PDA

View Full Version : Dilemma of the democrats



John Smith
07-09-2009, 02:04 PM
Obama's poll numbers are still up, but not as much so.

Dems don't tend to vote their party line as well as republicans do, but the media has made such a big deal out of the "filibuster proof" majority, that the dems cannot risk failure to deliver those things that over 70% of the public wants.

Here's the future possibilities, as I see them.



1: Obama is going to sit down the the democratic senators and remind them of November's election. He's also going to explain to them that with the 60 vote majority comes some expectations on the part of the voters. We (the dems) are expected to reform healthcare, repeal DADT, etc.....

If they fail to do this, the voters will blame them come election time.


2: 2012 election: If the Obama administration and the dem majority fail to deliver on much of this, the republicans, who can't win, will fanagle a third party candidate viable enough to draw votes from the dems, in which case the republicans CAN win the White House back.

Paul Pless
07-09-2009, 02:17 PM
That's it??? Just two possibilities???

SamSam
07-09-2009, 02:44 PM
3:Armageddon/Rapture/Apocalypse

James McMullen
07-09-2009, 02:51 PM
4:Kim Jong Il makes such a convincing case for Juche that we're all converted and pledge our undying allegiance to the Dear Leader.

elf
07-09-2009, 03:16 PM
3: Get their email list working on the important issues. As far as I can see it's already working. At least three congresspeople have switched their positions on the public plan in the last week due to hearing from their constituents

If you think those 50,000 people just up and called or emailed their representatives without any prodding, you're really living in never-never land.

peb
07-09-2009, 03:31 PM
It doesn't work in modern politics. The last guy with a meaningful shot who tried it was Ross Perot... in '92, he dropped out before the race was over, got a bit over 18% of the popular vote, but NO electoral votes.... in '96, he got only 8% of the popular vote.

He was in the race at the time of the election. It is generally accepted that his candidacy was key to the Clinton win. So a third party candidate can cause the election to go one way or the other. Now can the republican party "fanagle" this? Of course not.

john l
07-09-2009, 04:53 PM
the repubs will have to squelch limbaugh and other hardcore types or risk being
out of touch/date.

John Smith
07-09-2009, 06:12 PM
It doesn't work in modern politics. The last guy with a meaningful shot who tried it was Ross Perot... in '92, he dropped out before the race was over, got a bit over 18% of the popular vote, but NO electoral votes.... in '96, he got only 8% of the popular vote.

You misread my post. Nader didn't do too well, but there's a case to be made that had he not run in 2000, Gore would be president.

Third party candidate won't win the election, but could prevent Obama from a second term, and could sway some congressional seats.

John Smith
07-09-2009, 06:14 PM
3: Get their email list working on the important issues. As far as I can see it's already working. At least three congresspeople have switched their positions on the public plan in the last week due to hearing from their constituents

If you think those 50,000 people just up and called or emailed their representatives without any prodding, you're really living in never-never land.
That works for me. HOWEVER they do it, they'd best get it done, as most people, I believe, will hold them to blame for not getting it done with their "filibuster proof" majority.

John Smith
07-09-2009, 06:15 PM
He was in the race at the time of the election. It is generally accepted that his candidacy was key to the Clinton win. So a third party candidate can cause the election to go one way or the other. Now can the republican party "fanagle" this? Of course not.

Why not?

That would be my plan now if I were running the GOP.

pipefitter
07-10-2009, 12:28 AM
Maybe the dems in charge realize that this past election was actually a voter majority voting a lesser of evils. Maybe the dems also realize that the majority are more centrist than right or left and only voted left to bring back something gone too far to the right.

The same people who think that an "intellectual" America voted for change this time around, also think it was Bill Clinton's liberal leaning ideology that created success early on, instead of the transitional combination of his and Bush's policies before him that were also to pay off in the time span of Clinton's first term. Even Clinton's own party was calling him a lame duck in his 2nd term. That's what happens when the left or the right try to put their fat man on the see-saw, which is essentially why America voted differently in Y2k. Many had realized what Clinton had squandered, which was America's historic role towards liberalization of the world economy. People were aware that there was a frightening trend that was giving American corporations incentive to move their production facilities overseas.

The only time that presidents, or their party, consistently enjoy any popularity, is when their policies reflect more centrist results, even if temporarily, or if they happen to be in the seat during successful times or manage 'not' to fix what isn't broken.

People like to credit Clinton with the success in the early 90's, even though it was Reagan and Bush who were mostly responsible for the great trade momentum the U.S. was enjoying by the the time Clinton was elected, with Microsoft and a host of other American companies leading the world in business.

In spite of what is reflected here in this forum, which tends to be a bit extreme towards the left, this is not realistic and does not even remotely represent the majority. People came together under more centrist ideals. Nobody was coming right out and saying that they want to be liberal this time around and it is apparently obvious that most people don't want to be so far right. It was more of finding common grounds of what works for everybody.

So far, the dilemma seems as if it's going to yet again be that the liberals don't forget where they came from 8 years ago and if we use what is said here as a measure, it doesn't look as if they can manage it. It's already getting uglier and this with their pilot at the controls.

John Smith
07-10-2009, 06:17 AM
Maybe the dems in charge realize that this past election was actually a voter majority voting a lesser of evils. Maybe the dems also realize that the majority are more centrist than right or left and only voted left to bring back something gone too far to the right.

The same people who think that an "intellectual" America voted for change this time around, also think it was Bill Clinton's liberal leaning ideology that created success early on, instead of the transitional combination of his and Bush's policies before him that were also to pay off in the time span of Clinton's first term. Even Clinton's own party was calling him a lame duck in his 2nd term. That's what happens when the left or the right try to put their fat man on the see-saw, which is essentially why America voted differently in Y2k. Many had realized what Clinton had squandered, which was America's historic role towards liberalization of the world economy. People were aware that there was a frightening trend that was giving American corporations incentive to move their production facilities overseas.

The only time that presidents, or their party, consistently enjoy any popularity, is when their policies reflect more centrist results, even if temporarily, or if they happen to be in the seat during successful times or manage 'not' to fix what isn't broken.

People like to credit Clinton with the success in the early 90's, even though it was Reagan and Bush who were mostly responsible for the great trade momentum the U.S. was enjoying by the the time Clinton was elected, with Microsoft and a host of other American companies leading the world in business.

In spite of what is reflected here in this forum, which tends to be a bit extreme towards the left, this is not realistic and does not even remotely represent the majority. People came together under more centrist ideals. Nobody was coming right out and saying that they want to be liberal this time around and it is apparently obvious that most people don't want to be so far right. It was more of finding common grounds of what works for everybody.

So far, the dilemma seems as if it's going to yet again be that the liberals don't forget where they came from 8 years ago and if we use what is said here as a measure, it doesn't look as if they can manage it. It's already getting uglier and this with their pilot at the controls.
Did you fall overboard? You'll excuse me if I think you're all wet. It comes from your labels of everyone.

Here's a very simple fact of today's world. Health care is the major issue that is front and center at the moment. Every poll I've seen shows over 70% of the people want a public option. The insurance industry is spending many millions of dollars to prevent us from having one.

The media reports on the 60 vote majority as being filibuster proof, which assumes they all vote the party line.

Simply put, the democrats are either going to deliver significant reform, including a public option, in health care, or the public is going to blame them (all of them) for failing to do so.

Another way of putting it is they have to decide whom, as individuals in Congress, they represent, the people or the lobbyists.

elf
07-10-2009, 06:57 AM
Nobody was coming right out and saying that they want to be liberal this time around and it is apparently obvious that most people don't want to be so far right. It was more of finding common grounds of what works for everybody.

Nobody? Suggest you look around the net more.

As for common ground having anything to do with what works for everybody - that's an oxymoron. Common grounds rarely have to do with working, since the range of what works is so broad. We all know the extremes, and we're seeing (if we're looking at all) how the one on the right is creating a new concept of Republican Party. What we're not seeing is the one on the left tearing the Democrats apart.

Clearly the Progressive wing of the Democratic party is not making lists of all the ways the President is failing. They may be disappointed, but generally I only see them disappointed in Obama's unwillingness to do things which he directly could do - like suspend DADT.

While many of them are unhappy with the shift to Afghanistan (and especially the drones) and with the continuance of the telecom/internet spying policies the one big characteristic of the Progressive wing, and of those of a liberal bent, is a very strong tendency to ask "why?" before asking "what can we do about it?"

This is, of course, what an education should be promoting - the asking of "why?", since no solutions reveal themselves until the reasons for the problems are completely revealed.

As long as people spend their time looking for the mean, they will never find the solution.

Osborne Russell
07-10-2009, 01:01 PM
Maybe the dems in charge realize that this past election was actually a voter majority voting a lesser of evils. Maybe the dems also realize that the majority are more centrist than right or left and only voted left to bring back something gone too far to the right.

Yeah. If they don't realize this they were just lucky to gain power and they're too dumb to remain in power.

John Smith
07-10-2009, 04:30 PM
Nobody? Suggest you look around the net more.

As for common ground having anything to do with what works for everybody - that's an oxymoron. Common grounds rarely have to do with working, since the range of what works is so broad. We all know the extremes, and we're seeing (if we're looking at all) how the one on the right is creating a new concept of Republican Party. What we're not seeing is the one on the left tearing the Democrats apart.

Clearly the Progressive wing of the Democratic party is not making lists of all the ways the President is failing. They may be disappointed, but generally I only see them disappointed in Obama's unwillingness to do things which he directly could do - like suspend DADT.

While many of them are unhappy with the shift to Afghanistan (and especially the drones) and with the continuance of the telecom/internet spying policies the one big characteristic of the Progressive wing, and of those of a liberal bent, is a very strong tendency to ask "why?" before asking "what can we do about it?"

This is, of course, what an education should be promoting - the asking of "why?", since no solutions reveal themselves until the reasons for the problems are completely revealed.

As long as people spend their time looking for the mean, they will never find the solution.
Interesting post. I'm not sure if I agree with all of it, but I agree with it in general terms.

Yes, I'm extremely disappointed that Obama seems to have turned his back on the gay community. I am waiting to see if I am disappointed in what he's done to fix the econmy and health care, as we simply don't know yet how these will look a year or two from now.

I'm puzzled by the build up in Afghanistan, but I'm willing to cut him some slack here, as it gives us an excuse to be near Pakistan, where anything may happen soon.

Guess I'm more patient than most. I'll reserve judging until enough evidence is in.