Liberals... well, you know.

[CWSmith]

Paul says it well and says it often. I can't help but wonder about why liberals seem to hold the winning hand and lose so often when it comes to shaping public opinion. I've often said that Americans no longer feel like they are part of a greater whole, but go forward as individuals needing their own guns, their own tax cut, their own...

That really is only part of the story.

Republicans march in lock step saying the same thing at the same time at least when they are in the minority. We saw in McCarthy's election as Speaker that once they have power they seem to fall apart.

Democrats seem never to come together. Every Democrat seems to have their own special interest, their own cause, and if they win that small battle they act as though they've won the war. Voters don't see an organized philosophy for Democrats, so they let the Republicans define them. When you let the enemy define you, you will lose every time.

I am coming to think the biggest problem we have is that liberals can't come together, set aside individual wants, and work together to build something better for everyone.

In other words, "Liberals suck!"

[Osborne Russell]

Ward Sutton, in The Village Voice, early 2000's

[CWSmith]

^ That's spot on! It reminds me of a local stink going on here. I don't want to go into it, but this nails the matter perfectly.

[Keith Wilson]

That cartoon's about 10% truth, 90% bullsh!t.

[Chris Woodward]

Republicans (for want of a better term) will follow and vote for someone that they disagree with for the majority of the issues as long as they agree with them on the one issue that they feel is most important.
Democrats (fwoabt) will reject someone that they agree with for the majority of the issues if they disagree with them on one issue that they feel is of some importance.

[Osborne Russell]

That cartoon's about 10% truth, 90% bullsh!t.

Donald Trump was elected and may be again. Meanwhile, he's the Godfather. Opposition is centered in . . .

[Keith Wilson]

Yes, and the Republican party is engaged in desperate attempts to hold minimally together, appeasing their craziest and most sociopathic politicians, and alienating more and more voters by pushing themselves toward the fringe. Sorry, but it's still 10% truth, 90% bullsh!t.

[CWSmith]

Yes, and the Republican party is engaged in desperate attempts to hold minimally together, appeasing their craziest and most sociopathic politicians, and alienating more and more voters by pushing themselves toward the fringe. Sorry, but it's still 10% truth, 90% bullsh!t.

As I said, Republican unity seems to fall apart when they have the majority, but they have earned their reputation of marching in lock step.

The GOP is reaping the rewards of their own lies. They have created their extremists and they don't have enough of the others (less extreme?) to keep them in place. They made a deal with the devil and the devil wants his due.

[Keith Wilson]

They made a deal with the devil and the devil wants his due.

Indeed. It's a process that started with 'energize the base' about 1980.

I never thought I'd appreciate George W. Bush's relative sanity.

[Too Little Time]

I am coming to think the biggest problem we have is that liberals can't come together, set aside individual wants, and work together to build something better for everyone.

"Better for everyone" is the problem.

"The $400K conundrum: Why America’s urban rich don’t feel that way." appeared in the New York Times. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...-feeling-poor/

One can substitute a more reasonable income and make the same argument as in the article. "Better for everyone" becomes help me a lot, and help the poorer a little.

[David G]

That cartoon's about 10% truth, 90% bullsh!t.

Ayup

[Canoeyawl]

Donald Trump was elected and may be again. Meanwhile, he's the Godfather.. . .

More like the Antichrist

[Dave Wright]

That cartoon's about 10% truth, 90% bullsh!t.

I wonder where your percentages come from?

Can't you go to each line of the illustration, and for each side provide at least one example that verifies the listed behavior?

Some examples will of course be more significant than others. The chart really boils down to the Republican side continually being on the offensive, and hordes of Joe Sixpacks agreeing with that policy. The Democratic side is continually on the defensive and the Wendy Wine Coolers can't come to grips with it.

[Durnik]

I never thought I'd appreciate George W. Bush's relative sanity.

or Nixon's integrity..

and the way things are going, you'll soon be saying that about McCarthy.

[Breakaway]

Republicans cater to and cultivate an audience of mostly like-minded people.
Democrats cater to and cultivate multiple audiences, many of which are not like-minded.

And, there you have it.

Kevin

[Dave Wright]

Screenshot 2023-01-30 10.34.52 AM.jpg

Screenshot 2023-01-30 10.35.14 AM.jpg

[CWSmith]

I never thought I'd appreciate George W. Bush's relative sanity.

or Nixon's integrity..

Years ago I attended a high school friend's birthday party and was surrounded by aging hippies. GWB was president at the time. They were fun, but at the end of the night as I was leaving I turned and said to them, "Nixon doesn't look so bad now, does he?" I expected an explosion, but they all agreed with me. One said, "At least he could form a whole sentence."

And it's been downhill ever since.

[webishop14]

Organizing liberals is like herding cats.

One definition of liberal is: widely distributed. Thus non-homogeneous. Conservatives prefer people who look and think like they do. Homogeneous.

[David W Pratt]

That cartoon's about 10% truth, 90% bullsh!t.

Pretty good in today's market.

[Paul Pless]

Republicans cater to and cultivate an audience of mostly like-minded people.

i dont find this to be necessarily true

from 1930 through 1980 republicans had a fairly broad coalition made up first and foremost of anti tax anti regulation anti economic interventionist economists, financiers, bankers and businessmen

that group was empowered by a larger voting block of populist nativists and isolationists, which you would nominally find at odds with the economic policies of the above

they were unified by republican attitudes about small govt, small taxes, and anticorruption (making nixon the more so ironical)

in the eighties through to the tea party, you can add the christian anti abortion coalition to the above, and also big business really got their **** together

so generally republicans have always been good at forming a broad yet disparate coalition, until now

now they have antitaxers, antiabortion, and populist white nativitists

[Tom Montgomery]

They made a deal with the devil and the devil wants his due.

Indeed. It's a process that started with 'energize the base' about 1980.

Correct. The Republican Party pandered for the vote of the lowest common denominator for decades. The lowest common denominator became increasingly frustrated as their
Republican politicians, once elected, ignored their basest desires. But the day came when one of their own not only ran for POTUS but -- due to reaction to a two-term African American POTUS -- actually won. Now the tail wags the Republican dog. And the vast majority of 21st century Republican office holders lack the conviction and backbone to challenge the lowest common denominator. We have seen one after another retire rather than do so. And so the GQP is losing traditional Republicans who increasingly either stay away from the voting booth, vote for third party candidates, or vote for the Democratic lesser of two evils.
.

[rbgarr]

I'm not sure that 'coming together' to 'win' either in the public mind or in politics is the end-all and be-all of a good society. Yet it seems to have become so.

[Breakaway]

i dont find this to be necessarily true

from 1930 through 1980 republicans had a fairly broad coalition made up first and foremost of anti tax anti regulation anti economic interventionist economists, financiers, bankers and businessmen

that group was empowered by a larger voting block of populist nativists and isolationists, which you would nominally find at odds with the economic policies of the above

they were unified by republican attitudes about small govt, small taxes, and anticorruption (making nixon the more so ironical)

in the eighties through to the tea party, you can add the christian anti abortion coalition to the above, and also big business really got their **** together

so generally republicans have always been good at forming a broad yet disparate coalition, until now

now they have antitaxers, antiabortion, and populist white nativitists

I meant , " current republicans, " of course.

Just consider antiabortionists--this cohort represents a large chunk of actual people.

But, we also need to remember, many moderates feel more akin to the clean cut " traditional" valued, suburban typical anti-abortionists. At least compared to possibly brown, or mixed race, urban, single, LBBTQ people, etc.

Same can be said for anti-taxers and nativists and more. Groups who attract intersecting cohorts, not like them, but more like them than the opposition, are powerful.

It's not so much if I am one of them. The salient fact is whose club would I join given the choice between the two?

Kevin

[CWSmith]

But the day came when one of their own not only ran for POTUS but -- due to reaction to a two-term African American POTUS -- actually won.

I must confess that I had no idea that racism was as alive and well in this country as Trump showed it to be. He fanned the flames and made it acceptable to be a racist again.

[David W Pratt]

Don't know if this will help, but my sense is that Bernie Sanders would have beaten Donald Trump easily via an unusual mix of voters.
Everyone who voted for Hillary Clinton would have voted for Mr. Sanders. Many people who voted for Mr. Trump would have voted for Sanders.
a proportion of people who voted for neither, but wrote in, or voted for another party's candidate would have voted for him.

[Tom Montgomery]

.
Liberals refuse to accept that perfect is the enemy of good.
.

[Paul Pless]

Don't know if this will help, but my sense is that Bernie Sanders would have beaten Donald Trump easily via an unusual mix of voters.
Everyone who voted for Hillary Clinton would have voted for Mr. Sanders. Many people who voted for Mr. Trump would have voted for Sanders.
a proportion of people who voted for neither, but wrote in, or voted for another party's candidate would have voted for him.

l
w
baxter
in
3
2
1

[gypsie]

Progressive aims and objectives tend to be complex. The arguments have too many moving parts and appear trixy.

By contrast conservative arguments are simple and appeal to inherited wisdoms that never need explaining. 'It's not your fault it's everyone else's', MAGA.

[Art Haberland]

Indeed. It's a process that started with 'energize the base' about 1980.

I never thought I'd appreciate George W. Bush's relative sanity.

Am I allowed to say that I miss George H. Bush?

The issue with being Liberal, it's a big tent. It covers everyone from outright communists to just shy of being a Republican. In fact, with the GOP's recent sprint for the far right horizon, it does encompass quite a few ex-Republicans.
On the Republican side it's easy. They are either all Fascists or about to be ex-Republicans.

[sandtown]

An Op-ed that I am working on right around now . . . thesis

conservatives no longer believe that libs have a right to exist.

To many of them, we are barbarians outside of the polis, and thus fair game.

[WI-Tom]

l
w
baxter
in
3
2
1

He appears to be asleep at the switch.

Tom

[WI-Tom]

I'm not sure that 'coming together' to 'win' either in the public mind or in politics is the end-all and be-all of a good society. Yet it seems to have become so.

Well said.

Tom

[David G]

He appears to be asleep at the switch.

Tom

Shots with the dog sometimes lead to inattention...

[John Smith]

The problem is lying. Republican voters listen/watch people who give them "alternative facts" which they believe to be true.

There are large numbers of people who did not see the Jan. 6 hearings, but were told lies about what was covered in them. These people have been told the guy who hit Pelosi's hubby did not break in, and didn't hit him that hard.

We accept all of this as free speech. That's the problem.

[Paul Pless]

the problem is republicans like to be lied to