Why Liberals Lose

[Phillyindy]

Like most of you, I rack my brain constantly trying to figure out who the hell votes Republican. I mean I spend hours trying to make any sense of it, and there simply is no logic for it, none.

Now billionaires and even multi-millionaires, got it. Pure greed coupled with a lack of foresight and a complete apathy towards your fellow man.

Racists, Biggots and the like, got it.

But even if we say that those 2 groups make up 25% of the population, how the hell can one explain the rest? Entire counties of people, nearly entire states!

I won't preach the choir here about how unabashedly the Republican Party openly panders to the wealthy ruling class, while the Democrat party, driven by liberals, has worked tirelessly for the working man, equality of races, ending bigotry, our environment, etc, you guys know all this.

So how do a republicans manage to get so many people to vote against their own interest, and the interests of their children, spouses and communities at large? Even in this modern day Information Age where all the facts are at anyone's fingertips 24/7?

Obviously there are several reasons, not the least of which being that a good 50% of the population is utterly clueless, utterly disinterested, or both.

And unfortunately, for this group with a 5 second attention span, zero capacity for critical thinking and media-driven pro-capitalist propaganda burned into their brains since birth...the almost childlike simplicity of Republican talking points make sense, sound "American", even noble, and in the end make these people feel good, like winners.

"No more taxes", "small government", "job creators", "strong defense", "prolife", "no more handouts"...these all look great on a bumper sticker to the person who can name the last 5 American Idol winners but never heard of Citizens United.

I realize this isn't some radical thought or realization, but here's the real kicker - as Americans get dumber and dumber (which they are at blinding speed), get more and more distracted by shiny digital screens or just trying to make ends meet, its only going to be harder and harder to make them see and understand the complexity of the real issues at hand and the most effective solutions. Bumper sticker slogans are all that will get through to many.

How can liberals address this issue?

[lebkuchen]

1. The GOP gets votes in the face of unmitigated unreason through fear

We need to get more Americans passports and better jobs so they can travel.

Has anyone seen the new passports under Obama, btw? Fabulous! Pictures and quotes of our history and beliefs on every page. EX: The cause of freedom is not the cause of a race or a sect, a party or a class--it is the cause of humankind, the very birthright of humanity.

--Anna Julia Cooper

Talk about a paradigm change in the passport arena. All my other passports were a bunch of empty dull pages.

Every little bit helps to change attitudes.

[liberal_at_heart]

2. we need somone who is good at politics. Obama and Clinton are very good politicians.

Both of those men could speak and bring a crowd to its feet. Look at how many people voted in 2008. The people are ready, but you are right about the fact that they need someone who is charming to get them to pay attention. If we could just get politicians who are as good at politics as Obama and Clinton but who would start repealing the trickle down economic policies then we would really have something.

[Phillyindy]

4. True...but lets face it...

...if not Obama, who? You won't see a better "speaker", as he's governed center-right. Same with Bill Clinton, who while I like very much, also repealed Glass Stegel, created NAFTA, signed brutal welfare reform, and much more. Why? To be popular, because to the point of my thread, Republican talking points win. This is why outside of social issues mainly advancing progressively, economically we have had hard right policies since Reagan.

[liberal_at_heart]

6. It won't be Obama. He has already proven that, but that doesn't mean there won't be other

politicians who can speak as well as he can. You have to remember that up until 2008 most people liked to believe they were middle class even if they weren't. That's why the tag line middle class worked so well during the last campaign. Some people have had a wake up call. Millions lost their homes, couldn't find jobs, and when they finally did find jobs it was far, far less than what they were used to making. Is it enough of a wake up call to get a liberal elected right now? I don't know, but I really do believe that as more and more people have to live with poverty wages the more of a wake up call we will see. The tag line middle class won't work for much longer because our middle class is nearly gone.

[Phillyindy]

10. Love your optimism but...

...Nate Silver just said there is a 50% chance republicans will take control of Senate. That's AFTER everything they've done, everything you mentioned. Add to that that they WILL hold the house, and you could literally be looking at complete Republican control in 2016, or at least 2/3rds of government.

I'm not trying to be negative, just pointing out that what we'd like to believe about people waking up and how they can't possibly still buy into republican BS just in any the case.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

3. The answer, in part, is that choices are reduced and we, as ordinary Americans, cannot pay

candidates, politicians, and persons related to them as much as the corporatists.

Some voters, such as independents, cannot be relied upon to always equate liberal principles with candidates and politicians who wear the big (D) label.

For those voters, they don't always view (D) = liberals while (R) = "Racists, Biggots and the like".

The corporatists have found their solution by financially supporting candidates that will both openly embrace modern Republican values as well as those who have those who have posed as liberals for the Democratic Party.

As voters, we often can't tell the difference between bona fide liberals and posers who merely want to hijack the Democratic Party and its machinery to enrich themselves.

Can you consistently tell the difference? I doubt that any of us can.

We simply cannot match the funding of the greedy corporatists and we cannot prevent posers from claiming to have liberal values while on the way to grab as much as they can.

The American form of democracy that existed just a few decades is gone. It is no more. It won't be returning. In short, FUBAR.

[Phillyindy]

5. Occupy had a shot...

...that was the moment. IMO while the gov certainly helped to bring them down, they blew it themselves by not being better organized with a simple populist message. In the end they allowed themselves to be branded as lazy rable rousers, trouble makers, people wanting handouts, etc.

[liberal_at_heart]

9. I don't get that. How was Occupy any different than the hippies in the sixties?

Why do we have such a positive oppinion of the hippies of the sixties, but our modern hippies are to be scorned? That doesn't make any sense to me.

[Phillyindy]

12. Hippies in the 60's...

...we're HATED by huge sections of the country. It was also different then, their main fight was against the Vietnam war, and slowly but surely most Anericans were too. My point about Occupy was just that they had most if the nations attention there for a bit, and a ton of support, but blew it because they had no structure or defining message/policy demands. They late the corporate media define them as lazy and wanting handouts, etc... They lost public support.

[liberal_at_heart]

32. They didn't blow anything. They are an organic, grass roots protest movement that opposes the

abuse of the 99% by the 1%. The Tea Party is the one who let themselves be coopted by a rich organization in order to get positive media attention. They did get some people elected but I would rather have a grass roots organization that refuses to be coopted just to get meida attention than to sell out like the Tea Party did. That is the point of the who protest, to not sell out to the 1%.

[Phillyindy]

35. C'mon...

Occupy got the 99% message across, they get a lot of credit for that. Now name 1 policy change they are responsible for? Say what you want about the tea party, they organized, got people elected, and have their agenda front and center. Occupy could have brought about a massive chance, they blew it in my opinion. Grass roots is great, but you have to organize at some point.

[liberal_at_heart]

38. If they had done what the Tea Party had done it would have defeated the whole purpose of the

movement. And as far as policy, the politicians who are still bought by the 1% are still ignoring the people so Occupy has done what they have done from the beginning. They are doing the work themselves. They are organizing into civil action groups and helping communities directly. So in reality they are doing more than the Tea Party and are even doing more than the politicians.

[Phillyindy]

40. Think we're talking past each other

I don't want occupy to be the tea party, astro turf corporate front group. All I'm saying is occupy has a moment, like America right after 9-11...a rare moment when substantial change was possible. A major mass movement, but they blew it in my opinion. Still doing great things, but they aren't affecting real change.

[Agony]

7. "while the Democrat party, driven by liberals, has worked tirelessly for the working man"

there's your problem... truthiness

[hfojvt]

56. that line has to be a joke, right?

Right?

Who you trying to kid, kid?

a truer statement would be

"while the Democrat(ic) Party, driven by liberals, has thrown working people under the bus in its pursuit of corporate and upper class dollars and its primary focus on social issues."

Written that way, the question of "why don't working people vote for Democrats?" has a fairly obvious answer.

[Mnpaul]

64. Nailed it

Vote for liberals? Wish I could.

[hobbit709]

8. They appeal to the one issue voters by catering to their fears.

As long as that issue is on, they don't think about anything else, even if the rest of the platform is against their own best interests.

[Fumesucker]

11. To a big extent it's because Democrats don't draw stark enough distinctions

The best example I can think of is Joe Lieberman debating Dick Cheney in the 2000 VP debates, Holy Joe spent more time agreeing with Sneer than he did disagreeing, it was enough to make you nauseous.

I think where Joementum ended up campaigning in 2008 kind of makes it clear that was no fluke.

[Phillyindy]

13. Totally agree, and I think

That's because republican talking points, Regardkess of how inane, are more popular. That was my original point. Not sure how to change this.

[Phillyindy]

14. It's obvious...

Democrats are too scared to draw those distinctions because they feel republicans have already won the messaging - at least on most economic issues, and because of their corporate donors. Total FUBAR as a previous poster said.

[Fumesucker]

16. More than a few elected Democrats have bought.. or been bought.. into the Republican talking points

I think that one of the major differences between the parties is that for the most part the Republicans fear their base while the Democrats loathe theirs.

Notice how the Republicans cater to the far right while the Democrats love to punch the left whenever they get the opportunity.

[Phillyindy]

18. Yep, left has zero power anymore

[liberal_at_heart]

20. well this abused wife has had enough. I'm gone.

[Phillyindy]

23. ? Abused wife?

[liberal_at_heart]

30. I'm tired of the verbal abuse liberals have to put up by other democrats, but more so I am tired of

the Reagonite policies democratic politicians approve, so I am now an independent. I voted straight democrat for 19 years and I am now done with that. I will vote for liberal democrats but will not vote for democrats who support Reagon triggle down economics anymore.

[Phillyindy]

36. I hear you, Elizabeth Warren!

[LittleBlue]

55. Nail on head

Agree completely.

[gulliver]

15. "Democrat party?"

[Phillyindy]

17. *sigh

[gulliver]

19. Not sure if you are aware...

...but "Democrat party" is offensive to Democrats. Republicans use it as a slur.

[Phillyindy]

21. Oh...

It was just an error. Never understood why any democrat would be offended by that name. I get why repubs used it, but its an insider thing that the know one else knows about or cares.

[gulliver]

29. It's actually more the norm for the more dirtball...

...Republicans. It's not a past tense thing at all. One of the reasons their party is dying is that they have a lot of assholes.

I think the basic idea is that if they called us by our correct name, Democratic Party ("Democratic" and capital "P&quot , they would somehow be admitting we had a lock on the "democratic" ideal. So they resort to a sort of childish name-calling that most people would be too ashamed of to do.

[panzerfaust]

22. ... because they are afraid to be Liberal, and so run, act and functionally are republicans

Obama originally won on Hope and Change.

At the time polls repeatedly showed that the vast majority of Americans were sick of our wars, sick of corrupt business control of government, sick of the lack of basic medical care, sick of the lack of a meaningful safety net for those in need and, most of all, sick of the erosion of civil rights and liberties under Bush.

Obama could have been one of our nation's most statuesque presidents. He chose, instead, to extend the abuses of his predecessor and has sealed his place for all time as among those who have done the most to destroy the basic civil liberties which underpin a democratic society.

Obama chose to destroy Hope by failing to deliver Change.



Our nation has degenerated into a surveillance society in which most of us have no meaningful role other than to provide money for the 0.01%. We are kept in line and obedient by a program of fear, fear manufactured and promulgated by our government for no purpose other than to frighten us into giving up our few remaining rights.

[Phillyindy]

25. Great post

[Bunnahabhain]

24. If the answer you keep getting doesn't make sense...

examine your assumptions.

[Phillyindy]

26. I have..

...repeatedly. Please feel free to enlighten me.

[Bunnahabhain]

28. If I had enlightenment

I would gladly share it.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

27. Republicans have a good propaganda machine

they get the masses to vote against themselves. Greed, bigotry and racism are all in there too.

[reformist2]

31. Despite your talking points, I think the problem is with older Americans.

If the problems were short-attention spans, sound-bites, and mindless youth obsessed with American Idol and Grant Theft Auto, you would find younger Americans voting Republican in droves.

But they're not.

It's the older, supposedly "smarter" voters still voting for Republicans in droves.

[Phillyindy]

39. No, the youth just don't vote

[Scootaloo]

33. Because liberals have this weird aversion to propaganda

Now bear in mind that America is and always has been a nation with a huge streak of anti-intellectualism. Educated people are seen as snobs, intellectuals are seen as clueless eggheads, experts are derided as know-nothings ("Global warming, huh, then why is it snowing, HUH?&quot Instead the nation strongly favors "plain sense, know-it-in-my-gut, wisdom o'er book-learning" approach.

What that means is that when liberals come up and start providing all the facts and details and information about this idea, that policy, or whatever, a huge number of Americans - even those who would be sympathetic - feel as if they are being talked down to by ivory-tower elite. it doesn't matter what's being said, what ends up mattering is that liberals are perceived as "thinking they're too good for us."

Republicans are good at understanding this. They distill their positions and ideas into keywords, catchphrases, and sound bytes that evoke feeling and emotions. They don't bore people with facts and figures, even when those facts and figures support their position. They make the audience "feel in their gut" that the Republican position is the good one... and when they look over and see the Democrat looking like a babbling technocrat by comparison, well...

As I said, Liberals have their weird aversion to propaganda. We often equate it with evil and lying, and favor a "straight facts" approach... and so we look like self-righteous babbling technocrats. And to be honest, we often do. Remember John Kerry constantly tripping over nuance? He was right, sure, but it allowed the GOP to keep hitting him for being a "waffler" and "flip-floppy" because he kept responding with "yes, but..." to his own statements and positions. Al Gore was even worse - by comparison, Obama's a master of the sell.

And that's what propaganda is. it's about selling something. it's advertising. It doesn't have to be lies, it doesn't have to be malicious, it just has to sell something to an audience. That is accomplished not by reams of factoids and lectures, but by making them feel that this is something they want to buy. This approach also allows the audience of Americans to feel that you think they're smart enough to fact-check on their own, rather than feeling like you're putting them in a classroom

[Phillyindy]

48. My reply

Fantastic post, couldn't agree more. HOWEVER...it begs the follow up question - but at some point, how does a wallmart employee vote for the party that hates unions...how does a woman vote for the party that is so openly hostile to them economically and physically...how does the assembly line worker vote for the candidate who made his fortune sending jobs like his overseas? I could go on, but you get the point. Your explanation, while poignant, doesn't add up. I may think the car salesmen is an arrogant prick, but the bottom line is if he's going to save me $5,000 and $200 a month on my payment....I'll take it, I dont care how "down to earth" the competitor is.

[Drunken Irishman]

34. Republicans win because America isn't the America we think it is.

It's still an America dominated by a small-government mindset. I don't think people understand how dramatic the nation shifted in the 80s when Ronald Reagan won the presidency. There was a transformation as a nation that turned spiteful toward the government, minorities and entitlements. It's why, during that stretch, liberal Democrats like McGovern (though he was before Reagan), Mondale and Dukakis not only lost - but lost badly at the presidential level. Hell, the Democrats even managed to lose the senate in the 1980s.

So, while people are quick to point to Obama and blame him - or blame Clinton - the reality is that liberals were losing long before either came onto the national scene. It didn't just change in 1992 with Clinton's election and it wasn't reaffirmed with Obama's reelection. The ideology was collapsing out of the Reagan Era and I'd wager it took those two politicians to save it.

Unfortunately, that's not the answer most want to hear. They want to blame the likes of Clinton and Obama and other so-called 'conservative' Democrats because it's the easiest answer without questioning the stark reality of America - it's not a liberal nation. Sure, if you nuance each point long enough, you'll get Americans to concede that they believe in Social Security and Medicare and a woman's right to choose, but you said it: the attention span isn't there for that.

So, instead, it comes down to buzz words. Well let's be honest, to most Americans, the idea of government scares 'em. It's scared 'em since the 1970s when they rejected the idea of big government.

That's where it started. Republicans were successful at portraying Democrats as big government, tax and spend liberals. It's what killed Michael Dukakis in a winnable presidential election and it even hurt John Kerry in 2004. As much as we want to pretend the country has moved away from that stereotype - they haven't. So, again, unless you nuance every position, it's hard to get across, successfully, anyway, an ideology that does support an increase in spending and a larger role of government.

Until you change the mindset of the American people, it won't matter who you put up - it didn't matter in the 70s and 80s, right? I mean, no one here would ever say McGovern or Mondale or Dukakis lost because they weren't left enough, or didn't do a good enough job distinguishing themselves from their opponent. It's also not a coincidence that Obama and Clinton, the two Democrats most here bemoan the most, are the only two who've successfully won reelection going all the way back to FDR (I guess you can throw in Truman, whose first term was almost entirely FDR's fourth). There is a reason for that. They've been able to rise above the typical caricature of a Democratic politician - out of touch, big government spender who just loves to tax.

Well, we witnessed in the 70s, 80s and 90s that Americans don't like that. We can fool ourselves and pretend they do - but every time the Democratic Party overreached in that regard, the Republicans came back and ran on small-government policies and won overwhelmingly - it helped 'em in '72, '80, '84, '88, '94, '00, '04 and '10.

You change that and then maybe you'll be able to change why liberalism continues to fail. But again, it's not fair to blame Obama or Clinton or any recent Democrat - this is a failure that's been in progress for the last 40 years. I mean, outside the Clinton & Obama presidencies, can anyone point to one liberal achievement we've seen since 1980? There aren't many - and let's be honest, that was long before Democrats supposedly lurched to the right.

[Mojorabbit]

52. Yes that is when we went from the vision of a "great society" to the "greed is good"

society. From "us" to a "me" society. Obama really lit a fire. He could have been the best modern President in my 60 year lifetime if he had governed as he campaigned. People were ready. I don't thing we will have another chance to turn the country around. I think that window has closed. With climate change ramping up and employment probs that will be in place for decades to come I just don't see any turn around for the future.

[Beartracks]

37. Lies are also available at your fingertips 24/7.

Republicans make sure to flood the marketplace of ideas with cheap, toxic crap. Funny that they're supposedly all about "letting the market decide" when it comes to anything except the truth. In the end, they're interested only in "winning."

===================

[nashville_brook]

41. funding grassroots organizations and policy shops would be a good start

[Curmudgeoness]

42. It is that 25% who are voting Republican.

You already have the answer.

We have maybe 50% of the population voting (and often less than that). Half of them often vote Republican. That accounts for your 25% who are wealthy or ignorant bigots.

Case closed.

[JoeyT]

43. 25% is about the percentage of the population that votes for the GOP.

57.5% turnout in 2012, and the Republicans got less than half of that.

Our goal shouldn't be to peel votes off Republicans: We're never going to be able to do it. Our goal should be to get the 43% that don't vote at all interested in voting.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

44. All Politics is Local. And, Better the Devil You Know.

Liberals and Progressives want to address the injustices of life. Unfortunately, this means that we have to sacrifice something to do so. Some of our income, some of our leisure, some of our thoughts. To most people this is written off as idealism that benefits the "undeserving" who don't "work" hard enough, study enough, love God enough, etc. But, what it really boils down to is "I got mine" and I ain't giving any of it up to anybody.

So, the politicians who dangle the promise of getting it, holding on to it, and denying it to the "undeserving" get the votes.

Of course, they're being taken for a ride by the rich who only dangle the alleged rewards.

"The comfort of the rich rely on an abundant supply of the poor." Voltaire

[Doctor_J]

45. By obliterating their propaganda outlets

Fox "News" and their 1500 radio stations are the answers to your questions. when we've had enough, and are ready to die on our feet rather than live on our knees, the solution will be messy, but extremely simple.

[Phillyindy]

49. So true, I remember...

...blogging and writing about this like 10-12 years ago. I would talk to friend and family about the incredible influence AM radio and Fox were having on the national discourse, and they would laugh, think I was nuts. They still do. I would tell them do you realize that CNN might get 2-3mil viewers a night, but Limbaugh might have as many as 20-30mil? I would talk about the bubble (not really understood then), the ripple effect throughout the media, and would go so far as to say this right wing echo chamber is the single greatest threat to America....and I would get roasted.

[YoungDemCA]

46. "the Democrat party, driven by liberals, has worked tirelessly for the working man, et al"

News to me.

[Phillyindy]

50. That's a shame...I recommend...

...doing some reading....

[WCGreen]

47. Simple, it's a lot easier to rile up people who are afraid of losing something...

that they cherish.

For instance, how many different voting block of people are so against something that they only vote on that issues.

For instance, when I ran for the State Senate in a distract that was predominately Democrat, I got a lot of people slamming the door when I said I was pro-choice, anti-desegregation or pro-gun control, the door would slam.

I would go into Union Halls to campaign, and I would be put on the defensive because I was "going to take thier guns.."

It's hard to talk to these people when all they here is he's gonna talk my guns, he's gonna let niggers move in my neighborhood or this guy is okay with killing babies...

Anyway, most of these democrat leaning neighborhoods I campaigned in 1996 have turned republican now because the GOP has complete control of the redistricting process since 1990 on...

[Recursion]

51. I don't know. The left has made actual policy blunders in the past we're still suffering from

The New Deal was and is broadly popular in a way the Great Society was not and is not.

[brooklynite]

53. How, by facing reality...

When start by suggesting that 25% of The population are religious/racial bigots, I'd say you're already going off the rails.

The bottom line is that this country is fairly evenly divided between two groups: one (generally voting Democratic) believes that Government should have a proactive role in social progress, and the other (generally voting Republican) does not not. Instead, they feel that THEY don't get and don't NEED Government support and that they don't want Government telling them how to run their personal lives or businesses. That fundamental divide has been n this country for the past 200 years.

[Bluenorthwest]

58. Actually it is 3 groups, Demcratic voters, Republican voters and half the country who

don't vote at all. That is the sad, true divide and the area we as a Party need to focus on to end that illusion of an even divide between right and left. The majority is apathetic to the process and changing them into voters is easier and faster than trying to win over Republicans by pretending to be Republican or 'centrist' or a Blue Doggy or whatnot.

[wickerwoman]

54. Actually liberals win and have been for a while.

The problem is that the system is gerrymandered by the state legislatures so that even when we get the majority, we don't get the majority.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/11/07/1159631/americans-voted-for-a-democratic-house-gerrymandering-the-supreme-court-gave-them-speaker-boehner/?mobile=nc

"There is a simple explanation for how this happened: Republicans won several key state legislatures and governors’ mansions in the election cycle before redistricting, and they gerrymandered those states within an inch of their lives. President Obama won Pennsylvania by more than 5 points, but Democrats carried only 5 of the state’s 18 congressional seats.

Similar stories played out elsewhere. Obama won Virginia, and Democrats took 3 of 11 House seats. Obama won Ohio, but Democrats carried only 4 of 16 seats in Ohio’s House delegation."

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/02/11968/wisconsins-shameful-gerrymander-2012

"As neuroscientist Sam Wang explained in Sunday's New York Times, [in Wisconsin] "Democrats received 1.4 million more votes for the House of Representatives, yet Republicans won control of the House by a 234 to 201 margin. This is only the second such reversal since World War II."

Wisconsin was one of five states where the party that won more than half of the votes for Congress got fewer than half of the seats. Largely because of redistricting, Republicans in Wisconsin received just 49 percent of the 2.9 million votes cast in the state's congressional races, but won five out of eight seats, or 62.5 percent. And that redistricting process was carried out with a nearly unprecedented level of secrecy and obfuscation."

Some condescending campaign to get "stupid, short-attention span" people out to vote isn't going to work. People get what's going on. The problem is that their vote actually doesn't count.

[Phillyindy]

61. Outside of social issues...

...like gay marriage, liberals have done nothing but lose for 30+ years. I agree on gerrymandering, but gerrymandering means nothing unless there are entire regions of red. Even on the national stage, Obama only beat the Sarah FUCKING Palin side show by what, 3%? And that was AFTER Republicans started a BS war on lies, sanctioned torture, and caused the biggest economic collapse since the Depression!!!

[wickerwoman]

66. So in 2008,

we didn't win the presidency and control both houses of Congress? That's news to me.

The problem is a system that requires a 60% filibuster-proof majority to get anything at all done and gerrymandered district lines that mean Democrats can get the majority of the popular vote and still win only 3 of 11 house seats.

And then there's the whole "Democrats are always losing" mindset combined with "American are so stupid. How can we manipulate them to do what we want?" I can't imagine why messaging like that isn't sparking the popular imagination.

[Phillyindy]

67. Ok so...

You're kidding yourself, the right has cleaned the progressive clock for 30 years, like I said, except for some social issues. Obama is a moderate Republican, so was Clinton.

[Doctor_J]

68. I am guessing you were napping during the election s of

94, 98, 2000, 2002, 04, 10. The country has moved radically to the right for 30 years. Wake up.

[Bluenorthwest]

57. This post seems odd to me, the whole 'rail and rage at the stupid electorate while

sputtering about the Democrat Party' thing turns me off. I don't think people are stupid and getting stupider, I think people are getting more informed all the time, information is easy to move around these days.
Half the country does not vote. Fuck the 25% who are Republican die hards, we don't need them, we need the non voters to vote. The way to do that is to give them a clear choice, actual liberals instead of Blue Baggers or Tea Dogs. Also don't preach about how stupid they are. Losing tactic if ever there was one.

[Phillyindy]

62. Ummm...

This post wasn't a "tactic" to win anyone over, lol, I mean its on DU for crying out loud. I was just speaking my mind.

That being said, the is no question people in this country are dumb and getting dumber. You could hand a 12th grader a 4th grade history test from 40 years ago and they'd be lucky to score above 30%.

You need to get out of your bubble and take a look around. The average person has absolutely NO CLUE about what's going on. This country has grown fat, lazy and apathetic. Most people are self absorbed, disengaged, and plain ignorant. Others are too busy trying to survive to pay attention. It's the perfect culture for Republican hate and ignorance to flourish and blossom, and it has.

And 25% republican die hards? It's way more then that pal. We couldn't even beat the Sarah Palin national embarrassment tour by more then 3%...and that was after 8 years of a Republican White House destroying the nation in every conceivable way. So its time you woke up, outside of a few social issues, its the Republican message that's winning, and that's just a fact.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

59. A lot of our candidates are fucking terrible

Consider the illustrious Dana Rohrabacher who has been left for dead by the Republicans a dozen odd times. If Congressman Rohrabacher sat down on the steps of Congress, he would be arrested for vagrancy.

This guy is a fucking zero. And yet election after election we run increasingly worse candidates against him. Usually a bored millionaire who is running only for the sake of hosting parties rather than actually campaigning. The best recent showing against this loser was Debbie Cook, who is basically the Sarah Palin of Orange County. After her came a guy who was basically Basil Marceaux with teeth and the last go around, the worst in memory Ron Varasteh who's entire campaign consisted of getting stood up for a debate with Rohrabacher and spending at night at the occupy encampment outside the Irvine Civic Center.

A good candidate would wipe this guy out, but there haven't been any good candidates.

[mathematic]

60. Because some people think you should only have what you earn

Even if that means they personally will live in the gutter. These people are idealists and you insult idealists and all thinking people everywhere when you say they are "voting against their interests".

Why don't you respect their different perspective on life and try to come to some common ground?

[rrneck]

63. Because the population in general

and liberals in particular aren't hungry enough yet.

Do you think only conservatives were flipping houses and investing in questionable securities during the last bubble? How many leading liberal thinkers have spent more time ensconced in university chairs pontificating than actually interacting with the people they are ostensibly trying to help? How much liberal political capital has been squandered on the culture wars instead of the class wars?

People didn't get nothing since 1980, they just didn't get as much as they deserved for their efforts. So, for example, women expanded their role in the workforce and now it takes two people to afford a middle class lifestyle. Wage stagnation is only half the reason. The other half is that a middle class lifestyle has become a hopelessly inflated orgy of consumerism. Both of these causes profit corporations and the 1% that controls them.

The United States is just another empire in a long line of empires, and we are in decline. Over consumption of resources, an economy based on finance rather than manufacturing, the conversion to a service economy (a thousand years ago it would have been a slave economy), and dependence on a bloated military to defend the profits of a greedy oligarchy are all part of the same pattern. Between the greed of a few here and a shortage of resources caused by actual depletion and competition for same around the world our population is being squeezed into the corner of a contracting lifestyle. Get ready for it, it's on the way.

No matter who you are or what you have, your lifestyle will contract. For those who are blessed with a surfeit of resources, that contraction will be unpleasant. For those just getting by, it will be painful. It will be disastrous for the rest simply because they have nowhere to contract to.

The terms liberal and conservative refer to rates of cultural change. Most people think they refer to certain issues of the day, but that just turns them into products that enrich the wealthy. That's how they get people to vote against their economics interest. Ideology has become little more than social plumage. Sooner or later liberals will have to get down to the business of actually changing a culture that simply doesn't work any more. To do that, they will have to be hungry enough to want to make those changes rather than simply pontificate about them and living off the royalties. The sad truth is that generally speaking, people don't climb into the trenches willingly. They generally fall into them. Or get pushed.

[Arugula Latte]

65. Another factor

we have too many fundy and/or rightwing religious dumbasses in this country.