General Discussion

merrily

(45,251 posts)

145. The US electorate may be ready.

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 04:22 AM

Jul 2014

I could be overly optimistic, but I think the pendulum may be starting to swing away from the center right types.

We have one long time Social Democrat Senator in Congress (albeit now running as an Indie) who may run for a Presidential nomination and one immensely popular Socialist on the Seattle city council and a few other socialists in lower offices around the country. Perceived extreme liberals, like DeBlasio, have been winning important offices without trying to soft pedal their liberality.

Even Hillary will supposedly campaign to the left of, well, Hillary. Whether anyone will buy it is another issue, but that word would not be spreading unless the strategists think that is what she will have to do in order to win. (No matter how many times they mouth or post the false meme that leftists cannot win elections.)

Real wages of American workers haven't improved much since the 1970s, which, coincidentally(?), was the last time a pre-DLC takeover Democrat was President. If people are satisfied with that as their status quo, that would be extremely disappointing. I think they want real, significant economic change but they don't know how to get it because neither of the two largest parties deliver it.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

153 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Resolved? Hillary Clinton is a Liberal Democrat [View all] bigtree Jul 2014 OP

This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words Jul 2014 #1

. bigtree Jul 2014 #2

Think about the courts before not voting for Hillary or any Dem candidate Demsrule86 Jul 2014 #91

This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words Jul 2014 #104

We can't afford another bad Democrat like Hillary making appointments to the courts either. Chan790 Jul 2014 #105

If the lesser of two evils is your only realistic option, what do you do? nomorenomore08 Jul 2014 #126

Good enough for me. conservaphobe Jul 2014 #3

I do. Bill Clinton advised McCain during his Presidential campaign. They are a twofer. roguevalley Jul 2014 #14

Please see my post #35 -- campaign donatinos of three possible contenders for the Democraticn JDPriestly Jul 2014 #41

liberal republican maybe nt msongs Jul 2014 #4

No Spider Jerusalem Jul 2014 #5

I wonder what kind of rift she must have had with her husband if she is a New Deal liberal? Douglas Carpenter Jul 2014 #6

Dynasties aren't my thing. I won't vote for her in the primaries. octoberlib Jul 2014 #7

I knew there were a lot of lobbying and pressure groups, but Ron Green Jul 2014 #8

that's a strange way to look at it bigtree Jul 2014 #9

how do you have an 86% rating with the ASPCA? JEez. I'm poor and animal charities roguevalley Jul 2014 #16

I support the right to lobby 100%. Shame you don't. NCTraveler Jul 2014 #82

Hmm. Way NOT to encourage anyone to vote for Hillary? merrily Jul 2014 #10

I think a majority of DUers will not vote for her in the primary, but... Amonester Jul 2014 #11

No self-fulfilling prophesies, please. I've been hearing those since October 2012, merrily Jul 2014 #15

See my post #35 re: her campaign donors compared to other possible candidates. JDPriestly Jul 2014 #42

If you're holding her Goldwater teen years against her then I assume Warren is completely off the Metric System Jul 2014 #32

Interesting. Your only reaction to everything in my post is merrily Jul 2014 #38

They're terrified of Elizabeth. Scuba Jul 2014 #61

I guess that precludes discussion of facts about Hillary. merrily Jul 2014 #64

Warren was a Republican during Reagan and Bush 41, when they were viciously anti gay Bluenorthwest Jul 2014 #87

Yes, I raised those facts on another board, maybe this one as well, when merrily Jul 2014 #96

If you read her book, you learn why she changed, came from a conservative background, JDPriestly Jul 2014 #111

Respectfully, if you are gay, you may not agree that the economy merrily Jul 2014 #130

Elizabeth Warren supports gay rights. JDPriestly Jul 2014 #138

My intent was not to imply that Warren is anti-gay. merrily Jul 2014 #139

Pushing the TPP and being in favor or the Iraq war are not liberal, period. eridani Jul 2014 #12

Precisely, no doubt Hillary has a 100% rating from Wall Street bankers. Some liberal . . . haaaahh! InAbLuEsTaTe Jul 2014 #37

See my post #35. JDPriestly Jul 2014 #43

Phenomenal post JD; should be reposted in every Hillary thread to remind everyone who's side she's on (hint: it's not the 99%). InAbLuEsTaTe Jul 2014 #51

She's an impressive woman. NanceGreggs Jul 2014 #13

Whether or not she is impressive is a different issue from whether she is a liberal. merrily Jul 2014 #17

You've missed the point. NanceGreggs Jul 2014 #18

No. LWolf Jul 2014 #99

Well, thank you very kindly ... NanceGreggs Jul 2014 #120

But that WAS the point of the OP, LWolf Jul 2014 #148

They might be DU mortal sins but, that is the GOP strategy and that is how they win. Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2014 #19

Rethugs back winners? Not lately. In 2008 and 2012, they tried to back merrily Jul 2014 #20

I understand about the national level and yes things are changing but those four rules that Nance Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2014 #22

Before Obama, we had Bush and before Bush Clinton. merrily Jul 2014 #24

you left out a Bush I think. Also there are a lot of campaigns besides Presidential. Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2014 #25

We are talking here about Hillary for Pres., not other elections. merrily Jul 2014 #26

I agree with Nance, point. you missed it entirely. First off. Hillary has not declared so it is Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2014 #27

Hillary's failure to declare so far does not affect anything I've posted on this thread. merrily Jul 2014 #28

good lord. no shit. Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2014 #29

All I did was respond to things you said in your posts. merrily Jul 2014 #30

I understand what you mean about "dynasties". NanceGreggs Jul 2014 #21

agreed. She is a person in her own right and if she: first off, declares and runs and Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2014 #23

This is a point lost on so many. joshcryer Jul 2014 #34

See my post #35. Apparently her donors don't think she is all that liberal. JDPriestly Jul 2014 #45

How can you vote for her? You're a Canadian. n/t BuelahWitch Jul 2014 #84

No, I'm an American citizen ... NanceGreggs Jul 2014 #102

Could'nt of said it better myself minivan2 Jul 2014 #31

Well yeah. joshcryer Jul 2014 #33

Check mu post #35. It lists the donors for the Senate races of Hillary and Elizabeth Warren. JDPriestly Jul 2014 #36

The vote is the only thing that matters. joshcryer Jul 2014 #39

Hillary's top donors (for a Senate race no less) tell the real story: JDPriestly Jul 2014 #35

Bingo! B Calm Jul 2014 #40

Why wouldn't the financial industry support her? joshcryer Jul 2014 #44

I am beyond game theory on this. JDPriestly Jul 2014 #46

Game theory isn't amoral. joshcryer Jul 2014 #47

I love your inventiveness with the language. Now bankers and their supporters are the NEW liberals. Romulox Jul 2014 #53

I am merely pointing out how the statistic is derived. joshcryer Jul 2014 #59

I think you're failing to convince anyone--even yourself. I bet you'd feel silly saying it out loud Romulox Jul 2014 #60

Yeah? Show me one corp telling their employees how to vote. joshcryer Jul 2014 #63

Wall Streeters know on which side their bread is buttered. This is just a bad line of argument. nt Romulox Jul 2014 #65

Not when the Republicans get more of them. joshcryer Jul 2014 #67

They've gotten more subtle. merrily Jul 2014 #133

How people vote in primaries? We're still over a year away from a primary. merrily Jul 2014 #58

There is speculation there will be no primary. joshcryer Jul 2014 #62

No mystery. You said game theory is how people vote. I asked if you meant voting in merrily Jul 2014 #68

In first past the post, plurality systems. joshcryer Jul 2014 #71

I understand the system. My question went more to merrily Jul 2014 #128

I just don't like irrational Dem bashing. joshcryer Jul 2014 #132

Also not responsive. merrily Jul 2014 #134

I'm on record that I am not enthused about 2016. joshcryer Jul 2014 #137

If Sanders runs, I fully believe it will be to move the merrily Jul 2014 #143

P.S. finding it hard to buy that you will go to great lengths to defend Hillary merrily Jul 2014 #144

It's unfortunate you are so distrustful. joshcryer Jul 2014 #146

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!!! +10 InAbLuEsTaTe Jul 2014 #49

Those are **LIBERAL** multinational financiers. Romulox Jul 2014 #55

Also known as fascism. joshcryer Jul 2014 #69

Nice one. Also, people who even *mention* Goldman Sachs are just like Hitler. Romulox Jul 2014 #70

Struck a nerve, I see. joshcryer Jul 2014 #72

Indeed. BULLSEYE! Bankers are the new "liberals", everybody else are FASCISTS! Romulox Jul 2014 #76

Didn't say that. joshcryer Jul 2014 #78

They are buying access, but per the OP they are not buying votes. pampango Jul 2014 #86

Really excellent point. Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #107

She sat on the board of WalMart when it was not even merrily Jul 2014 #131

She's a sneaky calculating weasel who not only voted for the IWR but pushed for it behind the scenes w4rma Jul 2014 #48

But "these are not the droids you're looking for" worked so well merrily Jul 2014 #57

She's a centrist, with some relatively liberal views and some conservative ones. nomorenomore08 Jul 2014 #50

I don't think "progressive" and "liberal" are synonyms. merrily Jul 2014 #56

The distinction between the two can be tricky, I suppose. nomorenomore08 Jul 2014 #73

Neither Obama nor Hillary is to the left of liberals. merrily Jul 2014 #77

Yeah, the meaning is quite subjective. I call myself a Social Democrat because that has a more nomorenomore08 Jul 2014 #85

Socialism may be another of those subjective words. merrily Jul 2014 #122

There are different degrees of it, just as there are different degrees of capitalism. nomorenomore08 Jul 2014 #123

It means government ownership of the means of production, not just merrily Jul 2014 #125

That would be socialism in its purest form. I have my doubts about such a system nomorenomore08 Jul 2014 #127

No, that would be socialism, period. merrily Jul 2014 #129

I'm all for collective ownership of the essentials - education, health care, utilities, etc. nomorenomore08 Jul 2014 #140

I am unsure how much socialism I am for, but I am for merrily Jul 2014 #141

I guess that's why I say I'm a Social Democrat rather than a socialist per se. nomorenomore08 Jul 2014 #142

The US electorate may be ready. merrily Jul 2014 #145

I hope so too. I think this country is desperate for real change. n/t nomorenomore08 Jul 2014 #147

I'd love a new word, LWolf Jul 2014 #109

See, and I don't think neo-liberals are economically liberal. merrily Jul 2014 #112

Economic liberalism LWolf Jul 2014 #117

Progressive Policy Institute comes to mind Dragonfli Jul 2014 #121

Why I never call myself a progressive, by merrily merrily Jul 2014 #124

P.S. You may want to glance at this. merrily Jul 2014 #135

I needed a laugh this morning. hobbit709 Jul 2014 #52

You shouldn't lead with your chin, bigtree. Hillary is no liberal, and it just makes her look bad Romulox Jul 2014 #54

Hillary is about as liberal as Dick Nixon. Scuba Jul 2014 #66

If Hillary is a liberal, then I'm the King of England. InAbLuEsTaTe Jul 2014 #74

And LWolf Jul 2014 #108

Neo. MannyGoldstein Jul 2014 #75

What if... joshcryer Jul 2014 #83

hillary is more of the same......clinton/bush/obama enough already bowens43 Jul 2014 #79

Positions on the issues Thinkingabout Jul 2014 #80

I have said it many times here. NCTraveler Jul 2014 #81

Nope. LWolf Jul 2014 #88

Yep. And one of those dogs is a biter. progressoid Jul 2014 #94

Yet, given deceptively similar names. merrily Jul 2014 #136

Yes. LWolf Jul 2014 #150

As opposed to all the political slogans that advocate not moving at all or merrily Jul 2014 #151

lol LWolf Jul 2014 #152

On those issues, you are preaching to the choir. merrily Jul 2014 #153

Hidden in all that bulky blather is a trend Bigtree will not speak to...her ratings from Human Bluenorthwest Jul 2014 #89

It's not an endorsement, Bluenorthwest bigtree Jul 2014 #90

She herself rejected the label 'liberal', in 2007 muriel_volestrangler Jul 2014 #92

I feel obliged to point out to those posters rock Jul 2014 #93

Well, you're correct about the ass of you part, anyway. LWolf Jul 2014 #100

It may not be equivalent to being pleased with them rock Jul 2014 #101

Nope. LWolf Jul 2014 #106

If that "sure thing" is going to perpetuate anti-working-class policies, Maedhros Jul 2014 #110

Would you like bush* or the equivalent (say bush#3)? rock Jul 2014 #113

I will vote for the candidate that best represents my values. Maedhros Jul 2014 #115

Nothing. LWolf Jul 2014 #118

One actual benefit to having a "demonic Republican" in the White House Maedhros Jul 2014 #119

I've often had that thought. LWolf Jul 2014 #149

My conscience does not let me vote for Hillary. JDPriestly Jul 2014 #116

Well, she�s either 10/11 or 11/11 for Warren�s 11 progressive values Chathamization Jul 2014 #95

So the Third Way candidate is kinda cool after all. L0oniX Jul 2014 #97

Hillary hired the same PR firm that does "the list" for Obama yurbud Jul 2014 #98

That's great, D.C. institutions like her. Htom Sirveaux Jul 2014 #103

A few of these concern me KamaAina Jul 2014 #114