Would it have helped if we had been more progressive?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

Well... would it have helped if unemployment was down to 8%? If GDP growth was 3% instead of 2%?

See, being more progressive isn't about posturing, it's about policy.

The progressive philosophy would have taken high unemployment as UNACCEPTABLE.

The centrist philosophy is to give the people just enough relief that they don't revolt while the economy magically fixes itself.

Those are not talking points, they are policy stances with real world implications.

Rephrase the "how could progressives have won when even blue dogs lost to candidates on their right?" question as, "would jumping on unemployment with both feet from the get go have made a difference?" and the picture starts to come into focus.

______

On Edit: In case anyone still does not get this... government policy affects the real world. People often vote based on conditions in the real word.

Good policy is good politics.

If we had been more progressive the economy would be b-e-t-t-e-r and we just got creamed because the economy was w-o-r-s-e.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. ...

[pacalo]

2. I think better communication to the people would have helped.

The thugs have a "news" network that undermines Obama every step of the way, & then some with ridiculous lies pulled from thin air. The progressives need equal footing. And besides that, Fixed News gives thugs free airtime for campaigning.

[dorktv]

9. No, the message should have been

"if you want to filibuster, here are the cots...lets go."

Standing up to bullies gets better press.

[BeFree]

14. Yep

That would have helped. Rub it in their faces.

I hope Obama has learned his lesson.

[TheWraith]

26. Filibusters haven't worked that way in a long time.

This isn't "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington."

[dorktv]

31. So? Do it anyway. Show the people that you are holding people

accountable.

I am aware of the Senate rules, who cares.

[BeFree]

3. Eh?

And how would unemployment have been tackled?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

5. You win.

Unemployment is wholly independent of government policy.

Nothing we could have done.

Just fate.

[BeFree]

7. bush shipped thousands of jobs overseas

and we keep buying chinese stuff.

GM was saved, the recovery plan and stimulus were made law.

My question, which you seem to duck, is what else could have been done?

Another answer like the one above and I may just put you on ignore.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

11. Please, please, please put me on ignore

Thank you!

[BeFree]

13. Hah

No way, now. I got my eye on you.

[jeff47]

29. A stimulus bill that was actually large enough to stimulate

The stimulus bill was only large enough to maintain the shitty status quo. It needed to be about $1.2T to actually stimulate the economy. But the blue dogs and other centrists would never hear of such a number. It's got a T after it!!!

Unemployment is high because of the shitty economy, and the economy is shitty because of lack of demand. Government buys stuff. Demand goes up. Economy gets better. Unemployment goes down.

More importantly, you only need the perception that unemployment is getting better, you don't have to actually get back to full employment before you benefit politically.

[Radical Activist]

4. What could we have done to get more progressive legislation through the Senate roadblock?

Obviously, what was being done before didn't work. Expecting Obama to pressure the Senate for us on our behalf while we take potshots at his every move was a losing strategy.

[Greyhound]

10. Written it and fought for it.

The "more progressive" solutions were explicitly excluded from the discussion.

[BeFree]

15. And what would that have entailed?

How could Obama have made unemployment to go below 8%?

[Greyhound]

27. Several options existed, it was a tremendous opportunity to fix fundamental flaws in our economy,

all of those that would have had a better chance at working involved putting those trillions into the hands of people rather than the black hole of the "financial sector".

[Radical Activist]

32. You write bills?

No one can exclude progressives from the discussion other than progressives.

[Greyhound]

33. The party in power, specifically The Speaker, Majority Leader, and committee Chairs,

determine what is allowed for consideration, but then, you already know this. Any bills the President wanted to get to the floor, got to the floor.

HR. 676 for example; almost 100 so-sponsors and was bottled up in Democratically controlled committee for years. No debate and no vote.

[The Uncola]

23. Nonsense.Never once were those assholes bluff called.

NOT ONE TIME

[OHdem10]

6. Here are some observations I made:

In the State of VA. Periello and Nye, both Democrats both
lost.

Periella stood up for his Democratic Principles,defended his
vote on HC , etc. He did not diss Obama, in fact Obama visited
his district. When votes were counted Periello had 47% votes

Nye, ran against Democratic legislation dissed Obama and Pelosi
When votes were counted Nye had 42% of the vote.

I use Va because Va trends Red. It is Southern State, not deep
south but some values carry over.


If it is so bad to run as a Progressive, why were the results so
close in so many races.

IM0, we desperately need to revive our party, state by state,
making rank and file Americans become a part of the party and
understanding the importance of every election. There are more
registered Democrats in every state. They just do not vote.
While Pa, had a good showing and kept the final numbers close
there were over one million Democrats who did not vote. You can
go through state by state and find similar results. We can not
wait until Sept to start campaigning when the GOP have been
smearing and campaigning sincethe day the President was sworn in.
Reviving Democratic Party and developing a Philospophy on which
to run any time anywhere.

[TexasObserver]

8. recommend

[bullwinkle428]

12. When the administration came into office, they clearly believed

that the economy would show SIGNIFICANT signs of improvement once we got into 2010. I'm not sure what the "Plan B" was if/when that failed to take place.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

17. Blaming hippies

[KittyWampus]

16. the only thing that would have worked is if we'd had a larger majority in the Senate. Period.

That's the only way we'd have gotten more done and moved further on the economy.

[OHdem10]

22. We never had a majority. How many DLC Blue Dogs voting

with Republicans thwarted our very own efforts.

[jeff47]

30. Not necessary

Reconciliation is reserved for financial bills...like stimulus bills. But the Senate leadership thought using that would be unseemly.

More to the point, the White House's insistence that the stimulus bill was "just right" left them in no position to ask for more stimulus. A much better approach would have been to cast the stimulus bill as "a good start", so the door's open to ask for more later.

[treestar]

40. +1. And the only way to get that is to convince the voters of

Nebraska or North Carolina or Virginia to be more progressive.

And that's not going to happen on demand or by insulting these people's Blue Dogs or whatever they could get.

The lack of consideration and support for or downright insults of DUers and liberals who live in red or blue dog states is not only amazing, it just shows how ignorant people can be.

[McCamy Taylor]

18. No, it would help if we all voted in midterms instead of only voting if

we are pissed off at the party that controls the White House.

Dudes, it was freaking inevitable that the GOP would get enough seats to take over the House. That is what always happens in these midterms when the presidential popularity is less than 50%.

[Codeine]

19. +1 nt

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

20. Perhaps presidential popularity would have been higher...

...if the economy was better.

Policy affects the real world. It's not all just PR.

[Greyhound]

36. Which is another symptom of failing to fight for a progressive agenda.

He started in the 90's - high 80's. That's when he blew it and was told repeatedly by people he refused to hear that he was blowing it.

[The Uncola]

21. K&R

[Bryn]

24. The root of problem is too much money going to Military–industrial complex

Cut it by 70%! As long as this continues we will continue on having a bad economy except for the super rich/corporations. You know the military isn't there to protect this country, it's there to protect the rich and to make profits.

Everyone should read a book War is a Racket. A short book by US Marine Corp Major General Smedley Butler on how the US military made war far more for Wall Street and big corporations than anyone's ..."

WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

In the World War a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.

And what is this bill?

This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.

For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.

read more: http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

[kctim]

25. Sounds like

you just need to convince a whole lot of people that progressive policy is as great as you think it is. Until then, we moderates are going to continue to vote for moderate Dems who represent our views.

[elleng]

28. More RICH is the only thing that would have helped, imo.

Its ALL about $ from now on.

[Kurovski]

34. this sounds like molly Ivins here:

"...government policy affects the real world. People often vote based on conditions in the real word.

Good policy is good politics."

More Progressive is preferable, always. Everyone suffers with the alternative. We might have made it, had that been the case.

[bemildred]

35. Well yeah.

Ideology comes after food on the table. Way after.

[LostInAnomie]

37. People like to dream that somehow we could have magically gotten real progressive bills through.

It's just not grounded in anything but wish thinking. Even if we could have gotten past Repuke filibusters in the Senate, does anyone really believe we could have gotten Bayh, Lieberman, Nelson, Lincoln, Landrieu, and any other senator that relies on health insurance/pharma donations to vote for single payer? Hell, half those fuckers made statements about legislation they would vote for, and then, when the exact thing they called for was waved in their face they demanded it be made even more conservative. They wouldn't have voted for anything more progressive than we got.

We barely cleared the majority hurdle in the house. No way any of the blue dogs would have voted for a strong bill.

You'll hear "Obama should have used the bully pulpit!", "Make them filibuster", and a bunch of other lines, but the truth is, the votes weren't there.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

38. Since your approach has been utterly exposed as a disaster some humility might be in order

Yet you remain utterly sure that you are, and were aways right about everything and speak contemptuously of people who were correct.

Amazing.

[LostInAnomie]

41. Then please explain how we would have passed single payer.

I mean, "my approach" has been utterly exposed. It ought to be easy for a "true progressive" like yourself to explain how you would have gotten past Republican filibusters, members of our own party that wouldn't budge, kept the blue dogs in the House in line (the present bill only passed by 7 votes), etc.

I'll even give you extra bonus points if you can keep from using worn out phrases like "bully pulpit" and "make them filibuster" (Republicans wouldn't have cared).

[treestar]

39. The only thing that helps is more progressive DISTRICTS

Whining about Blue Dogs does no good whatsoever. They come from red areas and instead of taking that progress, the progressives stomp on them. Well those lost. Oh good, except that they forget they are replaced by Republicans.

Progressives claim to want change but inadvertently work against it. They are now on DU bragging that progressive districts have remained progressive, as if that makes up for whatever gains had been made in red states. And that's proof that progressive representatives will be a minority. They don't even attempt to work with Blue Dogs, and look where that got them.

Supporting the Blue Dogs until they could make more progressive moves and helping to get more liberal attitudes in those districts - that's the only way to do it.