Liberals cannot win a majority in this country.

[kentuck]

There is moaning and gnashing of teeth at the news that Ben Nelson is leaving the Senate. OMG! There goes our "majority"!

We have to assume that there is no place in America that the liberals could pick up that seat, unless it would be by a moderate or conservative Democrat. In other words, they would need to be more like Republicans in order to win. Except, maybe, Massachusetts?

Is this really true?

Liberals cannot win a majority in this country. Liberals will never be in control because the majority of the American people believe conservatives have better ideas than liberals. What else are we to assume?

If we surrender our conservative, moderate Democratic seats, we are doomed to be the minority Party forever. Do you believe that?

Furthermore, we are propagated by some Democrats to believe that we should vote for these "moderate conservatives" if we want to keep a majority in the House or Senate. That is just the reality of the country. More people will vote for conservatives than will vote for liberals.

If this is not true, then why do so many Democrats believe it? Liberalism is too unpopular to ever win the majority in this country. We need to be closer to the batshit crazies in the Republican Party if we expect to win. Isn't that really what some Democrats are saying?

My question is "Why?" Why do so many Democrats continue to perpetuate this myth?

.

[comipinko]

1. Why? Because some of us do not believe the

correct course is capitulation.

[theaocp]

2. I'd have to say

the majority of people live lives of quiet desperation and are inherently craven. Most people don't want to receive honest opinions, but would rather bathe themselves in what they want to believe about themselves already. It's all bullshit lip service. Republicans and dishonest Democrats just happen to fill that niche quite nicely.

[TheWraith]

3. Fine. Go try to elect Dennis Kucinich in Nebraska.

Don't expect any pity when you lose 3 to 1. The necessity of coalition building is one that has been proven by CENTURIES of politics. But hey, you're smarter than all that and the rules don't apply to you.

[kentuck]

7. Are you suggesting...

that the rest of America is more like Nebraska? Then you must agree that conservatism is more popular than liberalism? Thanks for clarifying the point. We see where you stand.

[dems_rightnow]

81. I love it when somebody says "Are you suggesting?"

Because it is inevitably followed by statements made up out of thin air.

[kentuck]

94. Yeah, isn't that great?

When they can never actually answer the question but pussyfoot around with irrelevant nonsense?

[treestar]

12. This is one that the left should be called out on

We are likely to lose Nelson's seat to a Republican. So it would be probably not risking that much to run a really progressive Democrat there. Then the left can prove themselves right if that person wins.

Of course for all of their bravery and risk taking and balls, one wonders if they really want to risk that. The Democrat could lose, too. It's easier to lecture the rest of us about how we need real progressives in the Senate.

So are they going to use those balls and fight for a real progressive Democratic Senator from Nebraska?

It's what they've been demanding all along.

[kentuck]

20. A totally dishonest misrepresentation...

How about fighting for Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts? Does she need to be more conservative also? Can you think of any other state where a liberal might win? If not, you must agree that the majority of this country is conservative?

[treestar]

26. It doesn't matter about the majority in the country

But the majority in each state or district.

Elizabeth Warren is one to work on, because MA is blue and there is a good chance.

But what about a place like Nebraska? Now for three years on DU I've heard the demand to get rid of the blue dogs and replace them with real progressives. Here is a chance to prove that it can be done.

EW would be replacing a Republican! The left's argument has been that Blue Dogs are no better. Others debated that, saying that a Blue Dog is at least a Dem, and can be electable in places like Nebraska or Montana, reddish states. So my point was put up or shut up - run that progressive in Nebraska and prove the point that we need to replace these Blue Dogs with Progressives.

[CakeGrrl]

28. +1000. If there's a groundswell of Progressive activism waiting to be tapped,

then why not use this opportunity in Nebraska to prove it?

[kentuck]

32. So you believe the majority of the country is conservative?

That is the simple question you can answer.

[treestar]

54. Why keep going on about the majority in the country?

It does not matter. The votes are done by state. Even the Presidency, ultimately.

Progressives are bunched together in NY and CA and other blue states, and can have no effect in Nebraska or Montana or North Dakota even if they are the majority in the country.

[kentuck]

59. That may be true with the Senate but not necessarily the House or the Presidency.

Larger states with more people get more House seats. They win with votes. The Repubs did not win the House in the last election because of the "states", they won because they got more people to the polls.

[Tarheel_Dem]

90. Treestar, you're on a roll. And I agree, it's time to "put up or shut up" for good! This is that..

golden opportunity that comes along rarely. Draft that "true progressive", make sure he/she has all the money & boots on the ground that he/she needs, and prove once and for all that "true progressives" can win ANYWHERE. If it can be done in Nebraska, then I'll have to concede that I may have been wrong. And this would be a great test case because this magical "progressive" won't even have to fight incumbency.

I'm not sure why the poster keeps asserting whether the country is conservative or liberal. As you said, it doesn't matter, because all politics are local. Nelson was obviously a good fit for his constituency, not so much for the Democratic Party, but his "constituents" were obviously happy with his politics. Likewise, Elizabeth Warren will be one helluva great Senator for the people of MA. But it really is like comparing apples and oranges. NE and MA couldn't be further apart, ideologically.

[kentuck]

92. Baloney.

If Democrats cannot find a better candidate than Ben Nelson, then let the Repubs have it. This nonsense about "put up or shut up" is just that. As if there can be no one in the world better than an asshole like Nelson and that the Democrats have to put up the most liberal candidate they can find to run in Nebraska is pure bullshit.

[Tarheel_Dem]

95. If you truly believe that, why should "Democrats" have to find a better candidate? This is an.....

opportunity for "progressives" for whom everyone who is slightly to the right of Ralph Nader is a "DINO". I agree with the poster upthread who said stop using that lame ass "DNC chooses the candidate" crutch. You can't have it both ways. It's intelletually dishonest to argue that everyone is standing in the way of the country electing "real progressives". Where are they? Who are they? Have "real progressives" drafted anyone to compete for Nelson's seat?

What are you waiting for? Have you contacted the Democratic apparatus in NE? Is there a slate of progressive candidates jumping into the race? Lots of questions, and lots of work to do if you're going to get this done. You've got something to prove to yourself, and the rest of country. Time's a wastin'.

[kentuck]

97. I think it is a totally false premise.

I don't think people respond to red state-blue state or liberal-conservative as much as they do to passion and straight talk from candidates. I think you are betting on a horse that is not even in the race.

[Tarheel_Dem]

101. Serious question? Does your screenname indicate that you're a "Kentuckian"?

Last edited Wed Dec 28, 2011, 09:56 PM - Edit history (1)

And if so, does that mean your "liberal" efforts have fallen short in the good old state of KY? I gotta tell ya, if the best you guys can come up with is a Mitch McConnell and/or a Rand Paul, you've got some helluva nerve trying to determine how "liberal" the rest of the country should be.


Clean up your own backyard. Start with the state of KY, and then spread out from there. NE is the least of your concerns.

[dionysus]

151. oh no you didn't....

you did...

[Tarheel_Dem]

127. Do you intend just to ignore my query in post #101? I mean, I understand why you would....

but I think if you're an intellectually honest person, and want to be taken seriously, you'll address my concerns, since you took me to task for differing with your questionable hypothesis.

[Telly Savalas]

157. So progressives should be able to find someone among the nearly 2,000,000 people who live in NE

who has this passion and propensity for straight talk. Since people will respond to such a candidate, it shouldn't be too onerous a task to collect petition signatures to get this person on the ballot for the Democratic Senate primary in Nebraska. With social media being an effective tool for organizing such an effort, there are no institutional barriers to such action being taken.

Abstract concepts don't appear on ballots. People's names do. Speculation about how a hypothetical liberal candidate would do in a traditionally red area is of limited value if no such candidates ever bother to run.

If one believes that the Democratic Party establishment is corrupt or compromised, then it's foolish to passively wait for them to fix the problem.

[FredStembottom]

129. Let's see.... the least likely scenario in the nation proves your point?

A progressive replaces Ben Nelson in Nebraska. A virtual impossibility - so a bad choice for a test whether more progressives can be elected in a hundred other more likely places. So.... irrelevant as an argument.

Do you love that idea because it is certain to fail?

How about we elect more Progressives where that is possible?

Are you against that idea?

[FredStembottom]

130. By golly, here's a brand new link about where such things might be possible!

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/team-obama-az-va-nc-could-go-democrat-in-2012-video.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

Or is a suicide mission in Nebraska the only one that counts?

[Tarheel_Dem]

133. Never in opposition to electing more progressives. However, did you actually read the o.p.?

The o.p. sets out a rather naive (IMHO) hypothesis. He/she seems to think that if the liberal candidate is just "passionate" enough, or if you're a "straight talker", liberals can win anywhere. I think we agree that while such delusions might be a liberal's wetdream, it's kinda ridiculous.

We've all seen polling where majorities of Americans agree with progressives on issue after issue, but that doesn't ever seem to translate into "liberal" victories at the ballot box. Why is that? Look at Alan Grayson and Russ Feingold, who by underground standards, are the epitome of progressive boldness (according to some); but they're sitting at home, twiddling their thumbs. So that kinda shoots the o.p.'s "theories" all to hell, wouldn't you say? I mean, if all that was required was "passion" & "straight talk", wouldn't KY (o.p.'s home state) have given us better than Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell? The o.p. won't answer that question for me.

Where are these throngs of passionate liberal straight talkers who can win anywhere?

[FredStembottom]

134. Rather than "win anywhere" the OP seemes to be talking about a simple majority...

...in Congress.

Don't we all agree that that is possible.

Your responses and summations of the OP are full of absolutes hat I don't see in the OP.

"Look at Alan Grayson and Russ Feingold, who by underground standards, are the epitome of progressive boldness (according to some); but they're sitting at home, twiddling their thumbs. So that kinda shoots the o.p.'s "theories" all to hell, wouldn't you say?"

I think Grayson and Feingold indicate a tough struggle that won't happen quickly.
Afterall, this is about changing the status quo. Your responses to that idea (which I would assume any DU'er would like) is couched in an idea that the world has always been as it is today and always will be.

So I am left wondering if you like the idea of a more progressive Dem party, congress and nation at all.

"We've all seen polling where majorities of Americans agree with progressives on issue after issue, but that doesn't ever seem to translate into "liberal" victories at the ballot box."

You put your finger right on the problem here. And that should suggest ideas for changing that fact. The populace doesn't vote it's own values. Doesn't that suggest that they just might like to, if whatever X factor is stopping them is removed?
Isn't that a great place for all of us here at DU to apply our brains: what is that X factor and how doe we surmount it?

Is this project helped along by working to discourage liberal hopes?

[oldhippie]

142. Another thought ...

"We've all seen polling where majorities of Americans agree with progressives on issue after issue, but that doesn't ever seem to translate into "liberal" victories at the ballot box."

Maybe people lie to pollsters?

[Tarheel_Dem]

143. "Maybe people lie to pollsters?"

There's some wisdom in what you say, and I agree it's a possibility. But, on progressive sites like this, the overwhelming sentiment seems to be that the American people are liberal on the issues, but it doesn't compute if they can't get liberals elected in sufficient numbers to solve the issues.

We've had numerous opportunities to run a Dennis Kucinich, but time and again, he is rejected by the rank and file. Why is that? And aside from the usual cries of media bias, or the four headed DLC monster, or the crooks at the DNC, no one can explain logically why pure unapologetic liberals never seem to be in the running for the highest office in the land. Are the pollsters wrong, or is it liberals who are wrong about what America really wants?

[FredStembottom]

160. You answer your own question.

"And aside from the usual cries of media bias, or the four headed DLC monster, or the crooks at the DNC, no one can explain logically why pure unapologetic liberals never seem to be in the running for the highest office in the land."

You cite plenty of reasons right there but dismiss them.

Like stating "except for the usual cries of Hoover dam, the Colorado river would run free".

[Tarheel_Dem]

161. I "cited" the reasons "liberals" give for not breaking through. I say pish-tosh. The o.p. seems to

think if the messenger is "passionate" enough or is a "straight talker" that all those excuses cited in my post become irrelevant, in places like NE & KY (op's own home state). Do you not agree? And don't you think it hightime that "liberals" quit blaming everyone else for their "failure to launch"?

And what about trying to elect "liberals" at the state and local levels? You can't pop up every four years, and ask to be taken seriously if you're not willing to put in at least a modicum of work. And trying to taint the brand of the Democratic party isn't going to win elections for "liberals", it only splits the vote, and installs Republicans, just ask Ralph Nader.

[FredStembottom]

165. I guess what I am saying is.....

.... that a Ben Nelson might someday be replaced with a liberal in a place like Nebraska - but it would be just about the last place where that ever would.

As far as state level goes, I am surrounded by liberals doing GOTV every major cycle. So not sure what you are accusing.

Still, T, I have never understood your points on the most basic level. I don't "get" it.

I am active in politics because everyone I know is suffering. They are sliding into despair and poverty. My newly adult children seem to be inheriting an especially dark future. The great American Speed Up...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100298391

..is killing me and people I know who still have jobs.

I'm here to try and find some way to save my family and the people I know. That means it's policy, policy policy 24/7 for me (and I bet a majority of DU'ers).

I also believe that D seats must be maintained as we search. But I must have, soon, Democrats who believe in traditional Democratic values in those seats. It's a dire need for so many of us.

You seem to see it all as a big football game. Getting D's to win at all costs to policy. And that those of us who need the policy changes are somehow bad Democrats and enemies of yours. I hope I am wrong. But you come across to me that way.

[Tarheel_Dem]

166. Not really concerned about "how I come across to you". That, notwithstanding, I am an.....

unapologetic, lifelong Democrat for all the reasons you cite in your post. I know that in that "game" of politics, there's only one choice AFAIC. Of course, none of the things in your post cite how to go about bringing to fruition, the o.p.'s "theories".

I have a stake in the future the same as you do, so you nor anyone ANYWHERE will make me feel guilty enough that I give up on the party that brought an end to DADT, gave us healthcare & financial reform, and that which started it all, The New Deal.

I'm afraid that some "liberals", in their search for perfection will be sorely disappointed time and time again because they don't operate from a place that's based in political realities, but some utopian place based in political idealism. That's great, but it's not enough.

And before you dismiss "getting D's to win at all costs to policy", I think you make the same mistake of a lot of political neophytes and/or idealists, it's a numbers game. The more Dems we have, the more progressive the legislation. Without those numbers, the things we want don't even make it out of committee. So yes, it's important to elect as many "D's" as possible to just get our legislation to the floor for a vote.

Think about it. Anyone outside the Dem or Repuke party has to choose between the two because there just aren't enough of them to do otherwise. And if they choose not to participate, they have no right to gripe.

I say to "liberals" who are discontent with the party of my parents, grandparents, and great grandparents that to be taken seriously, you must do the work. And that work doesn't include trying to destroy the Democratic Party from within, because that splits us, and guess who wins?

For all your grand editorializing, and I agree with some of it, it's still a numbers game.
So yes, put me in the column that wants to "get D's to win at all costs". Anything else is just flat out stupid.

[FredStembottom]

167. Excellent!

Then we agree that it's important to keep D's in the majority.
We agree that there is nowhere for the improvements I (at least) desperately need to even get a hearing other than within a Democratic congress.

We make progress today!

[Tarheel_Dem]

170. I knew we'd get there. But we certainly didn't solve the matter set out in the o.p.

It's sad that the o.p. didn't bother to answer my query, because I'm truly interested in his theory, and how he/she can put it to work in KY first, and be a test case for the rest of the nation.

[dionysus]

150. why, them's figtin woids! BOTFUT is gonna show you who can win nebraska, but good!

PUT UP YER DUKES!1!1!

[Tarheel_Dem]

162. LOL. They better get to work, because I am a non-believer.

[Scuba]

78. No, but they think they are based on what the media tells them. n/t

[treestar]

55. Absolutely

This is a perfect opportunity.

[kentuck]

30. With the assumption that the Blue Dog Democrat is better than any Republican...

you might have a point. However, I would not accept that assumption. I don't like backstabbers in either Party. They cannot be trusted. Yeah, they'll vote for your bridges and post offices then desert you on the big issues. They do it all the time. The Party then has to compromise to the Ben Nelsons and Joe Liebermans as they become more and more conservative in their ideology. It is destroying our Party.

[DonCoquixote]

110. I agree, but

Yes, we do need to stop relying on the Blue Dogs; the two you mentioned just made a complete joke of any "supermajority" when they could vote right and not get called on it, or even face challenges from their own party. It's one thing to vote for the president, another to actually change the congress, which is a lot more subject to local politics; even a Senator knows they better make the locals happy, and that all the right wing money and praises from sea to shining sea will not mean jack if you piss off your local voters.

That being said, let us be honest, yes, American culture does lean towards the conservatives. That is largely thanks to the alliance of Religion and big business, as well as the fact that many people are descended from immigrants who have a history of government abusing power (even in Dixie, where Scotch-Irish Protestantism dominates.) This does not mean the whole country is conservative, but it does mean, like an alcoholic, we need to give in to old instincts. New Jersey and Massachusetts are some of the Bluest states in the Union, yet the brought us Chris Christie and Scott Brown.

Does this mean we concede the fight to the right, HELL no! It means we fight ten times harder, until, like in the days of FDR and JFK, the truth boils forth to where even the idiots have to add 2 and 2. It does mean though that we need to know it will be a hard, brutal bashing of our heads against a wall.

[annabanana]

111. Since The Majority comes with things like Committee Chairmanships, and control

of the agenda and a host of other perks, I would have to conclude that it's better to have a Blue Dog than a Repub. It also means, sadly, that said Blue Dog will inevitably torpedo many many bills that I think are critical for America.

[SidDithers]

122. Well said...nt

Sid

[bluestate10]

80. You're changing the subject. I AM fighting the Warren in Massachusetts.

I have contributed to her campaign, have you and other so called progressives done so? The issue in Nebraska is about who can hold that seat for democrats. Warren is good for Massachusetts, a modern, successful, progressive state. Warren would get pounded in Nebraska. We need to contest Nebraska with someone that can hold that Senate seat, while we take back the seat in Massachusetts.

[CANDO]

138. Repeat the Big Lie!

The country is conservative! Big Lies really do work. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

[bluestate10]

75. Excellent post.

If progressives can't stomach what they call a corporatist, third way, capitulating centrists, pseudo-republican democrat, let them fucking nominate a flaming liberal to run there. I am tired of the shit that they write on DU and like you, call their them out. Run a flaming liberal in Nebraska. Go ahead, jump. If that person wins, I will admit I am wrong and arrange for a dinner of crow. I don't think I will be eating any nasty bird come the night of 11/6/2012.

[kentuck]

82. A "flaming liberal"?

or a Democrat poseur?

There is nothing in between that might be a little more acceptable??

[bluestate10]

85. Yeah, a Moderate. See my other posts. nt

[LanternWaste]

22. I imagine voting one's convictions is rather more important than voting for political realities

I imagine voting one's convictions is rather more important than voting for political realities for many people-- regardless of who wins or loses, or who gets pissed off because someone else votes their conscience instead of voting for the party.




But hey-- you're smarter than all that and personal convictions don't apply to you...

(six of one, half a dozen of the other you see)

[frylock]

71. for the win

[lovemydog]

4. because most say they want to balance the federal budget

But don't want to cut military spending or restore marginal tax rates on the top 2% to Eisenhower era levels.

I know that's just one part of the equation, but it's very significant, imo.

[JDPriestly]

5. And the worst is that these same Republicans in Democratic clothing

refuse to even discuss Democratic solutions to problems because the are afraid of offending the so-called "conservative" majority.

But when you really talk to many of the people including people who say they are Republicans, you discover that they favor the Democratic solutions.

So the worst of all is that Democrats are not even advocating for the best, most Democratic solutions to problems.

[Ezlivin]

6. What do I need to say to get elected?

Look at Perry or Romney. They are desperately trying to say the correct thing to secure their party's nomination.

Every politician faces the same challenge. Only those who say what the people want to hear will get further attention. If a politician dares speak the unadorned truth, they will be scorned. It's easier for them to simply talk about emotional issues (abortion, gay rights) than concrete issues (what our economy is truly based on, not the fantasy that once was).

[librechik]

8. DNC chooses the candidates

and they do not like liberals. At ALL.

[Wind Dancer]

37. Bingo!

We've seen it time and time again.

[bluestate10]

83. Primaries decide candidates.

If your logic held true, there would not be a President Obama. The establishment was behind Clinton. Throw away the crutch that you and other progressives have leaned on. Put a flaming progressive in the democratic primary in Nebraska. Like someone pointed out, the progressive's lovechild, Dennis K will be sitting on his thumbs come November 2012, get him to jump in the Nebraska democratic primary. According to you logic, DK will win big because of the groundswell of pure liberal thought waiting to carry him forth to victory.

[kentuck]

86. Why do you hate Dennis so?

Or do you just not like progressives in general??

[99Forever]

9. Why?

My opinion is that they have an agenda to see that the status quo remains relatively unchanged. It serves their personal interests to mouth the words of populism, but do little to nothing to implement it.

[edhopper]

10. Except most people believe in liberal policy

Higher taxes on th rich, protect SS and Medicare (NOT PRIVATIZE), more and better regulations on financials and banks, corporate money out of elections, against a complete ban on abortions, for some gun cpontrol like assault weapons. etc...
The vast majority agree. Just don't tell them they are Liberal ideas.

[MakingSense]

140. That is not entirely true.

Having been involved in polling and had the opportunity to ask clarifying questions after the offical questions were answered. My experience was that people were for higher taxes so long as it was not effecting them directly.

They want to make sure SS and Medicare or some reasonable replacement is in place for them because they feel entitled due to years of paying into the program.

They do want better regulations on financials and banks but only in so far as not letting those institutions take advantage of the people, at the same time they want the regulations to allow the insituations to be extremely flexable so that financial instruments are widely available to those who need them. They want transparancy they don't want limitations.

The ban on abortions thing is split down the middle but most give an allowance for rape and incest. The most common basis of that position for the anti-abortion side seemed to be that they viewed the volunteery participation in a sexual act to denote concent to have the child so they were willing to allow an out for those who's participation was not volunteery.

As far as gun control, you have some very passionate people on both sides but those in the middle lean heavily against gun control beyond what we have today.


If I had to classify it to any political ideology I would say the people lean libertarian right up until the point they have to give up something then they want someone else to provide that.


I realize that will not be a popular view here, but that is my experience of the culture we live in. Which is not the same as the culture we need to build even if we have to drag the rest of people along kicking and screaming.

[edhopper]

148. I said taxes on the rich.

Which is overwhelmingly favored.
Saving SS and Medicare as is and not a private changeover, favored by the majority.
Assault weapon ban - 50/50, but that is recent and when you mention Cop-killer bullets you get a majority.
Definately more Wall Street regulation. Conservatives are for less or none.
Yes it's nuanced, but the majority favor the progressive ideas more than conservative,

[MakingSense]

155. We all wish that was true

but at least from my experience talkig to people after asking polling questions, which often starts a conversation about the nature of the questions, this simply is not the case.

What is happening here is that you are cherry picking situations, all be it not intentionally I am sure. For example you mention the assualt weapon ban, which frankly had nothing to do with assual weapons anyway. Lets cover that one though, the moment you get into the details of the ban, people start to realize it was really a ban on weapons that look scary and not on actual assualt weapons which are covered under other laws alread. At that poing the support for it drops through the floor. Now on the idea of limiting access to actual assualt weapons, yes you get a majority pretty quickly on that one. Here's the kicker though, when you specific if it should be a federal or state issue then assuming you are pushing for the federal ban you loose your majority.

The real issue though is gun control in general which when asked for clarification the answer comes down to the majority like what is in place at the moment with background checks and not allowing access to felons but are not keen on going much further. The 50/50 point that tends to favor our side is conceal carry which the majority are not really comfortable with. However, when you switch the issue from conceal carry to open carry then the majority flips sides.


As for SS, the reality is that the under 30 crowd is convinced they will never see a dime. The 40-50 crowd is hopeful but aren't counting on it. The 50-60 is praying that it is left alone and keeps getting punted every election so they can get what they paid into. The problem you have with defining what the majority wants is that the first two groups are entirely comfortable with any sort of replacement system regardless who manages it. They seem to assume they are screwed either way, they just don't want to be screwed any worse and the seemingly universal desires on the issue from those groups is that the majority would like an opt out option and/or for some portion of their contribution to be managed in individual accounts that are not accessable by the government. The later being most common among people who actual understood before the conversation started how government borrowing from SS via bonds works.

Now on regulation for Wall Street, you are right the majority is all for an increase in regulation. The problem is that they are not all in favor of regulations that adhere to progressive ideals. They want to regulations that increase transparancy so that the consumer knows what they are getting into and the criminals can be held accountable. They don't want regulations that limit consumer choices, which we all know to be neccessary to keep the banks under control.

The devil is in the details. When you get into the details, a single underlying theme emerges. That is that the majoirty want the government out of their business as individuals both in economic and social issues. However, that tends to come with the caveot that they the things they view themselves as entitled to based on previous promises or contributions.

It is all a very libertarian perspective that the people in general seem to have even those who have never heard of a libertarian, and we see this every day on this board when we read posters complain about how things have changed since the election of Reagan. Progressives did a good job of pulling the people out of that mentality with the help of FDR but since then have slipped and allowed that cultures original "rugged individualism" idea to reemerge. We only have ourselves to blame for this because it is our duty to be out there convincing the people that in todays day and age of interconnectiveness there is a better way.

[edhopper]

158. Thanks for the thoughtful response.

[treestar]

11. You're overlooking that the elections are by state

We could pick up Mass. and NV.

No one is giving up hope.

But liberals tend to be in the cities and blue states.

Good luck getting liberalism to spread in Nebraska. Nobody says don't try.

[kentuck]

13. States have voters...

Do you believe these states are more conservative than liberal? Otherwise, a liberal message would be the winning message, right? Therefore, the majority of the country is conservative?

[treestar]

15. The elections are by the state

It is common knowledge that a majority in Nebraska are conservative.

But let's run a real progressive Democrat there. If the left is correct, then that person should beat the Republican.

[kentuck]

17. You mean like Bob Kerry?

The bachelor boyfriend of the movie star, Debra Winger?

[treestar]

40. I don't know if the left considers him progressive enough

Supposedly they could come up with whoever it is that is a true and real liberal Democrat.

[kentuck]

42. He was the Governor and Senator from that state already...

..and I think he smoked dope also?

[Charlemagne]

91. HA!

My buddy is friends with his son. He had diner with Kerry a couple of times. A lot of funny stories there...

[etherealtruth]

14. Liberals can't win a seat in every district

We can certainly do better ... I fully believe we can win a majority. pretending we can win and putting our efforts into winning in every district is a tremendous waste of time and in effect squanders resources.

The odds of a liberal winning in Provo Utah are extremely slim (close to non existent) .,.. it would not make sense to pour millions of dollars into a race there (hoping a liberal wins). That money would be better spent in areas where there is the possibility of obtaining votes. (I would liken this to Republicans pouring millions of dollars into the City of Detroit for a conservative candidate).

I have never seen or expressed the sentiment: "Liberalism is too unpopular to ever win the majority in this country," referring to the country as a whole ... as for specific districts ... I look at the larger picture.

[surfdog]

16. My take

These blue dogs are representing people that are pretty far from liberal

If the blue dogs did push liberal policies they wouldn't be representing the people that elected them.. simple as that

[kentuck]

19. Therefore....

the majority of America is conservative??

[surfdog]

21. Perhaps

I would point out that the Democrats received more votes than the Republicans in 4 of the last 5 presidential elections

[kentuck]

23. Therefore....

it was because of the conservatives in our Party? What are you trying to say?

[surfdog]

53. What I'm saying is

Why would a conservative nation keep electing Democrats for the White House ?

[kentuck]

60. Maybe?

The nation is not as conservative as some would have us believe??

[LanternWaste]

24. Relative to precisely which voting bloc?

"the majority of America is conservative??"

Relative to precisely which voting bloc?

[dionysus]

152. why do you keep saying that? it's a total strawman.the majority of red state voters are conservative

your whole argument is flawed.

[kentuck]

153. So you agree?

that liberals cannot win a majority in this country? Or that they just can't win in red states? Do you think the majority of this country live in red states? Just trying to get a straight answer.

[dionysus]

154. there are conservative areas of the country where liberal ideas can't currently win. while the GOP

spent decades instilling conservative views into the voting populist of these states, do you really think running the superist duperist liberal candidate is somehow going to work?

if you want to have liberal ideas win in red states, you've got to change the ideology of the voters themselves. that takes years.

it's lazy to assume if you just ran dennis kucinich types in these places you'd win. there is no magic wand approach.

[kentuck]

156. I think the "dennis kucinich types" have mostly been defined by the right-wing media...

and I would agree that there are areas where "liberals" cannot win. But liberals defined as "moderates" would stand a chance of winning, no matter what they believed. They could still be liberals but call themselves moderate.

And I'm sure there are some areas where the so-called "conservative" candidates would have difficulty winning also. However, overall, I think this country might believe more in the ideals of the Democratic Party than in the ideals of the present Republican Party? Just a hunch.

My problem is with those that are fearful of defending liberal ideas and feel that they must bend toward the right in order to even compete on even terms. I think they are misguided.

[spanone]

18. anyone who thinks conservatives have better ideas hasn't watched the debates

[AnotherMcIntosh]

33. Under that reasoning, Obama must not watch such debates.

Of course, he may be busy with other things like attending $25,000-a-plate dinners.

[sandyd921]

25. That's correct

at least as long as our politics and MSM are controlled by a few ultra-wealthy oligarchs who have purchased most of the politicians and journalists and own one of the two dominant political parties outright and have a controlling stake in the second.

By "liberal" I assume you mean policies like Medicare for All, protecting social security, rebuilding our infrastructure, policies that will put us on the road to renewable energy and sustainability, ending wars, reforming the financial services industry, etc., etc. In other words everything that could improve life for most Americans and that the oligarchs are standing as a bulwark against.

[kentuck]

27. That's correct

I was only trying to get people to say if they thought the majority of the country was "conservative", like these batshit crazy Republicans running for President or if they were more liberal, but some seemed to get defensive at the question??

[sandyd921]

64. I'm just a bit stunned that so many here

are still so focused on the internecine wars within the Democratic party (blue dogs vs. progressives) and not at all able to take in the broader reality of how the US has gotten to the current abysmal state we're in. They seem to think that if we just continue to focus on the right political formula of running right-wing Democrats in some places (presumably red states) and more liberal-leaning politicos in other places we can maintain the status quo or maybe add a few more Dems in the House or Senate and all will be right with the world.

I used to be pretty involved with the party and helping out candidates, etc. I have arrived at a place where talking about politics in the way that I used to seems futile. The problems we have are deeply systemic and politics as usual will not get us anywhere. I'm in a place where I have decided to put my limited time into things like trying to undo corporate personhood/Citizens United and generally supporting OWS and like movements. In the next few years it's going to be about movement politics not Democrats vs. Republicans if there can ever be any progress at all.

Are most people liberal or conservative? God, I don't know! The only thing I can say for sure is that most people in their heart of hearts know that they are being screwed, even if they can't verbalize why or fully understand the policies that are necessary to get us out of the mess (the degree to which they have been propagandized has not helped). We do need to get as many of these people as possible acting in their own self-interest but that won't happen through traditional politics.

[kentuck]

66. I agree... n/t

...

[mike_c]

70. +1

What you said.

[Major Nikon]

102. There really is no such thing as an American conservative

Calling someone a 'conservative' in the US could mean they are a fiscal conservative, a social conservative, a libertarian, or a religious conservative. Really the only ideology they have is that they are against anything Democrats are for, which is to say they have no ideology at all. It's pretty safe to say that the vast majority of Democrats would agree that government exists to serve the people and improve their welfare. It's pretty safe to assume the vast majority of Democrats would agree that everyone should be given the opportunity to succeed. As such they have common ground on which to draw common ideas. Republicans are little more than a group of grabastic single issue piles of shit flying in loose formation that has to reinvent itself every few years just to stay relevant. That's why they never manage to hold on to a significant amount of power for any length of time.

What I think is important for Democrats to do is promote candidates that support our ideology. This may not mean the same thing in Nebraska as it does in Massachusetts. That is the key to long term prosperity of the party, not trying to find a one-size-fits-all notion of who we are.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

29. Why? 1. It is profitable for the DLC and its supporters. 2. Some people are nonthinking parrots.

[FrenchieCat]

31. You'll have to ask our corporate media.....

as they are the ones who makes these determinations....
not Democrats.....

....and it appears that the media knows how to influence just enough voters,
to make what they have decided be the outcome.

Fox News is the only news channel many voters in certain places in this country see. They believe Fox News to be "regular" news, and therefore, they trust the source. So unless we change the fact that corporation own our "free" press, we will not be able to convince enough voters that they are being fed a bunch of bullshit. If you can come up with a way to circumvent this corporate "free press" that feeds political information to a large enough majority of low information voters, please let us know!

[kentuck]

34. You are very close to the truth, FrenchieCat...

...and a lot of Democrats watch Fox News, also, it appears?

[FrenchieCat]

47. Most likely so.....in particular those "Moderate" Democrats you are discussing.....

and that would be because those Democrats are geographically located in places where Fox News is the "Normal" news channel...and even if those areas get CNN, CBS, ABC and whatever else, those corporate news channels are almost as RW as is FOX News! Many standard Cable packages don't get MSNBC or Current...or at least not enough of them, and they are only a couple of out of quite a few, and only Current is "Liberal" all day anyways, and has the smallest viewership out of all of 'em.

When biased conservative television channels are combined with additional conservative corporate news sources known as our newspapers and radio.....conservatism is sold hard, and so the more progressive point of view is oftentime never even heard by millions of folks, who if they were given better information, would not support the conservative point of view.

As an example of corporate media assholiness.....here in the Bay Area (one of the most liberal areas in the country), they are getting rid of 960 Quake as of 1/1/12, which is one of the very few liberal radio station that you can get on the AM dial. They have also revamped KGO810, so that liberals voices that were previously heard on that radio station are no longer heard as of last month. In otherwords, this change in radio programming in this area that I am witnessing may be happening in many other places and the purpose may be to silence liberal voices ahead of the 2012 election (kind of like what they are doing with voting access).

There is still the Internet, but way too many folks don't have access to that (which is one of the reasons that the Obama administration placed a priority on providing broadband access in rural areas...at least)-- In addition, folks tend to read on the Internet, the views that agree with their own, so the Internet isn't the answer that we would hope, since it is so highly specialized and partisan.

We need to work on the media...because as the founding fathers realized; The source of information on politicis is an important part of the workings of a democracy.

We can blame Democrats in general because they are more "manageable" to criticize compared to corporate entities as powerful and widespread as our corporate media, but I'm not sure that this helps change anything. It's easier.....but it's too simple and not 100% on target.

[kentuck]

52. "conservatism is sold hard"

And why? Because they protect the wealthy status quo. Power does not surrender voluntarily. It has to be taken from them. That is the situation we are in. You are correct - it is the media.

[FrenchieCat]

72. So what do we do about that?

Because if we spent real time coming up with a strategy,
and then took some kind of action based on that strategy,
perhaps then we could make the change that would make
a whole lot of a difference.

Again, pointing at Democrats is easy, and avoiding complexities
make sense....but the way information is skewed against Democrats
most of the time, pointing fingers at the Democrats is almost like attacking the victim.....
Doesn't change the outcome, simply assigns blame to those who may not actually
be as culpable as folks at times insinuate.

Perhaps Democrats acting like real Democrats would be easier for Democrats
to do if they didn't have entire corporate news divisions concentrating
on making sure they are the ones we blame.

[kentuck]

79. Step One:

Stop compromising with bullshit. Call it what it is.

It is better to fight and lose than compromise your principles. The world will not end so long as we have the people behind us.

Bi-partisanship simply for the sake of bi-bartisanship is foolhardy. Yes, I will let you chop off my arm and I will agree to your taxcut for the wealthy.

[FrenchieCat]

100. "It is better to fight and lose than compromising your principles......"

is your quote, not mine.


My quote is, "if you're fighting not caring about winning or losing, then you're only pretending to fight, because losing is still losing, even if you are standing on your head while doing it...and pretty soon, the winners will come and tell you that you can no longer stand on your head; so then what?"


The fact that you would come up with a quote for me instead
of discussing an actual strategy to defeat the corporate media
is telling.

In essence, when you don't have an answer, so you just neatly go back
to your original point. That might make sense to you for your purpose,
but in terms of coming up with a plan, it only makes folks dizzy.

[Tarheel_Dem]

118. ^^^ This ^^^! And that's all she wrote.

[liskddksil]

35. This entire argument about Nelson is missing the point

that it would not have been worth using up the Democrats' and Progressives' limited financial resources to throw money away at an unpopular (by his own doing) candidate, in a race that we where probably going to lose anyway. Nelson not running frees these resources to be used so that we can better compete in much more winnable races, including MA, NV, AZ, ND, NM, WI. There's no point in blaming the left about not supporting Nelson, if by losing him we maintain or expand our majority by being more strategic about which races to fight in.

[moriah]

36. It depends on the state involved.

Take Arkansas.

Blanche Lincoln had held on to the Senate seat in Arkansas for a very long time, and while she was a moderate, she was liberal for Arkansas. Halter was too liberal for Arkansas -- even the liberals here in Arkansas demonstrated that by choosing Blanche to win the primary. But the primary battle trashed her so badly that we gave ammunition for John Boozman to use against her. Plus there were so many true liberals who decided to just not vote in the general or to vote third party rather than vote for Blanche because of the animosity generated in the primary battle.

So now my letters are answered by a rabid religious conservative who would rather let women die than force Catholic hospitals to save the only life that can be saved when dealing with septic miscarriage of a living but nonviable fetus.

By attacking the moderate liberals in states that trend Republican in presidential elections, we risk getting Republicans elected.

[kentuck]

38. Wasn't J William Fulbright from Arkansas?

Who created the liberal Fulbright scholarships? What happened??

[etherealtruth]

43. Fullbright was a mixed bag

He was a segregationist and a dixiecrat ... he opposed the civil rights acts in the late fifties and mid 1960s ... he also did a lot that would be considered liberal.

he also did a lot of good ... mixed bag works for me (in this day he could be called a dino if we substituted some present day issues)

[MFrohike]

44. He was also an ardent segregationist

Don't read that as a comment on this thread, just as more information.

[kentuck]

45. And later they gave us Bill Clinton...

another good liberal.

[MFrohike]

51. Hahaha

As long as you ignored economic policy, sure.

[LiberalFighter]

39. You are right to a point

Liberals by themselves won't win a majority. But, Liberals and left of center can. The problem is that we have been brainwashed into believing that the center is to the right of where it really is centered.

As for conservative, moderate Democratic seats... These candidates are forced on us because the powers to be decide who will or will not be supported. The voters don't really get to decide on the candidates until the primaries. Before that, possible candidates go through a process of being vetted when they tour the appropriate political supporters for support. If the ones that hold the most power don't want you then it will be very difficult to get out of the gate.

As an example, power of a state central committee may be in the hands of less than 5 people even if there about 20 or more members of that committee. And some can hold sway on those that vote on it even if they are not voting members.

[treestar]

41. Are you claiming voters don't know their own minds

and that their minds can be changed if only the powers that be would spend money on progressive candidates?

In the end you are saying whoever has the most money wins.

That does not have to be.

People might really be conservative, and it could take more than money to convince them.

If the Democrats put a ton of money into running a real progressive in Nebraska, then if that person does not win, that theory goes kaput.

[Enrique]

46. actually a majority isn't enough anymore

we now need a supermajority.

[kentuck]

48. We could have a 99% majority and it wouldn't matter...

..it's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog...

[Zorra]

49. Well, IMO, there is a certain logic in believing that a real progressive/liberal will probably not

have much of a chance of winning a Senate seat in Nebraska, Kansas, Utah, Mississippi, etc, at this time.

[MFrohike]

50. My issue

I don't much care if it takes Blue Dogs to win in a given district. I do care that they try to impose their preferences on the rest of us. I'm thrilled that Heath Shuler's crazy district elects him, but I'm a lot less thrilled that Heath seems to think representing one of the furthest right districts in the south qualifies him for leadership in what's supposed to be the national liberal party.

I don't agree with get along by going along in elections. I think it's a failing strategy. I can understand the need not to get out too far in front of your constituents, but there's a clear difference in leading them slightly and pandering to their darker nature. I think what is most important to remember is that liberalism was once a fighting faith. It wasn't about outflanking people to the right or showing oneself to be more pragmatic by fawning over the neo-feudalists of Wall Street, it was about saying the other guy isn't just wrong, but he's damn wrong. It was about showing that while, yes your ideas may be untested, they do have one giant advantage over the other guy: they haven't been proved to fail over and over again. I don't know that such a plan would work in Nebraska, but I suspect it would work far better than whatever third-way, lukewarm candidacy is likely. I'd like to see someone just try to raise some hell and give it a try. Sure, it might fail now, but it could also lay the groundwork for the future. Hell, it worked with Reagan's speech for Goldwater in 1964.

[kentuck]

56. Well said...

excellent points.

Yes, you can be in our Party as conservative Democrats from conservative states but don't try to ram a conservative agenda down the throat of the national Party. Just be thankful we let you in.

[MFrohike]

113. Funny thought

All the great debates of American politics in the 20th century were debates inside the Democratic Party. The GOP really never mattered when it came down to determining a course for the country, unless it involved massive welfare programs for the wealthy. It's funny that things just never change. The GOP is babbling about bullshit and the grownup talk is on the left. It's kind of comforting in a way.

[lovemydog]

57. The two parties claim

they are liberal and conservative, but water them down so much that they become the worst of liberalism and conservatism.

If the republican party were truly conservative it wouldn't support government interference with people's individual privacy. Yet most republicans in Congress support interference with civil liberties via the Patriot Act, interference with a woman's right to choose, interference in capital punishment, interference in gay rights. Their massive deficit-spending to finance the stupid Iraq War was completely contrary to 'conservatism'.

If most in the democratic party - I'm talking those in Congress - were truly liberal they would vote for a WPA style works program to repair our infrastructure. They would not have voted to repeal Glass-Stiegal and other restraints on big banks. They would not have voted to lower marginal tax rates on the super rich. They would not have supported the war in Iraq. I'm not sure what percentage of democrats in Congress supported that war (I'm talking about the vote that gave W. Bush a blank check) but if anyone knows, please share.

It seems to me that once in office, most (but not all) Congress persons are trying to get reelected by playing it safe. They seem to increase their wealth while in office. I haven't seen many successful bipartisan efforts to get the rich lobbyists out of Washington, D.C.

Having said all that, I still vote for democrats because I like their stated policies better. I find the republicans' stated policies abhorrent. I'd like to see most elected democrats act more like Sanders and Kucinich while in office.

[T S Justly]

58. Progressive Democrats can, though. The problem with Liberals is that ...

Self-described Liberals in high office, who are actually RW Republicans, have made Liberal synonymous with Republican.

They've also started calling themselves Progressives. So,watch it.

[bbgrunt]

61. Exactly. It was Howard Dean's 50 state strategy that helped get O. elected.

If you write off states, areas, etc. as being mostly republican and refuse to expend energy and dollars to build coalitions, media support, etc., you simply create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[bvar22]

62. A Fire Breathing Populist Democrat,

a la Huey Long,
who avoids the wedge issues,
who looks like the Marlboro Man,
who can ride a horse and shoot a gun (without looking like an asshole),
and who can get financial support from the Party leadership and infrastructure (NOT opposition in the Primaries),
can WIN anywhere.

The person wouldn't even need a high pressure campaign,
OR be a good debater.

ALL he (or she) would have to say when asked ANY question is :
(in a calm and folksy voice) "Well, I don't know about all that,
but I DO know that Working Americans have been getting screwed for over 30 years,
and I WILL FIGHT to put an end to that!"
Over, and over, and OVER.

THAT will get a Democrat elected ANYWHERE!

It is a self-serving myth created BY conservative Democrats that only conservative Democrats (Republicans) can win in a red state.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[PassingFair]

76. Elizabeth Warren is from O-K-L-A-H-O-M-A!

I expect great things from her.

To the MOON, Elizabeth!

[socialist_n_TN]

106. That is EXACTLY right Bvar

EXACTLY! Along with telling the truth about the Republican opponent as being a bought and paid for tool of Wall Street billionaires.

[karynnj]

63. How many existing Senators do you think are liberal?

If your answer is far from 50, you know the answer. It is true that MA has the potential of electing a liberal - they often have. However, it is not just Nelson who you describe as not a "liberal" - some like Lieberman, may be replaced by liberals, but others - Conrad, Tester are two this time that will not be replaced by someone more liberal.

The fact is that to get 50 plus Senators, we need to win some in less liberal areas - and they may not be liberal by your definition. (It is true that over time areas can change and there are some "bluer" seats - Brown, Collins and Snowe - they have.)

As to what to do, we need to restate our principles in ways that resonate. If you look at polls, most people agree with us on economic justice issues. Look at the fact that Obama speaking for the jobs bill has moved numbers. Most of the country really would not want everything run by people with Norquist's values.

[spanone]

65. we need to learn to rule with a minority like the thugs do

[jwirr]

67. I believe that Progressives can win a majority. BUT I also think that politics is local. Each state

is somewhere on a line between conservative and progressive. If a state like Iowa or Nebraska is closer to the conservative side then we are going to have to accept that their congress persons will be more conservative even when they are labled Democrat than they are to progressives. I will never understand why everyone thinks that the nature of the states voters does not matter. Yes, there are Democrats who are progressive in Iowa and Nebraska but in most years they are greatly outnumbered by conservatives of both parties.

What I am hoping will happen this year is that finally the voters in states like Iowa and Nebraska will see what rethug policies are doing to everyone and FINALLY vote for a progressive like they did for FDR.

I do not like this situation but it is what I have lived with in the Midwest for almost my entire life. Please let it be different this time. We are lost if they continue to vote blind allegiance to the rethug party.

[kentuck]

73. How is it that one of the most liberal Senators, Tom Harkin....

can be elected and re-elected from a state like Iowa?

[jwirr]

93. I used Iowa because it used to be very rethug. Since the McGovern race some very good Democrats

have been elected. Now name one from Nebraska. They do have some good progressives that represent Omaha but as far as I can remember none other than that and I do not remember any who were far from central. There are other states that fit what I am talking about - LA, MS, ID.

[kentuck]

96. I tend to think...

people respond to passion and truth, no matter what part of the country they are from. The problem is that spineless politicians have a difficult time talking straight to the people. I think this red state-blue state is mostly a bunch of contrived propaganda.

[jwirr]

103. I agree with that and I think that may be the only way we replace Nelson with someone who is

progressive. The voters need to know the true nature of the problems and what exactly we plan to do about them. Without that knowledge they will not change.

[Tarheel_Dem]

119. You keep repeating that, but you didn't answer my question about KY. You're represented....

by Mitch McConnell, and Ron Paul's baby boy. Have you no "passionate truthful" liberals in KY? What about you? Ever thought of challenging either of these guys? You seem to have "passion".......at least on a keyboard.

[treestar]

136. You're talking about molding people

Like we could win if we could just control them via "good messaging."

Newt and Mitt don't seem to be full of passion and truth. McConnell and Rand Paul must be full of passion and truth since people responded and voted for them.

[Major Hogwash]

131. Have you ever heard of Senator Frank Church?

He was from Idaho.

[jwirr]

145. Oh yes but those days have been gone a long time. He was good and I do remember him well. He

and many others were more or less pushed out of congress after JFK was killed. By the time we hit the 90s there were only a few of those great old liberals around anymore. Wish we could get that going again but to do it we are going to have to have voters who understand what is actually happening in our world. Who really want to have something done about it.

[Major Hogwash]

146. Church served until 1981. It could happen again, a Democrat Senator from Idaho.

A little bird told me that there is no sense in throwing in the towel just yet.

I thot I just saw a puddytat.
I did, I did.
I just saw a puddytat.

[jwirr]

147. Oh don't get me wrong I completely believe we need to maintain the 50 state campaign. And I will

not give up on any of them. I want to support a good Nebraska candidate and hope for the best. It is never a good policy to shoot for the lowest goal.

[Eliminator]

68. Majority of Americans are liberal. Majority of the SENATE is conservative

It's very simple. The system is gerrymandered for the conservatives. Two senators for each state, regardless of population. This gives Utah 2 votes to cancel out California's 2 votes. This flaw in the system has been obvious since its inception, yet every time it's brought up, you get a lot of teeth gnashing, even from Democrats and liberals in these low populated states.

[DirkGently]

69. Because that narrative supports the "Third Way." All the corporate money, none of the guilt.

[Brigid]

74. For almost four decades now . . .

Conservatives have been allowed to define the debate -- and us -- with little or no pushback. We've dug ouselves quite a hole on that, and it will be extremely difficult to dig ourselves out of it.

[okieinpain]

77. yes it's exactly true. n/t.

[cstanleytech]

84. I believe that its up to the voters and if they dont want a very liberal majority then it wont

happen, if they do want it then it will happen and its as simple as that.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

87. "Goodbye, baseball!"

Clue: "We have to [font size=7]assume[/font] that there is[font size=7] no place in America[/font] that the [font size=7]liberals[/font] could pick up that seat, unless it would be by a moderate or conservative Democrat."




Steaming pile of horseshit, imho.

[kentuck]

88. Read it more closely Rummy...

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

123. ...and the ball is touched by Steve Bartman!

I was calling the specious reasoning (and we've all read it here) "horseshit," not your eloquent contretemps.

Sorry if there was any confusion.

[Charlemagne]

89. Liberals dont win

because we are academic and use facts and reason.

Republicans use ambiguous platitudes like "liberty" and "freedom."

Most people in the US are more concerned with the football game and boobs than studying economic patterns or the effects of industry on the environment.

As such, it is harder for liberal politicians to connect with the average voter. Add to that the fact that republicans wll call you a "liberal pussy" if you vote democrat.

Basically, the stupid, gullible people outnumber the smart ones.

[Kablooie]

98. The reason is that the conservatives have a massive, effective propaganda machine.

Liberals, up to recently, have had to rely on traditional news media and reason to make their case.

Conservatives simply invent fantasies about anything they want and scream it as loudly and as often as they can.
This is the winning strategy.

Finally, with OWS, there is beginning to be a louder voice coming from the liberal side and it is backed up with logic and evidence.
If it continues, it is sure to drown out the inane blathering of the opposition.

[kentuck]

99. +1

...

[FrenchieCat]

105. The OWS say it is not political......

so they have chosen not to choose sides, it appears....for now anyways.

The Republicans dog the OWS totally out, calling them all kinds of names,
while the Corporate media tries to disappear them,

but meanwhile, they, the OWS, continue to choose not to choose sides.

So even the OWS, who are supposed to be different, like many Democratic officials, also turn its nose up at the thought of becoming partisan.

It is ironic, but in the end, I think that our leaders reflect who we are to some extent.
Their balls have been reported not to be very large if present at all, but I don't see any difference with the base. Many, in fact, would rather take time out to blame their own (which is easy), than to attack the opposition and it's super strong propaganda apparatus,
And that has a lot to do why we are seen as weak.

[Bluenorthwest]

107. OWS can not support candidates who are opposed to equality for some people.

Get real.

[Major Hogwash]

109. Well said, as usual.

It's been interesting reading how a guy from a redneck state can start whining about liberals all of the time here, but it gets repetitive after awhile.

[Orsino]

104. America IS profoundly conservative.

Centuries of plenty and comfort under the rule of a rich, white, nominally Christian minority aren't completely undone by a few decades of corporate crime sprees. No, America is still quite a few years from turning unambiguously toward liberalism. We're seeing stirrings, but mass culture isn't embracing them yet.

The question, for now, is whether more Americans can muster support for center-right Dems than for proto-fascist Republicans.

[Basic LA]

115. What Orsino said. n/t

[Odin2005]

116. SOME PARTS of America are profoundly conservative.

It is misleading to take the US as a whole because there is not one single American culture, there are several regional cultures, some are liberal, some are conservative, some are apathetic.

[Orsino]

126. It's more granular even than that...

...given that Americans can be members of more than one culture each.

It's not a mistake to call America conservative, unless we assume that means that all Americans are.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

108. Our corporate media have told the American people that Obama is as liberal as it is possible to be

They ignore or ridicule the true liberals in Congress, like the ones who fought for a public option for health care or voted against the Iraq War or wanted to let the Bush tax cuts expire.

With the "moderate" Democrats, including Obama, taking positions that are essentially extensions of Republican policies, and with the media telling Americans that these policies are "liberal," it's no wonder that a lot of people don't like the word "liberal."

[Bucky]

112. Not historically accurate.

Every other generation or so, America is ready for a new batch of liberalism. A hundred years ago, it was the Progressive movement. Then it was the New Deal consensus, which dominated politics from FDR to Johnson's Great Society. The backlash cameth for the Reaganaut and Neocon generations, but they're mostly played out by now. The 2010 election cycle was just the 1994 cycle popped into the microwave. They're out of ideas.

I think it's a decade or so early, history cycle-wise, but the OWS and anti-banker mood of the country could be the start of the next wave of liberalism--though it'll need to be a budget-balancing form of liberalism. Maybe Cenk Uyger's populist free enterprise message will catch on. The thing about liberal solutions is that they always come on in fresh and unexpected ways. They are the Spanish Inquisition of politics. You won't be expecting it.

[Odin2005]

114. Is that you, Rahm?

[Hippo_Tron]

117. When have liberals ever really had a majority in this country?

I can think of two times. Between 1933 and 1939 and between 1965 and 1967. Liberals have been the dominant force in American politics for less than a decade. For the rest of the 20th century, conservatives have pretty much run the show.

[unkachuck]

120. Liberals can not win a majority....

....neither can conservatives alone....but we can LEAD and CONVINCE the majority with sound policies, fair laws, a commitment to Progressive ideals and a willingness to fight the corporate behemoth on behalf of the American people....

....unfortunately, we haven't had the ability to elect leaders that are willing to champion Progressive policies that serve and dramatically improve the lives of the majority of Americans....

....presently, the only candidates that can afford to get elected are rich crapitalists feathering their own nest at our expense while they serve the corporate agenda....but this will change

[SidDithers]

121. Can a liberal win Ben Nelson's seat?...nt

Sid

[tavalon]

124. They have a better grasp on red meat messaging

They don't have better ideas, in fact they don't have many ideas at all.

[avebury]

125. Even when Democrats have control it is hard for them to accomplish

anything because the Republicans force them to have larger majorities in the voting process (even in cases where they should only need 51%).

[MjolnirTime]

128. Kucinich will never be President.

If we nominated him every election, we would lose every election.

[Motown_Johnny]

132. no it isn't true, we just had 60 Senate seats a couple years ago

so we did win not only a majority but a rather large one.

This cycle is going to be tough because we won some swing seats in 2006 and they are up again in 2012. Odds are we will lose a couple seats but hold onto a slim majority. A 50/50 Senate is even a reasonable possibility (so whoever thinks Biden isn't important may get a dose of reality if that happens).



Some people perpetuate this myth because they want to win everything NOW! The very idea that it will take decades, and even generations to establish our goals is unacceptable to them. Teddy Roosevelt tried to pass a universal health care bill in 1912. We are still fighting that fight and as long as we don't give up on it we still have a chance of it passing.

These people are just immature, they need to grow up and not keep asking "are we there yet".

[treestar]

135. And that included Lieberman, Blue Dogs

and so many here would not have considered that a liberal 60 seats.

[Motown_Johnny]

144. agreed, but they voted for Reid

If they had voted for McConnell it would have been much much worse.


We need to control the agenda and we know what it takes to make that happen.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

137. Unfortunately, that provides an excuse for the Democrats to move further right.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

[WCGreen]

139. Money, money, money....

It takes a lot of money to win a senate seat and liberals do not have the kind of money at their command as do conservatives.

It's really as simple as that.

[Tatiana]

141. I don't know about that. I think left-of-center describes the majority of people in this country.

In some ways, I think we have a poor electoral strategy. While I agree with Dean's 50 state strategy, I think we also have to dig a little deeper. We should be maximizing our representation in liberal districts. There is all kinds of software that the corporations use to figure out our shopping habits; we need to employ the same type of technology to map voter habits and preferences. Then we need to run the most progressive candidates we can field in those areas.

Screw the Blug Dogs and conservadems. Let those areas be represented by Republicans, if that's what the members of those districts like. Especially in some of these deep red districts, it's going to take decades of education and inroads to make a dent in that ideology. We should invest in those areas at the local level while maximizing our advantage in diverse and urban areas of the country.

When there is a choice between an authentic politician and one that has to contort or twist himself/herself into knots in order to represent their district, I think the people will go with the authentic politician... that is to say, the one that is up front about their agenda (no matter how repulsive it may be). Melissa Bean lost what should have been a safe Democratic seat to a deadbeat dad and uninsured motorist. Why? I would argue because no one knew what the heck she stood for.

Same thing with Scott Brown in Massachusetts. Again, we lost what should have been a safely Democratic seat because the damn Democrat showed no enthusiasm about what she stood for or how she planned to represent Democratic values. Yet, we have a Democratic candidate in Elizabeth Warren who is enjoying a groundswell of support from the same area that elected a Republican. Why? Because Mrs. Warren is unabashedly on the side of the average American and enthusiastically articulates her plan to represent traditional Democratic values. Mrs. Warren will win the seat and I hope her victory will send a message to all the sellout Dems in Congress.

[dionysus]

149. more like "Liberals cannot win a majority in red states until you change the conservative mindset

of red state voters"

just like running kucinich in nebraska as a democrat would get him laughed out of the room, running olympia snowe in texas as a republican would get her laughed out of the room as well.

[getdown]

159. because party leaders have dialed more

toward the right for ........ how many decades now?

is there anything resembling what used to be "Democrat"? in today's BS speak it would be what, Radical Left Looney Tune?

[Douglas Carpenter]

163. Because working class Americans in the heartland stand in solidarity with the Wall Street bankers.

They want lower taxes on the rich and think the bottom 50% need to pay more. In fact they are sick of the top 1% being victimized and the bottom 90% having it too good. They are against Medicare for all and even the public option. They want more foreign wars -particularly foreign wars that defend the interest of the rich and powerful. The want to see their Social Security and Medicare benefits cut. They are sick of programs to help the aging poor. They are completely against building more infrastructure and repairing the decaying one - especially in their area. Most of all they love income disparity and want to see more wealth and political power transferred from the bottom 90% to the top 1%.

[woo me with science]

164. The audacity of the lie is especially evident during election season,

when the President inevitably pivots leftward in his rhetoric.

Amazing how all these liberal, anti-corporate positions that we could never dare to hope for during a non-election year because they are just too fringe and left-wing and out of the mainstream...

suddenly become EXACTLY what he needs to say to appeal to the electorate during an election year.

[mmonk]

168. Because the party messaging says so.

I don't happen to agree with it.

[JerseygirlCT]

169. I for one, cheered when I heard he was leaving.

I don't see why he can't be replaced with a Democrat.

Saying goodbye to him AND to Lieberman? Very good news, indeed.