Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Harmony Blue

(3,978 posts)
Mon Jul 8, 2013, 11:11 AM Jul 2013

Winning isn't everything as we have seen the last few years

I believe the root of this divide in the Democratic party is about those that believe winning is everything vs those that believe expressing and supporting ideas is everything. And as a result the clashes have taken place over the years because of this different mindset has slowly drifted the two sides apart. The Democratic party keeps winning on the national level and yet the Republicans, despite being the losers, control the narrative and tone of the nation. They make right hand turns for a nation that is for the most part liberal on a variety of topics. Republicans are winning at the local and state level, but they do so because they don't believe winning is everything but that supporting a conservative brand and ideas is what it is all about. Winning though simply allows them an easier time to propagate (and steam roll) their ideas, and their world view on their local and state populaces. The argument that President Obama and the the rest of the Democratic party needs more victories in the Senate and House to do anything simply doesn't resonate with voters. Why? They see a Republican party doing more with less as an opposition party (not much of anything else though), so most voters are nearly convinced that a majority in the house in favor of Dems still will not be enough. To further complicate this, even assuming if more Dems win in the House and gain seats, if they are blue dogs has the Democratic party really won votes? If blue dog Dems vote the same in the end as a Tea Party Republican snobby upstart, the end result is the same.

This fixation that winning is everything simply doesn't resonate with many of the people in the United States given the cultural history. This is why the under dog is so popular in the American psyche. There is a low chance of winning but the ideas are so bold, and swell so much passion, that the zeal to support these ideas overwhelms the logical reasoning that there is a low chance of winning. The American Revolution all the way to Rocky shows this is true and is an undercurrent that has always been prevalent in the American fabric. The detractors for the Occupy movement argued that there was no end goal, winning strategy or a singular, main leader that could lead the movement towards victory. But that misses the point of the Occupy movement as it changed the narrative of austerity at the time towards the disparity between the 1% vs the 99%. So, when that video surfaced of Romeny talking so disparagingly of a proportion of the American population it resonated with the American populace as the seed was planted by the Occupy movement.

Civil rights activists, whistle blowers, leakers, protestors, environmentalists, etc often are doing some activity or action that more than likely they will have a low chance of winning. But that doesn't slow down their resolve of what compels them to do what they believe and think is right. Rather it reinforces that they must forge forward and put those ideas out there to inspire others. That is how you win ultimately IMVHO.

39 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Winning isn't everything as we have seen the last few years (Original Post) Harmony Blue Jul 2013 OP
I don't know. Gay marriage? ACA? Recursion Jul 2013 #1
When you have a twice-elected Democratic President calling for cuts to Social Security ... Scuba Jul 2013 #8
Yes. Much better he stomp his feet than deal with political really Recursion Jul 2013 #10
Your comment would be laughable if it wasn't so sad. Scuba Jul 2013 #12
better a president who accomplishes nothing than one who accomplishes pernicious things. HiPointDem Jul 2013 #36
You do realize Elizabeth Warren Maximumnegro Jul 2013 #14
Another laughable defense. Yes, Warren was appointed by Obama. That's a small gain... Scuba Jul 2013 #15
Then remove the sig Maximumnegro Jul 2013 #16
No, but thanks for your concern. Scuba Jul 2013 #17
I will give you one win there... awoke_in_2003 Jul 2013 #20
So were the Clean Water Act and the Food Safety Act Recursion Jul 2013 #25
It is bad... awoke_in_2003 Jul 2013 #26
There are a ton of limits. The 20% admin/profit cap, the requirement for state approval... Recursion Jul 2013 #27
Gay marriage LWolf Jul 2013 #22
I am for anything that expands access to health care Recursion Jul 2013 #28
My access to health care has not expanded. It has shrunk. LWolf Jul 2013 #34
exactly. When blue dog dems vote like republicans, the results are the same. We end up with very liberal_at_heart Jul 2013 #2
Yes social justice has always been linked to economic justice Harmony Blue Jul 2013 #5
As my discussions with people who vote for republicans their main issue is of pro-life/pro-choice. Thinkingabout Jul 2013 #3
The M$M only makes it look like the RW is winning siligut Jul 2013 #4
There's no real "divivde" in the democratic party...just some DU fudr IMHO uponit7771 Jul 2013 #6
Based on how the nation perceives the NSA stories and how Harmony Blue Jul 2013 #7
There's a huge divide. Scuba Jul 2013 #11
True. There's no longer much Left left leftstreet Jul 2013 #13
What divide in the Democratic Party? JaneyVee Jul 2013 #9
In the actual party, like at precinct meetings? I haven't seen any, really Recursion Jul 2013 #31
But there's always a bit of a split, we're a big tent party. We unite at the polls. JaneyVee Jul 2013 #37
Republican Rats Rule Democratic Cats DeSwiss Jul 2013 #18
And then there is the nineteen50 Jul 2013 #19
The ONLY win is when ideas win. LWolf Jul 2013 #21
Ideas don't accomplish anything; people do Recursion Jul 2013 #29
People win when their ideas do. LWolf Jul 2013 #32
OK, but the classic retort is "that's the attitude that gets us McGovern and Mondale" Recursion Jul 2013 #33
I'd rather work for a McGovern LWolf Jul 2013 #35
Um, Republicans won a majority of House seats. Kind of forgot to address that fact. geek tragedy Jul 2013 #23
Winning is necessary but not sufficient Recursion Jul 2013 #30
There is no substitute for victory nt geek tragedy Jul 2013 #38
Republicans thought winning the House could set the tone Harmony Blue Jul 2013 #39
Excellent analysis! Le Taz Hot Jul 2013 #24
 

Scuba

(53,475 posts)
8. When you have a twice-elected Democratic President calling for cuts to Social Security ...
Mon Jul 8, 2013, 12:55 PM
Jul 2013

... to pay for the foibles of the wealthy, when those same wealthy are raking in dough and enjoying historically low tax rates, that's not progress.

That's losing. And big-time losing.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
10. Yes. Much better he stomp his feet than deal with political really
Mon Jul 8, 2013, 12:57 PM
Jul 2013

Who needs a President who "accomplishes" "things"? That's so overrated.

 

Scuba

(53,475 posts)
12. Your comment would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.
Mon Jul 8, 2013, 01:00 PM
Jul 2013

Accomplishes what? Enabling the banksters? Cutting the safety net? Expanding GITMO? Feeding the MIC? Cracking down on whistleblowers?

Sure, there's been some small progress on some fronts. But in the areas that matter most, we're going the wrong way.

Maximumnegro

(1,134 posts)
14. You do realize Elizabeth Warren
Mon Jul 8, 2013, 01:02 PM
Jul 2013

was appointed by Obama, right? I mean you do realize that the person you advocate for president in your signature would never have set foot in DC under Romney, right?

I wonder how you explain disappointing Obama with Warren-appointing Obama. How does that work.

Oh yeah and those cuts. You know the cuts that have not yet after several years now. He must want those cuts so bad yet he's thwarted everytime by stuff like... nominating Warren.

 

Scuba

(53,475 posts)
15. Another laughable defense. Yes, Warren was appointed by Obama. That's a small gain...
Mon Jul 8, 2013, 01:09 PM
Jul 2013

He also appointed Sonja Sotomayer and Elena Kagan. Those are bigger gains.

But he also appointed Timothy Geithner, Eric Holder, Larry Summers, Michael Taylor and host of other right-wing conservatives to very high level jobs. He did nothing to clean house of the corporate shills installed by Cheney at Minerals and Mining.

But you go ahead and defend this if you like. I voted for the guy twice, I made hundreds of phone calls to support his campaign. It's not that I didn't get EVERYTHING I wanted, it's that I mostly got the OPPOSITE of what I wanted.

Maximumnegro

(1,134 posts)
16. Then remove the sig
Mon Jul 8, 2013, 01:23 PM
Jul 2013

you have her there as a symbol for the future for the party worthy of the highest office, but say her appointment - and therefore her position as Senator - was a 'small' gain. You and many others who piss on Obama don't have Kagan or Sotomayor sigs, you have Elizabeth 'small gain' Warren. That's not something I need to defend.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
25. So were the Clean Water Act and the Food Safety Act
Mon Jul 8, 2013, 03:07 PM
Jul 2013

Getting buy in from industry is not a bad thing. You usually need it for the law to work.

 

awoke_in_2003

(34,582 posts)
26. It is bad...
Mon Jul 8, 2013, 03:10 PM
Jul 2013

when you put almost zero regulations on the people we are forced to buy a product from. Yeah, we got a bone by getting rid of pre existing condition, but we didn't do much to get a limit on how hard they can gouge us.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
27. There are a ton of limits. The 20% admin/profit cap, the requirement for state approval...
Mon Jul 8, 2013, 03:30 PM
Jul 2013

... for rate increases over 10% annually, the requirement for a non-profit option for the exchange.

LWolf

(46,179 posts)
22. Gay marriage
Mon Jul 8, 2013, 02:42 PM
Jul 2013

might be the only small step forward we've taken since '08.

ACA? Mandating private, for-profit insurance? That's not the idea we should be fighting for.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
28. I am for anything that expands access to health care
Mon Jul 8, 2013, 03:31 PM
Jul 2013

Unlike a lot of this board, I don't care whether it's done for a profit or not.

LWolf

(46,179 posts)
34. My access to health care has not expanded. It has shrunk.
Mon Jul 8, 2013, 03:42 PM
Jul 2013

Every year since the ACA was passed.

Yes, I know. It's not fully implemented. For-profit insurance companies were given YEARS to adjust. That's why my premiums and deductibles have INCREASED, and what is covered has decreased, every year since.

Not that they weren't doing so before; but since, at a much faster, higher rate.

I don't think that's going to change when, and if, the law is fully implemented. I don't think the insurance companies are going to come to me, hat in hand, and offer to decrease premiums and deductibles. After the premium, I can't afford the deductible to get actual care. My premium is double what my son's mortgage, including taxes and insurance is. And I don't get care unless it's an emergency, and then I go without for the rest of the year paying the damned bills.

Why? Because the profit is more important than the care. The ACA, regardless of its name, is not about care. It's about insurance, and insurance doesn't guarantee "affordable" care.

liberal_at_heart

(12,081 posts)
2. exactly. When blue dog dems vote like republicans, the results are the same. We end up with very
Mon Jul 8, 2013, 11:27 AM
Jul 2013

similar policies. In a time when CEOs earn more in one day than an average worker will earn in a year, what are democrats doing to address fair wages? What are they doing to address funding our public school system? What are they doing to address higher education? Democrats can no longer fight solely for social justice and ignore economic justice. In my opinion, I'm tired of it being an either or. It is not social justice or economic justice. To me they are one in the same. You cannot have social justice without economic justice and vice versa. And I don't understand how in the last few year democrats have become stronger on the war issues than the republicans. Democrats use to be proud to be the anti-war party. What happened to that? Are democrats so obsessed with winning elections that they are willing to accept war as a part of their party platform now?

Harmony Blue

(3,978 posts)
5. Yes social justice has always been linked to economic justice
Mon Jul 8, 2013, 12:10 PM
Jul 2013

this is why what the big wigs in the Democratic party perceive as winning ends up being a loss for the 99%.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
3. As my discussions with people who vote for republicans their main issue is of pro-life/pro-choice.
Mon Jul 8, 2013, 11:30 AM
Jul 2013

It does not seem to be important those they are voting for is completely against them, hurts them most, they are a large part of the 90% group but keep electing those who protect the 1%. Why they continue to vote this way is beyond me, the same people vote to deny safety nets to the children they want born, cut the food stamps and many other programs for our children. The republicans want forced births but let them die after getting born. We have to get back to Democrat Values, GOTV, get everyone registered to vote and since it seems the repubs are going to push for voter ID's we need to make sure all Democrats are able to vote once the day comes to vote.

siligut

(12,272 posts)
4. The M$M only makes it look like the RW is winning
Mon Jul 8, 2013, 11:32 AM
Jul 2013

Now, it is true, the RW is all about looking like winners. They lie and cheat and then act like they are paragons of virtue. Then they write superficial little books extolling their plight against socialism and bums. They erect statues of themselves in an attempt to belie that they are weak and smell of decay.

Harmony Blue

(3,978 posts)
7. Based on how the nation perceives the NSA stories and how
Mon Jul 8, 2013, 12:38 PM
Jul 2013

other nations in the world view the stories of the NSA spying overreach yes there is a divide. Bu it is even more prominent within the Democratic party because NSA leaks wasn't the sole catalyst for this divide but merely the tipping point. What started all of this pretty much traces back to the Democratic party platform of winning will solve everything when the party transformed itself back in the early 90's.

 

Scuba

(53,475 posts)
11. There's a huge divide.
Mon Jul 8, 2013, 12:57 PM
Jul 2013

The capital "P" Party has been infiltrated and co-opted by conservatives. The rank-and-file members are rapidly losing faith.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
31. In the actual party, like at precinct meetings? I haven't seen any, really
Mon Jul 8, 2013, 03:35 PM
Jul 2013

Though that may be because DC has a strong Green/Statehood party that siphons off a lot of the purists.

Online? There's definitely a split, and not just here.

nineteen50

(1,187 posts)
19. And then there is the
Mon Jul 8, 2013, 02:15 PM
Jul 2013

Senate filibuster that continues to be too easy to play because the conservative corporate republican lite democrats can strut their fake liberalism all the while knowing it will be defeated and yet still take corporate money while getting the liberal vote.

LWolf

(46,179 posts)
21. The ONLY win is when ideas win.
Mon Jul 8, 2013, 02:41 PM
Jul 2013

Party and personality matters nothing if the ideas lose.

In this voter's opinion.

On the ideas front, we've lost so much more than we've won in my voting lifetime.

LWolf

(46,179 posts)
32. People win when their ideas do.
Mon Jul 8, 2013, 03:36 PM
Jul 2013

People work to achieve those ideas. Politically, in the U.S., people vote for those who are supposed to represent their ideas and work to move them forward.

When they aren't doing so, they haven't earned our support.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
33. OK, but the classic retort is "that's the attitude that gets us McGovern and Mondale"
Mon Jul 8, 2013, 03:37 PM
Jul 2013

And I think there's a point there.

LWolf

(46,179 posts)
35. I'd rather work for a McGovern
Mon Jul 8, 2013, 03:47 PM
Jul 2013

and not win an election than work to elect someone who doesn't represent a win on issues. Enough people working hard enough on issues, and on candidates who will work for them, can make a difference. Electing someone who doesn't actually represent a "win" out of fear of losing is a lose/lose proposition.

Which is why the nation, and the Democratic Party, continue the inexorable march to the right.

I see two victories coming out of the election of Barack Obama, and a score of losses. It hasn't balanced out. Not even a tie, let alone a "win."

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
23. Um, Republicans won a majority of House seats. Kind of forgot to address that fact.
Mon Jul 8, 2013, 02:44 PM
Jul 2013

As well as the fact that Republicans haven't done a goddamn thing--their entire strategy is to do as little as possible.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
30. Winning is necessary but not sufficient
Mon Jul 8, 2013, 03:34 PM
Jul 2013

And when we don't fully win, we get government that isn't as good as we want.

Harmony Blue

(3,978 posts)
39. Republicans thought winning the House could set the tone
Mon Jul 8, 2013, 09:07 PM
Jul 2013

but the tea party upstarts received a rude awakening. Democracy is designed such that while the majority may obtain what they want in time, it comes at a slow pace, and at a high cost to achieve such objectives. Indeed the tea party swelling of support was on the ideas they were recycling from the Libertarian platform but they have to apply those ideas or else it is meaningless. This is why ideas to do matter and having elected officials that believe in them leads to a more likely chance of making it into policy.



Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Winning isn't everything ...