Who do you think will win in November?

Post Reply New Topic

Maybe, but you can't deny that they successfully pushed one of the two major parties in this country in the direction they wanted, and they did it through sticking with ideological purity over fears of letting the other party win. Now if you're happy with the Democratic party you've got Bill, then by all means just keep yanking that D lever regardless of who's behind it and how they actually govern, Marshall and many other progressives are clearly unhappy with the current status quo.

Regardless if I'm not totally happy with the Democrats, the fact is, the tea party/Republican alternative makes me overcome any disagreement I have with the Dems.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

That's what they want you to think.

And the Republicans aren't really going to cut necessary programs while increasing tax cuts - which they themselves have said they'd do?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Then I suppose the Republicans will use the Democrats solution -- put it on my Mastercard.

That is actually Reaganomics.

Both parties share equal blame for fiscal irresponsibility.

ArrantPariah, I hope you genuflected when you typed Reagonomics. After all he is a Republican saint or god or whatever.

Still a long way to go. I couldnt make a prediction.

Obama is doing much better on gallup lately. But what is happening in November is what matters.

If Obama signs CISPA, does he still win?

Few self-professed liberals/progressives I know consider themselves "team Democrats". People on the left seem to have more disdain for the Democratic establishment than conservative's have for "RINO"s. Few people identify with a political party, they identify with their ideals and the ideals they oppose.

I also note that the Tea Party became a lot more pragmatic as soon as they got bought out. They managed to gain power by abandoning their more libertarian leaning roots and becoming a beacon of all-encompassing reactionary rage against the newly elected "secret Muslim, commie devil" occupying the oval office. They also didn't push people to vote third party. They used the primary process to influence the Republican party into becoming more extreme from the inside out. If the original Tea Party had stuck to their principles in promoting economic conservative ideals and left the reactionary faction at the back door they wouldn't have accomplished the results they had in Nov 2010. The right is more successful than the left in influencing capitol hill because 1.) they have more money behind them and 2.) the ones in control don't have principles.

Reaganomics made fiscal irresponsibility a virtue.

It is all part of the republican master plan. Bankrupt the government through tax cuts to the rich, expanded military spending, and enormous transfers to contractors. Then, claim that there is no money for medicare, social security, etc., so that these programs can be eliminated. So that there will be more money to be looted by the rich.

The ultimate goal is to turn the USA into an oligarchy, where a few people own everything, and everyone else is reduced to dire poverty.

Think of Calcutta as a Republican Heaven, but where the people living in the streets are listening to Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson on the radio all day.

I agree, and I should be crying. You must add to the Republican master plan the dumbing down of America.

To the Republican mind, Social Security is worse than the holocaust.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=susZ2ceEHwk[/youtube]

While we're on the subject of Republicans and their spend but don't tax foolishness, let's look back at the Clinton administration's noble but misguided attempts at combatting mortgage discrimination combined with the sweeping support for GLBA by progressives and former Rep. Frank's obstinance with managing Fannie and Freddie. The fact of the matter is that progressive Democrats saw dollar signs just as much their counterparts across the aisle had done, and all three of the aforementioned factors played a role in contributing to the financial crisis of 2008.

That being said and with all due respect, I have no interest in only listening to one side of the story for the glorification of your pet political beliefs. Both parties have dropped the proverbial ball. Period.

It seems like I'm hearing more about that last part from self identified Democrats lately than the first; it really feels like they're voting D out of fear of the Republicans more than any real enthusiasm for the Democrats. It just kills me that they won't get serious about primary challenges, or go even further and establish an honest to god third party, it's like the left is collectively haunted by the ghost of Ralph Nader's 2000 campaign and the belief that he opened the door for W, and won't take a hard look at who they're actually electing.

Also, as a guy that socializes with actual conservatives from time to time, I can tell you that the ones I know are pretty sincere in their hatred of RINOs, "conservatives" that turn into big government enthusiasts once elected, and others perceived to have simply pandered to them. Remember that when the Tea Parties first appeared, there was real talk about whether they'd remain as a GOP faction or actually splinter off into an actual independent party; is was only once they were truly co-opted that they became just another arm of the GOP.



Yes, that was unfortunate. I had had high hopes that people were finally starting to see that they were choosing between wasteful, inefficient government spending coupled with hawkish rhetoric with moral pandering, and wasteful government spending coupled with semi-hawkish rhetoric with some redistribution programs. Sadly, the moment passed and the slogans and energy were hijacked by the establishment.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to hate Obama, from his broken promises to his escalation of W's civil liberties erosion to his crony capitalism; sadly the right, Tea Parties included, have chosen to focus on stupid things like falsely calling him a socialist or trying to link him to 60's radicalism. I get that to launch the more effective, true attacks they'd have to look in the mirror a bit, but it's still frustrating as hell for someone who thinks people really ought to be furious about Obama, but not for the reasons some of them are. The ones that aren't furious are also refusing to look in the mirror, but for other reasons altogether.



Exactly. The point I'm trying to make though is that they were willing to force the party to nominate riskier or in some cases impossible candidates that they considered ideologically sound over moderates with much better chances of winning. They did force the GOP to the right, but they did it by forcing them to take losses rather than tolerate moderates or candidates thought of as too establishment. That's all I'm trying to get across here, the willingness to take a loss with a candidate you want to vote for rather than getting a win with a lesser evil candidate and how that can be leveraged.



I actually think the opposite; the reactionary faction is a turnoff to swing voters, and had they stayed true to their original ideas and not been co-opted they could have remained much more politically relevant. There are a LOT of people who may agree with the ideas of more efficient and less overbearing government but are turned off by the GOP's social conservatism and religious faction that the original Tea Party was very effective in reaching, and Ron Paul has certainly shown that there is an anti war GOP faction out there that's going mostly unheard. If they'd stuck to economics, we might be thinking that 2010 was just a warmup for 2012, now the Tea Party is considered just barely relevant, though they're still polling as *slightly* more so than OWS.



Are you going to make me get out the charts showing who gets and spends what money where? Maybe some Glenn Greenwald on what Obama has really been up to?