politicians.

[NDP]

The currrent administration and congress didn't do a damn thing and THAT is what is annoying the electorate. They don't like ineffectual politicians.

Of course, if the Republicans take control of Congress, there's going to be even less getting through for the next two years.

[Clothahump]

No, as an intellectual honest left-leaning citizen i know damn well there was nothing "left" to the current administration, if we did i would be a lot happier. We have a center right government that would make republicans of the past decade or so thrilled.

Jeebus on a pogo stick. If you think what we have now is center right, I would hate like hell to see what you consider left wing.
:eek:

[Measure for Measure]

1) In 2006 and 2008 the Democrats won because Iraq was going very poorly, the economy was stalling (and then crashing), and (at least in 2006) political corruption was seen as a GOP failing.

2) In 2010 the Republicans will win because the economy has not recovered quickly, BP dumped oil into the gulf for months, we still have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and political corruption (and "politics as usual") is seen as a Democratic failing. Well, propositions involving the economy and war are statistically testable. The surprise is that once economic and incumbency fundamentals are controlled for, there's only a swing averaging ~1.5 percentage points remaining, at least in Presidential years. That includes Presidential personality, by the way. Admittedly, I have the sense that off year electoral relationships are a little noisier.

[Measure for Measure]

No, as an intellectual honest left-leaning citizen i know damn well there was nothing "left" to the current administration, if we did i would be a lot happier. We have a center right government that would make republicans of the past decade or so thrilled.

Jeebus on a pogo stick. If you think what we have now is center right, I would hate like hell to see what you consider left wing.
:eek: Thatcher's Britain was far to the left of Carter's or Obama's America. The same could be said of any European country. Japan, South Korea and Taiwan are currently further left than the US, as they have UHC. After 2014 though, I'll have re-calibrate that assessment of Asia.

[Acsenray]

]

Jeebus on a pogo stick. If you think what we have now is center right, I would hate like hell to see what you consider left wing.
:eek:

It's really hard to take as intellectually serious claims that certain policies are extreme leftist when they are exactly the same policies as espoused by the right a few years after they were prosed by someone with an R after his name.

[BayouHazard]

Liberals think conservatives are stupid.

Conservatives think liberals are evil.

I mention this pair of truisms mainly because, for some reason, a lot of people seem to get it exactly backward, and I see it given as, "Liberals think conservatives are evil. Conservatives think liberals are stupid."

Um, I think conservatives can be evil...at least the ones at the top...at least in the sense of being sociopathic...

I think most conservatives are just more conventional thinkers than I am. That's not to say stupid, just different. (On the other hand, if the stupid fits...and if you believe in "facts" that have been debunked all over the place...then the stupid fits...)

And before I came to this board, I was called "dumb" and "stupid" for thinking liberally. I kept trying to tell the guy how an ad hominem attack reflects poorly on the attacker's rhetorical skill, but...well...I think that went right over his head.
(thank you, SDMB mods).

[Baboonanza]

Jeebus on a pogo stick. If you think what we have now is center right, I would hate like hell to see what you consider left wing.
:eek: Thatcher's Britain was far to the left of Carter's or Obama's America. The same could be said of any European country. Japan, South Korea and Taiwan are currently further left than the US, as they have UHC. After 2014 though, I'll have re-calibrate that assessment of Asia.
So true. America is pretty much the most right-wing of any developed nation, and the Obama administration is far from left-wing by any rational standard. Frankly I'd be scared to live in a country that had a much more right-wing government.

And I wish that the right-wing would stop calling themselves 'conservatives', because in 95% of cases they aren't. A conservative is simply someone who advocates slow change (in any direction) and preservation of the status-quo. Generally Americans who call themselves conservative are actually right-wing reactionaries or regressives. They want change, just in an opposite direction to 'the left'.

In fact I would argue that the Obama administration is extremely conservative, since they appear to have done very little to change anything.

[BrainGlutton]

No, as an intellectual honest left-leaning citizen i know damn well there was nothing "left" to the current administration, if we did i would be a lot happier. We have a center right government that would make republicans of the past decade or so thrilled.

Jeebus on a pogo stick. If you think what we have now is center right, I would hate like hell to see what you consider left wing.
:eek:

Not once you've tried it, you won't. Come on! All the cool kids are doing it! The first hit's free! :D

[BrainGlutton]

Liberals think conservatives are stupid.

Conservatives think liberals are evil.

I mention this pair of truisms mainly because, for some reason, a lot of people seem to get it exactly backward, and I see it given as, "Liberals think conservatives are evil. Conservatives think liberals are stupid."

Um, I think conservatives can be evil...at least the ones at the top...

Well, that's a pretty all-important important reservation. I was talking about each group's view of the other's mass base. Those at the top are a very different breed of donkelephant, always.

But W, at any rate, was more stupid than evil. (Cheney and Rove, OTOH . . .)

[Jas09]

1) In 2006 and 2008 the Democrats won because Iraq was going very poorly, the economy was stalling (and then crashing), and (at least in 2006) political corruption was seen as a GOP failing.

2) In 2010 the Republicans will win because the economy has not recovered quickly, BP dumped oil into the gulf for months, we still have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and political corruption (and "politics as usual") is seen as a Democratic failing. Well, propositions involving the economy and war are statistically testable. The surprise is that once economic and incumbency fundamentals are controlled for, there's only a swing averaging ~1.5 percentage points remaining, at least in Presidential years. That includes Presidential personality, by the way. Admittedly, I have the sense that off year electoral relationships are a little noisier.That's certainly interesting stuff, and if I'm understand you correctly, it pretty much matches what my intuition is - circumstances have far more to do with who wins elections than ideology. Am I interpreting your comment correctly? That fundamental political alignments ("the base" if you will) plus economic and military conditions account for >98% of election outcomes in recent years?

My one hesitation is that we have so few data points. You're talking what, fewer than 10 presidential elections?

[BrainGlutton]

The Depression was still going on in 1936, but FDR won a second term anyway.

[BrainGlutton]

A conservative is simply someone who advocates slow change (in any direction) and preservation of the status-quo.

Weeelllll . . . no, not exactly. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11563656&postcount=33)

[Jas09]

The Depression was still going on in 1936, but FDR won a second term anyway.Yeah, but we don't really have polling data from that era. I would imagine that the "right track/wrong track" question re: the economy is more important than the actual economic indicators. Maybe in '36 folks felt that things were going much better than in '32, for example.

Also, wasn't '33 the (first) bottom, with things improving a fair amount leading up to the Recession of 1937?

[Baboonanza]

A conservative is simply someone who advocates slow change (in any direction) and preservation of the status-quo.

Weeelllll . . . no, not exactly. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11563656&postcount=33)
Well, that's kind of my point. Using the small c implies that you are aligned with the dictionary definition of the word. I mind less if people call themselves big-C conservatives since it makes it clear that it's an arbitrary political label, but when you are actually a right-wing anti-government regressive labelling yourself as conservative (big or little) it still seems to me to be calculated attempt to seem more sensible and non-threatening that you actually are.

[BrainGlutton]

Weeelllll . . . no, not exactly. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11563656&postcount=33)
Well, that's kind of my point. Using the small c implies that you are aligned with the dictionary definition of the word. I mind less if people call themselves big-C conservatives since it makes it clear that it's an arbitrary political label, but when you are actually a right-wing anti-government regressive labelling yourself as conservative (big or little) it still seems to me to be calculated attempt to seem more sensible and non-threatening that you actually are.

:confused: A "big-C conservative" would be a member/supporter of something named "the Conservative Party," and nothing else.

[Baboonanza]

:confused: A "big-C conservative" would be a member/supporter of something named "the Conservative Party," and nothing else.
Agreed. But if the Conservative Party stood for the abolition of the Federal Reserve, banning abortion and rolling back the civil rights movement it would be a pretty misleading name for the party. My objection is to the right-wing's adoption of the conservative label when the policies they advocate aren't conservative at all.

[BrainGlutton]

:confused: A "big-C conservative" would be a member/supporter of something named "the Conservative Party," and nothing else.
Agreed. But if the Conservative Party stood for the abolition of the Federal Reserve, banning abortion and rolling back the civil rights movement it would be a pretty misleading name for the party. My objection is to the right-wing's adoption of the conservative label when the policies they advocate aren't conservative at all.

I think you'll find, as the word "conservative" is used in academic as well as in electoral-political circles, it is generally both intended and understood to imply a great deal of actual ideological content other than, and sometimes incompatible with, "leave things as they are."

E.g., no Frenchman living under Napoleon who wanted to leave Napoleon in power could defensibly be called a "conservative."

As Wooldridge and Mickelthwaite put it: (http://www.amazon.com/Right-Nation-Conservative-Power-America/dp/0143035398/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224007314&sr=8-1)

The exceptionalism of the American Right is partly a matter of its beliefs. The first two definitions of "conservative" offered by the Concise Oxford Dictionary are "adverse to rapid change" and "moderate, avoiding extremes." Neither of these seems a particularly good description of what is going on in America at the moment. "Conservatism" -- no less than its foes "liberalism" or "communitarianism" -- has become one of those words that are now as imprecise as they are emotionally charged. Open a newspaper and you can find the word used to describe Jacques Chirac, Trent Lott, the Mullah Omar and Vladimir Putin. Since time immemorial, conservatives have insisted that their deeply pragmatic creed cannot be ideologically pigeonholed.

But, in philosophical terms at least, classical conservatism does mean something. The creed of Edmund Burke, its most eloquent proponent, might be crudely reduced to six principles: a deep suspicion of the power of the state; a preference for liberty over equality; patriotism; a belief in established institutions and hierarchies; skepticism about the idea of progress; and elitism. Winston Churchill happily accepted these principles: he was devoted to nation and empire, disinclined to trust the lower orders with anything, hostile to the welfare state, worried about the diminution of liberty and, as he once remarked ruefully, "preferred the past to the present and the present to the future."

To simplify a little, the exceptionalism of modern American conservatism lies in its exaggeration of the first three of Burke's principles and contradiction of the last three. The American Right exhibits a far deeper hostility towards the state than any other modern conservative party. . . . The American right is also more obsessed with personal liberty than any other conservative party, and prepared to tolerate an infinitely higher level of inequality. (One reason why Burke warmed to the American revolutionaries was that, unlike their dangerous French equivalents, the gentlemen rebels concentrated on freedom, not equality.) On patriotism, nobody can deny that conservatives everywhere tend to be a fairly nationalistic bunch. . . . Yet many European conservatives have accepted the idea that their nationality should be diluted in "schemes and speculations" like the European Union, and they are increasingly reconciled to dealing with national security on a multilateral basis. American conservatives clearly are not.

If the American Right was merely a more vigorous form of conservatism, then it would be a lot more predictable. In fact, the American Right takes a resolutely liberal approach to Burke's last three principles: hierarchy, pessimism and elitism. The heroes of modern American conservatism are not paternalist squires but rugged individualists who don't know their place: entrepeneurs who build mighty businesses out of nothing, settlers who move out West, and, of course, the cowboy. There is a frontier spirit to the Right -- unsurprisingly, since so much of its heartland is made up of new towns of one sort of another.

The geography of conservatism also helps to explain its optimism rather than pessimism. In the war between the Dynamo and the Virgin, as Henry Adams characterized the battle between progress and tradition, most American conservatives are on the side of the Dynamo. They think that the world offers all sorts of wonderful possibilities. And they feel that the only thing that is preventing people from attaining these possibilities is the dead liberal hand of the past. By contrast, Burke has been described flatteringly by European conservatives as a "prophet of the past." Spend any time with a group of Republicans, and their enthusiasm for the future can be positively exhausting.

As for elitism, rather than dreaming about creating an educated "clerisy" of clever rulers (as Coleridge and T.S. Eliot did), the Republicans ever since the 1960s have played the populist card. Richard Nixon saw himself as the champion of the "silent majority." In 1988 the aristocratic George H.W. Bush presented himself as a defender of all-American values against the Harvard Yard liberalism of Michael Dukakis. In 2000, George W. Bush, a president's son who was educated at Andover, Yale and Harvard Business School, played up his role as a down-to-earth Texan taking on the might of Washington. As a result, modern American conservatism has flourished not just in country clubs and boardrooms, but at the grass roots -- on talk radio and at precinct meetings, and in revolts against high taxes, the regulation of firearms and other invidious attempts by liberal do-gooders to force honest Americans into some predetermined mold.

[Baboonanza]

Agreed. But if the Conservative Party stood for the abolition of the Federal Reserve, banning abortion and rolling back the civil rights movement it would be a pretty misleading name for the party. My objection is to the right-wing's adoption of the conservative label when the policies they advocate aren't conservative at all.

I think you'll find, as the word "conservative" is used in academic as well as in electoral-political circles, it is generally both intended and understood to imply a great deal of actual ideological content other than, and sometimes incompatible with, "leave things as they are."

E.g., no Frenchman living under Napoleon who wanted to leave Napoleon in power could defensibly be called a "conservative."
Fair enough. I'm well aware that mostly everybody else is happy with the label being used to (in my opinion) describe something inaccurately and I'm not going to be able to persuade them otherwise.

So what do you call someone who's happy with the status-quo? A conservative-conservative?

[BrainGlutton]

So what do you call someone who's happy with the status-quo? A conservative-conservative?

Could as easily be "apolitical."

[Baboonanza]

So what do you call someone who's happy with the status-quo? A conservative-conservative?

Could as easily be "apolitical."
But that implies that they have no participation in politics. A true conservative would be politically involved in preserving the status-quo.

[Measure for Measure]

The Depression was still going on in 1936, but FDR won a second term anyway. Well, I left out the punchline. Basically only the past three quarters of economic data matter. In 1936 the Republican actually punched above his weight, but Q1-Q3 1936 had sufficient economic growth to give Roosevelt a landslide. History would repeat itself in 1984: Mondale beat the point spread, but nonetheless lost big time to Ronald Reagan. Caveat 1: Fair's model does have a variable that picks up good economic news over a somewhat longer timespan. Caveat 2: There are more detailed models run by political scientists which I have not studied by which I understand have broadly similar conclusions. That's certainly interesting stuff, and if I'm understand you correctly, it pretty much matches what my intuition is - circumstances have far more to do with who wins elections than ideology. Am I interpreting your comment correctly? That fundamental political alignments ("the base" if you will) plus economic and military conditions account for >98% of election outcomes in recent years? It's not merely circumstances. The last 3 quarters of economic activity plus incumbency explain almost everything. Wars, personalities, ideology, exploding oil derricks, hostage crises -- these tend to either cancel themselves out sufficiently to move the vote share by an average of only 1.5 percentage points (3.5 points in exceptional circumstances).

The implications are profoundly cynical. Election year economic growth can be advanced by well-timed stimulus, whether it take the form of a burst of spending, tax cuts or a compliant Federal Reserve chairman (see for example Burns, Arthur Frank). James Baker arranged for Greenspan to replace Volker for a reason -- he didn't trust the tight money Democrat. And most of what passes for media commentary is completely besides the point and highly misleading. Conventional wisdom is confused.

[Measure for Measure]

So what do you call someone who's happy with the status-quo? A conservative-conservative? Prudent?

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Is Richard Nixon "sensible"?Nope, like I was trying to say, there was never ever any republican that ever increased the deficit, or instituted wage and price controls like the socialist Obama wants to do, or proposed health care reform remotely like the bill that was just passed.


Just think, if it hadn't been for Watergate derailing the Nixon-Kennedy HCR bill, we'd be like Europe now, because we'd have gotten some form of universal health care in place, just before the right wing backlash which set the tone for U.S. politics in the last decades of the 20th century. I almost miss the Repubs of the 1950s and 60s.

[gonzomax]

So what do you call someone who's happy with the status-quo? A conservative-conservative?

Could as easily be "apolitical."
It could be" wealthy". They have it very good.

[HMS Irruncible]

As an intellectually honest left-leaning citizen, and setting aside all personal preferences, could you agree to the following explanation: the current administration and congress leaned too far left for the electorate?
By definition, this means that the current administration and congress failed to please the electorate. As for the reason behind this, it's nothing but a Rorshach blot that reflects your own belief. It could mean he didn't deliver on his promises to deliver change. It could mean he changed more than the electorate wanted. It could mean that he did what he said he was going to do, and then they decided that wasn't good enough.

But you want to know what the real cause is, since I happen to know? It's because Americans are children who think the President is an omnipotent economic Santa Claus who can flip a giant switch labeled 'JOBS', and their self-inflicted, over-leveraged financial problems will just magically disappear. The opposition helpfully feeds this notion by painting the picture that he's failing to do it, or doing it wrong. But the outcome would be the same whether it was Ronald Reagan, Winston Churchill, or Howdy Doody. If an ailing economy doesn't tick upward, you get punished.

[Truman Burbank]

If that means that 2 years ago the Republicans were too far to the right, hence their huge election losses.
But I don't believe that this massive ship of state actually veers all that far in two years, or that the vote of the electorate is always a well-informed one.
One just prays that in tacking back and forth the nation finds a reasonably accurate direction overall.

[gonzomax]

Like Clinton said, "it's the economy stupid". The Repubs learned that lesson too. They filibustered every attempt Obama made to fix the economy, with mid terms in mind from day one. They were determined not to permit him to succeed, even if the people had to suffer. They are disciplined and don't stray from the goals. They used the filibuster in a way that is unprecedented. They play to win.
That of course is why they fear the Tea Baggers.They may not follow the dictates of the party. They may even decide for themselves. That might cut down the filibuster bloc. Strange times are ahead.

[Little Nemo]

That of course is why they fear the Tea Baggers.They may not follow the dictates of the party. They may even decide for themselves. That might cut down the filibuster bloc. Strange times are ahead.I don't think the Republicans fear the Tea Party movement - at least not yet. Right now, the Republican Party feels the Tea Party is a tool it can use at will - direct its anti-incumbency outrage against the Democrats who are in power. The Republicans presumedly will cut off support of the Tea Party if they regain control of Congress.

Then we'll find out if the Tea Party is a horse or a tiger. Will the Tea Party fade away without Republican support and become a non-factor? Or will it survive on its own and start attacking incumbent Republicans like it has incumbent Democrats? Or will the Tea Party start receiving its support from the Democrats?

[gonzomax]

The Tea Baggers have already gone after those they think are not reactionary enough. That is why we have people like O;Donnell in the election. Their insistence on leaders following their policies includes the Repubs who have not shown to be believers. They have tossed some elections into the air that Repubs thought were secure.

[Measure for Measure]

But you want to know what the real cause is, since I happen to know? It's because Americans are children who think the President is an omnipotent economic Santa Claus who can flip a giant switch labeled 'JOBS', and their self-inflicted, over-leveraged financial problems will just magically disappear. The opposition helpfully feeds this notion by painting the picture that he's failing to do it, or doing it wrong. But the outcome would be the same whether it was Ronald Reagan, Winston Churchill, or Howdy Doody. If an ailing economy doesn't tick upward, you get punished. Well Americans are sort of correct in this case. Obama was bequeathed the largest recession since WWII. A stimulus package twice as large could have lowered the unemployment rate without igniting inflation. Why didn't this happen?

Simplistically, I'd blame the Republican Senate. In early 2009, the Dems had 59 seats (because of delays in seating Senator Franken). So the Republicans could and did filibuster everything. This was a departure from Senate tradition, but it might have been anticipated. Anyway, President Olympia Snowe demanded cuts in the most potent parts of the jobs package (aid to states), so we were left with something just under $800 billion, when it should have been 2x that.

I find it likely that the Democrats will win the Senate, but not eliminate either the filibuster or the practice of putting holds on executive appointments. Trust them to shoot themselves in the foot again.

Anyway, the 2nd mistake was not to press harder to fill FOMC positions at the Federal Reserve. That was done last month, which is nice for 2012, not so much for 2010.

Some economic problems are difficult. But here, I think the problem is not in the stars but in ourselves. The paradox of thrift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_thrift) was accepted by both parties in the 1970s: unfortunately the Republicans have since adopted yahoo economics.

[New Deal Democrat]

As an intellectually honest left-leaning citizen, and setting aside all personal preferences, could you agree to the following explanation: the current administration and congress leaned too far left for the electorate?

I think most Americans are less concerned with the difference between left and right than with whether and how well something works. A successful president will change public opinion. Franklin Roosevelt moved the country to the left by adopting policies that reduced unemployment. Because unemployment has continued to rise under Barack Obama, the country is moving to the right.

Obama should have reduced unemployment the way Roosevelt did: raise taxes on the rich; hire people at government expense with programs like the Civilian Conservation Corps - which was enormously popular with the voters, by the way. The rich would have squealed like struck pigs when they got their tax increases, but Obama's approval rating would have exceeded his post inauguration rate of 68% as the unemployment rate declined. After establishing his credibility on the economy, Obama could have addressed health care.

Instead, Obama passed a health plan most Americans do not like.

Nevertheless, "ROCHESTER, N.Y. – July 7, 2008 – Several recent surveys by Harris Interactive®, including the latest Financial Times/Harris Poll, asked an identical question of cross-sections of adults in ten developed countries about their own health care systems. This research finds that the United States has the most unpopular system." The other nine countries had universal health care.
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/FinancialTimes/tabid/449/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/mid/1512/ArticleId/192/Default.aspx

Moreover, "(AP) President Barack Obama's health care overhaul has divided the nation, and Republicans believe their call for repeal will help them win elections in November. But the picture's not that clear-cut. A new AP poll finds that Americans who think the law should have done more outnumber those who think the government should stay out of health care by 2-to-1."


President Obama's problem is not that he is too far to the left, but that he has made strategic mistakes. Whether or not he will recover from them remains to be seen. The Republican Party has no solution to the problem of high unemployment, and no solution to the facts the privately financed American health system was unpopular, cost more than universal health care systems, and delivered inferior results.

[Merijeek]

Then we'll find out if the Tea Party is a horse or a tiger. Will the Tea Party fade away without Republican support and become a non-factor? Or will it survive on its own and start attacking incumbent Republicans like it has incumbent Democrats? Or will the Tea Party start receiving its support from the Democrats?

Nah, there will still be incumbent Democrats to attack.

-Joe

[gonzomax]

Most people actually want healthcare that he passed. If you watch right wing news ,you won't know that. Right wing rhetoric has divided the country.
I think he should have taken over a bank and started lending to small businesses to increase employment. Big companies have not increased American jobs in many years.
Fixing our infrastructure is not make work. Our roads, bridges and buildings need repair. Our buildings could use ecological retro fitting.

[Zebra]

When Republicans lost control of the house and senate and then later the White House, did they think that was because, perhaps, they had went too far to the right?

[New Deal Democrat]

When Republicans lost control of the house and senate and then later the White House, did they think that was because, perhaps, they had went too far to the right?

The United States is a center right country.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/conservatives-single-largest-ideological-group.aspx

This is because most whites do not want their tax money spent on programs that will help blacks, even if those programs will help them too.

The Republicans lost control of the Congress in 2006, and of the White house in 2008 because George W. Bush started two expensive wars he could not win, and because the median income declined.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=634

The Republicans will probably win control of both houses of Congress in the next election because the unemployment rate has continued to grow after the inauguration of President Obama.

Americans are less concerned with the difference between left and right than they are concerned with whether and how well something works. Nevertheless, since 1972 the Republican Party has been the party of the white majority. As a result, it will be given the benefit of the doubt by the voters. In 1994 the economy was improving. Nevertheless, the Republicans took control of both houses of Congress. In 2000 the country enjoyed peace and prosperity. Nevertheless, the Republicans retained control of the Congress, and George W. Bush was elected president. Despite the fact that Bush ran the country off the rail, and that Sarah Palin was an obvious whack job, John McCain nearly got elected.

In 1976 Gerald Ford was nearly elected despite Watergate, clemency for Nixon, and the fact that Nixon had prolonged a war that was immoral and unwinnable. Ronald Reagan won in 1984 by a landslide despite the recession of 1982 and the growth of the national debt.

The GOP will continue to get the benefit of the doubt from the voters unless the Democrats win back the white working class and much of the South, or unless whites become a minority in the United States. If whites do become a minority, however, white support for the Republicans will increase, and Asians may begin to support the GOP.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

I scanned the thread and did not see this point addressed yet, so I apologize if I missed it. I'm just wondering how the Democrats could be seen as having swung too far to the left if the public still trusts them more to handle all the essential matters than Republicans.

Simply put, in the NEWSWEEK Poll, voters said they trust Democrats more than Republicans to handle pretty much every problem currently facing the country: Afghanistan (by 6 points), health care (by 12), immigration (by 2, though that figure is within the margin of error), Social Security (by 14), unemployment (by 12), financial reform (by 14), energy (by 19), and education (by 19). Voters even prefer Democrats to Republicans on federal spending (by 4 points), taxes (by 5), and the economy (by 10) -- the GOP's core concerns. The only area where Republicans outpoll Democrats is the issue of terrorism, where they lead by a 6-point margin.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/01/newsweek-poll-anger-unlikely-to-be-deciding-factor-in-midterms.html

Is it that they feel they've gone too far left, but are still more trustworthy than Republicans?

[BrainGlutton]

The United States is a center right country.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/conservatives-single-largest-ideological-group.aspx

Not exactly. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12965914&postcount=43)

[BrainGlutton]

This is because most whites do not want their tax money spent on programs that will help blacks, even if those programs will help them too. . . .

Americans are less concerned with the difference between left and right than they are concerned with whether and how well something works. Nevertheless, since 1972 the Republican Party has been the party of the white majority. As a result, it will be given the benefit of the doubt by the voters. . . .
The GOP will continue to get the benefit of the doubt from the voters unless the Democrats win back the white working class and much of the South, or unless whites become a minority in the United States. If whites do become a minority, however, white support for the Republicans will increase, and Asians may begin to support the GOP.

Is a future where racial identity simply loses its salience not even conceivable?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Responding without reading any other responses first.
Indulge for a moment in this hypothetical scenario: Come November 2nd the Democrats lose control of one or both houses of Congress.

As an intellectually honest left-leaning citizen, and setting aside all personal preferences, could you agree to the following explanation: the current administration and congress leaned too far left for the electorate?
Could I? Certainly. Would I, in the current case? Not at all. The current administration and Congress are barely left of Bush.

[Merijeek]

The basic thinking behind the OP is why everything that between the end of the Republican primary and the election was "good news for John McCain".

There was (and now is) a narrative to be served, and god damn it, the media is going to stick to it no matter what.

-Joe

[Measure for Measure]

How do we benchmark this election? We use a model that reflects (http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/10/chart-day-democratic-losses-2010) normal midterm losses,the margin of victory in the previous election, and the economy. The remainder would be due to legislative over-reach, Citizens United, bad messaging by the White House, Fox News and other sundry factors.

So what's the benchmark? It corresponds to a 45 seat loss by the Dems ([url=http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/10/chart-day-democratic-losses-2010). If you think this is all hocus-pocus, check out the fit of the model in the link. It's not perfect. But it explains a big chunk of the normal variation.

Let's say that the sudden monetary advantage enjoyed by the Republicans and their anonymous and therefore unsurprisingly deceitful advertisements swing 2-3% of the House seats -- or 9 to 13 elections. That would put the benchmark at 54-58 seats. I say that anything below the top of that range represents a resounding defeat for the Tea Party crazies.

Hey, there's still plenty to debate. But to quote Jon Chait,"If you want to have the 'what did Obama do wrong' argument, you first need to establish what 'wrong' would look like."

[Snowboarder Bo]

I think originally they were against the moral and financial irresponsibility that got us into the mess in the first place and against giving borrowers, lenders or anyone else an easy way out by letting them suck from the govt teat.

Were your windows closed when you typed that? Because that would explain why you didn't hear that whooosh noise as the post you replied to went by.