Party Loyalty

[H2O Man]

If one were to accept everything stated on DU:GD as fact, then the biggest problem facing the Democratic Party would be that “the left” -- meaning progressive and liberal registered Democrats, and the Democratic Left -- fail to support the party’s candidates. This includes the left’s having unrealistic standards of “purity” in both the primaries and general election; failing to go to the polls on Election Day; and/or voting “third party” as a form of protest vote. Indeed, when people post something (anything) at this early date -- certainly before any Democratic candidate has announced that they are running -- that raises concerns about one specific potential candidate, they will be attacked for their lack of party loyalty.

“Party loyalty” is a curious thing. If, for example, one is familiar with the history of primary and general elections since, say, 1964 -- approximately one-half of a century -- there are several examples of a lack of party loyalty damaging a Democratic candidate’s chances for victory. Yet most of these were the result of the moderate-to-conservative wing of the Democratic Party. Indeed, the lone example that the moderate-to-conservative wing still attempts to blame on “the left” is the tired, weak argument concerning Ralph Nader in Florida in the 2000 election.

“If only the left hadn’t cast ‘protest votes’ for Nader -- believing that ‘there’s no difference’ between Bush and Gore -- we’d have won the election!” We still see this uninformed appeal to emotion, even on DU:GD discussions. It requires one to ignore the fact that Gore did win the vote in Florida, and the republican party/ US Supreme Court stole the election. This was very well documented in Vincent Bugliosi’s “The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President” (Thunder’s Mouth Press; 2001).

To blame the eventual outcome of that election on “the left” -- some of whom did vote for Nader -- makes as much sense as blaming the elderly Floridians who, confused by the “butterfly ballot,” cast votes for Patrick Buchanan. More, it ignores an important reality -- one documented in Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.’s “Journals: 1952 - 2000” (Penguin; 2007): a good many of the establishment Democrats voted for George W. Bush. The reason? Some disliked Al Gore for creating distance between himself and Bill Clinton, while others despised his choice for vice president.

Still, Al Gore won the 2000 presidential election. Any and all “blame” goes to the Supreme Court.

Similar dynamics had resulted in President Jimmy Carter’s 1980 loss to Ronald Reagan. Again, Schlesinger’s journals document that a significant segment of the establishment Democrats were opposed to Carter -- even before the middle of his term in the White House. Some, like Arthur, mistakenly thought that a four-year Reagan term would be no big deal (just as 20 years later, they felt Bush would be inconsequential). Add to that the phenomenon of “Reagan democrats” -- who were moderate-to-conservative party members, who believed Reagan represented their values. It would be delusional to believe the left backed Ronald Reagan.

To really understand the betrayal of party loyalty during this era, one has to take 1968 -- a unique year in American history -- into account. The occupant in the White House was President Lyndon Johnson. In late 1967, Senator Eugene McCarthy had entered the primaries; in early 1968, Senator Robert Kennedy entered the race, as well. Intelligent people can differ on if one or both of them were disloyal to the Democratic Party, by doing so. However, LBJ would soon announce his plan to retire. RFK came from behind, to pass McCarthy in delegates won in the primaries; VP Hubert Humphrey entered the race, though he did not run in a single primary; RFK was murdered; and then, at the Democratic National Convention, the establishment selected Humphrey as the party’s candidate.

What happened at the Convention was important. In part, because of the police riot outside; part because it was run by Chicago’s Mayor Daley. Now, the mayor was a tough, old-school, machine political genius. Daley was also a stubborn, often cruel political boss. Inside the convention hall, he was a bully. But he was not alone in representing old school politics: the conflict over seating the delegates from Mississippi, which started in ‘64, was still unresolved. Although the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party had the legal and ethical right to be seated, the old, dehydrated, racist delegates were allowed to remain in “official” control of the state party.

These issues led to attempts to create a fair set of rules before the 1972 Democratic Convention. To a large extent, this created tensions between the progressive-liberal wing, and the moderate-conservative wing. (And these played out before, during, and after the convention.) The result was the most acrimonious convention -- inside -- in the party’s history.

George McGovern would come from behind in the primary season, to take a lead. Some of the other candidates, led by Hubert Humphrey, began a coordinated “anyone but McGovern” operation, to try to deny McGovern the nomination. Even when it was clear, at the beginning of the convention, Humphrey and the establishment sought to keep McGovern from winning.

McGovern won the nomination, but lost in the general election for three reasons: he ran a poor campaign; Nixon’s campaign was hugely successful in using dirty tactics; and parts of the Democratic Party would support and vote for Nixon. In fact. Exit polls showed that 35% of registered Democrats who voted, cast their ballots for Nixon. More, shortly after the election was called for Nixon, Humphrey called to congratulate Nixon. A transcript of the two sharing a giggle about how Humphrey pretended to support McGovern, but really worked against him, is found in Rick Perlstein’s “Nixonland” (Scribner; 2008).

A similar “anybody but ____” coordinated establishment campaign took place in the 1988 Democratic primary season. The contest attracted a large number of candidates (as had the ‘72 race). In time, it became a two-man contest, between Michael Dukakis and Jesse Jackson. The democratic establishment pressured the others to drop out of the race, to help Dukakis’s campaign. It was a “anybody but Jesse” effort.

Jesse wanted to be picked for the VP spot. He had shown the ability to bring large numbers of new people into the party. Dukakis ended up going with Senator Lloyd Bentsen of Texas instead. Although that choice resulted in a wonderful exchange in the VP debate, it wouldn’t carry the ticket to victory. Dukakis ran a campaign that was less exciting than lima beans; he could neither win back the “Reagan democrats,” or inspire new people to join the party. While we can only speculate on how things might have been different, had Dukakis offered Jesse some position, it seems unlikely he could have done worse.

If we add the moderate-to-conservative Democrats, with the progressive-liberal wing, and attract the support of the Democratic Left, the Democratic Party can continue to beat any republican candidate for the White House. In fact, that combination has the potential to win seats in both houses of Congress, as well as state and local elections. Not everywhere, but in the majority of states. But to do that, we need “party loyalty” -- and not just “party loyalty” as defined by one wing, or the established “leadership.”

“Party loyalty” has to include sharing the rewards. But we very rarely, if ever, have seen this type of power-sharing after election victories in the past 50 years. In fact, the opposite is too often the rule: the true progressive-liberal wing rarely gets any seat at the table. (Just because the media calls a politician a “liberal,” doesn’t mean he/she is. They are speaking of in the limited context of Washington, DC.) The Democratic Left is never seated. While their numbers may appear small, their ideas are huge. And their campaign work ethic -- going door-to-door, etc -- is why they are known as “activists.”

It’s strange to me, as an activist on the left, to see how we continue to be taken for granted, and shown so little party loyalty. Now, I’m a registered Democrat, with serious grass roots credentials. I’ve been a social - political activist for many decades. And while I speak only for myself here, I am aware of others who think very similarly.

Peace,
H2O Man

[haikugal]

1. Than you, thank you, thank you.

It needed to be said and, as usual, you said it so well. Again, thank you! I hope you're doing well..

[H2O Man]

64. Oh, thank you!

I'm so glad that you liked this!

I had been washing some dishes, and found myself thinking about this. So I took a quick break, typed it up and posted it, and got back to work. I was happily surprised at the responses when I checked to see if anyone had read it.

[antigop]

2. but,but, but, SCOTUS!!!! nt

[H2O Man]

73. Right.

I do appreciate that many of our friends focus on that -- it is important. But they frequently fail to put it in context.

Thanks!

[marym625]

185. +1 gazillion

[nakocal]

3. You are missing the point

The point that should be raised is if people on the left did not waste their vote on Nader and voted for Al Gore instead there would not have been a case to take to the Supreme Court or a recount as Gore would have won overwhelmingly.

So in Florida a vote for Gore was just as good as a vote for Bush.

[H2O Man]

10. I', not "missing"

that point. I'm dismissing it. The two are distinct.

[Rex]

14. Plus it is another RW falsehood. The Dem vote for Bush in Florida made Nader votes meaningless.

200,000 registered Dems voted for Bush in Florida in 2000. The attempt at selective memory persuasion doesn't work for those of us with long attention spans. Frankly, I wish more people had one.

[Fuddnik]

22. Also conveniently forgotten is the approx. 80,000 probable Dem voters who were wrongfully purged.

Which brings up another fact. The CURRENT Chair of the Florida Democratic Party, was an employee and lobbyist for ChoicePoint, the company that generated the screwed up, fraudulent purge lists in the 2000 election. Not to mention, that her husband was a lawyer in the Bush v Gore case. On the Bush side.

I could write pages about how fucked up our party is down here.

Loyalty to a nest of pit vipers? I resigned from my DEC position in 2006. And after several more outrages, changed my registration to "No Party Affiliation" in 2007.

[Rex]

26. Yeah I had a chart, was just looking at all the voting irregularities in Florida.

Revisiting painful old memories. Of course we got shouted down as CTers when we brought up Diebold in 2000 and 2004.

If it makes you feel any better, I live in Texas and most idiots around me believe Ted Cruz is a visionary. I feel like an alien walking into the grocery store sometimes. Rows and rows of people with IQs hovering around 80 or 90. And those are the smart ones.

[haikugal]

30. Condolences...I feel for you, seriously.

Notice the Diebold issue is still unresolved and it blows my mind. I'm sick of hearing about what treasonous bastards liberals are.

[ND-Dem]

92. unrelated aside: i recently learned diebold is a very old company, started as a safe company

(safes like bank safes) in 1859.

It started to diversify after WW2; and Eliot Ness (of "the untouchables&quot was on its board.

http://www.diebold.com/company/overview/history.html#

but they divested themselves of the voting machine business in 2009.

Diebold sold its U.S. election systems business, primarily consisting of its Allen, Texas-based subsidiary, Premier Election Solutions, Inc., to Election Systems & Software, Inc. (ES&S), a leading company in the election systems industry. The sale was consummated on September 2, 2009. Diebold is no longer involved with any election systems in the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diebold

[haikugal]

120. I forgot that..

Thanks for the information. I'll have to do more digging to see the current situation regarding voting machines. Black box voting had a website I'll check. Thanks again. I don't remember this being resolved.

[sabrina 1]

139. And ES&S is no better. Diebold accomplished its 'mission' but had such a bad reputation

after their part in the theft of the 2000 election, they simply passed that job to yet another private Corp that outrageously 'counts the votes'.

Paper ballots is the only way to ensure a semblance of accountability in our electoral system.

With no way to investigate those machines, we are free imo, to assume the worst.

[ND-Dem]

56. seriously, a visionary? why?

[Rex]

69. He has a 'plan' to return America to it's former glory.

Of course they have no idea what it is. Something about our freedumbs. Of course they also believe the POTUS is a Marxist Muslim, whatever that is.

[ND-Dem]

91. It's former glory was the 1950s & 60s. the only thing he likes about that period was segregation

& joe McCarthy.

[KingCharlemagne]

243. Hard to believe now that TX once gave us LBJ, Sam Rayburn and

Ralph Yarborough. But I feel your pain. You are living with the consequences of 30 years of Reagan-Bushism. You have my condolences. If you want to revisit the land of the sane, consider relocating to thoroughly blue California. (Governor a Dem and both chambers of state legislature resoundingly Dem.)

[ND-Dem]

55. yes. i don't get why some folks are so fixated on nader while caring so little about voter

purges, or for that matter the complete loss of the vote in some states to felons, even after they've done their time.

In the national elections 2012, all the various state felony disenfranchisement laws added together blocked an estimated 5.85 million felons from voting, up from 1.2 million in 1976. This comprised 2.5% of the potential voters in general; and included 8% of the potential African American voters.

The state with the highest amount of disenfranchised people was Florida, with 1.5 million disenfranchised, including more than a fifth of potential African American voters.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement#United_States

[G_j]

88. and then there was this,

[ND-Dem]

90. I hadn't seen that. That is shocking.

[Rex]

145. YEP.

Only a handful of people stood up, Al Sharpton stood out in the rain and gave a press conference (that was mostly ignored by the M$M) demanding a stop to the time table the SCOTUS set and for us to wait for all the votes to be counted.

Everyone else, both parties, just pretend it was business as usual.

[2banon]

135. too challenging intellectually, emotionally, psychologically to face the facts.

it's upsetting but worse, coming to terms with a clear understanding might result with a very serious movement for real change. Investment in the status quo goes very deep.

[-none]

210. And that would help explain why so many Republicans were elected and so few Democrats this last

election.

[merrily]

285. Some folks have odd priorities.

[appalachiablue]

167. +10 Saw the video & post about the Chair of the FL Dem. Party & her husband. Awful- Mess.

And Gwen Graham dealing with R's, geeze- poor FL, beautiful state.

[daleanime]

19. A difference many will fail to perceive....

but is appreciated all the same.

[Rex]

12. Another falsehood. Bush got 200,000 votes from conservate dems in Florida.

They made the vote for Nader meaningless, but of course many know that and still parrot the same Nader line year after year. Sad, but it is what it is.

[winter is coming]

16. And it's parroted most faithfully by... conservative Dems.

Hmm....

[chervilant]

18. This is a tired and disproved assertion,

and I believe the author of this OP has handily put it to rest.

[2banon]

121. Indeed. Well put. n/t

[sabrina 1]

39. He is not missing the point. It appears you have completely missed the point. GORE WON!

What is it about that that some have conveniently forgotten? Nader had zero, zilch, nada, nothing to do with the THEFT of the 2000 election, and everytime someone attempts to make that claim, I am speaking for myself here, I wonder where they were in 2000.

But the attempt to distract from the real reasons Democrats lose, in the past two mid terms, eg, goes on.

'It's the voters fault'! Really?

And then they wonder why they lose.

The voters handed the party the House, Senate and the White House, and the party lost both the Senate and Congress. And their loses would have been even greater if it was not for the Left, who again, went out and knocked on doors and helped keep Progressive Dems in Congress.

[Art_from_Ark]

57. If you think that's bad

someone in this forum had the audacity to tell me that the US Supreme Court "caught Gore with his hand in the cookie jar" for having the audacity to ask for recounts in the 4 Florida counties that showed the most egregious voting irregularities, and pooh-poohed all of the shenanigans on the Republican side, including Scalia's relationship with his duck-hunting buddy who stood to gain handsomely from a favorable decision, and Sandra Day O'Connor's expression of horror at the thought of a Gore victory.

[2banon]

137. Must have been a conservative-Bush voting Dem no doubt. I emember Sandra O'Connors comments

at her party the night of the election when she openly freaked out that Gore had appeared to win. So few seem to recall that or attribute any significance to that remark and context.

[sabrina 1]

181. I'm sure MIRT, assuming it was not a long time poster, took care of that obvious right wing troll?

[Art_from_Ark]

222. No, s/he's still here

with 50,000 posts.

[2banon]

118. You're the one that has "missed the point" as well as misunderstanding the facts.

H2O Man has articulated exactly what the history actually is/was.

I think it's way past time to revisit and challenge your own assumptions which are based at the minimum on faulty information/knowledge.

It might be a tough process if you're emotionally invested in the notion that Nader is largely responsible for dumbya's selection, but it will be worth it as it will be enlightening.

[cascadiance]

124. Would you support instant runoff voting then? Ralph Nader running then wouldn't have mattered...

... since most of them likely would have selected Al Gore as their second choice, and Gore would have been elected by a wider margin rather than the smaller margin that allowed the Supreme Court and the right to steal it from us then.

Instant runoff voting would allow the greens and other left wing parties to have more of a voice, since if even they lose in elections, they can get a bigger piece of the "first round" of voting with people not fearing "throwing away their vote" to allow politicians to get a better temperature reading about where the voter base wants them to go in terms of platform agendas, if the Greens are really strong in certain election counts. That would allow Democrats that win in those cases to do their jobs better in the coming years as they know more what their constituency wants since it is codified in publicly available measurements with these vote counts, and would help us build the party to work more for what most party members and Americans want, rather than what corporate interests that try to "buy the field" that they can do with our current winner take all system has in place if they buy off the candidates of the two major parties.

If you don't support instant runoff voting, then I would say you are more concerned about preserving the power structure that is in place now that allows big money to buy off and own our government.

Now if it in some cases allows third parties to WIN slots that normally might have gone to the Democrats now, then that to me is a sign that Democrats in those races are NOT doing their jobs to serve people instead of big money or their constituents haven't been able to or have not chosen properly those to represent them as their Democratic nominee. Otherwise, they would have won those races.

I predict that if in 2016, the Democratic Party platform includes putting this in to law nationally, you'll get a landslide of third party and independent votes supporting them retaking the congress and winning the presidency then, as then third parties would feel they have a voice in subsequent years, and at the same time give more to the Democratic Party's core constituents in terms of power to govern in the years following too. I've often said that many third party candidates currently would do themselves a favor by running almost as single issue candidates. They would have a broad slate of issues their party supports, but they would predicate their campaigns by saying that if the Democratic Party in the state or nationally where they are running concretely moves to put laws putting in place instant runoff voting prior to the election, that they would withdraw and support the Democrats in those instances. i think long term that strategy would work far better for them being heard than running now in ways that can be claimed to be a "spoiler" in many races.

[sabrina 1]

218. That's something to think about. You make some excellent points that if Dems really

do want to take back Congress AND the Senate with Progressives in power, they would be discussing this right now.

[A Simple Game]

183. A few things.

One- you are allowing yourself to be used as a diversion from the real problem which will never get fixed if we don't acknowledge it. The truth is Gore won and the Supreme Court illegally stopped the vote recount.

Two- why do you focus on Nader? Seven other candidates got more votes than the difference between Gore and Bush, why don't you condemn them and the people that voted for them?

Three- why do you feel the need to tell others who they should vote for? Is the next thing on your agenda telling people who can and can't run for President?

[merrily]

227. Untrue and irrelevant.

Also, you are missing the point that one of the things Nader was able to run on was insufficient difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party and it was not Nader's fault, but Clinton-Gore's that his message resonated with some Democrats.

Third parties have run against Republican Presidential candidates for years. Nader's candidacy made considerably less of a dent than some of them have. Blaming Nader and/or those who voted for him is silly. When Truman ran in 1948, there was a three way split in the Party. Was it close, yes. But Truman would only have looked weak if he had whined about being opposed, ust as the vitriol on DU against Nader only makes Democrats seem weak. Instead, he ran on being a "real Democrat," and the Third Way crowd needs to heed that.

Hell, I don't think Republicans railed this much against Perot and he did probably did lose Republicans at least one election, if not two.

People who run for President should expect opposition from both their left and their right. If you take care of the 99%, they vote for you. If you are going to diffeerentiate yourself mostly in cutural issues, Presidentials will continue to be too close for comfort.

[madfloridian]

4. Amen

[H2O Man]

81. Thanks!

[leveymg]

5. You speak the truth and you speak for me.

Remarkable statement. The Democratic Left has been unfairly pilloried for political disloyalty that is actually more often the trademark of party elites and the center-right, such as HHH, a point you make so clearly and forcefully here. I really wish you had a wider audience. Thanks for this.

[H2O Man]

87. Thank you!

That means a lot to me. I really appreciate it. I think that over the years, we've spoken together, in the sense that we've both delivered the same general message.

I remember when a group of us started the Plame Threads. One of my first essays ended up spreading onto other internet sites -- not because of who I am, but rather, because people recognized that my message was true. And that made perfect sense. And that it was distinct from what was being found in the "mainstream" media.

I remember the day I joined DU; Will Pitt had posted a powerful essay on the scandal. I figured that I'd take a few weeks to become "known" and accepted here, then get down to serious work on the Plame scandal. Before long, several of the top researchers for MSNBC were reading DU:GD for the series of threads our community produced.

But it was the individuals who read those essays, and shared them on the smaller, lesser known web sites that were, in my opinion, the wider audience I care about reaching.

[RiverLover]

6. I feel

honored to have been able to read this. Thank you for sharing, this history, your invaluable insights.

Thanks also for being an activist.

It depresses me though, that this fight has been going on so long. I didn't realize.

[H2O Man]

89. Well, thank you!

I am honored that you read and appreciated my OP.

The world of politics has always fascinated me. Likewise, I enjoy history. I'm glad that people seem to like this essay, in which I tried to combine some politics and history, to shed some light on current events.

[peacebird]

7. Thank you!

[H2O Man]

95. Thank you!

[ND-Dem]

8. "It’s strange to me, as an activist on the left, to see how we continue to be taken for granted"

and shown so little party loyalty"

The party doesn't want lefties, and if by some miracle one gets into power, even on a small scale, the party will knife them in the back as soon as feasible.


FDR's admin was the only one in which the left had any real place, and that was only because it was desperate times in multiple ways. As soon as FDR died, the purges began. And have continued ever since. Purged the government, the unions, the activist left, the social and helping professions, the media, Hollywood...

The left is dead except for isolated remnants, unconnected to anything larger than themselves except the institutional "fake left".

[H2O Man]

98. Write on!

A great example of a true progressive in FDR's administration was Leland Olds. I'm sure you know who he was, but for others, let me give some details:

In the 1920s, Olds was a journalist, who advocated for the railroad unions. He would work for FDR when Roosevelt was governor, with the NYS Power Authority. Olds made it possible for rural, poor farmers in upstate NY to get access to electricity. Later, he worked for NYC's Mayor LaGuardia, to supply power to the poor there.

FDR brought Olds to Washington. He served as an outstanding advocate for both the poor and middle class. Olds was hated -- absolutely hated -- by the rich. Hence, after FDR died, President Truman and LBJ worked to discredit Olds as (what else?) a commie, in a manner that would have done Joe McCarthy proud.

[2banon]

141. "Truman and LBJ worked to discredit Olds as (what else?) a commie, ...."

.... in a manner that would have done Joe McCarthy proud.

Wow.
I did not know about this person/background.. Was Olds still alive and working when Truman and LBJ did this to him, his name, his contributions?

Sheesh!

Thanks for all you do H2O Man. ! I read you at every opportunity and I'm so grateful for your contributions.

I've to say, this piece is exceedingly important and I thank you again for taking the time to do what you do so well.

[H2O Man]

160. Yes, he was alive.

He was appointed for 5-year terms. His term came up after FDR died. The 1% despised him. So the new president, with help from those in Congress who served as "big oil's" lap dogs, attacked him. Viciously.

When Leland was a journalist, and a railroad union advocate, lots of newspapers carried his writings. That included some socialist newspapers. LBJ made a big deal out of this, at a time when one of his republican friends was stirring the "red scare" in DC. Nixon, of course, had perfected McCartyism, before Joe thought of it -- to paraphrase Rick Perlstein.

(My father's family were all railroaders and union leaders, since my Grandfather came from the Old Sod. One of my great aunts knew Olds quite well at that time, and when he worked for Governor Roosevelt in NYS.)

[KingCharlemagne]

245. Jesus, I'm sorry the haberdasher from Independence allowed himself to be used

for such utter shit. Wonder how the world might be different had FDR selected Wallace as his VP in 1944 instead of HST. Ah, well, ancient history, I suppose. But we live with the consequences even now.

[JonLP24]

233. I think Truman probably needs better context

Certainly I agree when it comes to LBJ. Truman seemed to hate & have a fear of communists like in his letter to Elenor he referred to those who "sell us out to the Communists" or Communists "sell us out to the Russians" but he certainly drew the line when it came to Joe McCarthy. Criticised Eisenhower for jumping to the Republican party and supporting McCarthy who both Truman & Eleanor Roosevelt opposed.

He certainly was in favor of the rich. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=13293

[merrily]

287. Thing is, even Democratic Presidents are a mixed bag, including Truman.

[Rex]

9. Excellent OP. One of the issues I have with the center is that they always demand party loyalty

and never reciprocate. When called on it, they say it is the liberals that do that and it turns off centrists. Okay, which group votes more often, in larger numbers and at higher percentages out of all the groups in the Big Tent? Progressives. Then moderates. Then conservatives. So who is the group that is the most disloyal again?

When I see a Reagan Democrat or Bush Democrat (bet you will never get that one out of posters) complaining about the issues you so eloquently discuss, I am remind that their view of the world is vastly different than mine. My view is of one that supports reason and fiscal responsibility over emotions and single issues voters. Worry over social issues and not monetary issues. Not that I don't worry about money, but I worry more about the labor force not making enough to survive on and raise a family. Also, I know I can survive. Not so sure about the family down the street. They are still trying to recover from the economic collapse in 2008.

For whatever reason I don't care - centrists can live in that world, whatever, but when they shout out lies (like low 'left' turnout in 2014, nope just the opposite as usual or just seem to forget every time that Al Gore did win) I'm going to say something about it. Every single time. The people that voted for Nader, I am not mad at them...the ones that voted for Reagan and Bush are the ones I am wary of. I was never impressed with Nader as a politician, he should have stayed in the ecology realm.

It is always my hope that people can learn from past mistakes. Have to stay optimistic about some issues. No doubt people can change in 2, 5 or 10 years time. We all do to a degree in some way. However, they have to want to change and some have it easy enough to where a simple inconvenience becomes a dire threat to their livelihood.

[H2O Man]

100. Very well said!

I remember in the 1980s: I was employed in human services, and worked along with folks from several county agencies. We often ate lunch together, and talked about politics. The director of one agency -- a former aide to Charlie Rangel -- was suspicious of me, because he had heard that I was a "radical leftist." When he got to know me, he still thought I was a radical leftist, but a rational one. (grin)

Soon, he asked my help in running some campaigns, both on the town and county level. And, in a short time, other members of the Democratic Committee discovered that I could go into any low-income neighborhood, help register voters and organize them so they actually voted, and begin to turn the tide in a republican-majority county.

I can think of no more important difference, between the left- and right-wing of the Democratic Party, than their attitudes about poor folks. And it is my advocacy for the poor that has earned me the reputation as a radical leftist.

[KingCharlemagne]

246. Wish I could rec your post. I'm mad at SCOTUS for not allowing the

votes to be (re)counted and for promulgating a bloodless coup d'etat. And I'm mad at myself because I feel America died in Dec. 2000 (when Bush v. Gore was decided) and I failed to recognize the signs of impending mortality right then. Had I done so, I would have gotten off my lazy self-indulgent duff and started agitating before Gore conceded. Instead, I waited until Nov. 2001 when it was already too late for the hapless peasants of Afghanistan and when the engine of imperial destruction was beginning to set its sights upon the benighted masses of Iraq.

[99Forever]

11. Very well said.

[H2O Man]

101. Thank you!

I'm glad you liked it.

[cyberswede]

13. Excellent post.

Thanks very much for the historical context. I always enjoy your well-thought-out posts, but this one knockis it out of the park.

[H2O Man]

103. Thank you.

I'm all for a serious debate on any candidate. That includes Hillary Clinton: I think a strong case can be made by both the pro- and anti-Clinton folks. But there are times when things that simply are not true get said over and over. But they are still not true. This business about "party loyalty" is a good example.

[MisterP]

15. the DLC made itself into a cash nexus since 1988, likewise its successors

the way it's set up now, they get money if they lose as well as win--hence Pelosi and Wasserman Schulz's persistence coupled with accusations of some well-heeled abstentionist conspiracy

but a party that does nothing but go to the ATM, run on accomplishments from 80 or 50 years before, and blames the voters for every misstep can only come closer and closer to the model for the midcentury Latin American parties; with the left blamed for everything from GOP budgets to bad weather it's starting to look like some tinpot banana republic (y'know, the ones who unleashed the armies to butcher the poor and dissolved in fire and blood)

[H2O Man]

105. I agree.

Thank you for this!

[MisterP]

127. heck, the vacuous parties south of the border would at least hand out a little beef

and some aguardiente--not so that you'd directly vote for them, but so that you'd vote for one or the other (and keep that turnout nice and legitimating)

also you'd vote for the same party your ancestors did since the 60s

the 1860s

[H2O Man]

128. Right!

Now, I'm trying to remember: where was it that they sent their goons for training? Hmmmm.

[MisterP]

156. Southcom in Panama, Ft Benning, Ft Bragg, and some mysterious place in Houston TV's broadcast range

but don't worry, we learned a LOT of doctrine from the Brazilians and Argentines--they're not the type to play second fiddle!

[KingCharlemagne]

248. I'm a bit late to this thread, but I sure as heck wish you and H20 Man woud build

this sub-thread out a bit more. I'd be interested to hear both of your take on indigenous populist movements like the Zapatistas in Chiapas and SubCommandante Marcos or, alternately, Shining Path in Peru.

[appalachiablue]

171. +10

[merrily]

282. I read somewhere that, in 1980, the then head of the DNC wrote Democrats in Congress,

a memo suggesting/requesting that they try to get some of that lobbyist money that the Republicans were getting. That may have contributed.

[craigmatic]

17. There's no point in winning if we act like republicans when we get in. Policy and politics aren't

mutually exclusive.

[Adrahil]

27. Yeah, I'm sure Mitt would have...

Nominated Sotomayor and Kagan to the SCOTUS.

Doesn't matter I'd the D gets elected unless their super lefties....

[craigmatic]

31. We need to start thinking past just getting the SCOTUS nominees to getting progressive laws passed.

In my mind the SCOTUS nominee is the minimum a dem president can do. What about ending war, fighting for working people, breaking big banks, and protecting minority rights?

[Adrahil]

65. Right now, the SCOTUS nomination is the MOST IMPORTANT thing as President can do.

Justices sit for LIFE and decisions become precedent that lasts for generations.

[Fuddnik]

126. Who was the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee when Scalia and Thomas were confirmed?

I won't tell you, but his initials are Joe Biden.

[Jackpine Radical]

36. Funny--this word-string seems to be composed of English words, but

somehow my Magic Decoder Ring keeps jamming up when I feed it in for translation:

"Doesn't matter I'd the D gets elected unless their super lefties...."

[Adrahil]

66. Yeah, iPAD-itis.

I put the words in correctly, but then they out the way wrong.

[Jackpine Radical]

82. I tend to think of all these little word-completer and spell-check functions

as random error generators.They keep life interesting in the digital age.

[Adrahil]

85. Yeah, I gotta turn the damn thing off. n/t

[sabrina 1]

40. If you are worried about Scotus, then tell the Party Leadership to provide candidates that represent

the interests of the voters.

Why are you telling US about SCOTUS? We don't nominate candidates.

WE are telling them every day to make sure we do not have to worry about SCOTUS and to start catering to the VOTERS and not to WALL ST.

[Adrahil]

68. Your post is the essence of what I think is wrong.

Nominating a candidate is ONE part of the issue. Winning the general is the other.

I'm not advocating that we run tot eh center on every issue, but in my view, winning the generals matter MORE than getting a candidate that's perfectly aligned to my views.

I am not interested in noble defeats.

And yes WE are the party. Wanna make a difference? Participate in your local party. Transform it. In my district, we had an entrenched "Old Boys Network" who controlled the party. Over the last 10 years, through organizing and running candidates, and working elections, we've managed to seize control of the local party from this corrupt old group. And now WE put up candidates, who are winning (well at least as much as they can in this deep red state).

[LondonReign2]

71. "I am not interested in noble defeats."

And I am no longer interested in Pyrrhic victories

[Adrahil]

74. I think that's utter foolishness.

Obama may not be the perfect progressive candidate, but he's been the best President of my lifetime, IMO. I don;t think he was a Pyrrhic victory at all. I think that in many ways, he's revived the progressive movement in this country.

Good luck with the whole banging your head against the wall thing. Let me know how that goes.

[woo me with science]

150. No, those are Third Way talking points.

No, those are Third Way talking points.

In order for that assessment to be true, current policies under the current president would have to be yielding incremental progress toward liberalism.

They are doing just the opposite.

We are not dealing with a slower or more pragmatic journey toward the same liberal goal. We are dealing with a corporate propaganda machine pretending that corporate Democrats *have* the same goals.

The absurd claim by Third Wayers that corporate Democrats are making incremental progress toward liberal goals is so inconsistent with blatant reality and has been demolished with lists and lists and evidence of that reality so many times here that its repetition at this point can only reflect a repeating advertising/propaganda machine rather than attempts at good-faith discussion. We can post it all again and again and again: the relentless corporate appointments, the executive decisions, the slimy deals in which just enough corporate Democrats reliably appear to ensure that promised liberal legislation can't pass, the betrayals of liberal candidates and deliberate throwing of elections...

...but the Third Way "2+2=5" drones on.

That's what corporate usurpation of politics does, after all. Corporate money pouring into government and politics means the replacement of good-faith efforts to represent citizens with what corporations do instead: advertise, propagandize, and sell a product for profit, no matter how viciously and pathetically the shiny picture on the box misrepresents the product.

The talking points, the propaganda machine, and the rewriting of reality get so old.

Shun the Third Way propaganda with extreme prejudice.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5767160

[bettyellen]

240. If money is your major concern, then this is true. Otherwise, no.

[merrily]

280. I wish brentspeak would post more.

[LondonReign2]

192. I was going to reply to you but woo said it 576 times better than I could

I will add that Obama certainly sounded like a Progressive in the 2008 campaign and as a result got a massive groundswell of support, so much so that he accomplished what would have been deemed impossible as little as 8 year earlier -- elected a black man to the WH.

Unfortunately he has been governing as a conservative Dem ("my economic policies are mainstream 1980s Republican&quot and the party has been rapidly losing ground ever since.

[merrily]

281. He or she (woo) sure has a way of saying things better than I can as well.

[Fuddnik]

130. Bingo!!!!

Thread winner.

[sabrina 1]

93. 'I'm not interested in noble defeats'. Me neither. So you must be, like most Democrats I know, very

unhappy with Party Leadership who are directly responsible for the loss of the House and Senate WE worked so hard to give them.

They backed Third Way candidates and even REPUBLICANS like Christie (see that race and maybe give your advice to those elected Democrats who ENDORSED Christie over the Progressive Democrat and then get back to me) over Progressive Candidates everywhere they could.

Clearly we either new leadership that is in touch with the voters, or you will be seeing more of their losses for Democrats.

But voters are not the cause of these 'noble defeats'.

And so long as that remains the mantra of those who are the CAUSE of undoing all the work the voters have done, voters will continue to be their victims.

Now is the time to make sure they don't cause any more losses for our Party. By telling them, since they don't appear to be aware of how to win elections, what the voters want.

This is still a democracy, isn't it? Which means voters play a large role in the electoral process.

[Fuddnik]

134. And I've personally seen our current DNC Chair endorse Repukes over progressives in congressional ra

And refuse to support others who were running against right wing extemists, because "They're my friends".

[sabrina 1]

142. Amazing, isn't it? How it's okay for elected Dems to endorse Republicans, while BLAMING VOTERS

for THEIR losses?

They either really do believe we are stupid, or they are. I can't decide which it is, but they sure are not convincing anyone with a brain cell working that when a Political Party LOSES elections, it is the fault of the voters.

[merrily]

288. Obama did something similar with Chafee, citing a personal relationship.

Chafee was certainly one of the better Republicans, but, geez, the President is the head of the party.

[H2O Man]

106. Absolutely!

Thank you.

[suffragette]

20. Yep, a seat at the table. Not much to ask, but as you note, rarely given.

K&R

[H2O Man]

108. Thank you!

[KMOD]

21. It is always a pleasure to read your posts, H20 Man

[H2O Man]

109. I appreciate that!

Thank you.

[Katashi_itto]

23. I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat. -Will Rogers

[H2O Man]

111. A great quote!

Thank you for that!

I believe that Gandhi said he favored anarchy, so long as it was done in an orderly way.

[spanone]

24. k&r...

[H2O Man]

112. Thanks!

[G_j]

25. Just another huge Thank You!

(history speaks, the hippies were right!)

[H2O Man]

113. Right!

The hippies and YIPPIES! were right. (I wasn't comfortable with the Zippies, circa 1972, though.)

[Fuddnik]

136. Holy Fuck! I WAS a Zippie and a Yippie again in '72.

Especially the conventions in Miami!

Brings back memories of Flamingo Park.

[Scootaloo]

28. Excellent OP n/t

[H2O Man]

114. Thank you

[blkmusclmachine]

29. It's real voters VERSUS secret, electronic, black box vote "counters."

Guess who wins???

[H2O Man]

115. It always amuses me

when intelligent people say that if Gore had gotten more votes that went to Nader, he would have won. As if the Florida/national republican machine wouldn't have stolen it, no matter what.

[Major Hogwash]

32. I stopped reading at --- "Still, Al Gore won the 2000 presidential election."

If Gore had been President, then all of the history books would have him listed as the President.
Since they do not have him listed as a President, I think you are being less than honest with yourself about the truth.

He lost.

[Rex]

33. True, he won on a technicality. Long after the SCOTUS ruled and Bush was already

crying about all the Ws being removed from WH keyboards. That is why some people put a * next to his name in 2000 and 2004.

He won on a technicality that did not matter to the three branches of government nor enough people to protest and shutdown the factories and mills. Corrrrrrect. Sad really, Gore would have been great for this country...yet his VP was practically begging him to go ahead and conceded.

Gore had more votes, yet he never became POTUS. Ain't that some shit? And we pretend to this day none of it really matters.

[sabrina 1]

42. Gore DID win. The voters chose Gore! Were you there at the time?

And then the SC stole the election for Bush. Not to mention the shenanigans that prevented voters from voting, among so many other things.

There has rarely been a more crooked election that the 2000 Election.

Maybe you SHOULD read beyond the point where you stopped and way beyond that since there is so much evidence of that treasonous theft it's hard to believe any Democrat would still be claiming that Gore lost.

[Major Hogwash]

44. Please don't insult my intelligence. Gore was NEVER the President!!!

He was never sworn in to office as the President of the United States.
And that is a fact!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I will not respond to such nonsense in the future.

[sabrina 1]

48. The truth is the truth and it's hard to contradict it. Gore won that election. And he would have

won by a far wider margin had Rove and his gang of election criminals not prevented legitimate voters from voting. Had they not cheated with the Republican owned machines, flipping votes that were intended for Gore, among so many other things.

What SHOULD be upsetting to you is WHY Gore was not sworn in.

He won, period, you cannot change history whether you respond to it or not.

[2banon]

147. Who said Gore became President? No One. Gore Won, but wasn't ALLOWED to take his rightful place.

that's a distinction with a huge difference. No a single statement said Gore became President.

You quit reading the piece - suggests to me you're invested in the 1st ultimate lie of the century, thus far.

[merrily]

289. Straw man. No one said Gore was President.

He got the most popular votes and, during the Florida recount, it was established that he got the most votes in Florida, and therefore had the most electoral votes as well. However, he lost the SCOTUS case.

But, you knew that. I know you knew that because posters keep saying Gore won the election, which is true and you keep changing the the wording to "He was never President," which no one claimed. Additionally, I doubt there is a DUer who doesn't know that.

So, please stop questioning the honesty of people who are saying Gore won the election.

[H2O Man]

47. It would be best

if that person simply skipped over anything I post -- as I skip over any/everything they write. Years ago, I found it was not possible to engage in a meaningful conversation with them; hence, while I never use the "ignore" function on DU, I opt to ignore that person.

Having read your response, I did get part of their message. Funny! It missed the part about Vince's book on that topic!

(PS: I got those books out yesterday. A fall and head injury set me back a bit on everything. You should get them tomorrow.)

[sabrina 1]

179. Well, personally I would not comment on something I admit I did not read. I would find it hard to

explain why I would be so adamant in my disagreement, if I had not read it!

[KingCharlemagne]

249. AKA: A "bloodless coup d'etat". I agree with you, but it's fascinating that the person

with whom you're disagreeing doesn't really care about things like actual ballots and counting them accurately and completely (activities most of us consider sacred to any concept of 'democracy'). Instead, I would characterize the Major's position as a variant of the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy (because Y followed X, Y was caused by X). To the Major, the fact that the history books record Bush as "President" means Bush "won", when the 'Y' of Bush's presidency has a tenuous connection at best with the 'X' of the ballots cast and counted.

Enough Logic 101 pedantry. Now back to regular programming!

[Capt. Obvious]

72. Too bad. You missed out on an excellent piece

[SaveOurDemocracy]

34. Thank you for this excellent OP. Bookmarking for the inevitable scolders and fingerwaggers.

[H2O Man]

116. Thank you.

So far, the "scolders and fingerwaggers" seem to be avoiding this discussion. And that's okay, I suppose. But I was kind of hoping some of them would read this, and recognize that there are different ways of looking at "party loyalty."

[1StrongBlackMan]

35. As a social-political activist ofmany decades, also ...

and while I, also, can only speak for myself ... when I say I will vote for whomever is the democratic nominee, it is not out of a sense of "party loyalty"; but rather, out of a sense of self-interest ... I know that whomever is the Democratic nominee will be closer to me on the issues and will do less harm.

[JI7]

37. exactly

that's how it's always been for me.

[1StrongBlackMan]

38. I guess I should add ...

that my position is informed by decades of knowing that NO national candidate will speak to most of the issues that concern me most ... But, also, knowing NO republican candidate will speak to ANY of the issues that concern me at all.

[sabrina 1]

43. Are you implying that the rest of us here haven't done the same thing? THAT is the point of this

OP. The false accusations against the Left that are posted here every day.

And it is the very fact that these false accusations against those to whom the party should be grateful, but instead spend their time attacking, that is, maybe for the first time causing many on the Left to wonder if their Party simply doesn't want them.

Before the 2012 Election a coalition of Left Organizations, including many Unions, sent a message to the Dem Party telling them that this would be the last Presidential Election where their votes could be taken for granted. They got together and raised millions of dollars, money that has for decades gone to the Dem Party.

Part of the reason for this is that the Left has pretty much had it with the constant attacks, the 'just shut up and vote', the lack of representation when the party does win, in the presidential Cabinet eg.

This party cannot keep on trying to marginalize the very people they count on at election time, and who always deliver, then tell them 'their ideas are retarded' once they help them win.

And it can't keep attacking voters and continue to expect their 'loyalty'.

That is no way to run a party, unless they want to lose.

[1StrongBlackMan]

49. The problem I have with the progressive left ...

is not what they do during election time; but rather, how they spend the 24 months between elections, criticizing any and everything Democratic, and telling anyone and everyone that will listen that there is no difference between Democrats and republicans.

Minority groups (and the activist-left IS a minority of the Democratic Party) cannot continually threaten to leave (or act on the threat) AND continually talk bad about the majority group AND expect for the rest of the party to place its stock in them.

The better strategy is build your bench to be a viable challenge to the majority.

[sabrina 1]

50. Are you saying that the Democratic Party is NOT 'left'? Since when did the 'left' become a

'minority' in their own party?

And since I assume you are a Democrat and I am a Democrat, why are you using the word 'you' to another Democrat as if they were NOT a member of the Dem Party?

And your problem with the 'left' (I am assuming you don't consider yourself 'left' then?) is that they DISCUSS issues and candidates?

I find this to be an extraordinary statement. What is POLITICS about if it isn't about Policies?

How do you expect the people to claim the power granted to them in the Constitution if they simply keep their mouths shut and vote for who they are told to vote for?

I have to be really honest with you, but I hope this is not the view of the Dem Party in general because if it is, and if they ever make that clear, there will BE no Dem Party.

I intend to call some pretty influential Dems I happen to know due to my work to ask them IF this IS the view of the Dem Party now. Because frankly, what you are describing isn't a political party, it is a cult where people 'follow' and keep their mouths shut.

Or is it that you believe if people don't agree with you on every issue, or they believe that the voters should have some input in who they get to vote for during the process of choosing candidates, that mean they are not Democrats??

Well, at least you are honest about your views.

So who makes a 'good democrat' in your view, since you have made it clear it is not the 'left'?

[1StrongBlackMan]

60. I said ...

The problem I have with the progressive left

That kind of answers your first couple of paragraphs, huh? But you are right I should have put the word progressive in quotes or bold-face it or otherwise highlighted it. I knew that you (i.e., "progressives&quot would use that tact when I posted it; but, was too lazy to go back and edit it. The tact being: "we are all Democrats ... except when you ("progressives) are calling the majority of the party "centrists", "3rd-wayers" or the other terms you ("progressives" use to set yourself apart from those in the party you ("progressives&quot disagree with.

I find this to be an extraordinary statement. What is POLITICS about if it isn't about Policies?

You are correct ... politics is about policies; but, it is ultimately about winning elections ... without electoral win, you get the policies of your opposition, whether that "opposition" is the republicans or those within the party that you choose to oppose.

How do you expect the people to claim the power granted to them in the Constitution if they simply keep their mouths shut and vote for who they are told to vote for?

I see the above comment as the "problem" with "progressives" ... No one is TELLING you who to vote for; but, 9as an "minority", I can tell you) no one is going to give minority voices, anything unless, or until they/we present viable alternatives ... and only then, when those alternatives can be shown to work to the advantage of the majority group. And stomping one's feet, calling names and threatening to go home is NOT presenting such a demonstration.

(I have to leave for a few; but, will return to complete my thought)

ies

[TheKentuckian]

94. All the benefit they need to know is they don't have an elk's chance in a supernova without us and

that they are going to have to seriously give or the house of cards will come tumbling down.

I'm over it, been playing ball for decades and it has been mostly from bad to worse and looking ever worse going forward with stubbornly doubling down on what has proven to be toxic and failed time after arrogant and stupid time.

Knuckle under? No, you fucking knuckle under. Show me the advantage. You want to play hostage takers, we'll take the biggest hostage and blow it's brains all over the fucking floor.

[1StrongBlackMan]

102. All I'll say is ...

No one is saying "knuckle under", I am saying GROW UP and realize tantrum tossing and threats get, and have gotten, you discounted and ignored ... which seems to fuel your real need ... anger.

[TheKentuckian]

131. My anger was well earned over a number of years. I didn't start out this way by ANY stretch.

Not being angry surely didn't slow the roll of the marginalization instead seemed to encourage villains to act with unchecked impunity this discontent is the fruits of the marginalization not it's seed.

Going along to get along just gets you taken for a ride you don't want to go on, it does NOTHING to increase influence. Influence goes to those who are not automatic, those votes are sought.

No one negotiates to do other than what they already wished to with someone they had at hello.

People love preaching that somehow it is otherwise but are unable to provide any such examples and if they exist then I'd say they are exceedingly rare occasions, likely statistically zero no matter what area of life.

Waiting on and cajoling Massa into doling out the pot liquor isn't working never has and never will, it is religious like thinking akin to the meek shall inherit the Earth or if you suffer in life you will be rewarded in heaven and maybe it is true but only after the belligerent assholes have left it a hollowed out husk and if your idea of heaven is Hooverville.

[1StrongBlackMan]

133. Yeah ... Okay. ...

Waiting on and cajoling Massa into doling out the pot liquor

[Rex]

140. Also the sad canards here that gets played out are well...sad.

"lefties do not vote enough", "they complain all day long", "have no real solutions." How many times do we read those lies from 'progressives'? I don't even try and have a conversation with 'progressives' here, what is the point? They don't care about our party at all, just want to waste our time with canards and non-sequiturs.

Might as well talk to a wall, it would be more productive. They don't like it when you are angry, they would prefer docile apathetic voters instead.

[LondonReign2]

197. They don't even pretend to be Progressives

The majority of them spend their time using Progressive as a slur while telling us to shut up and be happy with mainstream 1980s Republican economic policy.

[1StrongBlackMan]

244. I won't "pretend" to be a part of any group (on du) ...

that marginalizes my high priority political interests.

The progressives that I have met in real life are (for the most part) nothing like the group that claims that moniker on here on DU ... and those that do, are treated similarly, they are mocked or ignored.

[LondonReign2]

254. I agree, you don't bother to hide your actual

allegiance. Progressives marginalize your priorities; your priorities are the opposite of progressive. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Doesn't the Third Way have its own board somewhere where its members can spout corporatist Republican economic policy while throwing a chit to progressive social causes?

[1StrongBlackMan]

256. I wouldn't know what the 3rd Way has ...

But my allegiance is to groups that work to find convincingly workable solutions to the issues that most concern me ... and I would never identify with a bunch of Don Qs , seeking some glorious revolution from the comfort of their keyboards ... in their mommy's basement .

Now leave me alone.

[sabrina 1]

271. How sad. You are using, maybe inadvertently, the old Limbaugh, Right Wing noise machine

characterizations of the Left. And that at this point in time, is so jaded, even they had to get new material as the Left so thoroughly destroyed them. Then the Third Way undid all the work the Left did to take control of the House, Senate and the WH by more or less doing what you are now doing.

Just so you know what I mean, it will be familiar to all Dems who were there when these ancient attacks from the right were aimed at the Left.

and I would never identify with a bunch of Don Qs , seeking some glorious revolution from the comfort of their keyboards ... in their mommy's basement .

I have never lived in my 'mommy's' basement. Nor am I seeking 'some glorious revolution from the comfort of my keyboard'. You seem very disconnected, out of touch, with what the Left actually wants.

Actually I think this needs to be discussed on a larger scale, in an OP perhaps. Because while we eviscerated the Right when they attempted to characterize the Left just as you have, we never expected their jaded bag of attacks on Dems would make their way to Democratic forums. I think we learned they hired Think Tanks to come up with that garbage. They wasted their money because all they got was pre-school level gobbledy gook (I know, I taught that level for a while and to be honest they were more creative when they acted badly like that)

If you dislike the Left so much, why are you on DU? It IS a Left site.

[1StrongBlackMan]

291. What's more sad is when it applies ...

Last edited Sun Mar 29, 2015, 01:55 PM - Edit history (1)

when a, once rational, political message board entertains several discussions a day about whether selecting/supporting/not trying to destroy the imperfect candidate ... that most agree is far, far, better than the opposition candidate on just about every issue ... (i.e., the lesser of the two evils discussions), is a rational political choice; then, something is very, very amiss.

If you dislike the Left so much, why are you on DU? It IS a Left site.

I don't dislike the left ... I am of the Left, and support a Leftist agenda; I am, however, wary of DU "progressives", as I see them as having great ideas, and no idea how to accomplish them without starting from that magical/mythical "IF" place (i.e., "IF this {unlikely event} happens; then we win" ... problem solved!).

(Hell ... there is an entire DU Group - that you frequent - that demonstrates, exactly, that ... if one has the stamina to wade through the pages and pages of anti-Democratic/anti-President Obama, and now, anti-HRC threads)

And, the troubling part is, when that is pointed out all discussion becomes progressives launching personal attacks; then, whines of progressive victimhood; then, (I suspect, coordinated) Alert Attacks/Stalking. This pattern plays out time after time ... and I'll prove it!

I challenge you to post any progressive idea, in any forum or group, and solicit a call for how DU progressives would frame and implement it. I will be impressed if more than 2 or 3 DU progressives respond ... and, will be Wowed if any of those, any of the solutions doesn't base the framing and/or solution on the magical "IF".

Then, watch what follows when the "IF" is pointed out ...

ETA: And BTW ...

If you dislike the Left so much, why are you on DU? It IS a Left site.

DU is a DEMOCRATIC site ... that welcomes people that identify as the Left, but not necessarily, as Democrats. That's why it's called DEMOCRATICunderground, not Leftistunderground.

[LondonReign2]

301. Inadvertently using Limbaugh framing? No, intentionally using it

Our right wing "Democrats" are very purposefully using Limbaugh framing, using Progressive as a slur just as Limbaugh used Liberal as a slur. It is Koch-funded DLC/Third Wayer at its "best", hoping to eliminate any opposition to Republican, Corporatist economic policies.

[1StrongBlackMan]

302. Yeah. Okay ...

{Turning to speak to Cousin Cookie} Please pass the Greens. You really put your foot in this Turkey!

[sabrina 1]

304. Yes, there isn't a Democrat around here who doesn't recognize those old talking points aimed at

the 'left'. As soon as I see 'the left' referred to in the third person, I completely dismiss anything else that follows. As I always did.

[LondonReign2]

300. "groups that work to find convincingly workable solutions"

Yup, you've captured the Third Way mantra alright. Currently they are working to find a "convincing workable solution" to cut Social Security, with the aid Third Wayers in Congress.

Very workable. Very pragmatic. Very Republican.

[1StrongBlackMan]

303. Yeah. Okay ...

{Turning to speak to Cousin Cookie} Please pass the Greens. You really put your foot in this Turkey!

[LondonReign2]

307. Yeah, we don't want to talk about uncomfortable things

[1StrongBlackMan]

308. Yeah, Uh huh. That's nice ...

{1SBM, turns BACK to Cousin COOKIE} ... So Girl ... Have you heard that new Estelle joint?

[sabrina 1]

223. You're not alone. Dem Party voter registration is down to only 32% with many now registering

as Independents. Making the Independent vote the largest voting bloc in the country, now over 40%.

I guess they will have to actually work to get that vote from now on.

For those still registered as Dems, more and more they are being driven out of the party by the constant attacks of the 'Conservo Dems/Third Way/DLCers.

I would say that the leadership of the Party needs to seriously start respecting the Progressives who are generally their most reliable activists and voters, before they too simply take them at their word, 'you are not welcome here' and go.

[sabrina 1]

225. Well, it's possible I'm misunderstanding you. And I do respect that you are willing to discuss

what may be misunderstandings, rather than do what many others here do.

Where I think the crux of the disagreement as to getting the policies we believe in addressed, is the word 'winning'.

Eg, we know that progressive policies are popular with voters across the political spectrum.

During the mid terms, eg, many Dem activists decided to try to rebuild the party from the ground up and focused on Local elections.

There they got progressive/democratic issues on ballots wherever it was possible. AND WON, across the political board.

They also found and supported Progressive Dems for local elections and had huge victories, contradicting all the talk of 'progressives can't win'.

They gave up on DC and went to work themselves, choosing their own candidates, funding them, knocking on doors and won most of the elections they focused on.

To me, winning means getting your policies on the agenda of those you elect.

Losing means, electing people to put your policies front and center, only to find they are voting WITH those you did NOT elect.

I used to buy that 'winning elections' meant actually winning a lot of what you worked for. But after so many huge issues turned out to be supported by many we elected to OPPOSE, I now think that voters need fresh, new thinking to get this party away from the right leaning track they are on.

To do that, candidates need to run on Democratic issues. They did NOT do that in the mid terms for whatever reason and they LOST.

[Rex]

83. LOL! You called him on griping about progressives griping and he got all defensive

and danced around your post like he was two stepping!

I swear, non-progressives are such strange people. They DEMAND you do this or that, then when you point it out - act all hurt (like they actually care about your opinion which they don't at all) they then say YOU are demanding this and that from their side of the party (I guess they are too scared to actually say what they are right?)

The only good thing about it is that over the years here, their completely fake attitude has pushed more and more people to be against them and their railing about people having an opinion besides their own!

Totally expected from non-progressives and it is good to see almost everyone here 'get that'.

[1StrongBlackMan]

107. Reading is NOT your strong suit, is it ...

there was no dancing or two-stepping; and there, damned sure, wasn't any defensiveness.

[neverforget]

178. They demand your vote and for you to shut up afterwards and

let our betters in the Democratic Party tell us what to do. Liberals and progressives are needed only for their votes don't ya know?

[A Simple Game]

207. Thanks for confirming what I have noticed lately.

The only good thing about it is that over the years here, their completely fake attitude has pushed more and more people to be against them and their railing about people having an opinion besides their own!

I have noticed lately more and more push back against the right wing when the liberal bashing starts. Most especially since the 2014 elections.

[NanceGreggs]

53. Very well said!!!

[RiverLover]

62. Democrats ARE the "Progressive Left"

DUers should know this.

Right-wingers need to be authentic & just be the repubs that they are.

[1StrongBlackMan]

80. No ... they are NOT! ...

You keep telling us "centrist"/"3rd-wayers" (that happen to make up the majority of the Democratic Party) that there is a distinction. I will accept that Democrats are the party of the Left; but, I accept your contention that there is the Left, and then, there are progressives of the Left ... one speaks to the Party, the other speaks to (by definition) a sub-set of the Party ... (when you want to claim the Party).

[sabrina 1]

187. The Third Way Think Tank has enormous influence on the LEADERSHIP of the Dem Party. They

write 'policy' papers for the Dem Party. Their policies are difficult to differentiate from those of the Heritage Foundation.

They ARE NOT the 'majority' of the Dem Party. The majority of Dems in this country that make up the membership, the registered voters of the Dem Party ARE Progressive, Liberal Dems.

For over a decade now they have been unhappy with the policy positions taken on major issues, by many elected officials with a 'D' after their names.

But for years, since it cannot be denied that Heritage Foundation policies are NOT Democratic policies, the claim was that if Dems just held their noses, once we had the power, THEN we could implement Dem Policies.

That of course isn't happening, on SS, on Medicare, on Forever War, on Civil Liberties, on Corporate Accountability and so many more issues.

Show me ONE vote on Progressive Dem issue while Dems had the majority, that got every single Dem vote, the way it should have.

And I will show how, HAD we had actual Dems who support Dem Policies in place, we could have passed so much good legislation but there were always just enough 'dems' to sway the vote to the Right.

[1StrongBlackMan]

201. You know you keep trying to convince yourself (and others) of that ...

They ARE NOT the 'majority' of the Dem Party. The majority of Dems in this country that make up the membership, the registered voters of the Dem Party ARE Progressive, Liberal Dems.

But that is simply, and completely, belied by the facts.

[sabrina 1]

220. That poll proves what I stated. The majority of Dems are Liberals. Conservo Dems dropping

Liberals increasing. And if I were part of that poll I would respond in the middle, as a Moderate Dem. So even there, you have Progressive Dems.

The largest registered voting bloc in the country is now the Independent vote.

Dems have lost millions of registered voters bringing their total % to approx. 32% down from over 40% since around 2011.

Dems can't win elections without the Independent vote, and from that huge bloc, as high as 47% in several states as recently as 2013-14.

So what has happened is the Conservo Dems, the smallest bloc of registered Dems are DRIVING Progressive Dems out of the party.

Now explain how Dems expect to win elections, they are not btw, by driving Progressives our of the party?

Of the 32% represented in that poll, many of the Progressive % are deeply upset with the party's swing to the right.

But even if every one of them were willing to hold their noses again, and fewer and fewer are doing so as the mid terms have demonstrated, that wouldn't come close to being enough to win elections.

Good job, Third Way. And even THEY are now 'concerned' with the flight of Dems to Independent status.

[tkmorris]

224. It seems odd he posted a graph that proved he was wrong

But then, I am often baffled by the lengths people will go to to defend their points of view, even when they are clearly, demonstrably, wrong.

[1StrongBlackMan]

252. Wait, what? ...

And if I were part of that poll I would respond in the middle, as a Moderate Dem.

I you post post after post proclaiming your "progressiveness" and now claim that if you were polled you would respond 'as a Moderate Dem", then claim progressiveness in the moderate grouping/

come on, Sabrina!

[A Simple Game]

215. Can you name a caucus within the Democratic caucus that is

larger than the Progressive caucus? Yet you keep saying the "progressives" are a small minority? You blame "progressives" for our problems yet it is the right wing Blue Dogs of the party the keep us from winning most battles. What do you have to say about the Blue Dogs?

You better hope the "Progressives" don't learn from the tea party and wag the rest of the Democrats like the tea party wags the Republicans. The truth is the Democratic party could go nowhere without the "progressives" support. Keep biting that hand and see how long it takes to start getting hungry.

You said this in post 35:

I know that whomever is the Democratic nominee will be closer to me on the issues and will do less harm.

Funny choice of words; why would anyone choose to say "less harm" instead of "more good"? Less harm implies you are still going in the wrong direction not moving in the right direction.

Oh and you can call me any name you like, I haven't been a Democrat in over 20 years because I have always been and am still a liberal. To win my vote takes more than a letter D after a name. Country before party, and no more lesser of two evils.

[Rex]

84. Pay no attention to them, they are a dying breed of Dem.

They demand you be quite about a pony and then demand you vote for their pony or else. Thankfully they are going the way of the dodo bird, since everyone and their brother can see the agenda they display with each and every post.

You are CORRECT we are the majority that votes in each election, by the most number for the candidate. You are SO correct, however many here do not have the character to really say what they think for fear of getting banned outright.

I wish they would be more honest, but this is the WWW where you can be and say anything you want. Maybe one day they will live up to their convictions, but I doubt it. People like that are flexible when it comes to morals.

[1StrongBlackMan]

119. Yes, pay no attention to me ...

You are CORRECT we are the majority that votes in each election, by the most number for the candidate.

You are kidding (yourself), Right? Progressives may vote at a greater clip than other groups (owing to their activist tendencies); but they make up a minority of the Democratic Party and a smaller percentage of the Democratic Base.



And BTW, weren't you just talking about Ad Hominem attacks? Maybe one day you will live up to your convictions ... but then, perhaps you are? (i.e., attacking Democrats)

[tkmorris]

226. Are you reading your own chart?

Have another look at it.

[sabrina 1]

228. I am baffled by that chart also. It proves me and the other poster to be correct. The smallest group

are Conservo Dems. I am thoroughly confused as this is the second time it has been posted. I did point out that the poll doesn't support the claim that Liberals are a minority.

[1StrongBlackMan]

251. Yes the Chart absolutely supports my claim. See: Post 250. n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

250. Yes, I read the chart ...

Self-identifying Democrats that self-identify as Liberal = 43%

Self-identifying Democrats that self-identify as Moderate = 36%

Self-identifying Democrats that self-identify as conservative = 19%

My Claim: Progressives make up a minority of the Democratic Party and a smaller percentage of the Democratic Base.

Proof of Claim: Moderates + conservatives (Democrats) = 55%; 55% is a majority of the universe of self-identifying Democrats.

(Note: The chart shows "Liberal" rather than "progressive", and because of this, I will concede that my statement is inaccurate ... The my substitution error gives "progressives" MORE weight than the chart actually represents, as the number of self-identifying Democrats that identify as "progressives" is likely far lower that those that identify as "liberals.&quot

[uponit7771]

77. Some will make good the enemy of adequate relative to the GOP choice.

[uponit7771]

76. +1, this logic seems like common sense low hanging fruit, the rest seems like rationalization

[H2O Man]

117. That's good.

I respect every individual's right to vote exactly as they see fit. And there are definitely many good reasons for democratic candidates. More, while I can think of no good reason for anyone but the 1% to vote republican, I appreciate that people have the right to. (But they are, of course, making a mistake.)

I also recognize that a person can be a good Democrat, but not always vote for a given politician who happens to be register as a Democrat. Where I live, for example, there are plenty of elections where there isn't even a Democrat running.

[1StrongBlackMan]

132. And ...

I also recognize that a person can be a good Democrat, but not always vote for a given politician who happens to be register as a Democrat. Where I live, for example, there are plenty of elections where there isn't even a Democrat running.

Living in Arizona, I recognize that a person can be a good Democrat, AND vote for a given politician who happens to be registered as a Democrat; but, whom DU would immediately reject. I've done it in every election since I moved here (except for the brief time I lived in Grijalva's district ... and then, I cast the DU reject votes in the Senate election) ... and in every instance, e.g., Ultra-centrist Giffold vs. (most recently) Crazy, Tea-party darling Kelly, Ultra-centrist Barber v. McSally, I came out better.

I would hope that people would know and accept that simple, and rational, dynamic.

[Cha]

229. Mahalo 1StrongBlackMan!.. No, "party loyalty" from me whatsoever.. I couldn't care less..

it's about the Environment, and yes the dreaded SCOTUS, Health Care, the Poor(which is a very targeted self interest for me.. and everyone in that situation), Social Security, LGBT, and Voting Rights!, Oh, did I mention the Environment of our Planet?

[1StrongBlackMan]

247. And it would be the rare, rare Democratic nominee ...

(whomever they are) that would vote against your specific interests on any of these ... But I, also, can't think of a single republican candidate that would vote to support ANY of these interests.

The decision for any democrat, anyone on the Left and any progressive should be clear! So ... I really don't have any idea why we are having this discussion?

[Cha]

257. Me, neither.. it seems stupid. Maybe somebody on here was talking about the need but I ignore

that shite.

[bearssoapbox]

41. Thank you for the great post.

An insightful history lesson.

Even before I cast my first Dem vote (1976), I watched and wondered what happened in the late 60's and early 70's that caused Nixon to win. I didn't really take the time then to look deeply into it, (junior high, high school, sports, etc.) but there was always a feeling that something wasn't right.

Clinton '92', Obama '08' were the closest to how things should have been but the Reagan wing nut right started in on Clinton and he went more down the center. Then his second term was hijacked while Obama's presidency has been nothing but a street fight since he declared he was running.

Bush 2000 was a disaster and theft and I was really disappointed disheartened when bush was appointed president and my wife and I wondered if voting even mattered any more. But we realized that was just what the right wanted and we weren't going to let the bastards win if we could help it. Which is like spitting into the wind where we live. boehner's district here in Ohio and sometimes we think that we are only 2 of a couple dozen liberals in the whole county. There are more but we don't get the exposure or press in the teabagger owned press of the county.

Of course there were a couple of things that I wasn't happy with about Clinton and now President Obama but they both brought the country back from giant messes caused by the right.

I just hope that President Obama doesn't sell us down the river on TPP(in it's present form from what I've seen) because that will put a dark shadow on an otherwise great presidency.

2016 worries me because, imo, we don't have a great candidate even thinking about running and we need more than 2 or 3 to choose from. The reTHUGliCONS seem to have a gaggle of potential candidates that they just might get lucky to get one elected just by having so many in the race.

I'm hoping that my health will allow me to get more involved with this election because I think we will need everything that we can muster if we want to win this election.

We can't let the unempathetic, sociopathic bastards win because the country and the world will really be worse if they do win.

Don't know if my rant made much sense but I get going sometimes when something gets me thinking.

Again, great post.

Thank you.

[H2O Man]

125. Very good!

Thank you for your response! I really enjoyed reading it!

I have a feeling -- based on the solid points you raised -- that you would enjoy the book "Nixonland" that I referred to in the OP. There are, of course, a number of outstanding books from the Nixon era, that document the damage that Nixon did to our constitutional democracy. But, sometimes, a later examination of events allows for new insights, and that is definitely the case with this book.

Sociology is one of my favorite studies. I've long admired Erich Fromm, and think that his books remain as important today, as when they were published. I'm thinking particularly of "The Sane Society," from the 1950s. In the context of that book, it seems that the fact that a Richard Nixon or a Ronald Reagan could actually be elected president -- and twice, at that -- is an exact measure of the sickness in the nation that elected them.

Nixon played upon the nation's fears. And fear is the worst enemy, at least in my opinion, that any person can have. Fear makes people reject the Truth, and accept absolute lies. Nixon knew that: he ran on it, than ran with it. The damage he did remains.

[bearssoapbox]

309. Thank you for the reading suggestions.

From the reviews it looks like "Nixonland" will be an interesting read. The Kennedy/Nixon eras have always been an interesting to me. Probably because President Kennedy was assassinated when I was eight. Then the 60's and early 70's seemed to explode with people and events, not only politics, that are still having an effect on what is happening today.

Last year, for a couple of months, I got on a Kennedy/Johnson kick because I read Stephen King's book "11/22/63" and he had a list of the material he used for research. King's book is an interesting take on the assassination.

I apologize for not getting back to you sooner but I took a couple of days away from the internet and watched last seasons "Cosmos", since our library had just gotten it in, and my wife got me a collection of 50 Sci Fi classic movies last year so this weekend seemed to be a good time to watch them again. This is the collection http://www.amazon.com/Sci-Fi-Classics-50-Movie-Pack/dp/B0001HAGU6

I didn't know that there was a company that put out so many collections of different genres at a reasonable price. Looks like I'll be adding to my collection.

My wife found mine at a flea market for $5.00. One of the better gifts I've ever gotten.

[sabrina 1]

45. This is so true: "the true progressive-liberal wing rarely gets any seat at the table"

I can't think of a single Progressive Liberal Dem who is in, eg, the President's Cabinet. Lots of Republicans and Corporate CEOS, but unless I'm missing someone, I cannot name a single Liberal and that is unacceptable, since it was Liberals more than any other group, who helped win the House, Senate and the WH.

Excellent OP, thank you for posting it.

The Left is getting pretty tired of being taken for granted. Of being part of a party that apparently doesn't really want them. Especially when it is THEIR ideas that are the most popular with Voters across the political spectrum.

I know, Corporations don't like their ideas and it appears we are now a Corporate run state.

Thank you for posting the facts, it's refreshing to find facts anywhere these days.

[cyberswede]

79. The left is taken for granted...and then blamed if things don't work out right

Seriously...the left DOES reliably vote for Democrats, which is exactly why the left is taken for granted. If lefty voters were to really stay home, the Democratic candidate would lose every time.

The left gets kicked around, blamed, mocked, etc...and yet still votes for Democrats. What does that actually tell us about loyalty?

The party doesn't really want lefties, but it can't survive without them. You'd think that would be worth some consideration, if not actual liberal policy positions.

It's weird how Republicans bend over backward to appease the far right, but Democrats just expect the far left to come along as the party moves to the right. Part of it is the lockstep nature of the RW hive mind, but you'd think the left would get at least some acknowledgement from the Democratic party, rather than being ignored.

[sabrina 1]

194. I think the real reason why Republicans do not treat their voters, no matter how far out they are,

the way Dems do the Left, is because they are no threat to the Corporate State.

The Left otoh, IS a threat to the real goals of those who hold much of the power in this country now.

Iow, we don't just have the 'opposition party' to fight, we have the Corporations, Wall St, the MIC who don't view even wackiest far right morons as any threat to their interests.

But enough of the way Democrats are treated by their own party.

You are right that they do not want the Left having any influence in the party, but right again, that they can't win without them.

So they do what we see here, attempt to marginalize them, emotionally manipulate them, to VOTE and then go away.

I think it's time now for the Left to start organizing and to put an end to these tactics.

Eg, instead of saying things like 'well, I can't stand (fill in the blank) but if s/he is the nominee I will vote for them'. That's ALL they want to hear. They don't CARE if we don't like their candidate, so long as they can bully Dems into voting for them by attacking them etc, you see it here all the time, that's ALL they want.

So, my feeling is we let them know that 'NO, either you find a candidate that the Left can vote FOR, or you DON'T get our votes this time'.

We have bargaining chips as voters, but haven't been using them. It's time to start getting serious about taking OUR PARTY back out of the hands of the Third Way before it's way too late. A change of tactics on the part of the Left is definitely needed at this point.

[WillTwain]

146. Especially when it is THEIR ideas that are the most popular with Voters across the political spectru

That is it.

[sabrina 1]

198. And they've lied about that too. We are constantly told the lie that 'this is a right of center

country so we have to compromise' when in every poll Progressive Dem issues are the most popular by a huge margin.

If Dems ran on those issues, in fact WHEN they do, see Obama in 2008 eg, they WIN. So enough of the lies and deceptions.

The Left needs to get very organized now since the picture is clear, this is OUR PARTY and if they want our votes, they cannot take them for granted anymore.

We WANT and DEMAND representation, in all our Govt Agencies when we win. In Defense, in Economics, in Education, Environmental agencies.

That did not happen after the 2008 election wins. We got Republicans and Corporate CEOS in almost all those positions.

[WillTwain]

204. Right On Point

No more Obama bait and switch POTUS'. Really, we have everything on our side, yet will not follow through on populist ideas that everyone (even the proud dimwits that will not admit it) want.

This is no accident. The big guys that control both parties are screwing with weak minds.

[H2O Man]

161. Thank you!

I invested a lot of time and resources in 2008, campaigning for Obama. I'm glad that I did -- it was a heck of an experience. I wasn't happy when his administration began to look much like a Clinton administration. Still, there are things that I've liked about President Obama, and I campaigned for him again four years later.

The difference between 2012 and '08 was that I couldn't ask my friends and associates from the Democratic Left to vote for him again. I'm sure that some did, and some didn't. But his first term had not brought about enough solid change; the President was too willing to try to work with the republicans, while largely ignoring the left.

Our government became a corporate state shortly after WW2, by the way. In 1981, it became a corporation. That needs to be changed .....at the very least, it should be a not-for-profit. But that will take a lot of work -- the type the left-wing of the Democratic Party alone advocates, at present.

[Hekate]

46. Thanks for another great post, H2O Man

[H2O Man]

169. Thank you!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

51. It's odd that those calling for Party Loyalty vote for Democratic politicians who disloyally

vote for Republican policies. And, claim that anyone who doesn't vote for them is "disloyal".

And, equally ironic, are those that call us "purists" demand that we vote for anyone, however disloyal, that has a (D) after their names.

[MisterP]

123. the ones who applauded Lieberman after lecturing us that third parties were ruining America?

the ones who were relieved when Brown won because they wouldn't be under any pressure to pass legislation? they were so happy to see the supermajority end that they're now denying it ever existed

Cegelis, Lamont, McKinney, Halter, Romanoff, Sestak, Grayson, Kucinich, Buono, Lutrin, Rev. Manuel Sykes, and Weiland all prove that either they think of primaries as treason, or simply that they'd rather lose with a conservative than with with a liberal

[2banon]

151. Yes, doncha just love the inane "Purists" meme?

speaks to the point the OP makes. The party is disloyal to the left and that's considered ok by many right here.

[merrily]

290. It's childish, boring and utterly unpersuasive, so no.

[2banon]

293. indeed, indeed.

as well as ignorant I would add. Which makes it a bit more astonishing when I see certain "notables" here on DU using it in a feeble attempt to make their "All In for Hillary" case.

[merrily]

294. Meh. They're just trying for a pony.

I don't know where they get their talking points, but they are not good ones. Nonetheless, they repeat them until they are beyond played out and beyond boring. I guess if you can't refute a post with facts or analysis, going straight to personal insults and lame talking points/memes can seem like a good strategy.

[2banon]

295. It's kind of puzzling why they continue to further insult and alienate us.

You'd think they would attempt at some level of empathy and acknowledgement of our views/issues even if they don't hold them in 100% agreement. You know, like pounding on doors for votes. But they don't seem to care if we feel disenfranchised.

[merrily]

296. Bullying and harassment are generally intended to engender fear/submission.

If you fear the reaction to what you post, you may alter how you post. The right often seeks to silence dissent and the right of the Democratic Party is not all that different.

If they get you to go along to get along, they like that. If they harass dissenters until they leave in disgust or get banned, that works for them, too.

Stepford posters welcome. Stepford voters, even more welcome.

[2banon]

299. Amen.. n/t

[H2O Man]

172. Very odd, indeed!

I have no problem with those who view everything within the context of the Democratic Party. And who always and only will support every politician who happens to be registered as a Democrat. It's just that I'm not one of them, and neither are most of my friends and associates. And we do not accept their limited definition of "party loyalty."

[sabrina 1]

221. And you're not the only one nor are your friends. The largest voting bloc in the country now

are registered Independents.

I guess the Left is growing tired of having their votes taken for granted and then dismissed once they score wins for the party.

Over 40% of voters now register as Independents.

Dem Party registrations is down from its most recent high in 2007-8 of over 40% to around 32%. And those still registered as Dems are getting pretty sick of the constant attacks and are likely to follow in the footsteps of those Dems who now register as Independents.

Maybe that is the goal, to destroy the Dem Party? If it isn't, it sure is managing to accomplish that.

But it's our Party, we don't have another one, so imo, voters should stay and fight and MAKE the leadership EARN their votes, as they will now have to do with those who have been driven out of the party.

[Michigan-Arizona]

52. K&R n/t Thank you

[H2O Man]

174. Thank you.

[Wella]

54. "“Party loyalty” has to include sharing the rewards."

You know the Tea Party feels the same way, deceived by RINOS in the same way that we feel betrayed by the DLC. I often wonder which edge--right or left--has a better chance of subverting the stubborn center. What I do know is that no one likes the center since it seems to support a nefarious status quo.

[eridani]

59. Not at all the same. Republicans fear their base

Democrats have contempt for their base.

[jeff47]

99. You mean the tea party that has utterly dominated the Republican party?

Yeah, they really don't get anything for their party loyalty.

[H2O Man]

188. I think that

the grass roots -- no matter what their beliefs -- are ignored by the professional politicians that serve corporate masters.

[Scuba]

58. A wonderful, timely and wholly accurate post. Thank you H2O Man!

[H2O Man]

189. Thank you, Scuba!

I'm glad to be on the same team with you. I always appreciate your contributions here.

[Autumn]

61. Recommended, bookmarking and the next time I see the usual blaming of the Left

my response will be this wonderful OP of truth. Thank you.

[H2O Man]

190. Oh, thank you!

That's really nice!

[bullwinkle428]

63. GREAT post. K&R.

[H2O Man]

191. Thanks!

[WilliamPitt]

67. On my feet applauding

so loud I startled the baby.

Well done, sir.

[H2O Man]

193. Thanks, Will

I've enjoyed seeing pictures of your baby! She has certainly mastered communicating by way of facial features! What a Sweetie -- reminds me of when my daughters were young. I know that you're enjoying this time; man, does it pass quickly!

[myrna minx]

70. Magnificent essay, as always. Thank you .

[H2O Man]

195. Thank you!

I appreciate that.

[antigop]

75. I read this yesterday, and went back and had to read it again this morning.

THANK YOU!!

[H2O Man]

196. Thanks. antigop!

I'm glad that you enjoyed it.

[Chathamization]

78. Party loyalty doesn't make much sense. People should vote for the Democratic candidate in close

races between Democrats and Republicans almost all of the time. But people shouldn't vote for the Democratic candidate in a close race between a more progressive independent and a Democrat (for example) just because they think they should vote for a Democrat. But do many people knowingly do this? I've seen this behavior mostly when people don't know who the candidates are (in which case, voting for the Democratic candidate is the safest bet most of the time).

Likewise, I don't think it makes much sense expecting any politician to give someone a seat at the table out of a sense of loyalty. Sure, it occasionally happens, but most of the time you get there by being a political force, not by being given a handout. Most of the time politicians are going to be just looking out for their best interest, and that's to be expected. It's best to demonstrate to them why doing what you say is in their best interest.

[H2O Man]

205. Right. Exactly right.

I like how you put that. Thank you.

I'd say that probably half my friends & associates are registered Democrats (progressive-liberal), and half are Democratic Left. It would be rather obnoxious of me to think that I had the right to ask those on the Democratic Left to always vote for registered Democrats, and ignore the non-democrats that they back. One hand washes the other.

[L0oniX]

86. Loyalty to the oligarchy to win elections. OZ ...uhm ...err ...Money has spoken.

[H2O Man]

206. Beautiful!

Thank you!

[democrank]

96. Now I just shake my head when I read negative posts here about the Democratic Party`s "left"

I`ve been a party activist for decades and can honestly say whenever I marched against a war, for civil rights, for women`s rights, for marriage equality, for workers` rights, for social and economic justice, most of the organizers and participants were "leftists" as defined by Democrats today. We used to be proud to stand up for unions and homeless people. We actually made a lot of noise about conditions that were unjust.....and (what many Democrats have forgotten) WE BROUGHT ABOUT A LOT OF REAL CHANGE. It wasn`t the conservatives that brought about the end of the Vietnam War, and it wasn`t the centrists, any more than they were the ones to bring about the Civil Rights Movement.

Leftists, when they rally around a moral cause, don`t really care what the neighbor thinks. And, in my experience, they`re not really interested in a sell-out compromise.I don`t really know how we would have compromised on Blacks not being able to sit at the Woolworth`s counter.

Leftists probably wouldn`t have been very helpful in designing our torture program or in creating tax loopholes for millionaires and billionaires. We probably wouldn`t vote against helping struggling college students pay off student loans. Leftists do compromise. I`ve done it myself. But we definitely know the difference between compromise and sell-out.

There is no doubt that the dot representing the Democratic Party`s center has been moved quite some distance to the right. That`s why people who today take positions that used to be the party`s majority position are now called unicorn-loving Leftists. The answer to our country`s enormous problems is not to act like a "moderate" Republican. I`ll bet Democrats here at DU who are of a certain age know exactly what I`m talking about.

[haikugal]

148. THIS ^^^^^^^

I know, yes I do! Many of us know! Thank you for expressing this so well!

[H2O Man]

209. Yep!

That is as important a post as any ever on this forum.

[H2O Man]

208. I love this.

And I'm not just saying that -- I really do absolutely love your response here!

I think that you have nailed an important point that I didn't give as much attention to in the OP as I should have. If we look back at McGovern's campaign, for example, it was largely composed of activists. McGovern certainly attracted a lot of other support in the primaries -- I'm sure that you remember when he started targeting bowling alleys during the period where he came from behind to take the lead.

But by the time of the Convention, other activists threw their support behind McGovern. Maybe the most important group, in my mind, were those who had supporter Shirley Chisholm. What a beautiful, powerful lady she was! And, unlike at any time before, there were what were known at the time as the women's lib and gay lib forces.

It's still sad to remember that influential people in the party, such as George Meany, turned on McGovern -- he became a Blue Meanie, quite literally, who openly supported Nixon. Meany was a prisoner of the lies and hatreds of his generation: he saw what was really the first national "Rainbow Coalition" as the enemy of labor, rather than democracy in action.

It's no coincidence, of course, that both examples of "anyone but ___" that I spoke of, were attacks on those who represented the rainbow.

[haikugal]

216. Ms Chisholm

Now there's a memory and as you say very powerful human being. We need more like her. The rainbow coalition! Absolutely! The notion that we didn't fight for representation in those days, that the Democratic Party was welcoming....erroneous at best. We had to fight for what we wanted, and fight we did!

[democrank]

97. Thank you so much for this, H20 Man

~PEACE~

[H2O Man]

211. Again, thank you!

I really hope that you add some more of your insight to this thread. It's much appreciated.

[Vinca]

104. A good post and I agree with most of it.

However . . . if I get in the booth on election day and have the choice of voting Cruz, Clinton or Sanders, I'll be casting my vote for Clinton unless something short of a miracle happens in this country between now and then. As much as I love Bernie . . . and I do . . . and as much as I dislike some of Hillary's positions, the damage a far rightie could do to this country supersedes my personal preferences.

[RiverLover]

110. You are assuming Hillary will be the Democratic nominee, the spin. /nt

[cascadiance]

138. And this also assumes that Sanders would run as an independent too...

I think that, based on what Sanders has said to this point, that if his running as an independent would increase the likelihood a Republican would get elected, that he wouldn't run as an independent. I think that if he runs it will be in the Democratic Party primaries.

If we had instant runoff voting, he'd stay independent, but he recognizes that our current system keeps making third parties "spoilers" in the big national races like president, instead of a real voice for change that they'd like to be.

[Vinca]

164. I agree with you.

My first choice is Bernie and second is Warren. Warren, of course, isn't running. Bernie - unlike Ralph Nader in 2000 - doesn't have an ego that compels him to run at all cost. He realizes that if he splits the vote we might have a President Ted Cruz. I'm currently reading Bernie's book about his 1996 campaign and he even reflects on voting for Bill Clinton even though he disagreed with him on just about everything because he knew the alternative would be completely hopeless in terms of making any progress for the country.

[Vinca]

162. I prefer Warren and I probably won't vote for Hillary in the primary, but yes . . .

that's what I assume. Wishing it otherwise won't make it so.

[H2O Man]

212. That's good.

I don't disagree with a thing you've said here. And I definitely appreciate your thoughtful, honest response. What you are saying is very important. Thanks!

[KamaAina]

122. And the ref calls a halt to the contest!

[H2O Man]

213. Ha!

Very good!


Getting closer to May 2nd. I love what I'm hearing from Floyd's camp. (One of my friends is working as a sparring partner; he says that "Floyd will beat the shit out of him.&quot

[KamaAina]

217. But not a punch thrown tonight

women's tournament killed FNF again AND Fox Sports One clayed out for some reason.

[Gregorian]

129. I think the most important change needed is the media.

We simply are not represented in the media, and this is a huge disadvantage, at best.

When the Fairness Doctrine was repealed, it was by design, and our playing field became less fair.

I see no alternative to our situation other than to create a major media platform from which the true left can be heard. One which will also educate those who are moderate to conservative, in order to keep them aligned with the party.

I fear that we're literally locked out from accomplishing this. The situation is so entrenched, we may be forever out in the cold, looking in at someone else's party.

We don't really have good communication, in this sense. And this is much of what is leading us into such close races.


Edit- In fact, it even goes further than party politics per se: Both climate scientists, and groups like the MAHB at Stanford university, headed by Dr. Paul Ehrlich, have admitted to pleading with the media for air time, only to be rejected. We literally face global instability over this lack of representation in the media.

[cascadiance]

144. I saw this starting back in the 80's when I worked in local television news operations...

It was "little things" then like:

1) the sales department putting a lot of pressure on our news producers to select news stories to air on late night news shows that have more to do with the nature of the content of the shows that preceded them on the station's channel, rather than those stories just being selected on their relative news value. Obviously this was done to help increase news broadcast ratings for bigger ad revenue then, but it was things like this I'm sure that started in many parts of the country that over time made our news more in to infotainment than being a public service for news.

2) those working in these environments were largely underpaid, or had a lot of staffing from unpaid interns. Since there was just a small number of companies owning the news outlets such as news, radio, and newspaper in that city (basically two companies), there was a "gentleman's agreement" that these two companies wouldn't report on each others' internal labor or other similar issues, that allowed for some mass firings that weren't reported when efforts to organize labor happened in those days. You had some of the engineering people organized in unions that had already been put in place and were hard to keep from happening (SMPTE, etc.) before the 80's, but other workers weren't so fortunate. I recall a good friend of mine that worked as a weekend reporter not making much more than I was and we were both close to minimum wage in those days, and he was very good at keeping a straight face at reporting on other company labor disputes dressed in a suit while they were unhappy with wages that were a lot more than he was getting. Keep that in mind when seeing many reporters today that perhaps are dealing with similar circumstances out there. Many would be more on our side and speaking more for us and unions today, if their circumstances weren't like this too, which in a shrinking oligopoly of companies controlling our media is far worse now than it was then. There were some then that defied these barriers, and still fought to be good and more vocal reporters, but those workers are a lost breed today and have largely been forced out.

These were big reasons that I got a second technical degree while working there then, and quickly got a new job while doing so that made more money than many of my managers were making then. People in media shouldn't be forced to switch careers though to be treated fairly.

[Gregorian]

158. Greg Palast is doing it on a shoestring. Even with the money, can we build a liberal media?

The emphasis has to be on steering America in the direction of it's ideals. We know this requires far more effort than stenography, or even worse, propaganda.

I often wonder where the big money on the left is. I fear that even with the billions that it would take in order to match the impressive flash of FOX disinformation, there isn't room in the bandwidth. That can't be true, as we have Amy Goodman and Democracy Now, but they appear to be so insignificant in their presence as to be inconsequential. Of course that's not true, but it isn't as though one can open a beer after work, flip on the tv, and see Naom Chomsky discussing labor issues at 5pm.

So I ask myself why one guy with a golden microphone can have done so much damage to our country. This is what we're up against: a play on the psychology of the human being that tends to believe those who are critical of the truth versus the actual truth. In other words, we have an uphill battle to begin with. And I believe that is why this is a bigger problem than most people even realize. Rush Limbaugh can, through his shrewd method, tear the truth down, without our ability to restore it.

On the other hand, it didn't take much money to get Bush's Texas National Air Guard records. But when the monster media discredited it, we were left without much of a voice in which to fight back.

I swear if I make enough money, Greg Palast will see some of it. And I'm very close to having that happen. But we've got an empire to build, and it's very late.

[cascadiance]

159. We need to focus on our money on efforts to get money OUT of politics!

Even Oregon, who used increased voter turnout from vote by mail, etc. was helped heavily by big money at the last minute when billionaires Bloomberg and Steyer really helped my current senator Chuck Riley and Sarah Gelser gain seats from the Republicans to tip the balance of the State Senate from evenly divided to clearly a Democratic majority.

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/11/oregon_democrats_billionaire_f.html

Note that this editorial from conservative Oregonian newspaper that also supported prop 90, which went down worse than even the prop that was looking to give undocumented workers driving licenses, was trying to make it sound that the Democrats were hypocritical in supporting money for their own candidates for the Senate but against what was proposed in measure 90 (Top Two Primary).

I'm sure that the Oregonian just loves the added revenue they'd get from increased campaign spending through ads that would have been a lot more had measure 90 passed, which would have sought to destroy political parties for big money, but of course that sentiment won't be reflected in their editorial opinions such as this one. Oil billionaires and Bloomberg both contributed to that measure that went down heavily. I participated a lot in the online dialogues on this prop and I think collectively many of us who did comment from both major parties and third parties all spoke in a hopeful and united voice against this attempt to put in to law the ability to buy our elections here that much more, that has already screwed up California and state of Washington elections, where many are unhappy with the results of what was originally sold falsely as primarily trying to help independents get the right to vote in the primary elections.

I'm glad that Bloomberg's money worked in the state senate elections, but not in measure 90, but the message we can take from this is that we really shouldn't count on money being spent by "nice billionaires" to always work in our favor and be any kind of balancing factor to those that use their campaign spending against us. The bottom line is that we really need public campaign financing and instant runoff voting to get money out of our system.

I think how measure 90 was ultimately debated and shut down despite a lot of campaign spending on it, that it represents a lot of hope for us that at some point we can even work with many independents and Republicans on certain fundamental issues like overturning Citizens United and other fundamental issues that can fix our democracy, so that we can have a more democratic process down the road to sort out our differences in an honest fashion that represents all of our opinions and wishes, rather than just those of the few with a lot of money.

[Gregorian]

166. And I again see the media as playing a role in educating people to even see this.

Public financing of elections is crucial.

Remember when impeachment was "off the table"? Not only that, but it seemed like a remote possibility that anything would come of it if it had been on the table. But the way I see that is that had the American people known the truth of the situation, there would have been no stopping it. Congress isn't afraid of us because we're so equally divided. Or so it seems. I think it all comes down to educating the public, from multiple avenues, but primarily from what we see in print and on tv. We just don't have much of a presence. And all of what we're talking about comes back to greed. Even the Constitution and the Civil war boil down to that, in my opinion. We're trying to live up to an ideal that is continually in peril from those who have power. But like H2Oman said in his piece, we're unbeatable when undivided.

I still remember the two guys on this forum who were trying so hard to get their Take Back The Media website to grow, back in the early 2000's. I always thought they had nailed it. From there comes the solidification in order to solidify us as a group who can then demand public election funding, less military spending, real health care, independence from fossil fuels, better schools...

I feel like I'm dreaming again. Can it really happen? Are we too far down the path of dysfunction and ignorance? I don't think so, as evidenced by Oregon voters, and those who know what really happened during the Bush years.

[cascadiance]

175. Yes, we need to strategically do public campaign financing right. It isn't well understood yet!

I've seen efforts to try and get it pushed even through local ballot measures fail, because people just look at it (by direction of the media and other money people of course) as more "wasteful spending". What they don't realize until you ask them to think about it, is that they should ask themselves the question of why there would be so much "wasteful" campaign spending by private parties on our election, if they didn't expect to get MORE money and favors providing them more equivalent money and power back. The money we would put aside with public campaign financing would be a lot less than what politicians ultimately give back in terms of power and money to those who "contribute" (give BRIBES to) their campaigns! Ultimately we waste a lot more money and take away more power from our lives by not having a way to have campaigns paid for by means that doesn't corrupt the system.

It was sad for me to see just two days ago a local resolution to put in place public campaign financing in our local county democratic party meeting. Now, part of it was that I think the resolution could have been better written. Because we need to at this time be careful not to make it a REQUIREMENT to have all candidates be restricted from spending their own money or other donors' money without a choice of whether you are in the public campaign financing program. Because the opponents are right that the Supreme Court would overturn that in a day with their notions that "money is free speech". We already have to find ways of creatively working around the present SCOTUS decisions to take away the matching fund rules that Arizona had in its public campaign financing system some years back that really limits publicly financed candidates against well financed candidates that are privately financed.

I think we really need to seek out those events where communities come together and work against the corporate oligarchy that can, if we publicize them in a strategic way, seek to unite us in different parties on important issues, and not use other issues that have been amplified in our environment to divide us.

That's why I think Elizabeth Warren really needs to run. I think she's been very strategically smart in focusing on the huge issues of banking industry and other corporate influence accountability and others like student loan debt, that I really thinks is a huge bipartisan issue that is unrealized yet as being such because the media intentionally avoids talking about it with its ownership and lack of regulatory bodies today. She's also been smart to not focus too heavily on social issues, so that she can't be pigeon holed on one side and have opposition focusing on those issues rather than ones that she can appeal to the masses on. Much as I love Sanders and would love him as president, I think that he would be too vulnerable with his stances on many issues to getting slammed by a focused corporate media attack.

I think that ultimately that Elizabeth Warren will support many of the social issue stances we have too, but I think most important is that she supports a system where nation is all allowed to speak on these issues, and that it supports inherent rights to NATURAL persons that our constitution supports as well, which I think ultimately a majority of reasonable Americans (right or left or in the middle) really want to happen.

I think we must keep dreaming, and we can't give up hope either. If we do, we lose our democracy. We just need to work and look hard for ways to find and support paths to the future that we want.

[Gregorian]

202. All of this comes down to equality.

In the most general way, I see all of these issues as being about equal rights and equal ability to be heard. Whether it's marriage related, or having a presence in the media, or voting related, the system ideally was intended to give us somewhat equal representation. Money has skewed the system in such a way that too many citizens are disenfranchised. Bush v. Gore was the epitome of that.

I think that's the selling point. If the scales were tilted by money coming from liberal billionaires, the right would be just as unhappy as we are. And in fact, that could happen. I would bet many Republicans would be in favor of equality, as long as it doesn't offend their ideological beliefs. So maybe same sex marriage isn't something they would support, but election reforms may be. And from that we could begin to turn things around. The fight has been the same from the very beginning, and it's very much one that revolves around money.

One other thought is that we could perhaps use better marketing to try and bridge the gaps between left and right. They have spent billions on their think tanks. We expect the truth to speak for itself, as it should. We're in a precarious place now, and I hope people take this more seriously than it seems we have been doing. They destroyed Dukakis and Dean on simple image oriented things. But again, that was with the aid of the media.

It's a strange situation. Sanders is great, but I can tell that his level of emotion would repel many. I happen to share his sentiments fully. But he's another who could be shot down like Dean and Dukakis, I'm afraid.

It's complicated, isn't it?

[H2O Man]

214. someone once said

that you could fill a great library with the things the media ignores. (Okay -- I think someone said this. And if they didn't, they should have.)

There are definitely serious problems with the media. You are absolutely right about that. At a time when large corporations have undue influence on both government and the mass media, those problems pose a significant threat to our constitutional democracy.

In my opinion, part of the answer to this is the internet. It's kind of similar to the printing press -- not every book or newspaper has been of positive value ....but if one looks, they can find the most important information required to be informed.

On my father's side, we had generations of "hedge masters" in Ireland. They didn't have school buildings, but they taught classes. At its best, DU is a modern hedge school.

[Gregorian]

253. As great a potential as the internet has, it requires effort.

The internet has a problem in that one must first have the notion of what to look for, and then to look for it. Of course they could just go to one of the big websites, and then look at the news, or discussion. Maybe I underestimate the intelligence and ability of typical Americans. But I don't think many people really share not only our enthusiasm, but our proactive mentality. My experience is that most people are not willing to take the effort to make their lives much more than a lower quality existence. And after a day at work, I can't blame them too much. We're not talking about Fox viewers, but those moderate to conservative Democrats. The man who mills up my lumber sits with his headphones on while listening to Democracy Now. I love it. But he's the exception. I know my thinking is outdated, but so are the habits of most people, who are not going to come home, go into a back room, or wherever, and flip on a computer and search for their news.

I think the old model of turning on Cronkite at five is still extremely important. We do have Maddow and others, but they are tempered by their sponsors. I also know that the others like The Young Turks, are not tempered. So now I sound like I'm talking in contradictions. So maybe I should back up and ask why the conservative Dems are conservative to the point where, for example, they voted for Reagan. After all, that was during a time when we still had news. My father voted for Reagan because he "sounded" so caring. I saw through it. I didn't vote for him. But my dad is not conservative. Did we really know who Reagan was? I wasn't paying attention when he was governor of California. I don't know if there were signs that he would turn the country into a shambles.

Also, I don't think people realize that we don't just vote at the ballot box: we vote with the actions we take on a daily basis. When you use fossil fuel, you are voting. At least we're setting the potential for what is to come. Watch the Wages of Fear if you want to see a fantastic foreign film that shows some of the early scenes behind the oil production. It's drama, but the sentiment is there. People are dispensable when it comes to our need for that energy supply. And it's the same today. We can talk about Bush all we want, but we are the ones doing the consuming. These are the things that could be discussed on a news channel. Not just who and what the politicians are. Our personal behavior has driven policy to a large extent. Did we ever need sugar? Not that much.

I've dreamed of the day when I saw things on tv that revolved around how we can change the quality of our country/world by altering our own behavior. I have always seen this as the heart of the difference between the liberal and conservative. And this is what I meant by Reagan seeming to care. He sounded like a careful man. In fact, when I mentioned how we can change our future through our personal actions, I literally mean by being more conservative, in the real sense. It's pretty well known that Americans are not known for their conservative behavior. And Reagan isn't the only one who has attracted liberals through what seemed like a good type of conservatism, or caring attitude. Nothing could have been further from the truth. When I see people voting against their best interest, I think of ways in which we can inform them as to who these people are. And that takes real journalistic effort. That takes snooping and traveling just like Palast does. And I think that in order to do that, it cannot be sustained under the context of a profitable business model. This is something that must come from desire for a better country. The internet seems perfect for this. And we've seen a number of sites flourish. So why are there still conservative Democrats? I believe we need to compete on the airwaves as well, if not primarily. After all, look at the power Fox wields. They know it works.

It's a beautiful Saturday morning. I've got to hike out to a part of my property to clean up the limbs I've cut on some trees. I hope this makes sense. I hope there's truth to it.

[wyldwolf]

143. I'm curious why you started with 1964

Why not the quixotic campaign of Henry Wallace in 1948?

Why not the left's disdain for JFK in '60 - where there was a threat to (try and ) draft Adlai E. Stevenson from the convention floor? And then another near-revolt over Kennedy's selection of LBJ?

You wrote a similar OP back in 2008 and then, as now, you overlook the real campaign and election events to make your point. Take the 1980 election, for example.

As you wrote 7 years ago, Kennedy sought to take advantage of Carter's turmoil, believing it to be his "best chance at winning the presidency." Interesting, Kennedy still was not able to defeat an unpopular opponent.

But Kennedy had every right to run but his (and his supporter's) behavior at the convention was shameful.

1. Kennedy tried to get delegates released from their voting commitment to Carter.
2. Kennedy supporters openly harassed Carter's supporters on the convention floor with their "go home boll weevils" mantra. (a derogatory term for southern Democrats)
3. Kennedy would not raise Carter's hand in victory. There was national TV coverage of Carter almost chasing Kennedy around the stage just to shake his hand!

This was the biggest display of being a sore loser most will ever see in a presidential election. An attempt to change the rules, supporter intimidation, and the shunning of the nominee on national television at a national party convention.

There's a pattern of the left not accepting the will of the Democratic voting electorate. And it's displayed on DU daily with the complete denial of some that, yes, Hillary Clinton IS the leading candidate for the nomination.

Our party history has MANY examples of the left undermining the nominee. No amount of sugarcoating will change that.

[H2O Man]

168. Although I'm trying

to answer the responses to the OP in order (more or less), I want to respond to your's "out of order." Although there have been issues where we disagree, past and present, I have a lot of respect for your intellect, and ability to communicate your beliefs.

Why did I decide upon 50 years? Several reasons. First, it covers a period that I thought would be of interest, not only to older DUers, but younger folks as well. Second, simply for the reason that I tend to go on and on and on -- generally on topics that I find fascinating, but that have far less appeal to the DU:GD community. The lady who often serves as my editor constantly "suggests" that I attempt to focus on smaller, more concise issues. Thus, the reason(s) I opted for 50 years should be coming into focus.

However, for the sake of an accurate record, I have indeed posted similar essays here in the past, including 2008. I am a life-long registered Democrat, and proud member of the Democratic Left. Hence, everything I post on DU is coming from that context. It would be strange, I think you will agree, if I attempted to speak for moderate-to-conservative Democrats, much less republicans.

Numerous times -- though I admittedly haven't kept count -- I've expressed consistently my opinion that: [1] Jimmy Carter is a great ex-president, though I thought he was a flawed President; and [2] that I think Ted Kennedy ranks high among the greatest of US Senators, though I'm glad he never became President (I do not think he would have been very good in that position). I understand why Kennedy ran in the 1980 primaries, though I have no strong beliefs as to if it were a good or bad thing. Of that general time span, I think that Ed Muskie might well have been most capable in the White House. I admit to not being 100% objective on this, as I had opportunity to meet with him in the mid-1970s, and found him extremely impressive.

As to earlier history, I believe it is fair to say that I have, over the years, wrote extensively about a heck of a lot of the political issues, the politicians, and their impact on society. Indeed, I think that the reason that this OP has had a rather positive response, is that people here know that I'm a fair advocate for a progressive view of socio-political history. At the same time, I'm fully aware that another group of DUers find me an obnoxious jackass. That's fine with me.

[MFrohike]

219. Interesting

Of the examples you cited, only Wallace is worth considering. The Stevenson rally was a joke. Bobby rolled his eyes when it happened because he knew it didn't matter. The only result was that JFK backtracked on his vague promise to make Stevenson Secretary of State. Put the word backtracked in air quotes because all Kennedy said was, "I don't think any Democratic president wouldn't have him as Secretary of State."

Ted Kennedy's lunge at the nomination was, as polite as I can say it, incompetent and sad. He couldn't answer the question of why he wanted to be president. That's more or less the key question to be answered and he couldn't do it. Was it a factor in Carter's defeat? Unlikely. The millions of moderate and conservative Democrats who voted for Reagan were unlikely to be influenced, even negatively, by the fumblings of Ted. Reagan explicitly repudiated Carter's "let's be grownups" stance about Vietnam and energy by campaigning on American exceptionalism and pretending that real problems didn't exist. That kind of campaign was extremely hard for a man like Carter to combat.

Wallace, though, is an interesting case. Also interesting is the other Democrat who bolted the party to run for president that year, Strom Thurmond. Ultimately, Truman would pull off the win in probably the most unbelievable fashion in American history. The south broke and Dewey won NY, NJ, MI, IL, and PA. Wallace, on the other hand, won no states. In fact, Thurmond won more votes overall than Wallace as well. Yet, Truman managed to win with an electoral map that looks more like Bush's than Obama's.

The Wallace break was a true break of part of the left, though not nearly all of it. It was, oddly enough, over foreign policy. Usually, foreign policy is little more than a hype factor for lazy historians, but it actually mattered in 48. Wallace opposed the Cold War and a little over 1.1m voters agreed with him. Now, there doesn't appear to be a breakdown of exactly how many Democrats actually voted for him. Given the paltry amount of votes he got, you have to wonder how much of the non-Democratic left supported him.

I don't dispute the idea that "the left" has, on occasion, broken with, or hampered, the Democratic party during an election. I do dispute the idea that it's ever been consequential. If the Wallace run wasn't enough to elect Dewey, a man who came off decidedly moderate to much of the country, then I have to wonder what kind of damage your other examples did? It's not like Ted or Adlai can be blamed for losing states (though Adlai would have been blamed for Texas had LBJ not pulled it off). Wallace could be potentially blamed for losing two states, NY the most notable, because his vote total was more than Dewey's margin of victory in those states. Of course, you'd need to show that Truman would have taken all of those votes absent Wallace, which would be a hard case to make in Dewey's home state of NY. Maryland might be a stronger case, though one wonders about the potential effect of the unmentioned Hubert Humphrey, the actual cause of the Thurmond campaign.

For all that I've written, I have to note that you've made no mention of the repeated breaks of the right against the party. I see no mention of 1920, 1924, 1928, 1936, 1940, 1944, 1948, 1952, 1956, 1960, 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012. The Democratic party is 9-12 in the elections I cited. 12 times the right has broken with the party and the party failed to gain the White House. With that kind of track record, I have to wonder why you've chosen to harp on the left side of the party when the right's breaks have been decisively disastrous for the party and the country. Take a look at who they elected. Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, Ike (over-romanticised and misunderstood), Nixon, Reagan, and GWB. That's a hell of a track record.

[wyldwolf]

235. Interesting as well.

Of the examples you cited, only Wallace is worth considering. The Stevenson rally was a joke. Bobby rolled his eyes when it happened because he knew it didn't matter. The only result was that JFK backtracked on his vague promise to make Stevenson Secretary of State. Put the word backtracked in air quotes because all Kennedy said was, "I don't think any Democratic president wouldn't have him as Secretary of State."

Well, I won't speculate why RFK "rolled his eyes." Often when boxers are hurt, they over-compensate by smiling and telling the crowd 'no way this bum can hurt me.' But a "draft anyone" action from the ADA during that time period certainly wasn't irrelevant. It would be like The Congressional Black Caucus today or the DLC in the 90s starting a 'draft someone' movement at a convention. It's attention getting, the aim and goal is real and those types of organizations - both then and now - have real influence on their adherants. I'd say the ADA more so. And Stevenson was a popular Democrat.

Ted Kennedy's lunge at the nomination was, as polite as I can say it, incompetent and sad. Was it a factor in Carter's defeat? Unlikely.

Convention fights have often been followed by losses for the nominee in the general. The 1980 convention for Democrats — as well as a fight in 1968, and one in 1976 for Republicans — all suggest that a primary carried through the summer can contribute to defeat in November. But did for it for Carter? Yeah, in fact it was a factor in Carter's defeat. The rule Kennedy wanted changed was one binding delegates to vote on the first ballot for the candidate they originally were elected to support. Kennedy did not succeed. Historian Michael Beschloss stated in an interview with PBS that this "caused a lot of Kennedy supporters to sit on their hands that fall."

Would Carter have still lost? More than likely. Did Kennedy's actions make the party look weak and unified? Yes.

Wallace, though, is an interesting case. Also interesting is the other Democrat who bolted the party to run for president that year, Strom Thurmond. Ultimately, Truman would pull off the win in probably the most unbelievable fashion in American history. The south broke and Dewey won NY, NJ, MI, IL, and PA. Wallace, on the other hand, won no states. In fact, Thurmond won more votes overall than Wallace as well.

Thurmond's success at garnering electoral votes in '48 were a result of Truman not being placed on the ballot in Alabama. In the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina, the 'Dixiecrats' were able to be labeled as the main Democratic Party ticket on the local ballots on election night. Only in those states in which Thurmond ran under the standard Democratic Party label did he win. Wallace's votes were garnered without any ballot tinkering.

If the Wallace run wasn't enough to elect Dewey, a man who came off decidedly moderate to much of the country, then I have to wonder what kind of damage your other examples did?

Dewey lost because much of his supporters thought the election was their's (he had leads in the polls) and didn't bother to show up to vote. Rutger University's Eagleton Institute of Politics:

Ironically, the polls themselves may have helped Truman's late surge to overcome Dewey when press reports of their surveys showing Dewey ahead energized the Democrats to mount late efforts to increase turnout, and made the Republicans over-confident of any need to get their own voters to the polls.

https://web.archive.org/web/20080304133623/http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-1948election.htm

One estimate was 2 - 3 million Republicans stayed home due to overconfidence. Every poll showed a blowout for Dewey.

I have to note that you've made no mention of the repeated breaks of the right against the party. I see no mention of 1920, 1924, 1928, 1936, 1940, 1944, 1948, 1952, 1956, 1960, 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012.

You'll have to be specific here. I'm not aware of any third party runs from the right OR conservative breaks with the Democratic party's nominee in any of those years.

1920 - you mean the election year when combined tickets from the left garnered almost 1.5 million votes?
Eugene Debs, Seymour Stedman, Socialist 913,693 votes
Parley Christiansen, Maximilian Hayes, Farmer-Labor 265,398 votes

1924 when racist John W. Davis won as a compromise candidate following a convention battle between front-runners William Gibbs McAdoo and Al Smith? Davis didn't break from the party. He won the nomination through the rules of the party. A pathetic nominee to sure but the only challenge of consequence came from the left - Robert La Follette & Burton Wheeler, the Progressive ticket, got 4,831,706 million votes, 16.61% of the total.

1928

1936 - again, two separate tickets from the left, a Union ticket and a socialist ticket, were the only ones that made any electoral blip.

1940 - Again, no challenge to FDR from the right. Conservative factions weren't pleased he ran for a third term but there was no convention floor challege or third party conservative break against him that I'm aware of of.

In fact, I'd rather you tell me your basis for these election years in saying there were 'breaks from the right.'

[MFrohike]

255. In short

Harping on Stevenson is like harping on Gennifer Flowers. Well, except for the fact that Gennifer Flowers was marginally more relevant in that she was the first hint of a pattern of conduct. As for the electoral result? Not so much. The ADA, for all the hype, was a better target for Republicans than it ever was some kind of power base for the left. As I recall, LBJ used to refer to Humphrey's friends as "those ADA bomb throwers." They were a lot of flash, but not much fire. It's akin to harping on the Third Way group these days. That group is largely irrelevant, though its alumni and ideas aren't.

Actually, Bobby may have rolled his eyes (that was a bit of license on my part). What he said was something like, "they can yell and scream all they want, they don't have the votes." The whole exercise is NEVER mentioned in analyses of that election. It's only mentioned as a historical oddity and then forgotten. If you want to mention incidents that actually affected that election, you could mention the TV debates, Daley's slow counting on election night, or the Adolphus Hotel incident.

For what it's worth, and one always has to wonder with this source, Wikipedia lists eight of the founding members of the ADA. Three of them, off the top of my head, definitely did not break against Kennedy from the left. Galbraith and Schlesinger were on his team and Humphrey was backing Johnson. I'm not sure you can really say the ADA itself broke against Kennedy at the convention when at least 3 founding members were committed to either him or his soon-to-be running mate.

Thurmond broke from the national party and the sitting president. How he was labeled at the time is irrelevant for our purposes, because, as I recall, his actual party was the States' Rights Party and he was listed as a fusion candidate. Wow, that prior sentence is badly constructed, but I'm feeling a bit lazy. There was no confusion as to which party Strom represented because everybody in the south knew about Humphrey's speech at the convention and the resulting civil rights plank. The people at the time treated it as a break, so I see no reason why we shouldn't.

Thanks for the cite on Dewey. It only reinforces my point that Wallace was irrelevant. Using your evidence, 48 was close because Dewey's voters didn't show up, not because Wallace was worth more, electorally, than a fart in a thunderstorm. Presumably, had his voters showed up, we wouldn't even be able to point to the margin in NY being covered by Wallace because it would be even bigger. Given that Wallace didn't come close to taking electoral votes in a close election, how much more ineffectual would he have been if Dewey's people had showed?

With most of those elections, I wasn't limiting myself to third-party runs anymore than you did. I was observing the years where the effort put in to elect the nominee was far less than winning years, years where there was significant support from right-wing Democrats for the Republican (or sitting out the election), and third-party years. I'll go down the list below.

1920 - Half-assed effort on the part of the national party. Cox won approximately the same amount of popular votes as Wilson 4 years earlier, but managed to lose by about 7 million votes. He took only the south, excepting Tennessee. Given the dramatically higher vote total for this election compared to just 4 years prior, it's a pretty strong indication that the right was voting for Harding.

1924 & 1928 - I was specifically referring to the bigotry against Al Smith. Now, it's kind of funny that Smith, a future critic of FDR from the right, would suffer from this, but there was a campaign waged against him, within the party itself, in areas where anti-Catholicism was strong. Given this, it would be odd that he managed to carry the entire south and Oklahoma if you don't consider the tacit agreement between the southern elites and their Catholic allies in the north to deliver electoral votes in exchange for not asking questions about what would be called civil rights.

1936 - I shouldn't have included this. Oops.

1940 & 1944 - The reference is to the declining victory margins of FDR. He hit his highwater mark in 1936, which is why it was dumb of me to mention to 1936, but was down to 53.4% in 1944. He was clearly being abandoned by some of the electorate, partly due to the third and fourth term issue. While it's possible it could have been defections from the left, as the elder La Follette and Wheeler of Montana had planned in 1936, it's far more likely that it was defections from the right. The federal government took over the economy in WW2. The first, limited civil rights rules were put into place and there was strict rationing. In a fight with Hitler, I find it far more likely that the right would whine over the necessary actions to beat him than the left.

1948 - We've covered it.

1952 - Price Daniel of Texas comes to mind. He was the engineer of the split in the Texas Democratic party. His faction actually endorsed Ike. Johnson and Rayburn would cobble together what was left after the split, but they couldn't deliver the state for Adlai, mostly due to Adlai's own positions on state ownership of offshore oil and gas.

1956 - Same deal.

1960 - Rabid anti-Catholicism throughout the country made more than a few elections close that wouldn't have been otherwise. In fact, the south nearly broke against Kennedy because he was seen as a socialist (as well as taking orders from Rome). It was the Adolphus Hotel incident and the remaining strength of southern party bosses that delivered the necessary votes for Kennedy-Johnson.

1964 - The solid South broke over civil rights. I don't know of a better example of the right turning against the Democratic nominee except for 1948.

1968 - Widespread support for George Wallace around the country. John Connally, Democratic governor of Texas, was accused of covertly helping Nixon in Texas. The support would have been covert because he publicly endorsed Humphrey, likely in part because Humphrey was Johnson's man (Connally had been a Johnson man since the 30s). The accusations are probably correct, given Connally's endorsement of Nixon in the next election and his service in Nixon's cabinet. I could mention the convention and Mayor Daley, but that might turn out to be a wash for our arguments if one considers also the anti-Democratic left present in the Chicago streets.

1972 - The worst ass-whooping in American history. We'll put aside Connally campaigning and fundraising for Nixon. The margin of the vote alone is a strong indication that the right deserted McGovern. The size of Nixon's victory is pretty clear evidence.

1980 - Boll Weevils, Reagan Democrats, etc. I find it unlikely, though always possible, that Ted's run had any influence on them except to confirm that they were to right to support Saint Ron.

1984 - Again, I'm relying on the margin of victory. Huge wins for the right come close to prima facie evidence of right-wing desertion.

1988 - 4 more years of Reagan? Really? More grist for my mill.

1992 - Perot. Nuff said.

1996 - A bit of Perot, but the real point I wanted to make was Clinton's two wins were both with less than 50% of the popular vote. It's a safe bet to assume damn few liberals or further left were voting for Dole or Perot, so that begs us to ask, who was?

2000 - Those 200k Democratic GWB voters in Florida come to mind.

2004 - The worst president in American history, except for maybe James Buchanan, is re-elected? How many Democrats voted for Bush because they were scared of the boogeyman? Given the margin, it had to be more than a few.

2008 - I was thinking of Joe Lieberman and more than a few racists who wouldn't vote for the big, bad black man. This one is kind of funny in a very sad way, because so many of them are so insistent that he's a socialist when it's clear that he's at least right of center. It's like a replay of Al Smith except that Smith wasn't lucky enough to follow maybe the worst president in American history.

2012 - Similar, but not the same. Without getting into it, the administration's policies have provoked a lot of discussion (how's that for a neutral phrase!). There's been no notable third party challenge from the left. That's not to disparage the Greens, it's just an observation that 470k votes in a presidential election is a rounding error. With no third party challenge and a declining vote total, it does seem quite likely that it was the right that defected to Rmoney. I wouldn't be surprised if a liberal or two voted for Rmoney, if for no better reason than to be contrarian, but it seems likely that it was a lot more than a right-winger or two that broke from Obama for Romney.


Now, I'll freely admit, in the effort to save us both time and effort, that not all of the years I've mentioned have definitive proof. Well, not in the same way as a Texas governor campaigning for the other party has. That being said, most of those years can be viewed as the right wing of the party deserting to the GOP when you look at the vote totals. For all the left is accused of losing elections by drawing comparisons between the two major parties, it seems fairly clear that the right definitely sees a difference.

Edit - Sorry for the length, man. I just posted it and had a holy shit moment.

Second edit - The title of this post is hilarious. I really didn't mean to go this long.

[wyldwolf]

268. In long.

Harping on Stevenson is like harping on Gennifer Flowers. Well, except for the fact that Gennifer Flowers was marginally more relevant in that she was the first hint of a pattern of conduct.

An interesting turn for you - attacking Bill Clinton AND downplaying Stevenson's popularity in the 1950s. Interesting AND an irrelevant point.

As for the electoral result? Not so much. The ADA, for all the hype, was a better target for Republicans than it ever was some kind of power base for the left. As I recall, LBJ used to refer to Humphrey's friends as "those ADA bomb throwers." They were a lot of flash, but not much fire. It's akin to harping on the Third Way group these days. That group is largely irrelevant, though its alumni and ideas aren't.

And JFK hated Liberals. That still doesn't detract from the power base of the ADA.

Actually, Bobby may have rolled his eyes (that was a bit of license on my part). What he said was something like, "they can yell and scream all they want, they don't have the votes."

Which doesn't detract from the point that a progressive power base tried to usurp the (very likely) Democratic nominee, giving the impression again, as they had before and would again, that they couldn't accept the will of the primary voters.

The whole exercise is NEVER mentioned in analyses of that election.

I read it in every analysis of the 1960 election I read. I mean, just the fact Eugene McCarthy gave a Stevenson nominating speech is enough to save the event being a historical 'curiosity.' Here's an account from someone who was there as a foot soldier for the 'draft Stevenson' movement:

https://progressivehistorians.wordpress.com/2007/10/06/eugene-mccarthys-1960-nomination-speech-for-adlai-stevenson-presages-draft-gore-2008/

A quick Google search turns up many references, including a piece that details how Stevenson planned to go back on his word to not seek the 1960 nomination via a draft movement:

http://www.gwu.edu/~erpapers/mep/displaydoc.cfm?docid=erpn-adlste
http://scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1284&context=honors-theses

For what it's worth, and one always has to wonder with this source, Wikipedia lists eight of the founding members of the ADA. Three of them, off the top of my head, definitely did not break against Kennedy from the left. Galbraith and Schlesinger were on his team and Humphrey was backing Johnson. I'm not sure you can really say the ADA itself broke against Kennedy at the convention when at least 3 founding members were committed to either him or his soon-to-be running mate.

The ADA was a national independent organization certainly not dependent on several top leaders to give them marching orders. Eleanor Roosevelt supported Stevenson's draft and was deeply disappointed when it did not work. Schlesinger's support of Kennedy caused a lot of consternation to Stevenson loyalists. At the time, however, Kennedy was an active candidate while Stevenson refused to run unless he was drafted.

The ADA waited a full month after Kennedy was nominated to endorse him but still refused to endorse Johnson.

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1960/08/28/page/6/article/a-d-a-backs-kennedy/index.html

Interestingly enough, the ADA endorse Wallace and Stevenson two times before their respective nominations to their party's ticket.

Thurmond broke from the national party and the sitting president. How he was labeled at the time is irrelevant for our purposes, because, as I recall, his actual party was the States' Rights Party and he was listed as a fusion candidate. Wow, that prior sentence is badly constructed, but I'm feeling a bit lazy. There was no confusion as to which party Strom represented because everybody in the south knew about Humphrey's speech at the convention and the resulting civil rights plank. The people at the time treated it as a break, so I see no reason why we shouldn't.

No one has said we shouldn't treat it as 'a break.' I just told you the ballot tricks Thurmond pulled to give him actual electoral votes.

Thanks for the cite on Dewey. It only reinforces my point that Wallace was irrelevant. Using your evidence, 48 was close because Dewey's voters didn't show up, not because Wallace was worth more, electorally, than a fart in a thunderstorm.

Again, you're misquoting me and perhaps you've lost focus on what this discussion is about. I never said or implied Wallace was at all relevant from an electoral standpoint and in hindsight, only that he broke from the party on the left, something the OP 'overlooked' by starting his analysis in 1960. Of course, during the campaign Dewey looked to be a sure winner and every vote from the left was needed. Wallace siphoned some off and we're lucky Dewey's voters didn't show up at the polls in the numbers expected.

Truman certainly believed there was a danger in Wallace's run and he openly mocked him (and the ADA for that matter) when he belittled them for their lack of political wherewithal and chided them by saying "The greatest achievement was winning without the radicals in the party. I was happy to be elected by a Democratic party that did not depend upon either the left-wing or the southern bloc."

With most of those elections, I wasn't limiting myself to third-party runs anymore than you did. I was observing the years where the effort put in to elect the nominee was far less than winning years, years where there was significant support from right-wing Democrats for the Republican (or sitting out the election), and third-party years.

That's odd direction you've suddenly lurched to. Your original claim was "the repeated breaks of the right against the party." Now you're saying the party's ineptitude allowed conservatives to win the nomination based on party rules and procedures - as if they shouldn't have been allowed to.

1920 - Half-assed effort on the part of the national party. Cox won approximately the same amount of popular votes as Wilson 4 years earlier, but managed to lose by about 7 million votes.

Cox also got close to 150 electoral votes less than Wilson. Elections, as you and I both know, are not won by popular vote. It matters more WHERE you win than how much you win.

He took only the south, excepting Tennessee. Given the dramatically higher vote total for this election compared to just 4 years prior, it's a pretty strong indication that the right was voting for Harding.

This in no way points to a break of the right against the party. The south has long been a bastion of conservatives even in the early 20th century. By 1908, the south achieved widespread disenfranchisement by law as Southern state legislatures passed new constitutions, constitutional amendments, and laws that made voter registration and voting more difficult. This turn of events achieved the intended result of disenfranchising most of the black citizens, as well as many poor whites in the South. The Republican Party was nearly eliminated in the region for decades, until the late 20th century.

Woodrow Wilson won as a result of this black (Republican) disenfranchisement. Cox winning the south is pretty clear indication the right of the Democratic party broke for HIM, not Harding.

1924 & 1928 - I was specifically referring to the bigotry against Al Smith. Now, it's kind of funny that Smith, a future critic of FDR from the right, would suffer from this, but there was a campaign waged against him, within the party itself, in areas where anti-Catholicism was strong. Given this, it would be odd that he managed to carry the entire south and Oklahoma if you don't consider the tacit agreement between the southern elites and their Catholic allies in the north to deliver electoral votes in exchange for not asking questions about what would be called civil rights.

Who was Al Smith in 1924? Ah yes, a candidate in the primaries who lost within the rules and procedures of the Democratic party. There was no break against the party by the right.

1928? You just stated he carried the conservative bastion of the south - the right wing of the party voted for him.

1936 - I shouldn't have included this. Oops.

mm. k

1940 & 1944 - The reference is to the declining victory margins of FDR. He hit his highwater mark in 1936, which is why it was dumb of me to mention to 1936, but was down to 53.4% in 1944. He was clearly being abandoned by some of the electorate, partly due to the third and fourth term issue. While it's possible it could have been defections from the left, as the elder La Follette and Wheeler of Montana had planned in 1936, it's far more likely that it was defections from the right. The federal government took over the economy in WW2. The first, limited civil rights rules were put into place and there was strict rationing. In a fight with Hitler, I find it far more likely that the right would whine over the necessary actions to beat him than the left.

But FDR still won convincingly and there's no evidence it was because of some rightward shift of the Democratic party.

1948 - We've covered it.

We did.

1952 - Price Daniel of Texas comes to mind. He was the engineer of the split in the Texas Democratic party. His faction actually endorsed Ike. Johnson and Rayburn would cobble together what was left after the split, but they couldn't deliver the state for Adlai, mostly due to Adlai's own positions on state ownership of offshore oil and gas.

A sad event to be sure. Did we lose in 1952 because we didn't carry Texas? If Texas had gone "D" - it would have given us a 113 electoral vote total vs. Ike's 418. One half of a state's party endorsed Ike, a guy many on DU consider a progressive, anyway.

1956 - Same deal.

If you say so.

1960 - Rabid anti-Catholicism throughout the country made more than a few elections close that wouldn't have been otherwise. In fact, the south nearly broke against Kennedy because he was seen as a socialist (as well as taking orders from Rome). It was the Adolphus Hotel incident and the remaining strength of southern party bosses that delivered the necessary votes for Kennedy-Johnson.

But in the end, Kennedy won most of the South.

1964 - The solid South broke over civil rights. I don't know of a better example of the right turning against the Democratic nominee except for 1948.

Goldwater carried 5 southern states.

1968 - Widespread support for George Wallace around the country.

Wallace wasn't a Democrat in 1968.

John Connally, Democratic governor of Texas, was accused of covertly helping Nixon in Texas.

Yeah, a biographer claimed that even though Connally endorsed Humphrey and almost become his running mate. Nothing but conspiratorial hearsay.

The support would have been covert because he publicly endorsed Humphrey, likely in part because Humphrey was Johnson's man (Connally had been a Johnson man since the 30s). The accusations are probably correct, given Connally's endorsement of Nixon in the next election and his service in Nixon's cabinet. I could mention the convention and Mayor Daley, but that might turn out to be a wash for our arguments if one considers also the anti-Democratic left present in the Chicago streets.

Then let's just call '68 a draw, then.

1972 - The worst ass-whooping in American history. We'll put aside Connally campaigning and fundraising for Nixon. The margin of the vote alone is a strong indication that the right deserted McGovern. The size of Nixon's victory is pretty clear evidence.

It was the worst ass-whooping in American history because McGovern was a weak candidate. An argument could be made that the left broke from the party by nominating him. Though there is probably no evidence either way, I'd say Connolly had little to do Nixon winning. Nixon won because of a good economy and his handling of the war. He also appealed to Southern whites (but you know this.) However, he had a 23.2% margin of victory in the popular vote, the fourth largest margin in presidential election history. I doubt it was only Democratic right wingers that swung that election.

1980 - Boll Weevils, Reagan Democrats, etc. I find it unlikely, though always possible, that Ted's run had any influence on them except to confirm that they were to right to support Saint Ron.

Like I said earlier, Kennedy's actions gave the impression of a weak and un-unified party.

1984 - Again, I'm relying on the margin of victory. Huge wins for the right come close to prima facie evidence of right-wing desertion.

Again, unless the right wing in the party severely outnumbered liberals, the numbers don't add up that only Democratic right wingers defected to Reagan.

1988 - 4 more years of Reagan? Really? More grist for my mill.

Again, unless the right wing in the party severely outnumbered liberals, the numbers don't add up that only Democratic right wingers defected to Bush. Of course, his margin wasn't as big as Reagan's so SOMEONE came back to the D tent.

1992 - Perot. Nuff said.

Ross Perot siphoned votes from both parties. A detailed analysis of voting demographics revealed that Perot's support drew heavily from across the political spectrum, with 20% of his votes coming from self-described liberals, 27% from self-described conservatives, and 53% coming from self-described moderates. Economically, however, the majority of Perot voters (57%) were middle class, earning between $15,000 and $49,000 annually, with the bulk of the remainder drawing from the upper middle class (29% earning more than $50,000 annually). Exit polls also showed that Ross Perot drew 38% of his vote from Bush, and 38% of his vote from Clinton, while the rest of his voters would have stayed home had he not been on the ballot.

1996 - A bit of Perot, but the real point I wanted to make was Clinton's two wins were both with less than 50% of the popular vote. It's a safe bet to assume damn few liberals or further left were voting for Dole or Perot, so that begs us to ask, who was?

See above: A detailed analysis of voting demographics revealed that Perot's support drew heavily from across the political spectrum, with 20% of his votes coming from self-described liberals, 27% from self-described conservatives.

2000 - Those 200k Democratic GWB voters in Florida come to mind.

Nader ended up swinging both Florida and New Hampshire to Bush in 2000. Charlie Cook, the editor of the Cook Political Report and political analyst for National Journal, called "Florida and New Hampshire" simply "the two states that Mr. Nader handed to the Bush-Cheney ticket," when Cook was writing about "The Next Nader Effect," in The New York Times on 9 March 2004. Cook said, "Mr. Nader, running as the Green Party nominee, cost Al Gore two states, Florida and New Hampshire, either of which would have given the vice president [Gore] a victory in 2000. In Florida, which George W. Bush carried by 537 votes, Mr. Nader received nearly 100,000 votes [nearly 200 times the size of Bush's Florida 'win']. In New Hampshire, which Mr. Bush won by 7,211 votes, Mr. Nader pulled in more than 22,000 [three times the size of Bush's 'win' in that state]." If either of those two states had gone instead to Gore, then Bush would have lost the 2000 election; we would never have had a U.S. President George W. Bush, and so Nader managed to turn not just one but two key toss-up states for candidate Bush.

2004 - The worst president in American history, except for maybe James Buchanan, is re-elected? How many Democrats voted for Bush because they were scared of the boogeyman? Given the margin, it had to be more than a few.

Bush got 11% of the Democratic vote in 2004. By ideology, he got 13% of the liberal vote. It was independents that carried that election for Bush, not conservative Democrats.

2008 - I was thinking of Joe Lieberman and more than a few racists who wouldn't vote for the big, bad black man. This one is kind of funny in a very sad way, because so many of them are so insistent that he's a socialist when it's clear that he's at least right of center. It's like a replay of Al Smith except that Smith wasn't lucky enough to follow maybe the worst president in American history.

But the right wing of the Democratic party didn't break for McCain. Joe Lieberman did. According to exit polling, Obama got 9% of the Republican vote. More than enough to make up for maybe a dozen or so Lieberman may have carried off with him.

2012 - Similar, but not the same. Without getting into it, the administration's policies have provoked a lot of discussion (how's that for a neutral phrase!). There's been no notable third party challenge from the left. That's not to disparage the Greens, it's just an observation that 470k votes in a presidential election is a rounding error. With no third party challenge and a declining vote total, it does seem quite likely that it was the right that defected to Rmoney. I wouldn't be surprised if a liberal or two voted for Rmoney, if for no better reason than to be contrarian, but it seems likely that it was a lot more than a right-winger or two that broke from Obama for Romney.

Sure, the vote totals decline by approx. 2.5 million. Romney got about 1 milllion more votes than McCain. If we were to assume that the 1 million extra votes came from Democrats, that leaves about 1.5 million unaccounted for. Of course, we should also take into account that in 2008, Republican turnout dropped 1.3% over 2004 and rose again slightly in 2012.

If we take the numbers at face value, 1.5 million or so simply didn't vote. And the Republicans recovered some of their voters who didn't vote for McCain in 2008.

most of those years can be viewed as the right wing of the party deserting to the GOP when you look at the vote totals.

Actually, as I've demonstrated above, that just isn't the case.

[MFrohike]

269. This will be short

I don't have two walls of text in me this weekend, so I'm going to respond quickly.

1. The comparison of Flowers and Stevenson was to point out the silliness of harping on the ADA. If that rally had any effect on the election at all, I'm not aware of it.

2. The Stevenson rally is mentioned in histories of the election, but I've not seen it referenced when it comes to analyzing the outcome of it.

3. The south didn't break because a stupid freshman GOP congressman had his rabid followers attack LBJ and Lady Bird in the Adolphus Hotel. The entire incident was on TV and was reported widely in the south. LBJ figured it helped them win Texas and several other southern states. That's quite important because, but for that stupidity, the south, the bastion of the Democratic right, was going to break in 1960.

4. I understood you fine on Dewey and I didn't quote you. You pointed out that Dewey's people stayed home. If that's the biggest reason for Truman's win, then why harp on Wallace? I pointed out the states where you could conceivably claim he cost Truman electoral votes and only one of the two is likely to be a strong argument (Maryland, not NY). Given that Truman won without NY's electoral votes, most in the country at that point I think, while fending off a challenge from the right wing of the Democratic party that did win electoral votes, I have to wonder why you bother with Wallace. He didn't matter.

5. Al Smith was hamstrung by right-wing Democratic pastors who told their congregations not to vote for him. Yes, he did carry the south. The south is not the only place with a history of extremely influential churchmen. The south didn't break because it didn't threaten the elites. The midwest and the northeast did.

6. Electoral votes matter for the process. The popular vote matters for legitimacy. If it doesn't matter, then I'd say Democrats shouldn't be bringing up 2000 and the popular vote total.

7. Texas went for Ike because Stevenson agreed with the Supreme Court's decision that the offshore oil and gas belonged to the federal government, not the states where it was located. There were other reasons to be sure, especially with the margins, but that was the issue that broke the Democratic leadership for Ike.

8. Connally's support for Nixon in 72 and beyond is well-documented. The allegation that he supported him in 68 is not conspiratorial nonsense. Connally had been pushing to the right for years, partly because it was his natural bent and partly to get from under Johnson's shadow. Johnson brought him to DC in the late 30s to be part of Richard Kleberg's staff. Johnson is the guy who introduced him to Sid Richardson, who would make him wealthy and introduce him to the radical right. With that kind of history, there was no way in hell Connally would do anything but endorse LBJ's guy publicly in 68. I'd note that LBJ endorsed McGovern in 72, but in a very weak way (he wrote a letter to a local paper). LBJ thus did endorse McGovern, but not in any kind of substantive way that might help him. I note that to show that a public endorsement is no guarantee that a person actually means what they say.

9. Goldwater took 5 southern states because southern Democrats voted for him.

10. Reagan re-broke the south because southern Democrats voted for him. To be fair, a lot of Democrats voted for Reagan. It's kind of hard to take 43 states in one election, then 49 in the next and not have Democrats voting for you.

11. Daddy Bush dominated the south because southern Democrats voted for him.

12. George Wallace indeed did not run as a Democrat in 1968. He sure did siphon a ton of right-wing Democratic votes, though.

13. There's more, but I do want to this quickly, so I'll end with Nader. The issue of Florida is a sore one after all these years, as we can see pretty much daily on DU. The fact that one writer for National Journal assumes that Nader cost Gore Florida is cool and all, but it's dispositive of nothing. The assumption is that if Nader did not run, that all of those votes would have gone to Gore. There's no equivalent assumption regarding the Democrats who voted for Bush. What if McCain had won the nomination, rather than Bush? Would those 200k have voted for him? You might regard that as a silly line of inquiry, but it's no less silly than your source's writing off of those 200k voters and instead only focusing on the 100k who voted for Nader. Let's be honest, votes in a given election are fungible. There's no way to differentiate on a macro level between a vote cast in Miami and one cast in Jacksonville. So why all the focus on one particular group and the resulting judgment without an equivalent examination of the other large defecting group? It makes one wonder whether the analysis was written after the conclusion was reached.*

Sorry if I missed some stuff, but it's late. Thanks.


*People on this board are apt to assume to you support a given person if you don't rant and rave, scream and curse about them. I have no love for Ralph Nader and never really have. Sure, he did some good work way back when, but that doesn't mean I have to be a fan. I personally view 2000 as a confluence of a gullible electorate and a badly run campaign, capped off with a routine overstepping of the court's boundaries. I am amazed, though, at the venom directed at those who voted for Nader when twice as many voted for Bush. I would understand being pissed at both groups of people, I would understand being pissed at the people who voted for the guy with a chance to win, but I don't get solely being pissed at the people who voted for the least inspiring candidate of that election (which is saying a lot). It smacks of hypocrisy.

[wyldwolf]

270. This will be shorter.

1. The comparison of Flowers and Stevenson was to point out the silliness of harping on the ADA. If that rally had any effect on the election at all, I'm not aware of it.

It was a cheap shot against Clinton.

AGAIN, no one is claiming it affected the election although historians agree a divisive conventions help the opposition.

Historians give Stevenson plenty of attention. Perhaps you think it's silly because you'd rather they not.

2. The Stevenson rally is mentioned in histories of the election, but I've not seen it referenced when it comes to analyzing the outcome of it.

AGAIN, no one is claiming it affected the election although historians agree a divisive conventions help the opposition.

4. I understood you fine on Dewey and I didn't quote you. You pointed out that Dewey's people stayed home. If that's the biggest reason for Truman's win, then why harp on Wallace?

No one is harping on Wallace. Plenty correctly point out the left ran a third party candidate against Truman because they couldn't accept the will of the Democratic voters.

I pointed out the states where you could conceivably claim he cost Truman electoral votes and only one of the two is likely to be a strong argument (Maryland, not NY). Given that Truman won without NY's electoral votes, most in the country at that point I think, while fending off a challenge from the right wing of the Democratic party that did win electoral votes, I have to wonder why you bother with Wallace. He didn't matter.

Again, Thurmond won electoral votes out of ballot trickery. Plenty correctly point out the left ran a third party candidate against Truman because they couldn't accept the will of the Democratic voters.

5. Al Smith was hamstrung by right-wing Democratic pastors who told their congregations not to vote for him. Yes, he did carry the south. The south is not the only place with a history of extremely influential churchmen. The south didn't break because it didn't threaten the elites. The midwest and the northeast did.

Yes he won the South, the bastion of right wing democratic voters.

6. Electoral votes matter for the process. The popular vote matters for legitimacy. If it doesn't matter, then I'd say Democrats shouldn't be bringing up 2000 and the popular vote total.

Electoral votes matter for both. That's why we have them.

7. Texas went for Ike because Stevenson agreed with the Supreme Court's decision that the offshore oil and gas belonged to the federal government, not the states where it was located. There were other reasons to be sure, especially with the margins, but that was the issue that broke the Democratic leadership for Ike.

If Texas had gone "D" - it would have given us a 113 electoral vote total vs. Ike's 418. One half of a state's party endorsed Ike, a guy many on DU consider a progressive, anyway.

8. Connally's support for Nixon in 72 and beyond is well-documented. The allegation that he supported him in 68 is not conspiratorial nonsense. Connally had been pushing to the right for years, partly because it was his natural bent and partly to get from under Johnson's shadow. Johnson brought him to DC in the late 30s to be part of Richard Kleberg's staff. Johnson is the guy who introduced him to Sid Richardson, who would make him wealthy and introduce him to the radical right. With that kind of history, there was no way in hell Connally would do anything but endorse LBJ's guy publicly in 68. I'd note that LBJ endorsed McGovern in 72, but in a very weak way (he wrote a letter to a local paper). LBJ thus did endorse McGovern, but not in any kind of substantive way that might help him. I note that to show that a public endorsement is no guarantee that a person actually means what they say.

a biographer claimed that about 1968 even though Connally endorsed Humphrey and almost become his running mate. Nothing but conspiratorial hearsay. In 1972 McGovern was a weak candidate. An argument could be made that the left broke from the party by nominating him. Though there is probably no evidence either way, I'd say Connolly had little to do Nixon winning. Nixon won because of a good economy and his handling of the war. He also appealed to Southern whites (but you know this.) However, he had a 23.2% margin of victory in the popular vote, the fourth largest margin in presidential election history. I doubt it was only Democratic right wingers that swung that election.

9. Goldwater took 5 southern states because southern Democrats voted for him.

But he didn't take the entire south and Johnson still won in a landslide.

10. Reagan re-broke the south because southern Democrats voted for him. To be fair, a lot of Democrats voted for Reagan. It's kind of hard to take 43 states in one election, then 49 in the next and not have Democrats voting for you.

The numbers don't add up that only conservative Democrats voted for Reagan - unless there are (were) many more conservative Democrats than liberal ones

11. Daddy Bush dominated the south because southern Democrats voted for him.

Again, unless the right wing in the party severely outnumbered liberals, the numbers don't add up that only Democratic right wingers defected to Bush. Of course, his margin wasn't as big as Reagan's so SOMEONE came back to the D tent.

12. George Wallace indeed did not run as a Democrat in 1968. He sure did siphon a ton of right-wing Democratic votes, though.

As well as a ton of Republican votes.

13. There's more, but I do want to this quickly, so I'll end with Nader. The issue of Florida is a sore one after all these years, as we can see pretty much daily on DU. The fact that one writer for National Journal assumes that Nader cost Gore Florida is cool and all, but it's dispositive of nothing. The assumption is that if Nader did not run, that all of those votes would have gone to Gore. There's no equivalent assumption regarding the Democrats who voted for Bush. What if McCain had won the nomination, rather than Bush? Would those 200k have voted for him? You might regard that as a silly line of inquiry, but it's no less silly than your source's writing off of those 200k voters and instead only focusing on the 100k who voted for Nader. Let's be honest, votes in a given election are fungible. There's no way to differentiate on a macro level between a vote cast in Miami and one cast in Jacksonville. So why all the focus on one particular group and the resulting judgment without an equivalent examination of the other large defecting group? It makes one wonder whether the analysis was written after the conclusion was reached.*

ONE writer for National Journal isn't assuming anything. He reported actual data.

[H2O Man]

236. Outstanding!

Truman is not one of the US Presidents that I find most interesting; hence, I have less than a dozen books about him in my library. Yet, he was my maternal grandfather's favorite. Pappy was a construction union activist in that era, a WW2 veteran who was openly socialist at a time when it was becoming more popular among the working class employed in hard physical labor. He lived near Binghamton, NY, at the time. His views on socialism were influenced by his Lenape grandfather.

Pappy said that Truman's come-from-behind victory was made possible by Hubert Humphrey, more than any other person. I have a book on Truman by David McCullough that came out in 1992, which makes that same point.

[Zorra]

149. Generally, the Democratic left can be taken for granted because we are compassionate, responsible,

mature, and socially conscious.

We have a two party system.

We will generally always vote for the lesser of two evils, because if we don't, we know more people will be harmed by a republican than a Democrat.

The Democratic right will "take their ball and go home" and vote for a republican if they feel the Democratic candidate is too liberal for their taste.

The Dem right knows the Dem left can be taken for granted, because we are simply too kind.

It's a trap leading into a maze that has no way out, just the the grand delusions of *sunny optimism* that maintain the illusion of a way out.

Most of the political discussion here on DU is really little more than dust in the wind, because at the end of the day, after all the sound and fury, politically speaking we're still only going to get what the oligarchs allow us to get.

I see no alternative but well planned, focused, sustained and active non-violent revolution as our only recourse for initiating and creating effective egalitarian and compassionate democracy in the US, for the reason above, and so many other reasons as well.

Thank you for another thoughtful and accurate OP.

[2banon]

157. In agreement Zorra, well put.

challenging the status quo is simply unthinkable to most, unfortunately. I suppose "things" will have to get so bad, so bleak, so devastating to the 99% of Dems, before they will begin to contemplate a better future than what's in store for them at this juncture, and what kind of political revolution that will require. Too many here are simply too privileged .. therefore definitely see revolutionary changes a significant threat to their status and will work hard to make sure that never takes place.

So I hope my granddaughters will have the option to take up citizenship elsewhere, fortunately they do speak Dutch, French and Spanish as well as English. That should be helpful for their future. Unfortunately, that's generally not the case for too many in their generation. So they'll be stuck with being handed a dismal future here.

[Zorra]

165. Agreed, and a well said back to you. I have grandkids also. nt

[H2O Man]

237. Well said!

Very interesting. Thank you.

[2banon]

152. Outstanding OP and thank you for the history lesson here for the younger members.

frame of reference is essential.. as well as the facts.

[H2O Man]

238. Thank you.

I appreciate that!

[2banon]

272. Likewise H20 Man... :)

[ibewlu606]

153. Kicked!

As an activist in the Labor movement, I agree with this well written argument on how the Democratic establishment is taking the left for granted. I am sick and tired of giving our so-called Democratic "friends" my members hard earned money in the form of PAC contributions and then getting squat in return. The only time I get to see most of those politicians is right before the primaries when they come around asking for money. The only exception would be Alan Grayson who has always returned phone calls and has done much for working families in Central Florida.

[malthaussen]

154. Fine post as always.

Somebody-or-other on DU did a post before the last election about Senator McConnell's well-documented changes of position over the course of his career, and quoted him as saying the reason for these was because the senator "liked to win." I'm guessing there will always be a disconnect between the people who "like to win" and the people who would like to see the Democratic Party stand for something. The unfortunate bit is that the senator seems to be able to win by his actions, whereas the Democratic Party seemed to be singularly inept at selling their candidates in the last election.

-- Mal

[2banon]

155. Curious, that.. n/t

[H2O Man]

239. Thanks.

I agree. I remember in 2008, candidate Obama saying that Bush-Cheney had driven the bus into a ditch; McCain represented driving further in the ditch, while he was advocating changing direction.

One can debate if we actually made a significant change in direction or not. I think that, even if the bus backed out of that ditch, it's still headed in the same general direction as it was. And that we don't have the luxury of continuing in that direction.

Thus, I'm not impressed with the proposition that Democrats are superior, simply if they call for a slower drive in the wrong direction, which includes passengers getting a more comfortable ride.

[SomethingFishy]

163. Just so you know...

You don't only speak for yourself.

K&R Well done.

[H2O Man]

258. Thank you!

[liberal_at_heart]

170. It's all about control and I don't take orders very well.

Of course it helps that I am no longer a Democrat. Being an Independent brings with it great freedom.

[H2O Man]

259. Very good.

About half my friends and associates in social-political activities are not registered Democrats. Yet, I share more values with them, than the right-wing of the Democratic Party. And that's not to say that I don't have conservative Democrats as friends. I even like some of the republicans from the local community.

But, when it comes to values, I think for myself.

[Blue_In_AK]

173. Thank you.

Excellent post.

[H2O Man]

260. Thanks!

[Flying Squirrel]

176. Mr. Gambini...

That is a lucid, well thought-out, intelligent objection.

[sabrina 1]

180. "Thanks a Lot"

Lol, that was funny, your post I mean!

[H2O Man]

261. Very good!

Thanks!

[MissDeeds]

177. Big K&R

[H2O Man]

262. Thank you, MissDeeds!

[mountain grammy]

182. This is a really good post. I read every word

because it speaks to me, and probably every liberal Democrat that struggles with our party.

After two landslide victories for Reagan followed by the election of Bush, I was sure the Democratic party was dead, and in many ways it was. 12 uninterrupted years of GOP worship has changed the country, and our party. I honestly think only Elizabeth Warren has a prayer of winning a national election as a liberal Democrat, and she won't run. Just my opinion.

[H2O Man]

263. Thank you.

I think you are right -- and it may be especially true for those who have lived through common experiences, a generational thing. There are, of course, "youngsters" who understand the damage of a Nixon or Reagan. But I'm not sure, for example, that if one wasn't around for RFK's run in 1968, that they can really grasp that promise. Or having it die at the end of the California primary.

[marym625]

184. Thank you! Beautiful. wonderful. love it!

The only thing I didn't know in your piece is Humphrey worked for Nixon. Makes me sad.

First campaign I ever worked on was McGovern. I was 9.

If you haven't seen this, Greg Palast was allowing free download of his "Bush family Fortunes" video. Since he is the one that broke the story in Florida, it's worth watching

http://www.gregpalast.com/bffdownload/

Thank you again

Big time K&R

[H2O Man]

264. Thank you very much!

And thanks for the link.

Keep on fighting the Good Fight.

[marym625]

298. You're welcome

It's not new stuff but it is something to always remember.

I will! I know you will too!

Great post!

[HappyMe]

186. *standing ovation*

As always, excellent.

[H2O Man]

265. Thanks!

Proud to be on the same team!

[Jamastiene]

199. Dayum!

I've got goose bumps after reading that. Ever thought of running for office or, at the very least, writing speeches for whichever Democrat is running for office somewhere, anywhere? Damn good post. K&R

[H2O Man]

266. Well, thank you!

I'm glad that you liked it.

And I do a bit of speech-writing ....most recently, for a friend running in a democratic primary for a seat in Congress (from Florida). I wanted to run for a state office (NYS Senate) last fall, but the party chairpersons opted for a different candidate. I offered my services in her campaign; however, she didn't want to discuss either fracking or that the republican had recently been indicted in federal court for corruption. In our district, one would have to appeal to registered Democrats, plus independents and the Democratic Left to defeat any republican.

[Enthusiast]

200. Kicked and recommended a whole bunch! Excellent piece, H2O Man.

[H2O Man]

267. Thank you!

[dreamnightwind]

203. K & R, will rest all of it later, thanks for this

[H2O Man]

273. Thanks!

[merrily]

230. My first loyalty is to anyone I brought into this world and my next is to

my fellow humans. I am not sure how many other loyalties I have, but those two certainly outweigh all others.

As far as voting, that has translated, so far, into voting Democratic. However, that may not always be the case. As far as my vote is concerned, the ball is, as it has always been, in the court of the Democratic Party, not in my court.

As far as McGovern, there were many reasons he lost that election, but his loss was used as a convenient excuse to take the party right, where a contingent of Democrats (and others) has always tried to take it.

And the same can be said for Mondale's loss, perhaps even more emphatically than it can be said for McGovern's as Reagan seemed so much more appealing than did Nixon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council

In fact, almost any loss, especially at the Presidential election level, can be used with the gullible and/or disingenuous to take a political party in a different direction, be the direction toward the right, toward Super Delegates with the ability to alter the will of primary voters if the will of the latter is deemed too liberal, and/or toward no primary challenges at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrats_for_Nixon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate

http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6396919

[H2O Man]

274. Well said.

Thank you.

[merrily]

292. You're most welcome and thank you as well.

[malaise]

231. Excellent post

Rec

[H2O Man]

275. Thanks!

[JonLP24]

232. "the left" shows more party loyalty than anyone

Candidates want to "distance themselves" for voters who may or may not vote for them but "the left" is threatened for our votes but look where Alison Grimes votes came from "the left", poor, and African-American voters from in and around Louisville mostly.

Great thread K&R

[H2O Man]

276. Yep.

Despite the left's loyalty, the moderate-conservative wing takes the position that we have no where else to go. That's simply not true.

[mmonk]

234. I hate to say this but the Democratic Party is falling into

irrelevancy. Part of this is messaging (or lack thereof). The other is a corporate backed seizure of legislatures and gerrymandering that no reasonable person could say resembles any sort of democracy whatsoever. This, I think, was caused by a lack of steadfastness on principle when it had majorities and power due to the influence of money. A long process lies ahead if the people are going to regain power. The party is currently too weak to recognize the gravity of the problem. More Elizabeth Warrens are needed and they need the courage to stay standing and people, courage to back them.

[H2O Man]

278. Right.

I find the DU debates on if "there's no difference between the parties" versus "there are huge differences between the parties" interesting. They tend to reflect the issues that you raise here. Too often, both sides tend to ignore that both positions are valid, which may sound "impossible" at first -- from a subjective viewpoint.

In recent weeks, the anti-Hillary folks often point out that Senator Clinton voted to give Bush & Cheney the authority to invade Iraq. The pro-Hillary folks point out that almost all Democrats did so. Both, of course, are right. The anti-Hillary folks -- who include the majority of the "there's no significant difference" people -- score well on this.

When it comes to social issues, the differences between the parties is stark. The republican "leadership" in Washington includes a high concentration of anti-science folks. Their misguided views on religion prevent them from accepting the absolute truth that we face environmental crises -- today -- that require significant changes in our daily lives, if we are to have a real future to hand down to our children and grandchildren. In fact, probably half the republicans in DC could not pass a public high school science class. Hence, the republican war on public education.

So long as the majority of Congress works for the same corporations, rather than for the public, this curious dynamic will continue. It is a most dangerous game.

[mmonk]

286. Yes, that's it most definitely.

[MisterP]

297. the differences are there to get everyone to vote for the similarities

and of course the GOP's terrifying rightward tilt has been followed every step by the Dems, thus permitting it: if we want to stop the pols' fascization and yawning disconnection from what the people want or need, the Dems are going to be the ones to draw a line they won't cross for the first time since '94--heck, it'd probably double their votes

but the top strata have a good thing going

[CanSocDem]

241. Great essay. K & R-----

[H2O Man]

279. Thank you.

[KingCharlemagne]

242. Magisterial essay. Should go viral, imo. The "anybody but Jesse" campaign

of 1988 still hurts, for I was a proud volunteer and precinct walker for Mr. Jackson during the primary season. I still think to this day that Jackson would have wiped the floor with George H.W. Bush (basically energizing the same coalition that allowed President Obama to stomp McCain in 2008), but it's purely hypothetical now.

Was not aware before today that Humphrey shared a giggle with Tricky Dick in 1972. I know guilt by association has been passe since the days of Joseph McCarthy, but McGovern was so clearly Tricky Dick's moral superior in every way that one must begin at least to question HH's heretofore liberal bona fides.

The way Democrats and the Democratic Party treated President Carter in 1980 is simply despicable. Reagan as CA Governor had threatened 'blood in the streets' if anti-war protests continued on CA's college campuses. If you voted for Reagan, you were voting for someone who was willing, even eager, to contemplate killing college students.

[H2O Man]

283. Thank you! And I agree

that it should go viral, and hope DUers share this OP/thread elsewhere. Heck, it might even bring some new people to the DU community. (I can dream, can't I?)

Your response reminded me of an experience from back in those days. Jesse was speaking at a state university about 25 miles away from where I lived. I invited three associates to come with me to watch him. None of the three were supporters of Jesse's efforts -- because they had accepted the media's picture of who Jackson was. Not to say he hasn't had imperfections, as he is human.

The most vocal of the three kept saying, "He's a huckster, just selling 'god'." Now, I was already annoyed with this fellow, because I like to be "on time" (which, for me, is early), and he was, as usual, late in being ready to hit the road. His bit about Jesse being a fraud was beginning to take root with the other two. Nothing I loved more, of course, than arguing against these three friends.

As we approached our destination, I said, "You will see a sign tonight, that will prove to you that I am right." Shortly thereafter, we were at the university, and man was it crowded. We were in line forever, it seemed, to purchase tickets. Finally, we were right behind a couple of hippies, and the lady informed them that there was only one ticket left. The woman bought it, turned around, and handed it to me. She and her SO were going to watch Jesse speak, together, on screen in another building.

My three friends said, "Well, this sucks. Let's just go home." I said that if I saw them hitch-hiking after the show, I'd probably pick them up. Ah, the advantage of me driving! Thus, while I was seated up front, listening to Jesse, they were with the hippies in the next building. I assumed that they'd be obnoxious on the ride home. Resentful, you know. But they weren't.

Quite the opposite: Jesse convinced them. They understood what he was saying, because that man could communicate. All three were ready to campaign for Jesse.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

277. Heh.

This includes the left’s having unrealistic standards of “purity” in both the primaries and general election; failing to go to the polls on Election Day; and/or voting “third party” as a form of protest vote.

What amuses me most is that you can vote for Democrats 99% of the time, but if you come out and announce there are a VERY few specific candidates you refuse to vote for, you're not 'pure' enough for the Party flag wavers, who will immediately proclaim you 'not part of the base' even if you've voted for hundreds more Democrats over the years than other people who are still somehow 'in the base' because they might have come out to vote once or twice and voted for all Democrats on those occasions.

[H2O Man]

284. Exactly.

Well said.

[raouldukelives]

305. K&R nt

[WorseBeforeBetter]

306. You're a DU bright spot, H20Man.

Your OPs tend to elicit thoughtful discussion, and I read them knowing I'll learn something. And I appreciate you treating your fellow DUers with respect.