dagblog - Comments for "Politics 101: Progressives Must Become Popular, (in order to) Win Elections"

LMAO Very good.

cmaukonen — Fri, 30 Sep 2011 23:52:13 +0000

In reply to Separate and apart from the

LMAO Very good.

Separate and apart from the

artappraiser — Fri, 30 Sep 2011 19:42:46 +0000

In reply to Politics 101: Progressives Must Become Popular, (in order to) Win Elections

Separate and apart from the problems that pre-blogosphere left has had, and the current Democratic party has, I would like to add something.

I often think about how this type of thing is what many probably see when they check out the progressive blogosphere:

the DOD and the Pentagon suck
the FBI sucks
the CIA sucks
U.S. foreign policy sucks
the war on terror sucks
the Dept. of Homeland Security sucks
the TSA sucks
the U.S. Treasury Department sucks
U.S. tax policy sucks
U.S. trade policy sucks
the Federal Reserve sucks
Federal bailouts suck
Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac suck
the SEC sucks
Federal education policy sucks
Federal immigration policy sucks
the Dept. of the Interior sucks (BP oil spill; fracking)
the D.O.J. sucks
the FDA sucks
FEMA still sucks
the war on drugs sucks
U.S. farm policy sucks

And what does the progressive blogosphere apparently like in federal government?

Hmmm....mostly Social Security, Medicare and the Food Stamp program, same as the majority.

Oh, and they also seem to like Wikileaks--private whistleblowing about all the bad things federal governments do.

Might seem counterintuitive to some, after checking out the progressive blogosphere, that more federal government can do good? Just sayin'

Lol. You said arugula. Bet

kgb999 — Fri, 30 Sep 2011 07:59:56 +0000

In reply to Yeah I read that the other

Lol. You said arugula. Bet Obama never utters that word again! :-)

You better hope you're right.

kgb999 — Fri, 30 Sep 2011 07:56:05 +0000

In reply to We have to appeal to the

You better hope you're right. Because with the way you dump on progressive blogs and those trying to work up a bit of excitement to maybe advance their progressive principles and figure out and effective messaging strategy in the current environment ... I don't see how you expect your once-most-dynamic troops to come out of this process feeling like there's much point in bothering ... your GOTV is going to be shit. Y'all didn't learn a damn thing from Coakley.

Yeah. Warren's approach isn't

kgb999 — Fri, 30 Sep 2011 07:30:26 +0000

In reply to Liz Warren's approach is that

Yeah. Warren's approach isn't really progressive so much as it's populist ... but at this point, basic populism is like being some sort of radical left-wing ideologue in both Democratic and Republican circles, so I just kind of go with it and call anything that doesn't suck-ass progressive.

Nobody got snookered by anything on HCR. Baucus was playing his role. He delivered EXACTLY what, based on pretty damn solid reporting, the White House negotiated between March (when they gave Gruber the no-bid contract to craft the excise tax policy on Obama's direct payroll) and June (by which time the deals on drugs and the PO had been struck). And to be very clear here, it wasn't the GOP on the other side of the negotiating table on that (or several other major policy decisions), Obama made the underlying deals with representatives of the major corporate stakeholders.

Coming together isn't all there is to it. You've got to be asking folks to come together to accomplish something they actually want to have happen. Otherwise ... why would anyone want Democrats to win? From where I sit the Democrats who are out of line are the Democrats who broke the agreement of coalition and refuse to stick to the 2008 script. Led by one Barack Obama.

We have to appeal to the

NCD — Fri, 30 Sep 2011 00:08:21 +0000

In reply to Politics 101: Progressives Must Become Popular, (in order to) Win Elections

We have to appeal to the moderates - and in this case a whole lot of independent - voters. These are the people who actually win elections.........most do believe in the same principles we do.

Money determines how last minute undecided voters vote more than progressive blogs, principles or messaging. Big media and big money pick the issues, market them, repeat them over and over, money funds the last minute pre-election lies, smears, or fact obfuscation related to candidates, and money can make or break a campaign.

Yeah, it did trail off at the

EmmaZahn — Thu, 29 Sep 2011 23:27:04 +0000

In reply to Yeah I read that the other

Yeah, it did trail off at the end but it did include some bits of history including some about the Henry Clay and the American School of Economics. I always wonder how much of Hu Jintao's Harmonious Society is patterned after Clay's Harmony of Interests. I keep meaning to research that.

Lind does seem to be playing to the crowd more and more. Maybe it is something he has to do be heard in the din. That and like the subjects in his article, it has probably been awhile since he reconsidered some of his own conclusions so they come out rote and stale.

Yeah I read that the other

artappraiser — Thu, 29 Sep 2011 22:57:50 +0000

In reply to Some support for your thesis

Yeah I read that the other day. My reaction was I felt others had already said this many times before; not one of Lind's best columns, mho.

A related fun digression. Carter often gets the props for being ahead of the curve on conserving energy, and being punished for it at the time. I feel compelled to give Dukakis some props in that vein. He suggested Iowa farmers diversify into growing things like arugula, and he suffered for it, mightily at the time (Jon Lovitz on SNL contributed, I believe.) Well now arugula, not to mention more esoteric stuff like baby lettuce mesclun mix, is carried in nearly every supermarket produce section in the country, often in packages bearing big corporate labels like Dole.

OH GAWD !!!

cmaukonen — Thu, 29 Sep 2011 22:36:16 +0000

In reply to Some support for your thesis

OH GAWD !!!

Some support for your thesis

EmmaZahn — Thu, 29 Sep 2011 21:00:11 +0000

In reply to Politics 101: Progressives Must Become Popular, (in order to) Win Elections

Some support for your thesis -- maybe:

Why American politics is stuck in the 1980s - U.S. Economy - Salon.com:

"Whoever the eventual Republican nominee proves to be will recycle the claims of Ronald Reagan in 1984 that the formula for prosperity is more tax cuts for the rich and corporations. Meanwhile, Barack Obama combines the emphasis on deficit reduction of Walter Mondale in 1984 with the claim to cool technocratic expertise of Michael Dukakis in 1988."

Mondale? Dukakis? Yikes!!! The biggest Democratic losers ever?

"Obama and most of his staff and advisors are products of the 1980s and 1990s, in the same way that Reagan and the Reaganites were shaped by the 1950s and the early 1960s. Obama is the latest -- some may hope the last -- of the "New Democrats," foreshadowed by Jimmy Carter and symbolized by Bill Clinton.

The neoliberalism of the New Democrats was -- and remains -- a strategic response to the declining popularity of the New Deal in the eras of Nixon and Reagan. In the 1970s and the 1980s, Republicans successfully portrayed Democrats as soft on defense; therefore New Democrats must be hawks. The Reagan conservatives made gains among swing voters between the 1960s and the 1980s by denouncing big-spending liberalism; therefore, New Democrats must be fiscal conservatives who publicly obsess about deficit reduction. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were center-right figures who won the presidency in spite of the distrust of the Democratic left; therefore, being denounced by the Democratic left is something that a New Democrat should welcome."