Is there a disconnect between DU and the rest of America?

[Drunken Irishman]

If so - why?

Bill Clinton I think is a tolerable guy on DU. Most probably like him. Some think he was a very good president. But on the whole, I bet DUers view his presidency as a lost chance at really changing the U.S. coming out of the 1980s and era dominated by Ronald Reagan. To an extent, they're right - as is the case with Obama, who, even though I fully support, failed in some regards to really uproot the conservative stranglehold we've seen since those 80s.

But I doubt most DU would consider Clinton one of our best presidents. In fact, when pressed, Jimmy Carter is often ranked ahead of Clinton - despite the fact Carter left office with one of the lowest approval ratings in history and had four years less to resume build.

Ask a broader group, though, and it's most certainly the opposite. In fact, today, most Americans would consider Bill Clinton a pretty good president and his approval rivals that of Ronald Reagan. He left office the most popular president in modern history - spending much of his second term in the mid-60s approval wise.

To Americans, using Bill Clinton's presidency as an outline for future presidents isn't a bad thing. I'd wager, by a seriously large amount, most Americans would rather have a presidency like Clinton's instead of Carter's.

Here on DU, though, it would be the opposite. Among many liberals, in fact, it would be opposite.

So, why is Clinton so popular among a wider demographic than what is perceived to be the party's base?

Image - certainly. That plays a huge role. Clinton was able to craft an image of a different kind of Democrat. He didn't seem to fall into the same traps as the perceived liberals George McGovern, Walter Mondale or Michael Dukakis. It didn't hurt he was charming, which weren't words often used to describe those three other candidates. People liked Bubba. They couldn't help but like him and it saved his butt twice - in 1992 with Gennifer Flowers and 1997 with Monica Lewinsky. John Edwards' entire political career was undone by a sex scandal that, while amplified by his dying wife, wasn't all that different - except for the baby. Had there been no baby, maybe Edwards survives. I doubt it, though. Why? He wasn't likable. Sure, the media tried to tell us John Edwards was likable - but on the whole, he just didn't feel authentic. Bill did. Even if he wasn't.

Clinton was also aided by an economy that grew extensively during his presidency. The internet was a game changer and he rode that information superhighway to a pretty hefty perception. It's created a feeling of nostalgia - everything was better in the 90s. Movies were better. Music was better. The Simpsons was better - and most importantly, the economy was better.

Nostalgia is a great equalizer. It changes the way we view things. In some ways, it's what doomed Carter - as his presidency was at the nadir (at the time) of American morale. Vietnam was still weighing heavily on the minds of many voters. Nixon had just resigned. Gas prices were extreme. Iran was a hotbed of anti-American activity - and this all culminated with the taking of U.S. hostages. To add to all this, the U.S. entered a recession in 1980.

No one feels nostalgic for the late 70s - not even the music.

Disco sucks. Right?

That's always going to be Carter's legacy. Rightfully or not.

The 90s, though, will always be Clinton's legacy and, rightfully or not, it feels good - especially in the wake of what would come in the 2000s.

In 1999, the economy was booming. Gas prices were low. People were buying homes. The U.S. wasn't fighting any major wars - and terrorism was mostly confined to the Middle East and Ireland.

Good times.

Then Bush came. The economy stumbled. Terrorism came to our shores. We started fighting in Afghanistan and then Iraq. The calm 90s gave way to the turbulent 00s - which, similar to the 70s, was defined by antiwar protests, a shaky economy, rising gas prices, terrorism and a presidency that felt lost.

Bush managed something Carter couldn't, reelection, but it was really a hollow reelection. His second term was maybe the worst of any president. He left office with a staggeringly bad approval rating and an economy in the deepest recession we've seen since the Great Depression.

That helped Clinton's image. Like a coach whose replacement falters badly, Clinton could point to the American people and say, "see...it wasn't so bad, right?"

And America pretty much said, "right."

Clinton ain't so bad now.

In 2013, Gallup ranked Clinton 3rd among modern presidents - with JFK and Reagan polling ahead. 55% of Americans considered him outstanding or above average. Only 15% considered him poor. 35% considered Jimmy Carter a poor president.

Nixon, predictably, fared the worst.



What does that say? Clinton is widely popular - and, while not nearly at that level, so is his wife.

DU's issue isn't with the DLC or New Democrats. Its issue is finding a person who can be just as likable and popular as the Clintons. That's how you beat 'em.

Elizabeth Warren might be that person. But it'll take more than just ideology to turn Americans to the left. It'll have to be a figure who has the ability to captivate this country. Those candidates almost always do well. Unfortunately for the left, they haven't had many over the years.

Get that and you can do great things. But if you're going to try to convince the American people to not vote for Hillary because she's too much like Bill and not enough like Jimmy Carter - well, good luck. I have a feeling that dog won't hunt.

[blkmusclmachine]

1. Meh.

[madokie]

27. +1

In my 66 years President Obama is my favorite by far, Jimmy comes next with Clinton a distant third

[merrily]

2. Ask those polled how well they understand the connection between repeal of Glass Steagall and near

collapse of the economy of the US and the US foreclosure crisis, as well as near collapse of the economies of several other nations.

Then ask DUers the same thing.

Ask those polled what NAFTA stands for and what impact they believe it had on the US economy.


The ask DUers the same thing.


The difference in responses may explain the differences, if any, between Bubba's popularity in a poll and his popularity at DU.

Then ask those polled who the Speaker of the House is.

Ever watch when Leno quizzed people on the street with questions like, "Who is Vice President?"

Besides, what's the big concern about how popular Bubba is on DU?

[Drunken Irishman]

5. I'm not concerned about his popularity...

If that's what you got from my post you either didn't read it or I wasn't as articulate as I thought. Clinton's popularity speaks to the whole of the issue facing liberals - they're not good at selling their ideology. Until they find someone Americans can like, it'll continue to be the same fight over and over and you'll be left with the same criticisms that have defined much of the debate about liberalism/centrism and the future.

Just telling liberals over and over again how awful those things are isn't cutting it.

[merrily]

7. Well, the title asks about a disconnect between DU and the rest of the nation, then

you go into Clinton's popularity. Then you say this:

To Americans, using Bill Clinton's presidency as an outline for future presidents isn't a bad thing. I'd wager, by a seriously large amount, most Americans would rather have a presidency like Clinton's instead of Carter's.

Here on DU, though, it would be the opposite. Among many liberals, in fact, it would be opposite.

So, why is Clinton so popular among a wider demographic than what is perceived to be the party's base?

So, I asked why the difference between America's opinion and DU's opinion was of concern to you. I don't understand why that question prompted you to wonder if I'd read the post, but I certainly don't think my response was unrelated to your OP.

BTW, the Clintons are not liberals. They don't self-describe as such. They are DLC/Third way. Clinton made triangulation famous and even had Morris as an advisor to help with that.

[Drunken Irishman]

8. I ask to prove a point.

You're going to have to convince those same people who don't know about NAFTA or the real Clinton policies that we need a new direction and just preaching to the DU choir ain't doing it.

I actually agree with many of the points made about the Clintons. I didn't support Hillary in 2008 for a reason. But I also know that, in the end, if you're going to beat the Clintons, you're going to have to run a candidate who can rally voters who don't necessarily share your view of the Clintons and has the same star power that makes both so successful.

[merrily]

9. Yes, that was obvious.

So far, Hillary has won, what? two Senate elections, right on the heels of being First Lady for eight years. As we all know, all First Ladies tend to be popular, even if they are hapless alcoholics like Mamie and Pat. And, she lost the 2008 primary.

I don't think Hillary has her husband's dazzling brilliance, though she is very smart, or his campaign skills or anything near his charisma.

So, I would say he was very successful and she was much less so.

When it comes to the general, the stuff that they flung at Bill, but not so much at her, will come up again, this time laser focused on her roles, her failure to answer a subpoena for a year, etc. So will the rest of her post-White House career, from the Senate to Secretary of State, including the distasteful nature of her 2008 campaign against Obama. I think that will lose her some Democratic votes, esp. among African Americans.

Among Republican voters, she is hated. No clue about Indies. A segment of the left does not like her.

I don't think that spells cake walk.

I don't think either Sanders or Warren will have a cake walk in a general either.

What I do think is that others have been discouraged from entering the primary and that is very stupid. She is by no means the strongest candidate the Democratic Party should put forth and they should be beating the bushes, not making as sure as they can that Hillary is not challenged from the left.

[Drunken Irishman]

14. I think, whoever wins the nomination, is going to have a fight...

But it does no one any good to pretend Hillary doesn't have an advantage even among Democrats. She is not unbeatable but a huge amount of the party supported her in 2008 and will again if she runs in 2016. Many of these people also love Bill.

To beat Hillary, you're going to need someone who brings more than an ideology to the table. I think that can be Warren but I'm not convinced she's going to run. But if you step outside the shadows of DU, you'll find that it's going to be hard convincing people to not vote for Hillary because she's a DLC Dem like her husband.

After all, in 2008, she almost won the nomination and that was with an Iraq vote that was far more toxic back then than it probably is today (time does heal a bit).

[merrily]

77. No one is pretending anything. Why would I? I have stated my sincere views.

I disagree the Iraq War advocacy (not "just" a vote) is less toxic now, after we saw the rise of so much hatred against us in the Middle East as a result of that war, including new terrorist groups. I think it's more toxic on the left of the left than ever. And how do you think her recent claim that she made a mistake is going to play with families who had love ones die or become permanently disabled in that war? Or with the right?

[Drunken Irishman]

78. I disagree with your disagreement...

I think, to most voters, her Iraq War vote won't play near the role as it did in 2008.

[merrily]

79. You already said both those things and I've already responded to both,

including as to what they say about everyone having his or her own opinion.

In any event, we'll know for sure around this time next year.

[Drunken Irishman]

80. Yes...

We'll find out. But I think the tactic needs to shift now or it will be Hillary.

[merrily]

81. Okay. Do you want the tactic to shift? If so, do you have any thoughts on how to shift it?

Because posting again and again how strong Hillary will be in the general doesn't seem to me to have a lot of correlation to shifting a thing. She is already the anointee. If you want a shift, why keep confirming that status quo?

[Drunken Irishman]

84. I think getting behind someone who articulates the narrative well and has charisma is a start.

[merrily]

101. Do you mind answering the questions I asked?

I have no idea how your comment relates to what I asked.

[Drunken Irishman]

115. I did. If you don't understand that's your own fault.

You asked how you could shift things - that's how. You're not gonna do it with candidates most America won't ever vote for. The conservative movement needed a Reagan in the 80s - not a H.W. Bush for a reason.

[merrily]

116. No. (Dn't be rude.) I asked if you wanted to shift things. Twice, you did not answer that part.

Guess what. Even I know candidates no one votes for don't get elected.

[Drunken Irishman]

118. You asked me...

kay. Do you want the tactic to shift? If so, do you have any thoughts on how to shift it?

The fact I answered to the second part implies I do. In fact, the whole original post was about that shift and how what you're doing is not going to shift the dynamics.

The left needs to find its Clinton.

[merrily]

119. I would say that the left needs to find/build its donors and power structure or it cannot find

a great candidate, let alone elect one. That is how I see it. Even Ross Perot's billions were not enough to take out either party in one election, let alone both parties. I am not saying go third party. I am saying that beating the PTB in both parties is a Herculean task.

I kind of agree with what Bill Bradley said, namely that Democrats are always looking for a person at the top, while Republicans build organization from the bottom up. (A more accurate statement might be that Republicans both build and infiltrate organizations--and vice versa--scouts, churches church youth groups, the NRA, etc., even public schools.) I think both approaches are necessary but Democrats think their solution is to find the right person to run for President. Meanwhile, Republicans now have greater control of Congress than they've since before the New Deal; and a hell of a lot of state and local offices. And, sure, I worry about the TPP a lot, but also street clearing, garbage pick up and recycling. But, I digress.

Finding a great candidate is far from easy, even when it's your day job and you have donors and an existing structure in D.C. and the 50 states, as do the DNC, the DSCC and the DCCC.

So, sure let's all us newbie political outsiders with no money worth mentioning in terms of what TV ads cost find that great candidate this time and motivate him or her to take on the daunting task of launching a 2016 Presidential primary campaign at the last minute. What is step 1? Anyone know?

BUT , since it is indeed way too late for newbies to start that for 2016, also be prepared to see that person fail and be cited as evidence that even charismatic candidates hand-picked by the left can't win elections.

Or would it be more realistic to start working on 2020 or even 2024?

Meanwhile let's also try to convince the PTB of the Democratic Party that they ought to be using their vast resources to beat the bushes for candidates to run in the primary, instead of just trying to convince us how liberal Hillary really is. I don't think posting about what a great candidate she is and vowing to vote for the ebola virus if the ebola virus is the nominee helps that at all. Yet, that is what I see all over from DU, often prefaced with some rote statement about being to Hillary's left.

In any case, let's also focus on building from the ground up at the same time: school boards, town councils, etc. Again, anyone know what step 1 would be there? I've haven't rooted around for liberal candidates in a Third Way Democratic Party.

Do most DUers actually want to do any of the above, or do they want mostly to post news stories and comment about those and/or spread the DNC/Third way gospel while pretending it's only the "practical" fall back for their liberalism? I can't tell.

Many of my posts end with "Follow the money." I'll end this one with "Find the money."

[merrily]

112. Please see Reply 101

[merrily]

82. PS 3 am here. I will have to return another time.

[Dawgs]

36. "if you're going to beat the Clintons"

Hillary and Bill are not the same person. Bill can walk into a room and take it over.. all without saying anything. Hillary, not so much.

[Drunken Irishman]

58. I agree with that - but I think she's still going to be tough to beat.

And just railing against the Third Way and the Clinton presidency isn't going to do it. After all, even with the Iraq War vote in 2008, she nearly beat Obama - and she's better positioned today than eight years ago.

[merrily]

75. IF she is the nominee, she certainly can be beaten.

BTW, everyone has an opinion and you know what they say about that. However since you stated your opinion, I will state mine. I think she is more vulnerable now than she was 8 years ago. And RNC oppo has had tons of time to prepare.

Yes, she will most definitely try to sound more populist now, just as the Third Way think tank tried to sound more populist in its announcement about the horrific 2014 midterms. However, I think public commentators on the right will mock her and honest ones on the left will at least question, for trying to erase a lifetime's history with campaign rhetoric her many economic advisors are cooking up as we speak. I can hear Morning Joe now, trotting out her history, laughing and questioning whether she really expects anyone to believe the campaign rhetoric, given her history.

Besides from what I read in the WSJ article someone posted here, most of the economic advisors are Third Way anyway and no one from labor or any similar group seems to have been invited yet as part of the group.



"just railing"

[stillwaiting]

17. The problem is that elected Democratic politicians seldom, very seldom, try to "sell their ideology"

They do not point their fingers at Republicans and clearly state the facts/outcomes of what Republicans actually do and say. It is outrageous how much the Republicans get away with, and they will continue to get away with it as long as Democrats continue to let them (few exceptions in Warren/Sanders). It would not even be difficult to make Republicans pay for what they do if Democrats would only expose them. But, they don't. They seem to be more vested in maintaining the viability of the Republican Party instead of fighting for the values they supposedly hold. And, they are propping up such a disgustingly corrupt and morally bankrupt Party in the Republican Party.

Elected Democrats all too often talk about working in a bipartisan manner with a Party that is thoroughly corrupt and against the economic interests of 95% of the population. ANYTHING the Republicans agree with will be good for the top 5-10% (mostly the top .1%) and would also most likely take from everyone else. If the Democrats can not effectively expose that then the American people will continue to not see who is screwing them over, and the income and wealth inequalities in this country will only continue to widen.

[RedstDem]

15. ding ding ding, we have a winner

In a nutshell, the more you know, the less you like the Clinton's and more you like Carter.

[pnwmom]

64. None of the differences matter if the non-DUers vote -- which they do.

So we can't pretend their opinions are too uninformed to count. Their votes count the same as ours.

[merrily]

73. I missed where I claimed DUers are the only Americans who vote or that their votes count more.

What in hell was I thinking?

The Op asked why DUers seem to have a different opinion of Bubba than DUers seem to have. I replied to the OP, giving my thoughts on that point.

Your comment goes to a whole other issue than the post of mine to which you replied.

[btrflykng9]

74. +100

[JDPriestly]

85. I was out of town and did not check in with DU for a few days. I just checked the "News."

The disconnect is in the amount and quality of information that we on DU have.

I asked an economist if she knew anything about the situation in Greece and the new economist of the Syriza party. No. She follows NPR, not DU.

We on DU are ahead of the game because we inform each other about the new developments. We are just better informed. What's new news to the vast majority of Americans is old news to us.

But I don't know whether American Idol is even on TV any more. And don't ask me about celebrities. I'm just not interested. I like political news. I guess I'm what is called a political junkie. And I'm pretty typical for DU.

We just know more. (Sorry if that sounds like bragging, but I think it is a fact.) We read more newspapers and more internet news stories.

[winter is coming]

110. +1. Not long ago, my kid had to memorize who's in the Cabinet now.

She was surprised that not only do I know who's in the Cabinet now, I know what they did before becoming Cabinet members, and whom they replaced.

[Warren DeMontague]

3. Short answer? Yes.

I actually think Clinton was a B and Obama has been a B+, overall.

Neither are/were perfect but I would take them any day over the alternative.

[Fumesucker]

4. Jimmy Carter wanted to take the US to an alternative energy future

Imagine the heartache and expense that would have been avoided over the last thirty years if Middle Eastern oil had not been so important to the US economy.

Carter had the "vision thing" but being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

[merrily]

12. He also kept us out a fucking Middle East War and got the hostages back alive.

If he had done what everyone tried to goad him into doing, the hostages would have been killed instantly and the mess we've been in since 2002 would have started much sooner. Only God knows how many new terrorist groups we'd be facing now. Instead, he was the only one who has been able to get any kind of a peace treaty in the Middle East. He gets nowhere near enough credit for any of that, or the energy thing. And the courage to sign the amnesty as soon as he finished his Inauguration walk. He also tried to get health care legislation going, but claims Kennedy blocked him. I tend to believe him because Kennedy admitted to having blocked Nixon because he (Kennedy) didn't want a Republican to get credit for it!

Carter had his faults, too, but he does not get near enough credit for avoiding a war so he could show he was "strong on defense."

[uriel1972]

6. Possibly it could be...

Systemic versus personal.

It is possible that those on DU are concerned about the "WHY" of things, why are their poor people, why are people disadvantaged etc. Whereas the overall citizenary of the US are concerned about a more immeadiate and personal view of their surroundings and a supposed relationship with political figures.

In other words when things are going well for them they view their "Leader" more favourably than when things are going backward. The image of the friendly "Leader" helps that along people just liked the image of Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan and JFK.

Systemic people care about things like NAFTA the TPP, ACA, etc. because they affect the underpinning of what services can be provided to people. Giving things to the wealthy is like throwing money down a bottomless well, it is wasted when it could have been used to give services to those that need them.

That's my take.

We may need someone systemic, but I guess we'll get the image of someone personal.

[Capt. Obvious]

10. When was the last poll taken of DU to rank Presidents?

I remember voting in one a long time ago.

Do you have a link?

[RiverLover]

11. Mainstream corporate media causes disconnect

between the sheep & the more informed.

[uriel1972]

16. I don't think much is gained....

by calling people "Sheep" except a false sense of your own superiority.

[RiverLover]

18. True

But its great to be me!

[uriel1972]

19. heh

I suppose it is. I just get tired of all the people calling those who disagree with them "sheep" or "sheeple".

[RiverLover]

22. I don't blame you, actually, but its hard to argue...

this



There's some truth to how the public is manipulated by corporate media.

[uriel1972]

23. If religion was the opiate of the masses...

What do we call television? the anaesthetic?

[olddots]

70. I'm stealing your line

" TV is the anesthetic of the masses."

Over the years politics has become big TV business , I think we like our presidents during pleasant times of our lives and how much a particular presedent affects our lives is maybe becoming more
relevant.My life became shitty around 2000 ............hey thanks Obama !

[raouldukelives]

42. Yep. Some people like to be informed of current events and new discoveries.

So they can correctly occupy what most people refer to as "reality". The disconnect occurs when you run into someone who only goes by what Joe Scarborough says or what corporate News reports. They prefer to avoid reality based discussions because they have rarely, if ever, spent time in it or inquired about it.
I'll stay disconnected. I'm a sucker for reality.

[brooklynite]

13. There's a very simple answer...

...DU members are, by the very fact that they've chosen to spend time engaging in political discussion, in the "activist base", which is almost always on the ideological fringe of a big tent Party.

[uriel1972]

20. True we self-selecting...

Shame we have to be among the first under the bus when the "Big Tent" rolls into town

[brooklynite]

26. Not getting your policy doesn't equate to being throw under the bus...

...you need to compete in the war of ideas and convince voters to support your point of view; not just slam anyone who disagrees with you as "DLCer".

[reddread]

28. so are leftist extremists the ideological fringe of the Democratic Party?

and if so, what defines a leftist extremist?
I realize this may not be a term you use, but other folks print it like currency.

[brooklynite]

29. Broadly, yes...

...I hear a lot of DU people saying that most Americans share the policy positions of the left, but the reality is that they don't vote that way. If you ask people to self identify their ideology, most will be somewhere in the center (some center-left and center-right bulging as people in the middle have gravitated to their Party's core position), and the people on the ideological edge will be a small portion of the total electorate.

[reddread]

32. cart before the horse, kind of handy except the way you keep whipping the cart

right wingers are the fringe of a liberal party.
The Democratic Party is the home of liberalism.
While the monied interests continue the strategy of
front loading viability with the carrot and stick of MONEY?
the entire problem with the process proffered as a solution or panacea?
plenty of suckers out there, but the way wealth and income are currently
distributed?

I have some terrible news for you, but it can wait.

[brooklynite]

33. Again--not the point of the OP

...which asked if there was a disconnect between DU and the rest of the Country.

[reddread]

34. it is when you assert extreme leftist activist commandoes arent attuned

while I see little signs of leftist activism here, right wing activism abounds.
Your conclusions are unsound.

[merrily]

21. Whatever the correct simple answer might be, it does not appear in your post.

Most who post in DU regularly are far from an ideological fringe within the party. The lot you prefer call themselves New Democrats because they did not want to be associated with the then main body of the Party. They were the far right of the Party. What most of DU's left represents is the main body of the Democratic Party before the far right wing took over the top spots in the Party. New Democrats are the ideological right fringe and DU's socialist group is possibly part of the ideological left fringe of the Party.

[brooklynite]

24. The OP compares DU to the "rest of America"

Last edited Fri Feb 13, 2015, 09:38 AM - Edit history (1)

The "rest of American" is largely centrist and marginally rightist, not leftist. Bill Clinton, while arguably one of the best tactical politicians in the 20th Century, was also smart enough to recognize that you won elections with the votes in the center, not just the Democratic base.

[reddread]

37. everyone shares the same self interest of survival and prosperity

given a choice of neither by money corrupted officials,
they are susceptible to revolt.
things are far more precarious than you would like others to think.
in a year or so this country will be a tinderbox of issues not
expected on the menu by people who only respect money and think their bank account defines reality.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. Barring a terrorist attack here, God help us, America will look pretty much the way it does now...

Barring a terrorist attack here, God help us, America will look pretty much the way it does now, a year from now, ten years from now, twenty years from now.

If Americans didn't throw out the system in the midst of The Great Depression they aren't about to throw it out any time soon.

[reddread]

55. 20/20 foresight

how would a terrorist attack change anything?
when ramifications of the drought in California
settle in, another attack might seem preferable.
not to be doom and gloom, but real catastrophes
speak loudest when they hit home.
Nature wants the last word, and gets it.

[merrily]

39. Nope that is not true, either. As I have posted before, when polled about ideas, instead of

labels, Americans of all political persuasions poll 70% or above for things like Social Security, Medicare, helping needy Americans, raising taxes on the rich, health care and an array of ideas that you might consider fringe, but have been part of mainstream America for years.

I think I posted some links last time and there was also a youtube video of a portion of the Rachel Maddow show where she discussed some polls. Unfortunately, I cannot google now, but I will try to remember to google when I can and come back to this thread with links.

[brooklynite]

49. Polling is not voting...

I agree that those are issues everyone in the center supports. But those are also issues that most centrist politicians (at least in the Democratic Party) support. Remember who first tried to implement comprehensive health care in the last 50 years (hint: it wasn't Jimmy Carter). And voters tend to vote for the candidates who self-identify as being in the center. You can spend hours explaining to people that Bernie Sander's tax policy is reasonable, but if he calls himself a "socialist" you won't win the argument.

[Drunken Irishman]

60. Yup. Perception trumps reality nearly all the time.

Even Republicans will run to the center in the general. Their presidential candidates have been doing that since Reagan. Bush ran as a moderate in 2000 - a moderate who was pro-business, pro-morals ... but also against nation building and pretty dovish, at the time, than what his presidency would become.

Romney famously tried to do a 180 in the presidential debates - even hitting Obama on not doing enough when it comes to Wall Street reform.

Sanders is great at giving the base red meat - but what about Lisa Smith in Suburb City, Colorado? Lisa, at 18 in 1996, voted for Clinton, turned around and voted Bush in both 2000 and 2004, and voted Obama in 2008 and Romney in 2012 - is she going to vote for Sanders? Is his message going to hit home with her?

[TheKentuckian]

67. Trying to chase Lisa's vote with policy is a fool's errand. She isn't voting on policy

No messages are going to really "hit home" she is voting on some mix of personality, perception of the horse race, and "throw the bums out".

I don't give shit what Lisa thinks today because she will say what she thinks she wants in the moment and you can follow it to a tee and she will be on to somewhere else tomorrow and you can try again.

If you happen to catch the right day then you got her and if not it goes the other way chasing such folks is desperate lunacy.

[Drunken Irishman]

71. That, ultimately, is the point.

Most Americans aren't voting on policy. The shift we see in elections proves this. We're a fickle country. How else do you explain going from Bush to Clinton to Bush to Obama to ... ?

Those are pretty hefty extremes.

The problem is that you not giving a shit what Lisa thinks is the reason you'll never get your guy in the White House. You should care what Lisa thinks because she's more important in an election than you are solely because there is the possibility she votes against your guy. If your guy fails to captivate her, even if voting for that person helps her in the long run, she ain't voting for him/her and they're gonna lose.

So, don't chase 'em - but never win again.

A lot of people went against their self interests in the 80s to vote Reagan because he was likable and the other guys weren't. Mondale was boring. Dukakis even worse. Had Clinton run in the 80s, though, he probably would've been a better candidate - and a guy like Hart, who lost to Mondale in the '84 primary, seemed to fare better against Reagan in hypotheticals.

Would he have won? Eh...maybe not - but it wouldn't have been a 49-state landslide with Hart heading the ticket. Why? Because he had that personality voters vote for. Is it right? No. But it's a huge part of politics. Dismiss it at your own risk. This is why guys like Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders, who bring up great points, probably won't ever win a national election.

[TheKentuckian]

104. I don't disdain "Lisa's vote" be glad to have it but the silly "centrist" pitch isn't going to land

her either.

Now if your argument is that regardless of policy positions that a charismatic character espousing them is more likely to reel her in then I think that is not only a good conversation to have but true though no guarantee because "Lisa" is will o the wind. She might be focused on "throwing get the bums out" this cycle and therefore will abandon I think the more charismatic and appealing package of an Obama and go with what I perceive as boring as plain oatmeal Romney who looks like he can fill the role based on appearance and credentials.

True though, I don't give a shit what Lisa thinks and you've not really made a counter argument against my reasoning there but rather have supported it. Lisa doesn't "think" anything consistently to appeal to. By the time her sentiment of the moment can be captured, focus grouped, and rolled out Lisa is likely to have changed her mind and priorities a couple times and the new "winning message" is no longer even on her radar.

If you want any focus on "Lisa" it should be about packaging rather than ideas unless you have a message and policies that we can reasonably expect her to be consistent about that also doesn't create mutual exclusive conditions ie "Lisa" wants two conflicting policy outcomes, in which case she must largely be ignored again because you can't serve two masters.

Maybe it is time to stop focusing on traditional politicians. If Reagan can not only win but be transformational then maybe instead of some wonky insider a Matt Damon, a George Clooney, an Ashley Judd, or a Denzel Washington (don't know his politics at all, just sayin) could make hay too.
The problem with that is of course we can't really surround such folks with old head true believers in critical posts to advise and move agenda because of over reliance on Republicans in Security positions and Turd Way corporatists dominating about everything else, few liberals in power positions and what we have are long in the tooth.

We can't surround a raw talent with shit except problematic DLC retreads, a few older folks without clout with the powerful and limited connections, and Republicans.

I don't know but what I am confident of is what we are doing strategically is a death spiral, perhaps a more controlled decent than a full powered nose dive but we still end up on the ground with a crashed plane.

I feel the party from the top down and from the bottom up is extremely risk adverse and by playing not to lose for so long at decision point after decision point, we have painted ourselves into a corner where winning is actually off the table and we have backed ourselves into negotiating our surrender because of it to the point that winning no longer has any meaning to the course as much as it acts a limitation on speed and angle of certain decent.

Too dominated by the older both in power positions and sheer numbers.

Long term strategy and goals absent, purely focused on "changing demographics" as the way forward.

Too locked into fighting last wars or actually even worse way old wars. I think at any given time as a party we operate somewhere between 1968 and 2000, weirdly and desperately trying to somehow re-run and correct the losses and what is speculated to have lead to those losses while always trying to catch lightening in a bottle to recreate the wins and what is speculated to have caused them.

Sorry, I've rambled. I'm frustrated at the whole state of affairs and feel deprived of any practical franchise.

[Drunken Irishman]

108. I don't think you're getting what I am saying.

It isn't about the message - it's about the messenger. Fact is: Clinton was good at selling the message and because of it, he's perceived by most Americans as a very good president. There is a reason to that and it's because of the messenger. Jimmy Carter? Not nearly as much - so, I guess, in a way, your message has to be altered just a bit. Mostly because you're not going to win over many people by proclaiming a presidency that will mirror Carter's over Clinton's.

There is a reason both Clinton and Obama won two terms to the White House, despite the feelings of many here that you can't win presidential elections being supposed centrists. It's because their message resonates - but also because they're good at delivering that message to a wider audience.

If you want to win the White House, if you want the left to do well on the national scene, you've got to convince the voters to vote for you - and you're not going to do that trashing or tearing down who they consider one of the greatest presidents of their time. It is what it is. You're going to need a candidate who can articulate the point and ideology as well as Bill Clinton articulated centrism in the 1990s.

After all, ideologically, Gore was similar to Clinton and he fared worse in a general - it is about the messenger. It doesn't matter what the message is if you can't sell it. The liberals who've stepped up nationally to try to sell that message, whether Kucinich in '04 or Sanders in '16, aren't necessarily candidates I think Lisa could get behind.

Warren? Now maybe you're onto something...but if she doesn't run, I'm not convinced Bernie is the guy. To DU he is - but to the rest of the country? That's more debatable and it isn't entirely because of his message, as Bernie often sounds a lot like Barack Obama on major issues.

[1StrongBlackMan]

25. +1 ...

For me, the bottom line is most of America, like the people of the rest of the world, only want to feed, clothe and shelter themselves (their families), hang out with their families and friends and to buy a few (a lot of) toys.

Policy debates are of little interest, if at all, understandable.

Another disconnect is that the average American doesn't feel the need to pretend that they understand(have a better grasp on) the issues ... unlike on DU, where the contrarian position is the vehicle for expressing that understanding/grasp of the issues.

[Fumesucker]

59. You appear to be saying you are a contrarian..

Because you certainly talk as if you think you have a grasp of the issues and you are on DU.

[1StrongBlackMan]

72. On most topics ...

Yes. I seem to be the DU contrarian ... falling within the main of the Democratic Party ... before the 2009 DU re-definition.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

90. Your average person doesn't see the world through an ideological lens.

I doubt Juan in Los Angeles, Jammal in New York, and Billy Bob in Pensacola is wondering where he stands in relationship to the means of production and whether this or that candidate is a "corporatist".

[1StrongBlackMan]

93. Exactly. ....

Nor do they "waste" their time pontificating on the issues that transfix those of us with more means.

[One of the 99]

97. Well said

[Godhumor]

30. Yes, of course

DU is a self selected closed off environment that differs greatly from the total environment. This is true of any specialized group that is further specialized by requiring certain conditions to maintain membership.

[LWolf]

31. I can't speak for DU.

I recognize a disconnect between myself and the rest of America. It's a life-long disconnect.

As far as presidents go, there's not one that I think of as "good," although I can point out some positive achievements to go along with the negative. Maybe JFK, if he'd lived long enough, would have made it on to my blank list of "good" presidents.

I like Carter because of who he is, not because of his WH legacy. I dislike Bill Clinton intensely because of who he is AND his legacy of neo-liberalism. If I had to rank the presidents of my lifetime from best to worst, the list would look like this:

LBJ
JFK
Nixon
Carter
Ford
Clinton/Obama tied
GHWB
GWB
Ronald Reagan

None of them, though, were without serious flaws.

I'm not convincing the American people of anything. I'm encouraging them to look beyond the obvious, to reject propaganda from any source, to be independent thinkers, and make their choices based on record and principles. Whatever those choices might be.

I'd suggest to those that think backing Clinton is a great idea that they accept the backlash and the loss of votes from the left. That's a choice they make when they back her: to lose those votes. If they'd like to earn them instead, they should work to nominate a candidate that can. To be perfectly clear, Democrats whose campaign strategies include bullying people into line, threatening them with greater evils, and convincing them that there is no hope for anything better than a lesser evil get the opposite reaction they are going for, at least from me.

I'll be voting for a better Democrat than Clinton; any better Democrat than Clinton. If I have to write one in, so be it.

[99Forever]

35. Because most DUers are better informed...

... than the population at large.

Simple.

[Stellar]

38. As far as I'm concerned...

one of the biggest highlights of the 70's for me was... DISCO!!!

"No one feels nostalgic for the late 70s - not even the music.
Disco sucks. Right? "

Disco only sucked to those that couldn't DANCE, and I could DANCE!

[n2doc]

40. Simple. DU'ers tend to be a lot more educated and aware of the issues

Average American probably can't even name their senators or their representative.

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Study-Americans-Dont-Know-About-Much-About-History.html

And the "average" American believes in 'intelligent design'
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2014/12/creationism_poll_how_many_americans_believe_the_bible_is_literal_inerrant.html

A quarter of Americans think the sun revolves around the Earth

http://abcnews.go.com/US/quarter-americans-convinced-sun-revolves-earth-survey-finds/story?id=22542847

[HereSince1628]

41. Well, opinions in self-selecting subsets, especially if small, tend to depart from the whole

DU is small enough to include cliquey subsets AND large enough to ignite and maintain clashes over those differences.

In the end I'd say DUs issue isn't finding candidates its issue is discussing candidates in the context of their associations, historic efforts, as well as the philosophies and character of those candidates.

To wit, HRC support on DU is going to involve a lot of effort to acknowledge/rehabilitate ideas of the New Dems, the Clinton administration, and the personality of Bill Clinton, because those things are so much of the context, philosophies and associations of HRC.

I expect the discussion to ignite and maintain clashes about differences of opinion on those things, because they historically have done just that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. People should be much, much, much, much...much more worried about losing the White House in 2016

People should be much, much, much, much...much more worried about losing the White House in 2016 than defeating Hillary Clinton or any candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.


We lost the House.
We lost the Senate.
We lost the majority of state legislatures.
We lost the majority of governors.

We are an election away from irrelevance and a humiliating and catastrophic defeat that will leave the people we purport to serve naked and defenseless. Such an abnegation of responsibility is criminal in my opinion.

If that doesn't scare the Hell Out of you it should.

[HereSince1628]

48. And it's a very tough thing for a party to maintain the presidency over 3 terms

If I remember correctly, GHWB following Reagan being the only time it's been done since term limits were put in place after FDRs run.

It's still quite early but I wonder if conquering that barrier isn't contributing to so few Dems showing much interest

[DemocratSinceBirth]

50. I'm well aware of that and it strikes me as more of a historical artifact.

We have certain advantages and structural advantages

1) In the past six presidential elections Republicans have only won a plurality or majority of the vote once. That's impressive for us.
2) The blue wall is a powerful phalanx of 18 states and the District of Columbia that have voted for the Democrats in every single presidential election for 20 years -- six straight. Some states have been in the Democratic column even longer.
It's not just the number of blue states but how huge an advantage they provide for the Democratic presidential nominee. Altogether, these 18 states plus the District of Columbia account for 242 electoral votes -- just 28 shy of the 270 magic total required to win the White House. If the wall holds firm, the Democratic nominee only has to win a handful of purple states to go over the top. Florida's 29 electoral votes alone would seal the election.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/03/opinion/gergen-blue-wall-republicans-2016/

3) Because of demographic shifts Barack Obama was able to win the presidency with the smallest percentage of the white vote since Walter Mondale. These demographic shifts have been in play and growing for over a generation. It's more likely than not they continue to assert themselves.

...

Hillary is a 3-2 favorite at the gambling sites to become our 45th president. That's pretty good...However with so much at stake it would take infinitely higher odds to comfort me.

[HereSince1628]

61. Do you know what states are 'the blue wall?" The article suggests upper midwest

And that could include WI. It probably shouldn't. WI has really gone purple and although Dems have actually increased turnout, the R's have increased even more.

We weren't one of the states with low voter turn out in Nov. Things really are shifting in or have shifted here.

I really have no way to judge how Hillary will play with the groups in WI that don't show up in midterms and which often create the anomaly of WI being red in off year elections and blue in presidential election years.

My guess is she would generally do fine in SE WI, but I'm not so sure how she would do among more idealistic 18-25 year olds. I suspect that at least for progressives in WI a Scott Walker somewhere on the ticket would be highly motivating as an 'anybody BUT' sort of thing.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

62. WI is pretty atypical demographically than the rest of the nation

It's a lot less Asian, Latino, and African American than the rest of the nation.

That being said Michael Dukakis only carried ten states and WI was one of them so I'm not concerned.

As I said I realize it's not a slam dunk but the math heavily favors us.

[HereSince1628]

63. That's not my question, my question was about WI being part of the blue wall

[DemocratSinceBirth]

65. 18 states + the District Of Columbia have voted Democratic in the past six presidential elections

Those states comprise 240 Electoral College votes. Yes WI is one of them.

Six straight elections in a row suggest a trend...

We also have the fact that since 1992 only one R has won a majority or plurality of the presidential vote.

We also have the head exploding fact that Barack Obama did worse among white voters than John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, and Michael Dukakis and still won. Again, that's mind boggling. What's even more mind boggling is that with the demographics of 2008 and 2012 Al Gore would have won comfortably, and John Kerry and Michael Dukakis would have won in squeakers.

These demographic trends aren't aberrations. They go all the way back to the 1980 election.

To put it bluntly, unless a Republican or a Democrat can convince black, brown, and Asian folks to start voting for him or her in greater numbers than in the past he or she can't win. Again, there aren't many more white votes to harvest.

As to Walker even if he could make WI competitive as he should as it's his home state he weakens it elsewhere.

Again, there's no guarantees in electoral politics but the oddsmakers, where folks put up their hard earned money and sometimes a lot of it, have established Hillary as a prohibitive favorite.

They are looking at the same set of facts I'm looking at.

The only Republican who remotely scares me is Jeb Bush and there's no guarantee he gets the nomination.

[Cali_Democrat]

76. Dems are at an advantage in Presidential elections...

GOPers have won the popular vote just once in the last six presidential elections. Turnout is higher in Presidential years.

Look at the electoral map. The GOP will have to win nearly single swing state in order to win.

It's very unlikely IMO.

The Repubclian nominee has a huge uphill battle.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

88. See Posts Fifty And Sixty Five

[One of the 99]

98. Very good points

I wish there was more discussion here on how to win all those in the coming years. But most only discuss the presidency as if that is the only solution. A democratic president can only do so much with a gop congress.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

99. In the present circumstance the White House and the judiciary are the only entities...

In the present circumstance the White House and the judiciary are the only entities that stand between us and the abyss...

Imagine a United States where the Republicans control all three branches of government. That should scare the Hell out of people and that, imho, is more important than pardon the french, dick measuring matches, as to who is the most ideologically pure.

[One of the 99]

100. Totally agree.

I really don't like litmus tests or the 'you have to agree with me 100% on every issue or your my enemy' mentality.

And while a Dem needs to win in 2016 to appoint judges to the Supreme court, we will also need a Dem majority in the Senate to get them confirmed.

[William769]

45. Yes very much so.

I should say though not all of DU. Thank the stars for that.

[Yorktown]

46. Two disconnects: DU/mainstream, mainstream/reality

Let me tackle the two separately:

• First one, pretty obvious: DU/mainstream. As a noob, I notice the DU consensus is far left of even the Democratic mainstream. Some people here call themselves proudly liberal, or words to that effect. I can't think of many places where such a sentence would get anyone elected US Congressperson or Senator.

• The second chasm (mainstream/reality) is more irrational/unfair. It's just because most people wil judge presidents on items fairly simple to assess.
- Out of insecurity, Nixon wiretaps the opposing party's offices? His ratings are abysmal. And yet, Nixon probably did as much as Saint Reagan to defeat the Soviets by recognizing China. And Nixon boosted the economy by killing the gold peg. Unsavory character, but extremely efficient.
- Another example: Clinton performed extremely well altogether. No fiasco, save for Somalia. And Kennedy performed well (Cuban missiles crisis), but there were lots of problems (sex addiction, mafia connections). But Clinton ranks far lower because he got caught while in office. The difference in rankings between Clinton and JFK isn't entirely justified.

That would be 3 disconnects: DU/mainstream/reality.

Add in just one Rush Limbaugh, and you've got 5 or 6 disconnects.

[rurallib]

47. If 61% rate Reagan as "outstanding" then being out of step

with them is maybe not a bad thing?

Funny how our memories change our former perceptions.
Obama is certainly likable and I daresay popular. But you can bet that right wing media will do all it possibly can to tarnish his legacy as much as they can in their ongoing pursuit of destroying the ACA and any safety net programs. They still spend some amount of time destroying FDR.

Amazingly LBJ gets low ratings. Yes, Vietnam. But beyond that LBJ attacked poverty (successfully until Rs meddled), cicvil rights and saw the introduction of Medicare. All that seems to be forgotten.

Gallup has been a pretty crappy polling organization for over a decade. When I see their name on a poll I usually skip it.

[liberal N proud]

51. Carter has done more for humanity since leaving office than any other President

That is why is so revered. Had he had a second term, he would rank up there with the greats. But he was a victim of the dirty politics Reagan played coupled with the Iranian Hostage crisis.

[Proud Public Servant]

52. Yes, but no

First, it's obviously wrong to think of DU as a monolith. I'm still a relatively newbie, but even I can see that there are posters here with tens of thousands of posts apiece who never seem to agree with each other. So you ask that question, and my first response is, "which DU"?

But beyond that, polling on issues shows that Americans tend to favor the same policies as the Wellstone/Warren wing of the Democratic party much of the time. But they still refuse to categorize themselves as "liberal" and fail to see politicians like Warren as representing them. They also tend to be information-poor, which is part of what leads to the disconnect between where they stand on the issues and whom they support in electoral politics.

The left flank of DU (like all of DU), on the other hand, tends to be information-rich (as others have pointed out), and thus better at making the connection between issues and the politicians that support them. In that way they are both in step and out of step with ordinary Americans.

There is one other disconnect, too. Americans like the same thing in their politics that they like in their sports: a team that scores (this is why soccer still struggles for popularity: the game is all process with precious little outcome). This is why Americans can still revere Reagan, who really did accomplish things (even if they were awful); and it's why they can disdain Carter, who really was a failure as a president (and part of a noble lineage of great men who made terrible presidents, including Madison, JQ Adams, Taft, and Hoover). Americans would rather be successful than right; the DU left (which I consider myself part of) would rather be right than successful. That's a difference.

[Matrosov]

53. The rest of America is tainted..

..with a disease called 'conservatism.' Clinton was left enough to get the far-right to cook up wild conspiracy theories about the UN taking over the country, about Janet Reno teaming up with the ATF and FBI to enslave everbody, etcetera, but all in all Clinton was more in the center of the political spectrum. It's not too different from Obama, except that the conservative cancer has been more effective at tearing down President Obama and his approval rating than it was with Clinton.

A true progressive candidate would simply be dismissed as a socialist or communist by the rest of America, even though much of the rest of America doesn't understand these words beyond that the right-wingers tell us they're dirty words.

[deutsey]

54. The mid-'70s had its problems

but I am often nostalgic for that time.

I was young at the time (middle school), and even I was aware of the self-indulgence of the counterculture and the disco culture (drugs, sex) of this era. The early '70s (Vietnam, Kent State, etc.) and the late '70s (hostage crisis) were also bummers.

But there was also a very creative, celebratory vibe I can definitely recall from shortly before Nixon's resignation through around a little after Carter's election.

The Bicentennial celebration was way overly commercialized, but it was also a huge people's celebration for a beleaguered nation that had just came out of Vietnam and Watergate. Walter Karp, in Liberty Under Siege, gives a nice analysis of the time.

There was an opening up of government with congressional investigations into the assassinations of the '60s, abuses by the CIA, electoral reforms.

There also was a lot of mainstream television, film, and music reflecting egalitarian sensibilities not normally seen in popular culture (encompassing the perspectives and attitudes of African-Americans, poor people, women's liberation).

I just heard "Why Can't We Friends" yesterday on the radio and was struck by its unashamed references to being on welfare ("I bring my money to the welfare line/I see you standing in it every time&quot and being uneducated ("Sometimes I don't speak right, but yet I know what I'm talkin' about&quot and its critique of government ("I'd kinda like to be the president, so I could show you how your money's spent&quot and even of the CIA ("I hear you're workin' for the CIA...they wouldn't have you in the Maf-I-YAY&quot .

That wasn't uncommon lyrically, but there was also a lot of groundbreaking music being made at the time that's now considered to be classic rock.

Even with early disco, I remember reading someone's defense of groups like KC and The Sunshine Band in the mid-'70s and their defiantly hedonistic flipping-off of social conformity.

SNL's legendary first few seasons revolutionized late-night TV and pushed the boundaries of political and cultural satire (The Smothers Brothers Show, which was cancelled less than a decade earlier, was tame in comparison).

I could go on, but suffice it to say there was just an exuberant, liberated vibe at the time. It didn't last very long (in large part due to a huge Reaction coordinated by the right and corporate power along with an implosion from within by the aforementioned self-indulgence and emerging decadence).

But I'd love to see another outburst like I saw during that brief, shining moment.

Now, the '80s....that's a decade I have zero nostalgia for.

[Orsino]

56. Image and nostalgia are indeed the big drivers of Clinton popularity.

However, DUers tend to be better-informed than most Americans, and less swayed by such shallow influences.

[lumberjack_jeff]

57. democratic UNDERGROUND. We're countercultural first, Democrats second.

We're absolutely not reflective of prevailing political thought, and I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing.

Today on NPR, they had a segment about Republican attempts to reinvent themselves as being about middle class prosperity and fighters against inequality.

Activist progressives may have had zero influence upon Obama and Democrats, but we're having an influence on public sentiment and, ironically, Republicans.

http://www.npr.org/2015/02/13/385948438/political-necessity-forces-gop-into-middle-class-income-debate

[TheKentuckian]

66. America likes St. Ronald of Rayguns even more so. Seems meaningless to me.

Hell, even JFK at an easy #1 seems weird considering that you'd have to be pushing 60 to even remember him at all and would have to be like mid 70's to have typically been voting and politically aware when combined with not a ton of accomplishment.

I think he gets a lot of LBJ's cred because folks don't like to be too pro LBJ because of Vietnam and a hatred of dealing with complexity.

I do think Carter gets far too much love since he was a deregulation supporting conservative and not just a little more churchy than many of his fans would probably be able to stomach because of his post presidency much more so than his term. He drew a well deserved primary opponent and we'd probably have been better off if he had been taken down but now he is seen as some liberal icon because of wearing a sweater with some solar panels on the roof and 30+ years of ever increasing right wingery that distorts what the situation was in a very different political reality. Hell, in the late 70's there was still a such a thing as liberal Republicans and some where to Jimmy left much less the Democratic party.

I like Carter because of who he is as an individual and what he has done with his post presidency not because he was any gold standard performer in office. I will grant that on a relative scale he was a peace guy and deserves more credit than I'm giving but overall I think the rear view legend in some quarters is on the silly side. I strongly suspect many current fans would have been pro Teddy but being followed by Reagan, the time passed, and the current state of the party creates a distorted lens.

[eridani]

68. Yes. Almost everyone here is a policy wonk of some sort. The rest of the population--

--doesn't give a shit about public policy. This is perfectly normal. Camp Wellstone workshops always feature their "You are not normal" speech.

On a sunny solstice weekend at Seattle Pacific University, the workshop conveners ask for shows of hands. How many watch CSPAN-3? Quite a few. How many watch local TV tapes of state legislature and city council hearings? Quite a few. Anybody watch tapes of the British Parliament in session? Three or four hands. Then the conveners point out that this is really, really not normal. "Across the Fremont Bridge out there, all the normal people are watching the naked cyclists at the Fremont Solstice Parade. We will teach you how to talk to them in order to get into positions where you can make the policies that will help all of us."

[joshcryer]

83. Why are like 75% of callers to CSPAN right wingers?

I think it's because liberals (and moderates) don't actually involve themselves politically. Far left liberals are extremely cynical, no matter what happens, the entire world is out to get them and destroy society, etc. Hang around after you vote and talk to the polling people, they're a huge mixed bag, they're not all liberal, most are moderate (depending on the district of course).

I'd disagree largely about DUers being policy wonks. I know you and I have discussed policy, but you and I (usually in the case of me anyway) don't do the one liner drive by insults. We talk it out when we get into a debate. I think actual policy wonks are frowned upon here, especially if they're simply playing devils advocate.

[eridani]

86. Every single "far left" policy wonk that I know is a strategic voter

Sometimes around here it seems that "far left" means that you still think the New Deal was a great idea and that continued imperialism is just too damned expensive. A quick check of the populist and socialist forums here reveals zero abstract calls for armed takeover of the means of production, and lots of creative ideas for defending old public goods and creating new ones, like describing farm towns in Spain run cooperatively or populist self-organized Kurdish towns.

All the ones I know vote unenthusiastically support the money-bought DLC candidates if we can't turf them out in a primary, just because the Republicans are guaranteed to be worse. Often putting the most effort into campaigning for some local candidate advocating public banking or raising the minimum wage works--see Sawant's Seattle campaign of 2013

[joshcryer]

87. Yet a thread advocating not voting for Clinton...

...if she won the primary got 150+ votes here. So much for strategic voting.

I'm unconvinced most regular DUers are policy wonks. I feel it's more a he-said-she-said type of thing where they simply jump on positions that sound great and make them feel good. Most policy wonks hate it when they have to chose a position (the lesser evil) but they suck it up and just deal with it (in some cases justifying it, which the he-said-she-said types just trash them for).

Breaking up the banks is a recent example for me, personally. I'm all for it, but I recognize that the people in the Fed aren't. I don't defend it, I just back up the dozens of people in the Fed who are afraid to do it (and in some cases, don't see it as necessary). They're doing a job, that's what they're there for. It sucks, breaking up the banks makes sense, let's get it done. By the same token, on that very issue, I think the banks will be broken up, either internally (by the banks themselves splitting up) or externally. I've yet to have a single DUer agree with me on that. Not a single one. Why?

Because we're too caught up in personality conflicts and shaming one another and being generally anti-social.

[eridani]

120. Liberals and moderates are mostly not crabby old white people

That's the other CSPAN-3 demographic.

[KingCharlemagne]

91. The disconnect gets even spookier when the question of what motivates

voters in the ballot box arises. I read somewhere -- and am cursing myself now for not having bookmarked it -- that only about 20% of the electorate in any given election goes into the ballot box knowing which candidate\party supports which issue or policy. That means some 80% of voters are voting on some criteria other than party-issue identification. So much for "What's wrong with Kansas?," if those statistics are correct. Or, rather, the answer to the question of "What's wrong with Kansas?" is actually an exercise in absurdity -- voters aren't voting against their own interests, so much as voting for reasons completely disconnected from their interests whatsoever.

If anyone remembers this study, I would be deeply grateful for getting a link to it. It blew my mind when I read it.

[Rex]

69. I think there is a disconnect with some usernames and reality.

Also I see a total disconnect with the spirit of this site and a few (thankfully) usernames that are slurs towards groups of people.

[KingCharlemagne]

89. Does the Pope wear a hat? :) - nt

[Orrex]

92. DU is more upset about the SI swimsuit cover than most of the US.

[HappyMe]

94. Even then, it's a pretty small

percentage of people that are upset by the magazine.

[davidpdx]

95. I had one DUer who is actively involved in political campaigns tell me directly

"DU is not representative of the real world." I hope to hell he is right.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

96. What compelling reason do you have for us to mirror the rest of the country?

Is there some unstated requirement that we should strive to be more in synch with the rest of the nation than we are, and if so, why?

[One of the 99]

102. The real question is there a disconnect between DU and most Dems?

Just look at the favorable rating given to Bill Clinton by Democrats.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/171794/clinton-elder-bush-positively-rated-living-presidents.aspx?utm_source=presidents&utm_medium=search&utm_campaign=tiles|

[guillaumeb]

103. I think your analysis was excellent and spot on...

but I feel that one piece of the puzzle is missing. The role of the corporate media in framing issues for the general public. Studies have shown that approximately 40% of Americans are functionally illiterate. How do they receive their information? Predominantly from television and to a lesser extent talk radio. This leads into your point about image.
When you wrote:
"Image - certainly. That plays a huge role. Clinton was able to craft an image of a different kind of Democrat. He didn't seem to fall into the same traps as the perceived liberals George McGovern, Walter Mondale or Michael Dukakis..."

the image Clinton crafted was crafted with the help of the corporate media. Given that the US media is, according to research posted in "The Nation" magazine, 90% owned by 6 large corporations, the media determines what is news and how the news is presented.
Democrats can say whatever they wish but in the absence of media coverage who will hear?
Clinton was given good coverage because the media liked him. The same held true for Racist Ronnie Reagan and George W. Bush. All three come/came across as likeable BECAUSE THE MEDIA PRESENTED THEM AS LIKEABLE. It is all in the presentation.

Otherwise the piece crammed a lot of insight into a small space.

[merrily]

114. +1 I don't know if "like" is the correct word. Corporate media favors the right over the left

for obvious reasons. So, it is going to favor Republicans over Democrats and DLC/Third Way types over liberal Democrats. Indeed, media pretends DLC/Third Way types are the ONLY Democrats. Ever check out the Democrats on the "politically" balanced" panels on the Sunday morning talk shows? '

I don't think the Koch Brothers donated to and participated in the DLC because they liked Al From, Will Marshall or Bill Clinton. Or even that they founded the Tea Party because of liking any people except maybe their fellow conservative 1%ers. I think they did all of the above because the further right America goes, the more they make and the more power they get to make still more.

Follow the money.

[McCamy Taylor]

105. "America" has a life. DU has an agenda. Clinton haters have a huge agenda.

Excellent post, drunken Irishman. You are onto something. And do not forget, David Rockefeller hand selected Carter to be the Dem nominee in 1976, a year when a Dem win was a foregone conclusion. Some of us believe Carter was supposed to be a "placeholder" for Reagan.

[Hekate]

106. Thoughtful answer to a thoughtful OP

Though I never heard that "placeholder" thing about Carter before.

[Hekate]

107. Thoughtful post, DI

Good luck with that. I think McCamy put his/her finger on it, though.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

109. As a general rule, political websites attract those further from the political center.

Last edited Sun Feb 15, 2015, 06:40 PM - Edit history (1)

In 2012, Jim Rob practically forbade support of Rmoney over in Freeperville until it became clear no Teabager alternative would emerge.

DU represents the activist wing of the party. They tend to be overrepresented by members or supporters of movements/organizations like MoveOn, Code Pink, and Occupy. At one level, that can be a good thing; these folks can be thought leaders, and can help prod the party on key issues. Often, these are the people who phone bank and knock on doors. On the other hand, they tend to be contemptuous of centrists, and swaying centrists is the key to winning elections. The reason the parties are moving toward an election pitting Hillary Clinton against Chris Christie is that they tend to appeal to centrists and independents more than a race that would pit Bernie Sanders against Ted Cruz.

[merrily]

111. Do you have a link to support that, or is it a matter of your opinion/impression?

what an owner or manager of FREEP happens to do in one election is not proof that the general rule is that political websites attract fringe elements.

You might also be interested in this video, in which Maddow "blasts" media for pretending that liberals are the Democratic counterpart of Teabaggers Sadly, many DUers also help spread that lie. No clue why. It's such a blatantly false equivalency. Really hard to believe that any Democrats actually buy it.

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/12/13/rachel-maddow-blasts-media-turn-liberal-democrats-tea-party.html

[McCamy Taylor]

113. Christie? Oh man, we have this one in the bag.

[AZ Progressive]

117. That's about the only thing that can save us at this point

We need someone with a charisma and presence so great, in a way like the Roosevelts, that they can literally mobilize Americans to defeat the rich and moneyed interests. Americans are really thirsty for leadership.