The Right wins in America because there is no Left to challenge them

[YoungDemCA]

It doesn't matter what the Democrats-who are not left-wing, except perhaps in the narrow, perversely right-wing American political context-do, how much incremental progress has been made on certain issues, how much President Obama has done for the American public...it doesn't matter.

People respond to gut feelings. Emotions. Tribalism. Values. Beliefs. Fear. Visceral reactions. The vast majority of Americans-hell, the vast majority of people, period-don't rationally consider the options presented to them based on some sort of even remotely empirical process. Most people don't put much thought into how they vote. That's the reality, whether you accept it or not. And I don't think it will change any time soon.

If people (voters) sense any sign of weakness or even perceive (whether correctly or not) that a candidate (s) will not stick up for their own positions, or is too nuanced and overly verbose/complex in their vocabulary, or simply is boring and doesn't "connect" with them as voters and as people, then they won't vote for that candidate-no matter how much their positions on the issues line up with those of the voters (or better yet, no matter how much voters would benefit from that party's policies).

Let's remember, though: This is not a fair fight. The Right has all kinds of institutional and political power in this country. The Left has none, or very little, at most. The corporate media is a thinly veiled propaganda outlet for right-wing interests (and in the case of FOX, talk radio, right-wing blogs, etc., pretty blatantly right-wing propaganda).

If the deck is stacked against the Democrats, and there's no Left-certainly, no organized Left-that can even remotely begin to counterbalance the Republican Right (seems redundant, no?), then maybe it's no wonder that the Republican Party wins elections, when logic dictates that they shouldn't. Because who ever said that politics was logical?

[strawberries]

1. how can you say that

for 2 years of Obama's presidency he had the congress and the senate. He lost congress, but I blame Pelosi for that. With her comment of you have to pass obamacare before you can read it. That did not sit well with anyone and it shouldn't have.

I still don't think repubs are taking the senate

[Fawke Em]

3. Technically, he only had congress for four months.

http://cjonline.com/blog-post/lucinda/2012-06-01/no-obama-did-not-control-congress-his-first-two-years

[strawberries]

4. kennedy

was a senator, had nothing to do with congress and so was Senator Arlen Specter's

[whatthehey]

6. Ermmm... Congress is a term for both assemblies

Senators are very much a part of Congress.

[strawberries]

8. let me try this

I am not arguing that congress is a term for both assemblies, as you are correct.

We have our senators and we have our congressmen/women

The house that holds congressmen/women is one house and that house was held by the democrat majority for the first two years

We also have the senate and they held the democratic majority and still do

So for the Obama's first two years the democrats controlled both houses.

[Tarheel_Dem]

30. Nice GOP talking points ya got there. You do know that we didn't have a super majority for TWO years

right? Because according to Senate rules that's what it would have taken to overcome any filibuster by the Republicans in the Senate. Both houses have to pass legislation before it reaches the President. Just FYI! You speak of "control" as if the minority had no say so at all.

[former9thward]

37. The ACA was passed without any Republican support.

So things can be done. And whether you like it or not the ACA was a pretty big thing.

[Tarheel_Dem]

40. So? You sound like Dems are all of one mind. If that were so, we could have really nice things.

And "whether you like it or not", there are Dems who disagree with you. Get over it.

[KingCharlemagne]

7. I actually think it was closer to 61 days, all told (about two months). That said, Obama

did not have to name Bob Gates as his Defense Secretary in his first term, nor did he have to name Rahm Emmanuel as his Chief of Staff. I personally hold Rahm largely responsible for the 2010 debacle. Was he drummed out of the party or held accountable in any meaningful way? Um, no, not by a long shot.

[Erose999]

9. Rahmbo still has his supporters on DU, too. He's scum. And Gates as press sec'y was a horrible

Last edited Tue Nov 4, 2014, 03:25 PM - Edit history (1)

decision as well as Vilsack for ag sec'y and Duncan for ed sec'y. It says a lot about Obama that he would fill his cabinet with shitty neo-liberals, and none of what it says is good.

Dems will never win by being GOP lite, or by pushing "bi-partisan solutions". You never hear the GOP going on about how they want to include the other party in their initiatives. By claiming that we "value" input from the GOP we strengthen and legitimize them. It gives truly shitty congresspersons like Bachmann, Broun, and Gohmert a veneer of credibility.

[KingCharlemagne]

13. Technical Note: Gates was Defense Secretary in Obama's first term. I largely agree with

your assessments and think President Obama fundamentally misunderstood the lesson(s) of Dorris Kearns Goodwin's Team of Rivals. Lincoln didn't appoint a bunch of slaveocrats to his cabinet. 'Nuff said on that subject.

[rhett o rick]

16. I don't believe Obama "misunderstood" anything. Either he wanted to appoint conservatives

or he was "strongly encouraged" to appoint conservatives. He appointed Rahmbo and Pritzker because he was part of their team.

[KingCharlemagne]

19. Point taken. I think reasonable minds can disagree on whether President Obama

failed to learn the lessons of Republican perfidy (my position) or proceeded knowing them all too well (I think your position?).

In the long run, the net effect is that Republican perfidy and demagoguery undermined much of the President's larger vision and agenda.

[rhett o rick]

27. But how do we really know what the President's agenda was?

Republicans didn't force him to appoint Gen Clapper, Gen Alexander and Brennan.

[former9thward]

42. He appointed a slave owner and slavery sympathizer as his VP in 1864.

A pretty important appointment given he became President a few months later.

[KingCharlemagne]

44. Andrew Johnson was a staunch Unionist even though he hailed from the slave

state of TN. Johnson's staunch Unionism trumps his ante-bellum pro-slavery positions. Did Johnson advocate revoking the Emancipation Proclamation? No. Lincoln faced the task of knitting the country back together "with malice toward none, with charity toward all." How better to do that than to take a Southerner into his administration?

I really think it is unfair to Andrew Johnson to lump him in with the Southern slaveocrats, since Johnson opposed secession, the sine qua non of the slaveocrats.

Look, I'm not apologizing for Johnson; I wish Lincoln had pursued a policy of seizing the property and lands of the slaveocrats and distributing them with title free and clear to the freed bondsmen and women. That's the fate that traitors deserve. But Lincoln had more charity than I could ever hope to have. And for that I consider him a great man, even if he was a Republican.

[TheKentuckian]

15. Which party controlled the Senate in 2005? Which party holds it today? How do we determine

which party controls the Senate?

If folks mean to say "filibuster proof" majority then say it and stop arguing Democrats only had a majority in the Senate for xx days when it isn't at all true and everyone knows it isn't true or we'd not be trying to hold our majority but trying to get one.

[KingCharlemagne]

18. I'm not sure I understand your point. What does 2005 have to do with

Obama's first term (which began in January 2009)?

Dems have never had a 100% filibuster proof majority in the Senate since Obama took office, AFAIK.

[TheKentuckian]

24. Agreed, I don't care for the oft made claim that we did not hold a MAJORITY by

conflating that fact with lack of or very limited filibuster proof majority.

[Stargazer99]

2. Those with power and money have trained the common man well, have they not?

Last edited Tue Nov 4, 2014, 06:28 PM - Edit history (1)

critical thinking is general not taught in school......makes you wonder

[KingCharlemagne]

5. Dems and Republicans collaborated to smash the Left (Socialists and Communists) back

in the 40s and 50s, and we're still paying the price for that collaboration of the two bourgeois parties even today. BTW, the historical anachronism known as the Smith Act is still on the books as we write.

[2naSalit]

10. It is my sincere hope

that a good number of negatively impacted voters have figured out what they need to do and are actually participating in making a change that they hoped for but did not act on previously.

[Jake Stern]

11. "People respond to gut feelings. Emotions. Tribalism. Values. Beliefs. Fear. Visceral reactions."

Learned through experience that it's extremely difficult to fight emotion with logic.

[JoePhilly]

12. Let's just keep fighting each other.

Its what we're good at.

[99Forever]

14. What utter tucking nonsense.

Stupidest thing I've heard in years.

[AZ Progressive]

20. Denial like that allows the Republicans to keep on winning

There are not enough rational thinking Americans to win the country over. Face it, we live amongst ill informed, easily misled people that are DECIDING YOUR FATE. YOU APPEAL TO THEM OR YOU BECOME THE VICTIMS OF THEM.

[99Forever]

22. Horsepucky.

The system isn't broken. The system is fixed. And it sure as fuck isn't because there ISN'T a left in this nation, as the BS OP says. It's because the Democratic Party has forgotten that we ARE it's base and we are done being used abused and taken for granted.

[Bluenorthwest]

17. What drivvel, and out of California of all places. Do Republicans win all of your elections? No.

In 2010, CA when Full Blue. Meg Whitman spent a fortune to win a seat Brown picked like a ripe apple. Fiorino spent another fortune to be defeated by a Democrat. To your north similar victories abounded.
But all you see is stupidity and a stacked deck? That's just sad.

[rhett o rick]

21. The Left has been marginalized by the Ruling Oligarchs. They have convinced some Democrats

that the Left is crazy. Those that call themselves moderates, do so because they lack conviction. If the Ruling Oligarchs tell them that fracking is cool, they, the so-called moderates, eat it up.

Supporting fracking, the Free Trade job killer Argeements, the XL Pipeline, Wall Street bailouts, etc. ARE NOT MODERATE STANDS.

Moderates are really conservatives ashamed to admit it.

[JCMach1]

23. Do we need more Naderite electoral analysis... ? Hell yes, there is a huge difference

between Dems and Repugs...

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

26. This

[Starry Messenger]

25. CA has a pretty healthy left-center.

CFT voters vote 85% progressive, highest in the nation. States with higher union membership tend to be more left. The right wins because they are shredding the labor movement, and any "liberal" who helps them do that is their handmaiden.

[YoungDemCA]

31. Good points

nt

[Man from Pickens]

28. And the anti-war left?

We were vital to electing Obama in the first place and got the middle finger how many times now? Libya, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan, out of Afghanistan by 2011, close Guantanamo...?

And the Democrats not named Sanders or Kucinich or Lee who spoke up to protest the situation are...?

This country already has an overwhelming majority that is just sick and tired of war! And anti-war is supposed to be a core Democratic principle! And peace is objectively to the benefit of every person not engaged in war profiteering!

What do we got to do to get on a dance card in this here party?

[Tarheel_Dem]

33. Obama can't be blamed because you were uninformed. He's never been "anti-war", not in '08 &

not today. WTF did you dredge that up from?

[Man from Pickens]

34. If I was misinformed, so was the Nobel Peace Prize committee

And the speech that put Obama on the map, that made him a nationally significant politician... that was his anti-Iraq War speech.

http://obamaspeeches.com/001-2002-Speech-Against-the-Iraq-War-Obama-Speech.htm

And if I was misinformed, so, it appears, were everybody else, like the NY Times, NPR, International Socialist Review, and many, many others.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/26/us/politics/26obama.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88988093
http://isreview.org/issue/63/antiwar-movement-and-obama
http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/22963/obama-anti-war-law-professor-warmonger-100-days
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2008/11/pers-n28.html

The list of references to Obama being anti-war, back in the 2008 and earlier era, is nearly limitless. I could spam you with pages of links if I thought it would make the case any more clear than it already is.

It was one of the most compelling reasons why he beat Hillary in 2008 - she was the war candidate, and he was one of the few who stood against it when it was not popular.

[Tarheel_Dem]

35. Your 1st response tried to paint him as "anti-war", you didn't state "anti-IRAQ-war" initially.

He clearly stated that he was ALL for the mission in Afghanistan, and promised to escalate, which he did, and won re-election in 2012. Do you know what the Nobel Peace Prize was for? Hint: It was not for being "anti-war". I have to ask because I'm often surprised that people hear the word "Peace Prize" and make assumptions, or in this case, revise history just for shits & giggles.

[Man from Pickens]

36. Technically it was "anti-DUMB war" by his own words

So tell me this.

Is it smart or dumb to still be in Afghanistan?

Was it smart or dumb to go into Libya and turn it into jihadist heaven?

Is the one-foot-in, one-foot-out war we're now waging in Syria/Iraq smart or dumb?

Is it smart or dumb to run year after year of drone assassinations in Pakistan, Yemen, and elsewhere?

Of all the places that Obama has our military forces committed right now, which ones exactly do you think are smart wars?

[Tarheel_Dem]

38. I don't make those calls. I thought it was important to correct you so that uninformed readers....

wouldn't mistake your initial post for truth. That is all! Obama was NEVER "anti-war".

[Man from Pickens]

39. Only rhetorically

Unless you can name a "smart war", I stand by my assertion that ALL wars are dumb wars.

"War is organized murder, and nothing else."

[Tarheel_Dem]

41. "War is organized murder, and nothing else."

This is why liberals have made themselves pretty much irrelevant to serious debates. Hyperbolic nonsense.

[Man from Pickens]

43. I noticed you can't name a not-dumb war

So deflect as you may, the point stands. If you want to bring up WW2, well - there have been dozens of wars since then so the odds of any given war being not-dumb are staggeringly low.

That quote was from the last survivor of WW1 by the way.

[Louisiana1976]

29. I am a socialist and I think the Democratic Party should move further left than it is. Instead of

people like Obama (who is pretty right-wing as Democrats go) and Hillary (who's to the right of Obama) we need some real progressive alternatives.

[Tarheel_Dem]

32. Obviously, the country disagrees with you as a self avowed "socialist".