I voted for Gor, but I though I was voting for the planet, not the candidate! Fortunately, it came out all right. Point was, even though I had NO idea what I was doing, I didnt vote for Bush!
Correct. Why? Because Obama is Black.
I am not a racist or sexist but as a pragmatist who wanted rational governance, I was disappointed (and thought it typical of Democrat’s political ineptness) that at a point where they were guaranteed landslide dominance, their two top candidates were a Black and a woman.
In America, rationalists tend to be race blind. But those called “centrists,” not so much so.
My former representative Rick Boucher lost in 2010, after serving fourteen terms representing a district that has been substantially Republican for decades. He was once ranked the tenth-most-powerful member of the House.
By many measures he was a conservative Democrat–high marks from the NRA, voted against the health care bill. He was the Democrat that many of my registered Republican neighbors would diverge from their party line to vote for.
But look back through his legislative record and you’ll see his name involved in many progressive efforts. He was never as good on environmental issues as I would have liked, but realistically he was pretty good for the context around here. He voted for the American Clean Energy and Security Act (cap and trade), though he worked to tweak it to “preserve coal jobs” (and was still slammed as anti-coal). He co-sponsored the EFCA. Obama said “I love Rick Boucher.”
If you think that your party’s losses of seats like the Virginia 9th don’t represent a real and substantial setback… it’s hard to imagine what you would consider a setback.
What?! Why are you disappointed?! And where is the political ineptness?! Bear in mind that (1) breaking certain glass ceilings is all part of the Dems’ stated agenda and (2) only in a guaranteed-landslide situation would they dare.
I prefer to think of him as being in superposition where he holds all beliefs simultaneously until “measured” by running for a specific office, at a specific time, in a specific place.
You misspelled nigger. But it was still pretty clear what you meant.
I’m not convinced Christie is that moderate, but perhaps he is. His lobbying background troubles me, but his directness is certainly preferable to the typical mealy-mouthed politician.
Daniels is easily the Republican I would most likely vote for, even though I disagree with a good number of his positions. His call for a detente in the culture wars is laudable.
The problem is that for either of them to get the nomination they will likely have to go through many of the same changes in position that McCain did. We’ve already seen a number of the potential GOP candidates pledge to reinstate DADT, for example. The idea that the only reason SDMB liberals soured on McCain is that he ran for president is laughable - his positions in 2000 were quite different than in 2008.
Like so many, I was delighted to see Obama win and it made me proud to be an American.
But America’s current problems are very grave; this is one time we definitely needed a unifier who could rally us around “progressive” policies. Obama may have many of the required attributes but, let’s be frank, there are many Americans who reject his leadership automatically due to his race.
Instead our “landslide” Democrats pursue almost-Republican policies. :smack: Would their governance be more rational if racism didn’t interfere with “centrist” support? I don’t know. In any case, the graveness of our problems (political and geopolitical as well as economic) far transcends the “moral victory” of electing a Black.
And – let’s hope I’m unduly pessimistic – I see failure to cope with our grave problems as likely to lead to tragedy of colossal proportion.
Obama isn’t “progressive”, he’s a right winger. And the Republicans haven’t been interested in cooperation since well before Obama was in the running for President.
The left isn’t going to leave Obama and vote for a Republican, obviously. The real question isn’t whether they’ll vote for him, but whether they’ll have the kind of passion that in 2008 caused them to form rallies, raise funds, go door-to-door to get out the vote, etc.
Then there’s the matter of young people, who came out in record numbers in 2008. Are they going to stay home this time? Are they going to work tirelessly to help Obama win re-election?
Obama won last time in part because of a huge groundswell of support from people who generally aren’t that active in politics. He also benefited from Bush Fatigue Syndrome, and got a lot of votes from moderates and independents. He was also smart enough to position himself in ways that allowed him to be all things to all people. ‘Hope and Change’ and "we’re the future we’ve been waiting for’ are nice slogans in that they aren’t particularly specific, so he could exploit Bush fatigue on the right as well as on the left and picked up quite a few Republican voters. It was a very unique election.
The question is whether those factors are still in play for him. It seems to me that he has actually moved to the ‘center’ in the worst way possible. He moved right on the issues that anger the left the most (the wars, guantanamo, wiretapping, executive power, etc). He moved left on the issues that the moderates and independents oppose the most (big spending, health care).
As a result, he has alienated his base while at the same time losing support of the independents and moderates. Normally, when a President like Clinton moves away from his base, it’s to strengthen support with moderates. Obama took a weird lateral shift that alienated pretty much everyone to some degree. His approval ratings aren’t that bad, but that doesn’t tell the whole story. It seems to me that the passion for the Obama administration is gone. He’s lost his hope and change mojo. He’s helped create the Tea Party, which is the only group in America right now showing any passion for politics at all.
I think we could see in 2012 a reverse of 2008 - a dispirited left will sit on its hands, while an energized Tea Party-led right will get out the vote and bring people to the polls who don’t otherwise vote. In 2008, Republicans tired and frustrated with Bush sat on their hands, while an energized left raised funds and voters for Obama.
If Obama wins in 2012 (and incumbency has a lot of advantages, so the odds are still in his favor), it will be be with a much narrower margin.
This brings up another big problem - lack of coattails. If the right is energized and brings out the vote in big numbers, that has an effect down-ticket - in local, state, and federal races for the House and Senate. So even if Obama wins, he could win as a lame-duck president with control of the House and Senate firmly in Republican hands, and with an even larger majority of states being run by Republicans.
It is entirely possible that the Republicans wind up with majorities in the House and Senate strong enough to overcome filibusters. If that’s the case, Obama is going to have to move to the center, and all of his progressive legislation is dead.
Frankly, from a small government perspective, I think that would be the best result. A weak Democrat president with a House and Senate controlled by Republicans who can be counted on to oppose most of the President’s spending.
<usual caveats about the election being a long way away, much rests on how the economy is doing then, yada yada. Also, never underestimate the Republicans’ ability to shoot themselves in the foot.>
The Tea Party is already past its peak and will be even less so in '12. We might see a record low turnout frankly, in terms of % voters/% eligible to vote. A lot of the indies who went GOP last November are now suffering from buyer’s remorse, after the machinations of the various midwestern governors have clearly shown everyone what the right-wing’s hole cards are (well, those who are actually bothering to pay attention).
Actually, it is not at all clear that your meaning was the intended meaning and making that assertion with little to no supporting evidence is pretty close to an insult.
Back off and avoid this sort of sniping in the future.
[ /Moderating ]
Hell, if the job itself doesn’t kill him, what can the left wing do to him?
While Boucher is representative of the centrist Democrats, it is seats such as his that prevent the party from moving to the left. While that may not be the desire of the DLC, most progressives want a true center-left party. Representatives such as him that have to water down their support for progressive policies to maintain their electability in districts are a greater setback than losing their influence.
While Dems did lose some true progressives such as Grayson (who was an aberration, his district is still solidly Republican) and solid Democratic seats (especially in Pennsylvania), and gave up far too many swing districts, most of the losses were in Republican strongholds held by Blue Dogs. I cannot say I will miss them much.
I would rather be part of coherent, consistent minority than an ineffective majority. If we want that minority to become a majority, then we need to argue that our platform is effective and worth pursuing and campaign to build support for that, not water it down to be elected to offices that will not pursue that platform.
If progressives want to be a true political force in this country, and not just hanger-ons to centrist coattails, then we need to take a few lessons from the other side. Part of which is framing the debate on our terms, and enforce greater party discipline. While progressives may not be enough to take a majority of Democrats, we are large enough to be the kingmakers and actually require our values are met past the ballot box and force centrists to hang on to our coattails. If that means losing the presidency, well, it ain’t much of a loss from the progressive/left viewpoint. And the more the Republicans screw the pooch, the more palatable our platform becomes. We had hoped that had happened in 2008, but were sadly proven mistaken.
Well, that’s an interesting theory. Good luck with that.
If the Democrat Party moves further to the left the United States will move further to the right. The Republican Party did not come to dominate the United States because of its ingenuity, but because of Democrat mistakes and failures.
Richard Nixon was elected president in 1968 because Lyndon Johnson was losing the War in Vietnam, and because his War on Poverty and the civil rights legislation had led to five years of black ghetto rioting. He was reelected by a landslide in 1972 because he seemed to be winning the war in Vietnam, and because the black ghetto riots ended as soon as he was elected.
Many liberals seem to believe that if Bobby Kennedy had lived he would have been nominated and elected president in 1968. During the primary campaign of 1968 Nixon was usually ahead in the polls in a two way race between Kennedy, or Hubert Humphrey, or Eugene McCarthy. The only Democrat candidate who was ever ahead of Nixon was Humphrey. This was not more obvious because Humphrey entered the race too late to run in the primaries.
During 1968 twice as many Americans considered themselves to be hawks on Vietnam as doves. As many as 90 percent thought “student disturbances” were a serious problem facing the country.
I cannot substantiate my assertions with links to websites, but they are documented in The Real Majority: An Extraordinary Examination of the American Electorate, by by Ben Wattenberg and Richard M. Scammon, and published in 1970.
You think that if the Republicans dominate the country they will make so many mistakes that the country will move to the left. Why has this not happened yet? Despite Richard Nixon’s needlessly prolonging a War in Vietnam that was never important to America’s economy and security, and despite Watergate and stagflation Jimmy Carter barely defeated Gerald Ford in 1976.
Although Ronald Reagan’s preposterous promise to cut taxes, raise defense spending, and balance the budget by 1983 without cutting popular middle class entitlements was obviously fraudulent by 1984 Reagan was reelected by a landslide. George H. W. Bush won easily in 1988, but if Reagan could have run a third time he would certainly have won, and probably by a greater margin.
Bill Clinton was elected and reelected, but neither time did he get a majority of the vote.
Despite the peace and prosperity of 2000, George W. Bush was elected. Despite an economy that only benefited the rich, he was reelected by a larger margin. Although Bush ran the country off the rail economically and started two expensive wars he could not win, Barack Obama did not win by a landslide, and the Republicans did well during the last election.
Right now corporations are making record profits, as many as 25 million Americans are facing long term unemployment with no long term safety net, and the Republicans did well during the the 2010 election.
Agnostic Pagan, most Americans have different values and concerns than you. What angers you pleases them, and visa versa. You should not assume that if things get worse by your standards most Americans will view things the way you do.
FWIW, I took sh1bu1’s post as supportive of my viewpoint (albeit expressed acerbically), and showing how I could have my post speak still more sharply.
(… But I often misinterpret comments here, and might be off 100% here. )
[QUOTE=New Deal Democrat]
Agnostic Pagan, most Americans have different values and concerns than you. What angers you pleases them, and visa versa. You should not assume that if things get worse by your standards most Americans will view things the way you do.
[/QUOTE]
I am under no illusions that my views are more than a minority in this country (though that is not the case globally), yet this country has continually shifted to the left since it was founded. Mostly in response to conservative policies that promised greater prosperity for all, but failed horribly in doing so. Progressives reforms have built a more prosperous country.
Such shifts are usually gradual with one major jump about every generation. Most of those shifts have involved in expanding the electorate - first to non-property owners, then minorities de jure, then women, then minorities de facto, and finally the poor de jure with the abolition of poll taxes (still working on the de facto part). The other main area was expanding public education and its availability. Reforms to mitigate the worst excesses of capitalism and its oligarchs also have been part of those shifts. And those reforms occurred under both Democratic and Republican administrations.
We are now overdo for another, which many thought would happen under Clinton or Obama. But the conservative element in America has gotten especially reactionary and nasty since the '80s and shows no signs of letting up. And the center pays lip service to social liberalism and fiscal conservatism as long as ‘those people’ (be they minorities, gays, real liberals, or worst of the worst, socialists) remain in ‘their place’, and fiscal craziness is fine if it supports the conservative establishment. And both Clinton and Obama are more aligned to the center, regardless of campaign rhetoric. (Still waiting for Obama to put his comfortable shoes on.)
When it comes to pace of reforms, the United States will nearly always be last, continuing to rest on the laurels of ‘American Exceptionalism’ and on how special and unique the American Revolution was (which was neither, nor all that revolutionary.) But the tide of history will continue to move it further to the left.
I think most conservatives recognize that which is partly why they have become so reactionary and nasty. (The other main part is the demographic shift discussed in another thread.) But they are the aberration, not the progressives. And as long as American progressives remain incoherent and inconsistent, the pace will continue to be at a crawl and what prosperity we have in this country will worsen and the majority of that prosperity will continue to accumulate to the oligarchs, and not the people. If that continues we will reach a breaking point, and we will reach that far faster when Republicans hold the reins of power. Contrary to popular belief, socialists do not want to destroy America (Most of us anyway. Diehard marxists are another story.) We want to accelerate the shift away from capitalism and its unsustainability and the exploitation it breeds because we believe that such will create a stronger America, even if a bit less ‘richer’ than under capitalism.
So going back to the OP, the left wing will not destroy Obama since while it would do little to advance the pace of progress, it does prevent it from sliding backward. If the left does want to speed up the pace, the Presidency is the least of our worries, or should be.
Another lesson to learn from the opposition is to focus on implementing our policies in progressive states and cities to demonstrate their effectiveness here (most policies having already been shown to be effective elsewhere, such as UHC and strong labor.) Something that is done, but not in a cohesive manner. Too many progressives focus on national legislation or offices, and not nearly enough on state or local levels. (Especially third parties such as the Greens. Grass roots need to start at the roots, not aim for the fruit on the branches, unless they are very low hanging.)
A final note, the progressive left /= the socialist left, but the Venn diagrams do show a substantial overlap. I have no problem myself if we can move into that region, and more socialist policies are not implemented. The US will always be more concerned with individual liberty than social solidarity, and ‘private’ solutions such as non-profits will always have more acceptance than ‘public’ solutions such as direct agencies. Such is our history. What works in Europe will not directly transfer over the pond. But progress will march forward. Just as I am not a Luddite, I would rather march with it, than against it. The golden age was never that lustrous, but I do expect the diamond age will be brilliant.
Really? What were the most immediate precedents?
I can’t tell what you mean by “it” here (the first two).
You’ve already said that the Democratic Party’s losses of veteran moderates, and representatives from conservative districts, and thereby control of Congress, was a good thing. Is their loss of the Presidency also helpful? (After all, isn’t Obama as “watered down” as Congressmen like Boucher that he really wanted to keep?)
Just how much Democratic Party relevance would you like to see dismantled?