Let's Abandon the Democrats

[Green Arrow]

Via Salon (http://www.salon.com/2014/12/23/lets_abandon_loser_democrats_stop_blaming_fox_news _and_hoping_elizabeth_warren_saves_us/):


Democrats are in denial regarding the magnitude and meaning of their defeat. It is a rejection not just of current leaders but of the very business model of the modern Democratic Party: how it uses polls and focus groups to slice and dice us; how it peddles its sly, hollow message and, worst, how it sells its soul to pay for it all. Party elites hope party activists will seek to lift their moods via the cheap adrenaline high of another campaign. For once, activists may resist the urge.

The vital task for progressives isn’t reelecting Democrats but rebuilding a strong, independent progressive movement. Our history makes clear that without one, social progress in America is next to impossible. For 100 years progressive social change movements transformed relations between labor and capital, buyers and sellers, blacks and whites, men and women, our species and our planet. But in the 1970s progressives began to be coopted and progress ceased. Their virtual disappearance into the Democratic Party led to political stultification and a rollback of many of their greatest achievements.


Much is written of the rise of the right, but very little of the fall of the left. We’re apt to see the left’s decline, if we do see it, as a consequence of the right’s superior funding, organizing and messaging, of the corporate dominance of all politics, and of white backlash against government, liberalism or modernity itself.


It’s a bad analysis. The left’s fall is as much a cause as an effect of what ails us. Middle-class anger isn’t about race, taxes, social services or social change. It’s mainly about middle-class decline and public corruption. Democrats talk a lot about both problems — but if they were really trying to solve either one, we’d all know it.


The prevailing analysis fosters passivity. Whenever people speak of forces rather than choices it’s a sure sign they aren’t about to do anything. Progressives who blame their losses on globalization, white backlash or money in politics are less apt to focus on the one thing they alone control: their own choices.


It also fosters denial. We know there can’t be a strong middle class absent a strong government to help create and sustain it. Social Security, Medicare, civil rights and labor laws, public education and market regulation are middle-class foundations. In the late ’70s they buckled and the middle class buckled with them.


It was around then that Wall Street began colonizing the Democratic Party and the Democrats began colonizing the left. After Jimmy Carter squashed Ted Kennedy, challenges to incumbent Democrats ceased. Grassroots movements morphed into Washington lobbies and formed their first PACs. For the sake of the Democrats in whom they’d reposed all their hopes and dreams, progressives moved their debates indoors.

Good article, makes some good points that I've made myself. I made the same points with regards to the Tea Party back when it first started, that it should never have allowed itself to be co-opted by the Republican Party. So far, it's looking like true progressives aren't going to make the same mistake we made in the 1970s and the Tea Party made in 2010.

[ace's n 8's]

Via Salon (http://www.salon.com/2014/12/23/lets_abandon_loser_democrats_stop_blaming_fox_news _and_hoping_elizabeth_warren_saves_us/):



Good article, makes some good points that I've made myself. I made the same points with regards to the Tea Party back when it first started, that it should never have allowed itself to be co-opted by the Republican Party. So far, it's looking like true progressives aren't going to make the same mistake we made in the 1970s and the Tea Party made in 2010.Damn,, that was a good article, some good 'fact based' points were made in this article, I'm beside myself, especially coming from Salon.

[Common]

I have said this on another forum where these subjects come up all the time.

There are never successful progressive movements unless the country is doing well. If the middleclass and millions of americans are worried about their next rent payment or how to buy food. They do NOT get aroused by a progressive agenda. They are worried about their plight. They want to know what you are going to do FOR THEM.

The democrats got demolished in the midterms because Obama and the democrats didnt do anything for the middleclass and the working class, amnesty and giveaways to wall street doesnt get it.
There will be no progressive movement until working class and below has the pressure off them and the country is flourishing. Personally I think part of the right wing rich mans plan was to depress the country keep it depressed until they took over. Seems to me it happened and it worked.

[Green Arrow]

I have said this on another forum where these subjects come up all the time.

There are never successful progressive movements unless the country is doing well. If the middleclass and millions of americans are worried about their next rent payment or how to buy food. They do NOT get aroused by a progressive agenda. They are worried about their plight. They want to know what you are going to do FOR THEM.

The democrats got demolished in the midterms because Obama and the democrats didnt do anything for the middleclass and the working class, amnesty and giveaways to wall street doesnt get it.
There will be no progressive movement until working class and below has the pressure off them and the country is flourishing. Personally I think part of the right wing rich mans plan was to depress the country keep it depressed until they took over. Seems to me it happened and it worked.

Progressive agenda = 100% addressing the plight of the working class. What you're talking about are the neo-progressives that control the Democratic Party, who are no more progressive than neoconservatives are conservative. It's the neo-progs that are obsessed with social issues. A purely progressive agenda is all about the working class.

[ace's n 8's]

I have said this on another forum where these subjects come up all the time.

There are never successful progressive movements unless the country is doing well. If the middleclass and millions of americans are worried about their next rent payment or how to buy food. They do NOT get aroused by a progressive agenda. They are worried about their plight. They want to know what you are going to do FOR THEM.

The democrats got demolished in the midterms because Obama and the democrats didnt do anything for the middleclass and the working class, amnesty and giveaways to wall street doesnt get it.
There will be no progressive movement until working class and below has the pressure off them and the country is flourishing. Personally I think part of the right wing rich mans plan was to depress the country keep it depressed until they took over. Seems to me it happened and it worked.I agree 100%.

Now that energy prices are falling, Obama and his ilk are probably going to get a half-assed free pass with their agenda.

As energy is the driving force of our economy, and it will bring our economic growth back where it needs to be.

[Common]

Progressive agenda = 100% addressing the plight of the working class. What you're talking about are the neo-progressives that control the Democratic Party, who are no more progressive than neoconservatives are conservative. It's the neo-progs that are obsessed with social issues. A purely progressive agenda is all about the working class.

Unless Im mistaken and I can be :) I mean the progressive agenda that embraces all the issues that are contentious. Like Gay marriage, global warming, abortion etc. I never thought progressive agenda in the context of middle class working class to be honest. From my lifes experience it was always traditional dems that supported unions. Progressives had separate agenda.

[Common]

I agree 100%.

Now that energy prices are falling, Obama and his ilk are probably going to get a half-assed free pass with their agenda.

As energy is the driving force of our economy, and it will bring our economic growth back where it needs to be.

I wouldnt bet my life on that, come hell or high water they will jack oil prices back up. They wont stay down long. THERES A SHORTAGE A COMIN or a huge breakdown in two refineries.

[ace's n 8's]

Unless Im mistaken and I can be :) I mean the progressive agenda that embraces all the issues that are contentious. Like Gay marriage, global warming, abortion etc. I never thought progressive agenda in the context of middle class working class to be honest. From my lifes experience it was always traditional dems that supported unions. Progressives had separate agenda.I would like to think that your analysis is spot on, that is basically the way that I look at it as well.

[Green Arrow]

Unless Im mistaken and I can be :) I mean the progressive agenda that embraces all the issues that are contentious. Like Gay marriage, global warming, abortion etc. I never thought progressive agenda in the context of middle class working class to be honest. From my lifes experience it was always traditional dems that supported unions. Progressives had separate agenda.

Right, as I said, true progressives have always been solely focused on the economy. In fact, social issues never really came into any sort of political discussion in the U.S. until right about the 1970s - the same period of time that the progressive movement got largely co-opted by the Democratic Party.

Go back and look at the progressives of our history. Eugene V. Debs, Theodore Roosevelt, Huey Long - none of these guys talked about social issues. It was all economics.

[Common]

Right, as I said, true progressives have always been solely focused on the economy. In fact, social issues never really came into any sort of political discussion in the U.S. until right about the 1970s - the same period of time that the progressive movement got largely co-opted by the Democratic Party.

Go back and look at the progressives of our history. Eugene V. Debs, Theodore Roosevelt, Huey Long - none of these guys talked about social issues. It was all economics.

I was talking from the 70s to today, I didnt go back that far

[ace's n 8's]

I wouldnt bet my life on that, come hell or high water they will jack oil prices back up. They wont stay down long. THERES A SHORTAGE A COMIN or a huge breakdown in two refineries.I agree, OPEC will jack it back up again, or at least try, our domestic drilling has OPEC concerned, and I'm not to naive to believe that our domestic drilling is the only reason that OPEC dropped their prices,the Russia and Iran issues played some role in it as well.

We can still extract ''OUR OWN'' energy sources if OPEC gets a burr up their greedy asses, and certainly, we will have our own little domestic issues that can assist in raising the prices as well.

Reality will be the governing dictator, as soon as the people see that the economy has grown drastically, due to lower energy cost/prices.

[Mac-7]

This is just idle chatter.

"Progressives" control the democrat party now.

They have nothing to gain by breaking away and forming a splinter party.

[ace's n 8's]

This is just idle chatter.

"Progressives" control the democrat party now.

They have nothing to gain by breaking away and forming a splinter party.AND. . . the RINO's control the GOP, not to much good in the horizons for the working class stiffs.

[Mac-7]

AND. . . the RINO's control the GOP, not to much good in the horizons for the working class stiffs.

I thought we were discussing democrats?

My point is progressives never had more power than they hold right now and only a few true fruit cakes in their caucus would consider breaking away from the dems.

[Green Arrow]

I was talking from the 70s to today, I didnt go back that far

Oh, then in that case you were correct. Old school progressives still exist, however.

[Green Arrow]

I thought we were discussing democrats?

My point is progressives never had more power than they hold right now and only a few true fruit cakes in their caucus would consider breaking away from the dems.

As usual, you have no idea what you're talking about. I know thinking hurts, but politics really is more complicated than pulling the red or blue lever.

[ace's n 8's]

As usual, you have no idea what you're talking about. I know thinking hurts, but politics really is more complicated than pulling the red or blue lever.Mac does know what he is talking about, and so do I.

Politics is very easy to understand, once you know what the ''RED'' and ''BLUE'' represent, and I believe that Mac does have the understanding.

Now,if you are referring to those that sit on the fence,(Independent), and have no idea what your platform actually represents, then yes, I can agree that politics is very adverse.

[ace's n 8's]

I thought we were discussing democrats?

My point is progressives never had more power than they hold right now and only a few true fruit cakes in their caucus would consider breaking away from the dems.YES, that is what this threads is about, and you are very correct, progressives never had more power than they hold right now , because they have the bully pulpit in their corner.

[Mac-7]

As usual, you have no idea what you're talking about. I know thinking hurts, but politics really is more complicated than pulling the red or blue lever.

Thats all you're doing.

Except in your case the fantasy is that if you don't pull the red or blue lever all will be good.

But I'm telling you that "progressives" are not as stupid as the person who wrote that rant.

Crazy yes, but stupid no.

"Progressives" control the democrat party and have nothing to gain from becoming a splinter group.

[Mac-7]

YES, that is what this threads is about, and you are very correct, progressives never had more power than they hold right now , because they have the bully pulpit in their corner.

Agreed.

[ace's n 8's]

Thats all you're doing.

Except in your case the fantasy is that if you don't pull the red or blue lever all will be good.

But I'm telling you that "progressives" are not as stupid as the person who wrote that rant.

Crazy yes, but stupid no.

"Progressives" control the democrat party and have nothing to gain from becoming a splinter group.
Power by numbers, a very simple concept.

It's too bad the GOP can't figure that out.

[Mac-7]

Power by numbers, a very simple concept.

It's too bad the GOP can't figure that out.

The GOP Washington establishment feels threatened by the Tea Party.

The leadership has been in Washington so long that they have "gone native" so to speak.

They are now part of the corrupt establishment most of them once detested.

[ace's n 8's]

The GOP Washington establishment feels threatened by the Tea Party.

The leadership has been in Washington so long that they have "gone native" so to speak.

They are now part of the corrupt establishment most of them once detested.100% agreeable, their so calloused to the people, and have not been able to understand that the majority of those that have been recently elected into Congress have been Tea Party endorsed politicians, that should have given them a small clue on where the Republican based voters are standing on the issues.

Progressives have been notoriously manufacturing/manipulating their intended crisis's to advance their progressive agenda, and they have been winning in their advancements, Global Warming, Obamacare, etc,etc.

I will still have faith in the people to do the right thing, which I feel they are,,hence election of '14 and '12,, I still have faith.

[Mac-7]

100% agreeable, their so calloused to the people, and have not been able to understand that the majority of those that have been recently elected into Congress have been Tea Party endorsed politicians, that should have given them a small clue on where the Republican based voters are standing on the issues.

Progressives have been notoriously manufacturing/manipulating their intended crisis's to advance their progressive agenda, and they have been winning in their advancements, Global Warming, Obamacare, etc,etc.

I will still have faith in the people to do the right thing, which I feel they are,,hence election of '14 and '12,, I still have faith.

Its not too late to vote Boehnor out as speaker.

Every repub with a repub rep in the house should be calling and demanding a new speaker.

[Chris]

Progressive agenda = 100% addressing the plight of the working class. What you're talking about are the neo-progressives that control the Democratic Party, who are no more progressive than neoconservatives are conservative. It's the neo-progs that are obsessed with social issues. A purely progressive agenda is all about the working class.

Could that be because progressives realized the economy is too complex, distributed and dynamic to manage, whereas social issues can be argued in absolutes?

[zelmo1234]

Mac does know what he is talking about, and so do I.

Politics is very easy to understand, once you know what the ''RED'' and ''BLUE'' represent, and I believe that Mac does have the understanding.

Now,if you are referring to those that sit on the fence,(Independent), and have no idea what your platform actually represents, then yes, I can agree that politics is very adverse.

The problem comes in what they do, not what they say!

Republicans just finished telling the public that they were going to Oppose the ACA, the Executive orders and try and turn back the Obama Agenda!

The people handed them an unprecedented victory in November

In December they passed a budget the fully funded the ACA, the executive orders and almost all of the Obama agenda?

Democrats won a huge land slide victory in 2008? With promises to end wars, close Camp Gitmo, stimulate the economy

did they do any of it?

The difference between red and blue? There isn't one.

[zelmo1234]

Thats all you're doing.

Except in your case the fantasy is that if you don't pull the red or blue lever all will be good.

But I'm telling you that "progressives" are not as stupid as the person who wrote that rant.

Crazy yes, but stupid no.

"Progressives" control the democrat party and have nothing to gain from becoming a splinter group.

In the sense that you are using the word progressive? They control the Republican party too

[ace's n 8's]

The problem comes in what they do, not what they say!

Republicans just finished telling the public that they were going to Oppose the ACA, the Executive orders and try and turn back the Obama Agenda!

The people handed them an unprecedented victory in November

In December they passed a budget the fully funded the ACA, the executive orders and almost all of the Obama agenda?

Democrats won a huge land slide victory in 2008? With promises to end wars, close Camp Gitmo, stimulate the economy

did they do any of it?

The difference between red and blue? There isn't one.Whoa there, I haven't any great expectations out of this GOP controlled Congress, as the VETO pen is lurking in the shadows.

I learned a long time ago, campaign promise are meant to be broken, the rhetoric is toothless, simple as that,, this is politics 101.

I haven't any faith in the politician, I have faith in the system, not the idiots that are running/controlling the system.

I have faith in the Republican 'idea' of the political system,not the politician as well as I have the equal amount of faith in the current 'idea' of the Democrats to fuck up everything that they touch, the left has been running on the 'emotional intent' for the people

[Peter1469]

Vote 3rd party. You are not going to see substantive difference between (D) and (R)

[Mac-7]

In the sense that you are using the word progressive? They control the Republican party too

They heavily influence the Republican Party.

Jeb a Bush is a "progressive."

Christy too.

So are many GOP senators.

But there is still a competition of ideas in the Republican Party that does not exist with the democrats.

[Chris]

The problem comes in what they do, not what they say!

Republicans just finished telling the public that they were going to Oppose the ACA, the Executive orders and try and turn back the Obama Agenda!

The people handed them an unprecedented victory in November

In December they passed a budget the fully funded the ACA, the executive orders and almost all of the Obama agenda?

Democrats won a huge land slide victory in 2008? With promises to end wars, close Camp Gitmo, stimulate the economy

did they do any of it?

The difference between red and blue? There isn't one.



And people used to point out the difference between Obama's rhetoric and record?

[Chris]

Whoa there, I haven't any great expectations out of this GOP controlled Congress, as the VETO pen is lurking in the shadows.

I learned a long time ago, campaign promise are meant to be broken, the rhetoric is toothless, simple as that,, this is politics 101.

I haven't any faith in the politician, I have faith in the system, not the idiots that are running/controlling the system.

I have faith in the Republican 'idea' of the political system,not the politician as well as I have the equal amount of faith in the current 'idea' of the Democrats to fuck up everything that they touch, the left has been running on the 'emotional intent' for the people


A ways back I posted a poll showing Americans tend to like the idea of government, just not the reality of it. I think people tend to romaticize what government can do for them, then get surprise what it does to them.

"The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it."

P. J. O'Rourke

[ace's n 8's]

A ways back I posted a poll showing Americans tend to like the idea of government, just not the reality of it. I think people tend to romaticize what government can do for them, then get surprise what it does to them.

"The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it."

P. J. O'RourkeI like that.

[Mac-7]

Vote 3rd party. You are not going to see substantive difference between (D) and (R)


Sure Peter.

R's get 48%.

FS's get 3%..

D's get 49%.

And the D's win.

[ace's n 8's]

Sure Peter.

R's get 48%.

FS's get 3%..

D's get 49%.

And the D's win.That's typically how it goes, unfortunately.

[Chris]

That's typically how it goes, unfortunately.

Right, the candidate that wins the most votes wins. The Rs couldn't win enough, that's on them, not anyone else.

And one reason they can't win enough votes is their minions like mac here have no clue how to persuade people their way. His verbal pugilistics pushes people away.

[Common]

I agree, OPEC will jack it back up again, or at least try, our domestic drilling has OPEC concerned, and I'm not to naive to believe that our domestic drilling is the only reason that OPEC dropped their prices,the Russia and Iran issues played some role in it as well.

We can still extract ''OUR OWN'' energy sources if OPEC gets a burr up their greedy asses, and certainly, we will have our own little domestic issues that can assist in raising the prices as well.

Reality will be the governing dictator, as soon as the people see that the economy has grown drastically, due to lower energy cost/prices.

Big American oil are in cahoots with the saudis and opec they all share the same interest.
No matter what the right says. Every time prices soar at the pump and gasoline usage goes DOWN big american oil break another profit record. They are certainly complicit in price gouging of a product that has no real competition.

[ace's n 8's]

Right, the candidate that wins the most votes wins. The Rs couldn't win enough, that's on them, not anyone else.

And one reason they can't win enough votes is their minions like mac here have no clue how to persuade people their way. His verbal pugilistics pushes people away.Look at it this way, for me, dealing with those that oppose common sense solutions to our economic woes, can really get frustrating at times, my terminology and sentence structure can reveal a certain amount of disdain towards a select few, at times.

[Common]

Oh, then in that case you were correct. Old school progressives still exist, however.

My knowledge is narrower than yours GA, I can only deal with my lifetime, I never learned enough about the past. :(

[ace's n 8's]

big american oil are in cahoots with the saudis and opec they all share the same interest.
No matter what the right says. Every time prices soar at the pump and gasoline usage goes down big american oil break another profit record. They are certainly complicit in price gouging of a product that has no real competition.
Solution;

Domestic Drilling.

[Mac-7]

Big American oil are in cahoots with the saudis and opec they all share the same interest.
No matter what the right says. Every time prices soar at the pump and gasoline usage goes DOWN big american oil break another profit record. They are certainly complicit in price gouging of a product that has no real competition.

If it's all a big conspiracy why drop oil prices at all?

[Common]

The GOP Washington establishment feels threatened by the Tea Party.

The leadership has been in Washington so long that they have "gone native" so to speak.

They are now part of the corrupt establishment most of them once detested.

Mac youre fundamentally right but that is not the driving force in politics. Its whats behind the democrats and republicans. Issues they champion are strictly for the mass public Consumption.
The real agenda is what happens in the dark, what the most rich and powerful dictate what the Red and the blue do.

The Rich want the south just the way it is, thats theye new milking of americans. They want the south untaxed, diluted with illegal workers who will work for nothing and NEVER COMPLAIN and keep southerners working for alot less to enrich them. They want to keep not paying any pensions or benefits. So they champion a gun in every hand, obama is the antichrist and its obamacare that ruined the economy and keeps you from making a living wage.

The democrats do the same thing its all about the power brokers and what direction they TELL their bought politicians they want them to go.

[ace's n 8's]

Mac youre fundamentally right but that is not the driving force in politics. Its whats behind the democrats and republicans. Issues they champion are strictly for the mass public Consumption.
The real agenda is what happens in the dark, what the most rich and powerful dictate what the Red and the blue do.

The Rich want the south just the way it is, thats theye new milking of americans. They want the south untaxed, diluted with illegal workers who will work for nothing and NEVER COMPLAIN and keep southerners working for alot less to enrich them. They want to keep not paying any pensions or benefits. So they champion a gun in every hand, obama is the antichrist and its obamacare that ruined the economy and keeps you from making a living wage.

The democrats do the same thing its all about the power brokers and what direction they TELL their bought politicians they want them to go.I can agree with this to an extent, but not to the extent that the conspiracies should control my lifestyle.

[nic34]

....there's a lesson there when we remember T.R. won as a Republican, and lost as a Bull Moose because Taft controled the Republican organizational operations.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Party_(United_States,_1912)




This Democratic Party Is Going Nowhere. Can Progressives Take it Over and Change the World?


In 2009, shortly after its most crushing national electoral defeat in 44 years, the GOP was sparked back to life by the tea party insurgency. America’s right wing revived its moribund conservative party with a stark challenge to the Republican establishment. The GOP gained 63 House seats in 2010.

Could the left do something similar to bring the Democrats back to life? Many barriers have to be confronted, but leftist progressives who are serious about making positive changes in our society need to get going now—for two reasons.

First: The moderate, pro-corporate, Democratic Leadership Council wing that has dominated the Democratic Party since 1992 is reeling, unable to compete with a well-funded and reactionary GOP. Without a charismatic frontman or -woman, this Democratic Party cannot mobilize its middle- and working-class base for the simple reason that it doesn’t represent their interests. Only leftist progressives stand for the welfare of average Americans, and they have to stand up, make this distinction and stake their claim before all focus turns to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Second: The country and the world are a mess. The economy, the justice system, the environment, education, immigration and foreign policy are all out of whack. Obama, Hillary and the centrist Democrats aren’t going to set these right; as for the GOP, God forbid. If leftist progressives really believe that their program for America is the best possible program, which they do, the state of the world demands that they get to it right away.

The time is right to strike now. The electoral left has a secret, albeit underutilized, asset. Almost no one in this benighted land knows that the Congressional Progressive Caucus is larger now than the Tea Party Caucus ever has been—yet given its relative influence on the national discourse, the CPC’s anonymity is no surprise. The progressive caucus is simply not as aggressive or as focused a political force as the tea party.

This has to change, and if it does, progressives will go into the next election cycle holding a winning hand. All they have to do is boldly introduce themselves to the public, establish very clearly what they stand for and present themselves as a unified front in 2016. Even if they just hold on to the seats they currently hold, the results will have the appearance of a national victory for a unified insurgent movement.


http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/11/09/democratic-party-going-nowhere-can-progressives-take-it-over-and-change-world

[silvereyes]

I wouldnt bet my life on that, come hell or high water they will jack oil prices back up. They wont stay down long. THERES A SHORTAGE A COMIN or a huge breakdown in two refineries.
Been to South Texas lately? No shortage down here.

[Green Arrow]

Could that be because progressives realized the economy is too complex, distributed and dynamic to manage, whereas social issues can be argued in absolutes?

Nope. Progressives never had trouble articulating a solid and on-the-money argument on economics. It happened because the two major parties understand that for them to stay in power, they have to co-opt any movement that challenges them.

[PolWatch]

The southern strategy continues...why change something that works so well? We are seeing auto manufacturers move south and European companies are building here too...steel companies, aircraft manufacturing, etc. Why? Right to work laws (union busting), loose immigration enforcement and a lack of environmental concern. I live in a state that holds the dubious honor of having more extinct species than any other in the nation. Why move your company to a third world nation when you can build one here?

[silvereyes]

Nope. Progressives never had trouble articulating a solid and on-the-money argument on economics. It happened because the two major parties understand that for them to stay in power, they have to co-opt any movement that challenges them.
It's the biggest Divide-and-Conquer scheme I've ever seen.

[silvereyes]

The southern strategy continues...why change something that works so well? We are seeing auto manufacturers move south and European companies are building here too...steel companies, aircraft manufacturing, etc. Why? Right to work laws (union busting), loose immigration enforcement and a lack of environmental concern. I live in a state that holds the dubious honor of having more extinct species than any other in the nation. Why move your company to a third world nation when you can build one here?
Sad, isn't it?

[Matty]

the democrats lost the south because they continuously called the south racist, they shut down the energy programs, and increased coal prices. They got what they wanted. A divided country!

[PolWatch]

In American politics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_United_States), the Southern strategy refers to a Republican Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)) strategy of gaining political support for certain candidates in the Southern United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_United_States) by appealing to racism against African Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_United_States#African_Americans).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#cite_note-Herbert-1)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#cite_note-Boyd-2)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#cite_note-Counter-3)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#cite_note-Branch-4)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#cite_note-HerbertReagan-5)
Though the "Solid South (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_South)" had been a longtime Democratic Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)) stronghold due to the Democratic Party's defense of slavery before the American Civil War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War) and segregation for a century thereafter, many white Southern Democrats stopped supporting the party following the civil rights plank of the Democratic campaign in 1948 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1948) (triggering the Dixiecrats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat)), the African-American Civil Rights Movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_(1955%E2%80%931968) ), the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964) and Voting Rights Act of 1965 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965), and desegregation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desegregation).
The strategy was first adopted under future Republican President Richard Nixon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon) and Republican Senator Barry Goldwater (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#cite_note-6)[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#cite_note-7) in the late 1960s.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#cite_note-NY_Times_1996-8) The strategy was successful in winning the five formerly Confederate states of the Deep South (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_South) (Alabama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama), Georgia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_(U.S._state)), Louisiana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana), Mississippi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi), and South Carolina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Carolina).[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#cite_note-freedict-9)[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#cite_note-synon-10)) for Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential election, but he won in only one other state, Arizona, his home state. The Southern Strategy also yielded five formerly Confederate states (Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, and Tennessee) in Richard Nixon's successful 1968 campaign for the presidency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1968). It contributed to the electoral realignment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realigning_election) of some Southern states to the Republican Party, but at the expense of losing more than 90 percent of black voters to the Democratic Party. As the twentieth century came to a close, the Republican Party began attempting to appeal to black voters again, though with little success.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#cite_note-NY_Times_1996-8)
In 2005, Republican National Committee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_National_Committee) chairman Ken Mehlman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Mehlman) formally apologized to the NAACP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAACP) for ignoring the black vote and exploiting racial conflicts.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#cite_note-Mehlman-11)[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#cite_note-wapo-apology-12)
wiki

[Matty]

Except Republicans do not do that. You lost the south for the reasons I gave you. Maybe you democrats should do some inward thinking and not feel you are entitled to call everyone south of the mason Dixon line a racist. Maybe you should even consider that a right to work state is a better deal than being forced to pay a union for the right to a job. Until then you might continue to lose the south!

[Green Arrow]

the democrats lost the south because they continuously called the south racist, they shut down the energy programs, and increased coal prices. They got what they wanted. A divided country!

Actually, they lost the South because the Democratic Party leadership, mostly in the North, backed the Civil Rights Act.

[Matty]

Actually, they lost the South because the Democratic Party leadership, mostly in the North, backed the Civil Rights Act.


Mid terms 2014

[Green Arrow]

Mid terms 2014

That was just the end result of the fundamental shift that happened in the 1960s and 1970s. I'm not sure the Democrats will ever get the South back unless they produce an entirely different kind of Democrat.

[Matty]

That was just the end result of the fundamental shift that happened in the 1960s and 1970s. I'm not sure the Democrats will ever get the South back unless they produce an entirely different kind of Democrat.
No sir! It was the result of six years of obama!

[Chris]

Nope. Progressives never had trouble articulating a solid and on-the-money argument on economics. It happened because the two major parties understand that for them to stay in power, they have to co-opt any movement that challenges them.

It's one thing to articulate a central plan, another altogether to ever implement it successfully.

[Peter1469]

Sure Peter.

R's get 48%.

FS's get 3%..

D's get 49%.

And the D's win.


And the R candidate is really a D lite. You refuse to comprehend that fact.

[Peter1469]

No sir! It was the result of six years of obama! An extension of Bush's 8 years.

[Green Arrow]

No sir! It was the result of six years of obama!

It was the result of a lot of things, Obama was just the last nail in the coffin.

[Green Arrow]

It's one thing to articulate a central plan, another altogether to ever implement it successfully.

It has been implemented successfully.

[Chris]

It has been implemented successfully.

What exactly is it, green arrow? What plan, and what success?

[Matty]

An extension of Bush's 8 years.
oh h really? Bush passed ACA, refused to let Boeing move to South Carolina? Promoted division of classes, races, rich vs poor, fast and furious, the IRS, the VA, and anti cop rhetoric? Bush did all that?

[Mini Me]

Right, as I said, true progressives have always been solely focused on the economy. In fact, social issues never really came into any sort of political discussion in the U.S. until right about the 1970s - the same period of time that the progressive movement got largely co-opted by the Democratic Party.

Go back and look at the progressives of our history. Eugene V. Debs, Theodore Roosevelt, Huey Long - none of these guys talked about social issues. It was all economics.

Progressivism died out with those guys a long time a go.

Then, liberalism died out when they shot Bobby Kennedy and MLK and the right wing of the Dem party forced Hubert Humphrey on us in 1968, which gave us Tricky Dick Nixon. That was the end of liberalism, outside of a last gasp with George McGovern.

Big corporate interests took over the reigns of power with the Lewis Powell memorandum in 1971, and by the time of Reagan was going full tilt boogie!

Now; "They stab it with their steely knives, but they just can't kill the beast"

[Cigar]

http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Eating-Popcorn-Soda.gif