General Discussion

shcrane71

(1,721 posts)

54. I read an article in the 90s about the necessity of voting a straight-party ticket.

Tue May 8, 2012, 02:50 PM

May 2012

It's been difficult to convince more centrist-minded friends and acquaintances that they shouldn't support their friend or colleague running as a Republican. I can understand their disdain for voting straight-party lines, and belief that they should vote for the right person for the job.

Fast forward to the 2010's elections that were a bitter pill for Liberals and Progressives, but there is a silver lining. Walker's et.al. "mandate" governance illustrates how much can get done (and damaged) when enough like-minded people are in control. A disillusioned progressive citizenry isn't necessarily bad. There's still huge support for a public option and single payer health care initiatives. A disillusioned electorate tells politicians who didn't fight for these two crucial fixes to many Americans problems that there's still work to do. Individual politicians who are too compromising should find themselves at a loss to more liberal candidates.

If Dems don't fight to common sense things that virtually, every small-business person will admit to needing (i.e. public options, debt forgiveness for underwater homes, ending the credit crunch for small businesses), then a disillusioned base may become an apathetic base, and then Dems need to find a better candidate to connect with the people.

Diligence.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

75 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Krugman is correct but he's not right! He is brilliant on economics, naive on GOVERNANCE! [View all] Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2012 OP

So you know more about government than Krugman? n-t Logical May 2012 #1

Actually, I do! Not only have I worked for two state legislatures, I also have worked for Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2012 #5

Your opinion is appreciated. randome May 2012 #7

LOL. well, I bet Krugman has talked to some government people also. just a wild guess. n-t Logical May 2012 #10

So under your "logic" Olbermann and Michael Moore and Bill Maher should not discuss.... Logical May 2012 #11

Krugman's specialty is economics...the OPs specialty is politics. dkf May 2012 #16

Krugman has as many credentials as Olbermann on politics! Give me a break. Logical May 2012 #18

You're misinterpreting my point. This is NOT about shutting down debate or shutting people up. Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2012 #37

You have a point. I heard Krugman respond to Chris Matthews's query about how CTyankee May 2012 #28

Jonathan Alter does One of the 99 May 2012 #71

I'm always amazed that people think that getting rid of BlueDogs would help. Honeycombe8 May 2012 #2

Yep. dkf May 2012 #17

Harry Reid wanted to fight Enrique May 2012 #3

That was the ONLY way to get the Blue Dogs to vote for something! Judd Gregg is a Republican. Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2012 #6

The other guy who was on Tweety with Krugman yesterday BumRushDaShow May 2012 #4

So why didn't the administration fight for a larger stimulus? MadHound May 2012 #8

Yup, this gratuitous May 2012 #50

they were thinking they'd get a second round of stimulus and *krugman* is naive about governance? fishwax May 2012 #9

That's pretty much the sum of it. JHB May 2012 #12

I maintain my position because the Republicans were going to treat Obama exactly how they Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2012 #55

Krugman's position has been that by shooting for a larger stimulus... JHB May 2012 #13

And he still did not edhopper May 2012 #14

Exactly, Sir The Magistrate May 2012 #15

Think small pscot May 2012 #19

Yes edhopper May 2012 #20

Yes it did ProSense May 2012 #21

The point was edhopper May 2012 #22

The bill ProSense May 2012 #24

But he edhopper May 2012 #26

I think he made the bill weaker to get Blue Dogs--who were not onboard with this. Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2012 #57

Precisely. hifiguy May 2012 #49

So the administration intentionally hurt the economy in order to cthulu2016 May 2012 #23

Yeah, ProSense May 2012 #25

Yes, I am going to marry a carrot cthulu2016 May 2012 #32

Congratulations. n/t ProSense May 2012 #35

I don't get your point. I think he saw that the votes weren't there and went with what he could. Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2012 #38

Your logic makes no sense. You concede the fact that the Republicans weren't Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2012 #56

Term limitations, corporations are not people, campaign finance reform..... MindMover May 2012 #27

The problem here is that in order to fail, you first have to try. Egalitarian Thug May 2012 #29

And CAPITAL LETTERS make it SO!!111!! WilliamPitt May 2012 #30

I appreciate the humor. The caps were to give emphasis. Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2012 #39

Have you read Noam Scheiber's new book "Escape Artists"? CTyankee May 2012 #31

I will pick up this book. I'm willing to admit that I may be wrong. I just don't think it is as easy Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2012 #41

I tend to believe Scheiber on this, altho I certainly can't know what the "truth" is CTyankee May 2012 #43

Maybe that's why Krugman is an economist and not a politician. shcrane71 May 2012 #33

I'm not blaming economists for anything, but there is a reason why there is a fundamental Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2012 #40

I understand there are difficulties and obstacles that legislators face. shcrane71 May 2012 #44

Again, I am not suggesting that Krugman remain quiet about the difficulties that families face and Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2012 #46

I understand what you're saying... Yet, Krugman's job isn't to be reasonable about the political shcrane71 May 2012 #48

And his anecdote is correct. There should have been a larger stimulus. That's for sure... Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2012 #51

I read an article in the 90s about the necessity of voting a straight-party ticket. shcrane71 May 2012 #54

The single ProSense May 2012 #34

I too blame this on the Blue Dogs.... Tippy May 2012 #36

The Blue Dogs need to be taken to the woodshed Lydia Leftcoast May 2012 #42

Krugman is correct and right Johonny May 2012 #45

Once again, read my post... Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2012 #47

It comes down to style n2doc May 2012 #52

That misses the real point cthulu2016 May 2012 #58

If Obama had pushed for a 2 trillion dollar stimulus n2doc May 2012 #62

The point is that the real world exists cthulu2016 May 2012 #64

We need Krugman to keep fighting and pushing from the political Left. We need his voice. Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2012 #59

Didn't want it bad enough to fight for it, though...unrec joeybee12 May 2012 #53

You are misstating Krugman's position jeff47 May 2012 #60

That's what we call "politiking." They had to sell this thing, of course. Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2012 #61

No, they didn't. They could have gone with "it's a nice start". jeff47 May 2012 #63

And you've opened yourself to "the stimulus didn't work" cthulu2016 May 2012 #65

They could've done what? Nothing or sell this thing? Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2012 #66

They could have called it "a good start" jeff47 May 2012 #67

They DID call it a first start but once it was clear that Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2012 #68

Why on earth did they need to sell it AFTER IT PASSED? jeff47 May 2012 #69

You have to sell it to the public, jeff. That's the way it works. You have to get Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2012 #70

So what you're saying then is they're idiots? jeff47 May 2012 #72

I don't understand what you're saying here. I never stated that the administration was stupid. Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2012 #73

The claims of stupidity rise from your claims of what they're trying to do. jeff47 May 2012 #74

Again, we'll agree to disagree. Have a nice day. Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2012 #75