The Dems had big gains in '06 because, in many cases, they ran a relatively conservative candidate in traditionally Republican districts. People were fed up with Bush, and those districts were “easy” to get to switch. Well, guess what? Bush is gone and now we have Obama. Those districts are still “easy” to switch.
Virtually every Democrat in Congress is conservative. Their problem is that they’re afraid to be progressive.
Like I said in 2005: The Dems need to embrace economic populism, downplay cultural liberalism.
See also this recent article by Michael Lind:
What is economic populism?
For one thing, it means economic nationalism as opposed to neoliberalism. For another, it means treating immigration as a socioeconomic threat to working Americans’ employability, rather than a racial/cultural thing. For another – though I don’t know if the Tea Partiers’ can wrap their heads around this – it means having an actual national industrial policy; something towards which Obama has at least made a few half-assed efforts, if ony as emergency measures.
I generally agree. The Republicans have been experts at identifying enemies, (immigrants, terrorists, socialists, gays) then associating them with the Democrats and focusing the righteous anger of the people. They do this unabashedly and without guilt.
The best way for the Dems to emulate this just go ahead and declare class warfare openly. Don’t run away from it. Come out and say, “Yes we do want to redistribute income. We want to take those fat cats to the cleaners. Two Million a year is too much income when Joe Plumber has to make due with $30,000. War against the rich is a righteous Holy war of taking back America.”
Unfortunately they will then lose all campaign donations and go down into obscurity, but it would feel good to hear them say it.
That too.
The most important lesson here is: The Dems can’t win without the white working class. Anything they can do to woo it, without absolutely abandoning their principles, is worth doing. Backing off on gay marriage, etc., is not absolute abandonment of principles. We have to remember that WRT most of today’s hot-button cultural issues, time is on the side of the left. Eventually gay marriage will be legal and opposition will seem quaint. Meanwhile, working-class Americans are suffering now.
Gay issues are actually starting to cut against the Republicans. The anti-gay stuff is being generation-ed out. Gay bashing in churches and politics is starting to alienate younger people.
Like I said: On most cultural issues, time is on the side of the left. Even abortion might fade as an issue eventually. (Gun control is a different matter. I know of no generational differences in attitudes there.)
It is clear you could compete with inernet ,small donations . But The Supreme Court removed that. Now the big money runs it all.
We need Obama to prosecute some bankers. The people are offended by the mess the bankers made of the economy. They are even more pissed that we made them whole and they are getting fabulously wealthy again.
When swaps were sold that were equal to 10 times the amount of currency in the world, it is clear they were selling insurance they could not pay. That is fraud.
They created mortgages for people who could not pay them and convinced them the adjustable rate would never hurt them. The home buyer did not come up with a no money down, low teaser rate. It was the mortgage companies and the bankers that dreamed these things up. It was an easy sell though. Now the home owner pays while the bankers get richer.
I strongly agree. His brand of moralism is exactly what I want to see in the Democratic party.
I would publicize his “all religious believers are stupid and evil, especially Christians” with particular emphasis.
By all means take this to heart - the only flaw in your rhetoric and your positions is that they are far, far too mild. And your first reaction to any defeat should be to raise the heat in the debates. Let them know what you really think of them!
Regards,
Shodan
Heh-heh . . . He said “internal” . . .
Speaking as someone who would be considered a swing voter, here’s the one thing a Dem could do that would make me support them:
Have a coherent, well thought out, and logical idea on the important issues. Don’t engage in personal attacks on the other side. Don’t treat the other side as an ‘enemy’ instead of ‘opposition’. Don’t blame the other side for everything that’s wrong in the world. Understand that the other side is, generally, just as concerned about making this country better as you are. They just disagree on how.
I’ve gotten so sick of the attack politics, the blame the other guy crap, the partisan bullshit, the hypocrisy, etc. I will vote for someone who has intelligent ideas and a basic respect for the opposition EVEN IF I DISAGREE WITH THEM. An honorable and thinking person I disagree with in office is far better than a pathetic hack I agree with in office.
The same requirement is needed for me to vote Republican by the way. In this election cycle, neither main party got my vote for this exact reason. Fuck both Kirk and Giannoulias.
I think you meant to address that to the Republicans. It has no application to the Democrats.
Thank you for providing such a succinct example of the sort of blind hatred partisanship that, if it were said by someone running for office, would guarantee they don’t get my vote.
The Republicans ARE the enemy, not just the opposition. And the Democrats have been doing exactly what you say they should, to the extent that it has crippled them. They insist on treating the Republicans as a civilized opposition, people who can be reasoned and compromised with, instead of what they are: fanatics and lunatics, implacable enemies. As a result, even when given a majority the Democrats can’t govern.
No; they need to do the exact opposite; they need to admit that the Republicans ARE the enemy, not the loyal opposition. They need to admit that the Republicans have no interest in the welfare or security of the country, in good governance, in compromise of any kind under any circumstances. The Republicans have no loyalty to the country, only to themselves.
Yeah, sorry, godix, at some point we have to denounce destructive policies for what they are. I do suspect that Tom Coburn & Roy Blunt do love their country in some way, deep down, & will occasionally do the right thing where it doesn’t conflict with personal avarice (in Blunt’s case) or some twisted sense of Puritan morality (in Coburn’s case). But it’s hard for me to respect those who fight so hard against what I see as fundamental priorities.
I really have no respect left for the GOP in any blanket sense. I do somewhat miss the pro-immigration free-traders (I think Karl Rove is the last one with any visibility) & I still respect what Richard Lugar tried to do about nuclear proliferation. But I started out respecting folks like Rob’t Bork, Dick Armey, John Kasich, & Wm F. Buckley, & finally lost much of it as I came to understand better what they were really about.
I don’t really care what the Republicans are doing. They could be stomping puppies and raping children to achieve their evil status. The Democrats continue to fail to illustrate their platform, this crap of arguing the other guys are worse doesn’t to move them forward.
The Democrats lost seats because their voters didn’t show up to vote at all. They need to fix their own party before worrying about the other one.
Now Tamerlane argument on Blue Dog seats is a good one. A liberal Democrat may not have been able to win those seats in the first place.
Should the Democrats continue to support candidates that vote against their platform issues just to secure hard to reach seats?
The net effect of the election is the Democrats lost more conservative members then liberal ones. Maybe if the Democrats fail to shape themselves into an ideologically coherent party the voters will do the for them. Do the Democrats become a more liberal party simply becuase their conservative members are getting picked off?