Skip to main content

View Diary: Abbreviated Pundit Round-up: When people notice the GOP has nothing... (96 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't think... (24+ / 0-)

    ...the Republicans should be written off so soon.  They have lots of money behind them and the general public has a notoriously shot memory and are easily lied to.

    And all this NSA bs and the inevitable problems that come with implementing the ACA I can easily see Democratic turnout being low.  Actually I see turnout on all side low but the GOP seem to have more hyper-partisans that vote no matter what than the Democrats do.  Add in a touch of voter suppression and gerrymandered districts and thing might not turn out well.  

    We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

    by delver rootnose on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 04:57:12 AM PDT

    •  that they are struggling (and they are) (12+ / 0-)

      and that they will do even worse with time (they will) is not the same as nor am I suggesting that they should be written off in 2014. Tribal voting doesn't easily come to an end.

      2016 is another story altogether.

      "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

      by Greg Dworkin on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 05:00:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ayup . . . (8+ / 0-)

        There's no real penalty for lying -- the corporate media often actually rewards it. Most voters don't have any real understanding of public policy and believe a lot of things that aren't true, from "the deficit is growing" to "death panels" to "welfare for freeloaders is huge percentage of the federal budget" to "tax rates in the U.S. are higher than most of the world." And I could go on. Also a lot of people are racist. There's a real danger the Republican get both houses in 2014 and that will be a huge problem. Two years is plenty of time to do major damage.

        •  Media seems to be catching on (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Linda1961, Neon Vincent

          That's one major change I see, and may be responsible for some of the observed decline. The media (except for FOX, of course) seems far more willing to point out discrepancies between what a politician says back home and how they vote in DC, or to point out that you can't actually "defund Obamacare," or to mention protests. In other words, they're not just parroting the right-wing talking points. Now if they would only balance out who's invited to the Sunday talk shows. . . .

          •  When people see that (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            skohayes, Samer

            crazies on the right claim that FOX is now pushing "the gay agenda" maybe they might be more inclined to realize that those people actually ARE crazy.

            Society is merely organized injustice. Clarence Darrow

            by Van Buren on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 05:54:04 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Tribal voting will carry the house and probably (0+ / 0-)

              the senate. How bad can that be? 4 or 8 more years of gridlock a la Hillary and you've got a happy, if dying base and the US gets hosed down the street once again.

              I'm not really looking forward to this.

              What stronger breast-plate than a heart untainted! Thrice is he arm'd, that hath his quarrel just; And he but naked, though lock'd up in steel, Whose conscience with injustice is corrupted. King Henry, scene ii

              by TerryDarc on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 09:16:44 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Check out the title of APR...'When people notice (3+ / 0-)

      the GOP has nothing....'

      except meaningless gestures and hate.

    •  While we enjoy watching them in a freefall, (17+ / 0-)

      I'm with you in preferring to play like we're 10 points behind.

      As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them. John F. Kennedy

      by JaxDem on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 05:04:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  yea if we only... (6+ / 0-)

        ...had a candidate that would run on an unapologetic populist platform of actually helping the average guy.  I mean the guy/or gal making 30K or less not the "average" guy making 150K.

        I was hoping Obama would be that.  Sad to say I don't see anyone out there like that now unless maybe if Dean comes back.

        We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

        by delver rootnose on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 05:09:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think Hillary will. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Stude Dude, Hoghead99, scamperdo

          Whether she delivers is another thing, but she seemed to get more and more populist during the primaries last time and I think it will stick.

          •  it is not... (4+ / 0-)

            ..her nature.  It would be disingenuous for her to try to run on a populist platform.  She is just part of another dynastic family now much like the Bushies.   That is why I had such high hope for Obama since he wasn't from a political family.

            We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

            by delver rootnose on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 05:35:01 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

              •  The big difference (0+ / 0-)

                Both of those had personal tragedies, often many of them. The same kinds of tragedies that every family has.

                They also had the realization that the fact that they had money made those tragedies easier to deal with.

                They also realized that having govt help at those times of tragedy wouldn't cost that much and would make things easier for EVERYBODY, even those who hadn't suffered tragedy.

                As opposed to families like the bushes or the romney's, who never seemed to get that concept at all.

            •  HRC-unlike Bushies-helped start Clinton dynasty (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Bob Friend, stevenaxelrod

              As much as I hated her vote enabling the Iraq war, and am nervous about her and Bill's tendency to triangulate, we have often nominated worse Presidential candidates than I expect Hillary to be this time.

              •  What could be worse than the Clintons' record? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Heart of the Rockies

                For Democrats, that is.  Not only is Hillary no populist, she's straight from Wall Street.  

                She'll give speeches like she did last week, courageously saying pretty things about non-controversial topics (voting rights), sounding all courageous and of-the-people-ish.  But behind this will be the machine.  The same machine that gave us Rubin, Nafta, deregulation, outsourcing, Blackwater, etc.  

                •  But has Obama been different than this? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Geenius at Wrok

                  The problem of Democratic Presidents siding with Wall Street (and the NSA etc.) is bigger than Hillary or Bill.  And some of the threats we now face from Republicans are even more urgent and damaging than those from the Rubin mentality.

                  If she achieves payback against the vast Right-wing conspiracy, runs up a big margin in demographics that were less accepting of Obama, and has coat-tails in swing Congressional districts, that could be a pretty good result for Progressives, although not as good as a more- Progressive winning nominee.  

                  A more-Progressive candidate unifying Progressive voters in competition against Hillary would add much value to the primary process.

                  •  Agree we need a good progressive candidate in the (0+ / 0-)

                    primaries.  But that person needs to beat Clinton.  She will never be a Progressive or even a liberal.

                    Obama has been different than this, imo, though many here will no doubt disagree.  Obama compromises and ignores some big areas (FDA, NSA, etc) and many of the results under him have been disappointing, but the Clintons sell out gleefully and energetically.  

                    •  Obama/Clinton comparisons; who cd beat HRC? (0+ / 0-)

                      I did not follow Bill's policies closely enough to compare all of their substance with that of Obama's, but it seems to me that:

                      1. Bill never had the type of opportunity that Obama had, when the banks needed to be bailed out, to cut back their disproportionate influence.  

                      2. More broadly, W managed to discredit Republicanism in the eyes of swing voters much more emphatically than any of his predecessors, but Obama failed to take much advantage of this.

                      What Progressive could beat the now grandmotherly former SOS Hillary? Which one would be willing to go all out in trying?

                      (I assume that Russ Feingold has never been forgiven by Clintons for breaking ranks on Bill's impeachment, but Russ does not seem to have sustained, if he ever had, an appetite for campaigning).

                      •  Good points. I don't know if there's someone (0+ / 0-)

                        ready & willing to go all out.  Others here know more about progressive Dems across the country than me.

                        I watched Warren campaign here in MA last year.  She was a tornado energywise.  But it'd surprise me if she was interested or ready.

                        Wyden's getting a lot of good press over the NSA, but I don't know much about him otherwise.  Who else, DKers?  

                        We can't just let Hillary assume her way to the nomination.  And she might be just good enough to win it and lose the general.

            •  One Clinton presidency (3+ / 0-)

              does not make a dynasty.
              There's Bill, his wife and their daughter. No uncles, nephews, cousins, sons or fathers.  

              Your beliefs don't make you a better person. Your behavior does.

              by skohayes on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 06:00:09 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I doubt that Hillary will run (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Stude Dude, newfie

            If she does and wins, I doubt that she will have any programs or advisors that are different from the last two Dem Administrations.

            And if she does, I doubt the party leadership and establishment will support those programs anyway.

            It is simply impossible to get a progressive program out of a party that is itself not progressive.  (shrug)

            •  I'd amend your last sentence. (0+ / 0-)

              Our party has plenty of progressives.  We simply don't have the power in the party.  And we all saw what happened to Howard Dean when he emphasized the grassroots and many  progressive policies.  He was roughly shoved to the sidelines.

              •  He was very good in issues (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                But not a great candidate and made major errors during his run. Lets not rewrite history.

                "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

                by Greg Dworkin on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 02:52:38 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The candidate favored (0+ / 0-)

                  by the establishment in 2004--John Kerry--made plenty of mistakes, and we lost an election we should have won.  The ad with the wind surfing characterized him and his campaign perfectly.  Blowing in the wind.

                  Would Dean have bested Bush?  Who knows, but probably not.  The fact that Dean was savaged by the press, with a clearly coordinated set of attacks and demeaning columns, articles and op ed pieces in the NYT, didn't help.  He could claim inexperience.  What was Kerry's excuse?

                  Only slightly off topic, but I doubt Obama would have won in 2008 if it hadn't been for Dean's 50 state strategy, which Carville and others ridiculed then used.

                  •  completely agree about the last para (0+ / 0-)

                    running DNC was dean's calling. But to blame the "establishment" for Dean's own inability to run a winning campaign rewrites history. One can come to that realization while ignoring Kerry entirely. Dean's flaws had nothing to do with Kerry and who supported Kerry. They were his own problem, his own making.

                    Put differently, platforms don't win elections, candidates do. Or don't. Suggesting that somehow TPTB won't allow Dean ignores Dean's inability to win key primaries.

                    "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

                    by Greg Dworkin on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 04:37:03 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

        •  Problem is - neither of your income numbers ... (0+ / 0-)

          ... is an average. ("Average" is misleading; you can drown in an average of six inches of water.) The median household income in the US is a little under $50,000.

          If your point is how a populist should run, good luck. If it was clear $30K was a candidate's target, I think she or he would lose a great many votes. We all aspire to more.

          If your point is that economic policies should be focusing on the lower income numbers, I'm OK with that, but that's not where the money is. It would be impossible to govern by helping that cadre and not attending to the generators of the revenue that will provide the means to do the helping.

          To the broader point, a populist approach - meaning attention to the interests of real people vs. elites and fictional "persons" - is certainly the way to run. Governing in this economy, in particular, would be a lot more effective for the nation as a whole if public policy were more populist. But those things said, the equations of government can't run entirely populist in a free enterprise country ... and almost certainly shouldn't.

          2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

          by TRPChicago on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 06:03:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Does anybody even notice reality (4+ / 0-)

            anymore?  Pres. Obama pushed a ton of job and infrastructure bills.  None got through Congress.  He supported gun control.  Nothing.  Tried to close Gitmo. Zilch.  Tried an end-run to close Gitmo.  Congress blocked the funding.  Shepherded the CFPB through Congress and got it funded thru the Fed so Republicans can't starve it.  Simplified the SBA so it's easier to start your own business.  Single-handedly built the base of a green power economy.  Bludgeoned car manufacturers out of their Hummer obsession.  Jump-started manufacturing in the US.  

            All I read here is how awful it all is.  Out in real life business is picking up, consumer confidence is steady and rising.  New businesses are opening up.  And he never stops talking about and pushing for raising the minimum wage, union organizing for building a strong middle class, an economy that grows from the middle out.  

            If your definition of Progressive is killing Wall Street and stripping banks of money, shutting down corporate America, you're not a progressive you're just stuck in some bizarre fantasy where revolution comes with flowers and fun for all.  

            This is a center-left country.  If we don't stop yelling about shit not going our way all the time it's going to drop the left lean and stay center-center. Let's try not to emulate the Tea Party's passion for party purity and ideological stringency.  It's a dead-end and coming back into relevance will take a long time.

            I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

            by I love OCD on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 07:51:29 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Fuck the 10 points behind mentality (11+ / 0-)

        How about playing like we're ahead, attacking them in every fucking state and keep going on the offensive.  Right now the Dems ARE ahead.  We may lose a few senate seats but may also pick up a few unexpected seats including the golden prize in KY.  They're in disarray and when we do attack then as people did in FL in Taliban Dan Webster's Town Hall the other day they have shown that they have no counter attack.  They have nothing.  Stay on offense, attack, attack, attack and when we do win spike the fucking ball down their fucking throats so that come the bigger election in 2016 they not only lose but forfeit.

        This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

        by DisNoir36 on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 05:11:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The theory of playing while behind (10+ / 0-)

          is a call to not get complacent, but to play harder.  It does not equal not attacking them and remaining or not remaining on the offensive.  You can have an outstanding defense, but it's the offense that (generally) scores the points - nothing in the common use of the phrase suggests otherwise.

          As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them. John F. Kennedy

          by JaxDem on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 05:17:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Attacking on all fronts is NOT playing as if ahead (0+ / 0-)

          When you're in the lead, you play it safe, consolidate what you've got, go on defense. You don't get greedy. Overreaching gives your opponent opportunities to pull upsets.

          Attacking left and right is what you do when you're behind, when you have to take risks in order to make up the difference.

          Remember, you only have to win by 1 point.

          "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is the first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk. Every state is totalitarian at heart; there are no ends to the cruelty it will go to to protect itself." -- Ian McDonald

          by Geenius at Wrok on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 08:27:37 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Don't "misunderestimate" them..... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bob Friend

         You're right.

         We won't!

      Compost for a greener piles?

      by Hoghead99 on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 05:53:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The DNC Chair is a part time employee (0+ / 0-)

      Debbie Wasserman Schultz the DNC head also represents Florida's 23rd congressional district. Can't the dems find a full time leader? When has Wasserman Schultz said anything that has fired up the base? And there is plenty to be said. Dem leadership should take lessons from Senator Warren on communication including our president. Right now the dem leadership is just adrift with no clear message and 2014 election will be like 2010. Paging Dr Dean.

      If we lie to the government, it's a felony...but if they lie to us it's politics.

      by rmb on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 07:43:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site