When did being progressive equate to being unelectable?

[AZ Progressive]

Did it to FDR, to Kennedy, to Johnson?

This would be considered REALLY extremist and unelectable nowadays apparently...

[LongTomH]

1. The American people tend to be Liberal/Progressive on issues; it's the labels that confuse them!

Every poll shows that people will support progressive stances like:

• Expanding Social Security benefits,
  
• Maintaining or expanding Medicare benefits,
  
• Making the rich pay their fair share of taxes,
  
• They like the Affordable Care Act and are coming to support Single-Payer.

But, since Ronald Reagan, the political right has been waging a campaign to make 'Liberal' a hate word; that's why we adopted the word 'Progressive.' Now the rightwing media is making Progressive a hate word too.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

5. Exactly. It's a deliberately spread meme.

Spread by Republicans to attack every Democrat, and spread by centrist democrats to attack left wing democrats.

[NCTraveler]

2. Clinton is a progressive and has been elected.

Obama is progressive and has been elected. Anyone saying we can't get a progressive elected has no idea what they are talking about.

[AZ Progressive]

6. You mean Bill Clinton with NAFTA, DOMA, welfare reform, and repealing Glass Steagall?

And Obama passing centrist economic stimulus bills and a centrist healthcare reform bill? Obama now trying to pass TPP? Obama spitting on labor unions?

[NCTraveler]

10. Yes, Clinton and Obama did all of that on their own.

The lack of political knowledge on a political discussion board is astounding. Yes, they are progressives.

[AZ Progressive]

13. They have the power to veto and not support legislation, don't absolve them of their responsibility

[NCTraveler]

17. I don't absolve them of their responsibility.

Poor assumption on your part.

[AZ Progressive]

15. Oh BTW, Hillary is a wife of the Champion of the DLC, which is NOT progressive

Don't try to sell me a sack of shit.

[NCTraveler]

18. Not selling you anything.

And the boogey man thing doesn't work on me. They are progressive. No doubt about it. No matter how you define it as long as it pertains to American politics. I called them progressives. I did not call them perfect. Your assumptions are foolish at best.

[AZ Progressive]

20. Yep, having Goldman Sachs executives as your Treasury Secretary, staff, and consultants is really progressive...

Please, progressives on this forum are not fools, and don't buy what shit you are selling.

[NCTraveler]

22. I am a progressive on this forum.

You seem to be very hostile. They are progressives. I understand we have some division and ratfucking going on here.

"Please, progressives on this forum are not fools, and don't buy what shit you are selling."

You don't speak for me and should stop trying to do so. I do appreciate you saying I am not a fool though. Not that I needed the confirmation. lol.

[agent46]

39. I see what you're doing there

Do people who know you actually let you get away with this type of weasly wordplay? You're simply redefining the word "progressive" for your limited purposes, while pushing actual progressive ideas and ideals into an "extreme left wing" no man's land. Well done.

Or maybe you're just kidding yourself.

[dreamnightwind]

68. Thank you

Saved me from losing it. How about the use of the rat fucking term? That's pretty much the lowest thing I ever see on DU, when posters call leftists rat fuckers, fairly common attack, too. Like we're the opposition, trying to undermine Democrats so Republicans can win, shaking my head. We're trying to get the elephant out of the room, not in the white house.

[MineralMan]

3. It never did. I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Progressives get elected all the time. Where I am, everyone from state legislators to President are progressives. I guess our definitions of the word are different.

Not every progressive is electable, though. That, too, has always been true.

[giftedgirl77]

4. Where are you getting your information from?

[okaawhatever]

7. Are you referring to Bernie? nt

[sabrina 1]

8. It's always been said by the far Right. It started to be a claim when the DLC began its takeover

of the Dem Party.

Around 2004 was when I began to see claims that Liberals/Progressives/The Left, were unelectable and that all they wanted were 'ponies', you know, like Equal Pay for Equal Work, and Gays in the Military and Gay Marriage.

I was actually there when the Third Way invaded Liberal Forums with talking points like 'we are not going lose this election just so you can have your ponies'

Then began the attacks and smears against Democrats like Kucinich.

I was used to all this from battling with Republican Fox Graduates, but it was a shock to see it on some of the biggest 'Liberal Forums' at the time.

[AZ Progressive]

12. The Third Way people are traitors as far as I'm concerned

They are Democrats that have been colluding with Republicans and the Wealthy Elite to push the center farther to the right and are pretty much DINOs and traitors to the people. They are the reason why American politics is farther to the right than any other country in the developed world.

[zappaman]

16. WILL the TWAIN never meet?

[greatauntoftriplets]

51. ...

[NanceGreggs]

53. Given how poorly you utilize that Label-Maker ...

... it's too bad you didn't re-gift it.

[kentuck]

9. "Progressive" is a bad word with negative connotations...

...created by the media because they know that "progressive" politics is the biggest threat to them holding on and expanding their corporate power over the citizens of America.

[BrotherIvan]

25. And it has a very elusive definition

The word "liberal" is much clearer (yet still co-opted) because it stands for a certains set of principles. I'm going with that. Apparently, I have recently understood that which has been staring me in the face for so long: that DU has many socially liberal posters who are fiscally conservative or apathetic. I find that intensely odd.

[dreamnightwind]

69. Yes

It is odd, but it's what the good cop is sellling.

Nothing that helps change the course of the nation from corporate economically stratified militarism is ever on the table, so many just accept that as a fact of life and instead advocate social policy changes for their own interest groups.

To me that is like being on the Titanic and complaining that you want an upgrade of your room knowing full well that on its present course the ship will sink and kill all those aboard. With the current climate change situation, as well as many other issues, there is no denying we are indeed on the Titanic and desperately need to change course.

[HereSince1628]

72. "Liberal"is much clearer than "progressive"?

I don't think that's quite true.

I'd admit to both of them being rather ambiguous. Moreover, they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive until they get used as labels in the us vs them games of social competitions such as primary seasons.

[Enthusiast]

34. Correct

[Smarmie Doofus]

11. 1972. If you want a date.

Not that I BUY that.

That's just when it began to be generally "assumed". In other words.... it ( the idea) was "force-fed" to us by tptb.

[jwirr]

21. Yep us tax and spend liberals. But hey we like all those programs you gave us.

[ieoeja]

31. '68 debacle was followed by the rise of primaries.

McGovern won. The Party Bosses lost and did everything in their power to throw the general election to Nixon. Difficult to win when your own Party machinery is working for the other side.

Politcally, the country was also experiencing a bit of "future shock". We had made a lot of advances in a short time and people needed to take a breath. They were also just flat out tired of all the fighting. And Liberals around that time were too dour**.

In fact, activist Liberals in 1972 were a lot like today's Teabaggers in their constant anger. Which means most people are likely just as sick of Rightists today as they were of Leftists back then.


[font size=1]
**I like to remind people that the critics absolutely panned Star Wars. They saw it as a corny, clichest movie devoid of any deeper meaning. I mean, the good guy wore white and the bad guy wore black! You can't get more cliche than that. What the critics missed was that we were sick and tired of everything having to have a deep meaning all the time. Sometimes we just want to enjoy ourselves. Star Wars tapped into people wanting to put the fighting in the '60s behind them.
[/font]

[Ms. Toad]

67. You beat me to it. n/t

[Doctor_J]

14. About the time the Turd Way took over the party

and the fascists took over the media.

[Enthusiast]

35. It appeared to be a coordinated effort, in my opinion.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Agnosticsherbet]

19. Kennedy and FDR were both liberals.

well known with national profiles.

2015 is not 1932 or 1960.

I suspect that someone like FDR would have trouble being elected today, considering how his family made their wealth in banking and insurance. After his election, and especially after the New Deal, the wealthy called him a "Traitor to His class." I think the wealthy son of a Banking family today would not get much traction on the left side of politics no matter what he said. His use of a wheel chair would be even more of an issue today, because we live in a video world and it would be impossible to hide it as he did when he first ran for President.

Would a wealthy Kennedy be electable today? He has the gravitas of a war hero, and he could speak well. His Catholicism would not matter so much today. He almost did not get elected the first time with a narrow margin of the popular vote, though he won handily by electoral votes. Good looking and young, he would remind people of both Bill Clinton and Obama. His strong anti-communist policies would make him difficult for the far left to swallow, though he would be a slam dunk among liberal and centrists Democrats.

[Orrex]

23. Has this claim been made on DU?

Who has asserted that a Progressive is unelectable?

Or have they asked a different question that you have rephrased in that way?

[BrotherIvan]

26. The clear statement is that Sanders can't win because of his liberal/progressive platform

Because this country is too center right. And that only a centrist can win the election.

I keep trying to point out that this is a myth, that the electoral college makes it nearly impossible for a Republican--especially one that can make it through the primaries and be approved by their batshit base--to win the general. A Democrat walks in with 257 votes, a Repulican with 149. That means a Democrat only has to win a swing state such as Virginia (Obama did) OR two swing states like Colorado and Iowa (Obama did). A Repulican would have to win every single swing state and one solidly blue state to make 270.

The boogeyman that people will be flocking to vote for a racist, homophobic, hateful Bible thumper or a goddamned Bush is nothing more than a myth. Except for election theft or an October surprise, whomever wins the Democratic primary wins the election.

[Orrex]

30. Well...

The sentiment as I've interpreted it is not that a Progressive can't win, but rather that Sanders can't win, which is a very different assertion.

[BrotherIvan]

37. So you're saying that rebranded neoliberalism is what will get people flocking to the polls?

Or that a candidate who was rejected by the voters in 2008 in favor of a much more progressive/liberal (sounding) alternative is sure to win?

I have presented facts that the Democratic candidate is a very strong (and almost inevitable) bet for winning the general. There have been posts in the last days that the people of this country overwhelmingly favor progressive and yes, socialist-style policies. I would like to see your argument refuting this backed up with some facts. Until then, it's just a hollow meme that "Bernie can't win."

[Orrex]

60. Show me where I said that. Otherwise, you should retract your dishonest misquote

I have a better idea. Rather than parroting mantra that people don't know that they really want a Socialist (or, excuse me, a "democratic socialist&quot in the Whitehouse, why don't you convince me that the all but unknown Senator representing the 2nd smallest constituency in the demographically (nearly) uniform far northeast can sway 51% of the general electorate nationwide. Show me the polls that demonstrate he can beat Hillary or any of the top three current GOP contenders.

Convince me that Sanders can actually win, and then I'll support his quixotic candidacy.


Until then, you're simply propping of a vanity campaign.

[BrotherIvan]

63. Quotation marks designate a quote. A question mark is the punctuation used for a question.

I can't convince you that Bernie can win, only he can. He needs some good primary showings and lots of visable enthusiasm and support. I think he is building the latter, let's see if his team is strong enough to produce the former.

And if supporting the candidate who is championing MY values and fights for what I believe in is a vanity campaign then I'm as vain as hell.

[Orrex]

65. For future reference, you were attempting the strawman fallacy

Broadly speaking, when you begin a paraphrasing of your opponent's argument with "So..." you are using a strawman, and your opponent is under no obligation to defend that false paraphrase.

And if supporting the candidate who is championing MY values and fights for what I believe in is a vanity campaign then I'm as vain as hell.

Smarmy, but whatever. You are welcome to support him until the last primary ballot is cast, and for as long thereafter as you want. I simply don't care who you support.

But the oft-expressed notion that people would want Sanders in the Whitehouse if they just got to know him is a declaration of faith, and that's both naive and irresponsible on the national political stage. Likewise, the endless accusation that those who don't think Sanders can win are "afraid" of his candidacy is a load of bullshit.

Your personal opinion means nothing to me. I object to the attacks and the mischaracterizations. If supporting your champion means that you also support such tactics, then you're fair game.

[BrotherIvan]

66. I'm fair game?

So it's war then because I disagree with your position? Ok. I'll support the candidate who I think represents me. I haven't used any attacks such as smarmy and naive. But I doubt that ccondescension is a winning strategy to convince others that Clinton is a better candidate.

[Orrex]

70. For future reference, you were attempting the strawman fallacy

Broadly speaking, when you begin a paraphrasing of your opponent's argument with "So..." you are using a strawman, and your opponent is under no obligation to defend that false paraphrase.

But I doubt that ccondescension is a winning strategy to convince others that Clinton is a better candidate.

If the goal is to win the Presidency, then--practically speaking--if one of your potential candidates is electable and the other is not, then the one who is electable is a better candidate than the one who is not.

Also, pointing out your fallacies doesn't strike me as condescension, especially when you keep using them.

[BrotherIvan]

75. Your definitions are exclusive to yourself

And your false premises are growing fallacies. Good day.

[Enthusiast]

36. Nice!

[onehandle]

24. So far all of the declared candidates on the Democratic side are progressives.

That I know of... Is there anyone else other than Hillary and Bernie?



Or are you talking about President Obama?

[brooklynite]

27. Which of those two called himself a socialist?

Yes, I know he's a DEMOCRATIC Socialist, but that's a distinction the average voter won't likely appreciate, and my historical analysis tells me that, in a NATIONAL campaign (not a Seattle City Council Seat), it's going to impact his electability.

[SoapBox]

33. ^^^ THIS! ^^^

I agree 100%.

The mass of American lemmings (buried in their texts, gaming, sports or churching) will never understand...and the meatheads at FuksFhonyNews will never let them understand.

[BrotherIvan]

38. I would like to hear your argument against my post #26 upthread

Seeing as you are very knowledgable about how the race works.

[brooklynite]

41. You call out Virginia as an example...

...This is a far less liberal State than Vermont with a large Military (active and retiree) population. How does Sanders campaign in a State like this (much less win it)? You presumably want him to forego the funds available under CU; the Republicans won't be so accomodating.

[jeff47]

44. By forgetting about the areas you complain about.

Those parts of the state won't vote for Clinton either, so she has to win it the same way - DC Suburbs and other very urban areas.

They outnumber the population in the areas you cite. The problem is getting those voters to show up at the polls.

How about NC? Win big in Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, Greensboro and Asheville. Forget about the rural areas. That's how Obama won it in 2008. And how Hagan won on his coattails. Obama lost NC in 2012 when he couldn't get high enough turnout in those cities. And Hagan's Republican-lite campaign in 2014 utterly failed.

A Republican or Republican-leaning independent will not vote for any Democratic candidate. We should stop trying to woo people who will rip off their own arms before they pull the lever for a Democrat.

[BrotherIvan]

58. Exactly so

A Republican or Republican-leaning independent will not vote for any Democratic candidate. We should stop trying to woo people who will rip off their own arms before they pull the lever for a Democrat.

It is corporate propaganda to get you to believe that only a corporate/1% sanctioned candidate is worth even considering.

I would add though that I have seen with my own eyes that Republican-leaning independents are very attracted to Sanders. On Reddit there is lots of talk of people switching their party affiliations all ready to vote in the primaries. Libertarians as well. This is because he represents getting money out of politics which they like. I'm not sure they will stick with him once he starts talking about minority and women's rights, but for now he has the ability to attract independents far more than Clinton who represents the establisment, as she did in 2008.

[BrotherIvan]

45. So what about the other states mentioned

Such as Iowa (as he can speak about farming and his positions very well) and Colorado, Nevada, Ohio and Florida, all of which went to Obama in 2012.

You're saying that money is the only thing that can win? Without money this country vote for Bush III or Ted Cruz? But money is enough to get them to vote for Clinton instead? I would like to understand this logic because I have yet to see an argument that goes any further than the "Republicans will have a lot of money to run attack ads." And with Clinton in the race, it's not like they won't. So I am actually sincere in asking for some sort of reasoning.

[brooklynite]

46. I'm saying money is an essential component of a national campaign

People here love to yell about the "MSM" ignoring Bernie; well, how many people can he reach one-on-one? Or even at rallies? Paid media AND paid staff are essential in large States; where will he get the money?

Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich never found a magic bullet to bypass the realities of political finances today. Everyone on our side wants to get rid of CU (Hillary Clinton told me personally she would appoint Justices to overturn it), but it's the law in place until at least 2017.

[BrotherIvan]

62. So we're pivoting away from the electoral map and talking about money?

Will Hillary be able to out raise Sanders by at least 10 to 1, 20 to 1? Yes. Can we at least all admit that the idea that no one can run for president without raising two billion dollars and being completely beholden to those interests which finance the campaign is one of the worst commentaries on our current political system? That's the kind of thing that brought Rome down. That is something that should give us all more than a moment's pause. That is something that even Republican voters and Tea Partiers can agree is a rot in the system.

Do I think that the inability to raise corporate cash is the Sanders campaign's major weakness? Yes. I do think with the enthusiasm and support that is building, he will be able to stretch his money much further. I have worked on films that had a $3 million dollar budget that looked like $50Mill and ones that had a $100Mill budget that were complete flops. I think money can't buy enthusiasm. And after the thrill of Obama, I don't think people are going to come out for anything less. Whether the candidate is a Democrat or a Republican, if they are an entrenched pol with tons of baggage, people are just going to stay home. That's where money can put a candidate over the top.

But I can't figure out whether it's black comedy or a distopian fantasy that the only matchup that the voters are being offered is a Clinton vs a Bush.

[BainsBane]

54. What you think of Sanders chances

Is a separate issue from the whitewashing of history that people around here engage in.
Sanders calls himself a socialist. People here are old enough they shouldn't have to be told what that meant in Cold War America. Yet they conflate mainstream Democratic presidents who despised socialism with a candidate who refers to himself as a socialist.

[BrotherIvan]

57. Not separate at all

I am arguing that the hue and cry that only a centrist can beat a Republican is entirely false. I am saying it is nearly impossible for anyone who will be the nominee for the Republican party to win no matter who the Democrat is. I am showing facts to back up that argument, not opinions.

In regards to the Socialism angle, I think that many of the people who were around for that period are of the older end of the spectrum. On reddit the number one question is, "What's a socialist?" And when they are given an answer, the reply is "Oh. What's wrong with that?" You would have had to have been an adult during Reagan's era for that word to have an immediate negative connotation which means we are talking at least 50+

Secondly, I am also arguing that Obama was called not only a Socialist but a Muslim which had much greater immediate negative connotation. We were told that Obama couldn't possibly win because he is black and we were told that meant only small slivers of the coasts would vote for him and that he would get completely crushed in the plains and the south. He did lose a good part of it while carrying the upper midwest and Florida. He also won in 2012 with a resounding victory.

Because the electoral college is simple mathematics, a lot of the arguments that are being posed here are out of date with how it now stands. That is what I am saying. And further, I am saying the argument to vote out of fear rather than to vote for your interest is an illusion when one examines the evidence.

[Rex]

28. It does not, there is a TINY group here that cries foul when it rains!

Ignore them, they are only here to divide us all up.

[unblock]

29. ever since corporations figured out how to corrupt the political process.

between corporate propaganda and the massive influence of money in politics, it's rather difficult to get progressives elected, sometimes even in places where you would think it would be a cakewalk.

just look at warren's senate race, in massachusetts of all places, why wasn't that a blow-out? because corporations pegged her as the enemy and gave tons of money to brown, which kept him viable well past his sell-by date.

[BainsBane]

52. So what were the Palmer Raids

and the House on UnAmerican Activities Committee about? If the problem is only recent, why was the American left purged, deported, imprisoned and blacklisted? At no other point in history has someone who calls himself a socialist been a serious contender for a major party nomination.

[unblock]

55. it's not only a recent problem. there's an ebb and flow to it.

as long as there has been politics, there has been corruption. it comes and goes, changes shape, and moves from place to place, but it's always there.

right now we're at a point of rather large institutionalized corruption, with effectively legalized bribery. so it's very difficult to actually win, say, a presidential election without significant support from enough rich people and corporations to be competitive. not impossible, but the side that money backs has a huge advantage that's hard to overcome.

"fortunately", corporate control of the political process has increased over the last 30 years or so to the point where the right wing is driven to excess. they've created a large backlash in the population that probably roughly offsets the advantage that money gives them. so a progressive stands a chance after all.

i'm not sure what you're getting at with attacks on socialists from other eras. those weren't directed at presidential candidates in particular, though they were certainly part of the right wing's never-ending war against the left wing, and yet more evidence that there's no gutter low enough for them....

[BainsBane]

59. Eugene V. Debs

ran for president several times, including while in prison. The OP makes a serious error in conflating maintstream Democratic presidents with a self-declared socialist. He conflates Cold Warriors who despised socialism with someone who claims the mantle, and pretends they occupy the same political space. Sanders not only couldn't have run for the Democratic nomination in those periods, he would have faced the very real possibility of imprisonment, like Debs. The assumption that the presidency was open to leftists prior to "corporations" or the past thirty years is absurd. The reason there is no left in this county is because it has been purged, and what we are left with is liberals who make no challenge to capital itself but rather express frustration over the decline of their own class.

The fact that a socialist would even be considered as a candidate for a major party is something that could never have happened in the past. What you describe is a function of campaign finance, made possible by SCOTUS decisions. The presidency may be the least of the problem because all presidential candidates get some attention. Money has an even greater impact on House, Senate and local races, and it enables industry lobbyists to write legislation. This obsession with the presidency on DU misses the seriousness of the problem, particularly when people want to pretend it's all about a certain presidential candidate.

This lexicon about corporations and erection of an ideal, distorted past has currency for a certain section of the population that prospered under an economic system built upon massive inequality. Many here openly long for a period when the vast majority of Americans were denied civil rights and lived in miserable poverty because their section of the class structure did well. The fact is this nation was built on inequality: freedom for some was made possible by slavery and disenfranchisment of others, of the overwhelming majority of the population. That has been pointed out dozens of times here, yet people continue to present the past as ideal because for the people who matter, the white male upper-middle and middle class, it was. For the rest of us, it was not, but we have never mattered so I guess it's not surprising that we don't matter here either.

The problem, I submit, is not "corporations" but capital. The problem is not entirely recent but endemic to the capitalist system. However, campaign finance and the fact that capital is increasingly global and loyal to no place or nation has exposed a new host of contradictions in the system. What is happening is that even the white middle- and upper-middle class is starting to feel some of the economic hardship that the rest of us have always faced.

[unblock]

71. great post!

yes, i was sloppy saying corporations are to blame for modern political corruption. of course it has more to do with concentration of wealth, and corporations are merely one of the latest convenient vehicles. a limited competition for-profit media is also part of the problem, as are super-pacs and so on.

i, at least, am not pining for the past, certainly not on a wholesale basis. we have indeed made progress. gay marriage and acceptance of homosexual relationships in general being the most obvious area (not that our work is done there by a long shot, but personally i couldn't have imagined today's political landscape in this area even 10 years ago).

but progress in some areas doesn't mean we haven't gone backwards in others. some things have gotten worse, including hyper-partisanship, the decline of political discourse, and the increase of corruption of the political process. there's much about the 1970's i don't miss, but certain things about politics were better back then. watergate seems quaint in today's political environment. i can't imagine that would have brought down a republican president these days. that party would have just closed ranks and stood by their president come hell or high water, the media would have smeared woodward and bernstein, and nixon would have dipped in the polls but survived.

i think the fact that sanders can now run while self-identifying as a socialist is due to a couple things, mostly having to do with right-wing overreach. first, there's a bit of a backlash against the right; second, they've gone and smeared "liberals" and "progressives" and "left-wingers" with the same brush as "socialists". by now, these are just meaningless interchangeable insults against anyone to the left of the republican party.

i mean, they go around calling obama a socialist, so how are people to think sanders is any different.

[SoapBox]

32. When did it happen?

Hmmm...maybe with the evil increase in bullshit about the Left from...

The birth of FuksFakeNoise/Murdoch, Hate Radio, Pulpit Pounding Liars, KKKBrothers/filthy rich billionaires, ALEC, the Impotency of Mass Media and....

Well, just a few reasons as to why anyway.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

40. They've been smearing us since Vietnam.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

42. 1980s onwards, roughly.

I'm not sure to what extent Reagan was a cause and to what extend a symptom, but I'd date progressives being unelectable at a national level in the USA to around that era.

[theboss]

43. Somewhere between 1964 and 1968

On a national level, the demographics are starting to tilt in our favor. Sanders will be a decent litmus test for how openly liberal you can be in a national campaign.

[AzDar]

47. It doesn't.

[Populist_Prole]

48. Since 24/7/365 TV news

News has become superficial. Much "horse race" type coverage and pigeonholing. They have set the narrative to the point where their glib version of conventional wisdom has replaced common sense/critical thinking.

Some great posts above BTW.

[wyldwolf]

49. What made the three you name 'progressives?'

“I am not a liberal at all,” Kennedy once told the Saturday Evening Post. “I’m not comfortable with those people.” Journalist and JFK insider Ben Bradlee confirmed it. “He hated the liberals.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/08/the-new-new-left-is-no-new-frontier-and-jfk-was-no-liberal.html

How FDR Saved Capitalism:

http://www.hoover.org/research/how-fdr-saved-capitalism

Liberal criticism of FDR and the New Deal

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/08/11/891631/-UPDATED-Liberal-Criticism-of-Franklin-Roosevelt-and-The-New-Deal

[BainsBane]

50. Are you talking about Sanders?

He has called himself a socialist. When was that unelectable in the US? Always, at least in the past. Those guys you posted up above hated socialists and two were huge Cold Warriors. Times have changed. We will see how much they have changed and if Sanders' socialism is the liability it has previously been in the US.

[Major Hogwash]

56. After Dukakis was defeated, Democrats stopped supporting progressive ideals on a national scale.

Instead, they hired pollsters to tell them how to win by "threading the needle" by taking a "third way" stance on many of the issues that faced this country at the time.

The mainstream media has since consolidated and grown even stronger after JFK was assassinated.
So, they are implicit in the scheme of running down progressive ideals.
After Nixon was elected, the mainstream media ran stories bashing LBJ's Great Society for decades until it was picked cleaner than a Thanksgiving turkey's carcass by 1996!

The mainstream media tore so many holes in the safety net of every program that any Democrat President started that we wound up with George "Dubya" Bush in 2000.
That village idiot proposed that we invest the Social Security funds in the stock market in 2005.
He went on a national tour trying to sell that idea.
The financial crisis of 2007-2008 proved, once and for all, what a complete assklown Bush was.

[Bonobo]

61. I think people never got over Reagan. nt

[AgingAmerican]

64. It is called, "Stockholm Syndrome"

And Democrats who suffer from it call themselves, 'Centrist', IMHO.

Centrist means they believe half Democratic ideas and half Republican ideas. I cannot find a single one of them who can name a Republican idea they ascribe to, at least they cant admit it.

Why they proclaim to identify with these psychopaths is beyond comprehension.

[mmonk]

73. Mid 80's.

[Jesus Malverde]

74. I think it was Carter?

The meme started there.

[Recursion]

76. Oh, the 70s or early 80s or so

Stuff like this was pretty convincing to a lot of the Democratic party's strategists: