Event Calendar
February 2012
(view month)
S M T W R F S
* * * 01 02 03 04
05 06 07 08 09 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 * * *
<< (add event) >>

User Blox 4
- Put stuff here

Barack Obama
"Lincoln Sells Out Slaves"
by: Rob Kailey - Sep 13
1 Comments
I Told You He Was No Good!
by: Rob Kailey - Jun 22
If You Haven't Seen This
by: Rob Kailey - Apr 28
5 Comments
Impeach the President?
by: Rob Kailey - Mar 16
15 Comments
It's the system, stupid!
by: Jay Stevens - Oct 25
7 Comments

Search




Advanced Search

Rob Kailey is a working schmuck with no ties or affiliations to any governmental or political organizations, save those of sympathy.

Drop in left's approval indicative of...what?

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 10:45:08 AM MST


Nate Silver looked at historical poll numbers for Congressional approval broken down along party lines and discovered that, typically, since 2000, Republican support for Republican-controlled Congress is higher than Democratic support for Democrat-controlled Congress.

Is the dissatisfaction because Congressional Democrats are less responsive to their base?

In a second post, Silver gives two possible systematic reasons why Democratic support for their party's representatives is lower.

First, Democrats actually want to implement policy:

Pollster Celinda Lake spoke to first, and perhaps most crucial point in her email reply to me. "It's easier to unify Republicans because mostly they want to stop things. It's harder to unify people when you want to do things." (emphasis added) Therein lies the broader asymmetry: Doing nothing is a single thing, whereas doing something implies many options. And it is easier to build consensus around a "nothing" menu of 1 than it is for a more variegated menu of limitless options of "something."

Meh. Republicans certainly do things while in office. Huge tax subsidies for corporations and the wealthy, for example. Start wars. Implement a systematic program of torture, say. But the right side of the political spectrum has a funny way of approving and defending what their "leaders" do. The right's outrage over English park rules never would have surfaced if it were Republican leaders implementing the policy. Just as the end of habeas corpus and the Fourth Amendment were brushed aside because they were inconvenient to Republican policies, concerns about background checks at playgrounds would likewise be brushed away if Dick Cheney said they were necessary.

Which brings us to the Democratic coalition's diversity:

Uniquely compounding this problem for Democrats is the nature of their coalition, which is of course more heterogeneous in demographic terms. Pollster Karl Agne: "The other dynamic here, of course, is the relative diversity of Democrats (age, race, region, ideology) and the relatively monolithic nature of the Republican base, as covered in our focus group report." I think it's a factor as well, but impossible to quantify.

It's not just diversity of race, religion, and gender represented by the Democratic party, there's also a gaping psychological and perceptive divide between the small, monolithic, and like-thinking bloc that comprises the Republican base, and everyone else. In short, the Republican base is a self-isolating and paranoid group who see themselves as members of a small, persecuted minority who are defending themselves and their country from a hidden, liberal agenda; the Democratic base is intellectually diverse, and its supporters span across a variety of beliefs and worldviews. In short, Democratic supporters don't agree on everything...or anything?

Silver's conclusion is that "we ought to be careful not to overstate Democratic disgruntlement and its significance." The nature of the party's support spawns natural dissent. It also means that Democrats "are [not] headed for a colossal collapse in a way that the Republicans would be if their approval of a Republican-led Congress were at the same levels." Silver also thinks Democratic approval will rebound after healthcare passes and the Congress tackles other legislation that addresses Democratic concerns.

I'm not so optimistic. While I agree with the premises about the composition of the Democratic party, the issues that the Democratic Congress is currently rejecting or delaying or gutting - the public option, say, or climate change legislation, or Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell - are overwhelmingly popular, not just among Democrats, but among independents, too. In short, it's hard to argue that the dropping numbers for Congressional Democrats are the result of natural political forces, when that party's "leaders" are retreating on the few principles that tie the party together.

I do, however, agree that this is no indication that Democrats will collapse, and that's because the GOP is heading towards crazy. Just as the Republican base is psychologically homogeneous helps keep the bloc together, it also prohibits Republicans, seeking to appeal to their base, to actually communicate with the rest of the world...
Jay Stevens :: Drop in left's approval indicative of...what?
Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Bookmark and Share
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Drop in left's approval indicative of...what? | 63 comments
I'm convinced it's because our leaders are far behind where we are at. (4.00 / 1)
Republican leaders are ahead of where their base is at, for the most part.

Our leader rarly if ever lead. They are far more conservative than we are, for the most part.

When the Repos took over in 1994 (sea change, new, big deal) they almost immediately set out to figure out how to impeach Clinton. They began with White Water, but when it fizzled they move to Monica. Their base wasn't begging for it. the leadership was leading the base.

When Obam took over, we wanted investigations into the gross violations of our laws and our constitution. Well good luck with that. Obama would rather avoid the rule of law and let Bush live to be a perp another day.

And it piussses us off, because we want a society that values the rule of law. Obama isn't interested, and neither is the congress.

So there is your answer. Our leaders don't want to lead. Single payer would be another example. The congress is way behind where we are at. They want the corporate cash, we want single payer. So we are pissed off. Understandably.

James Galbraith said on Bill Moyers Journal (0.00 / 0)
that last fall the citizens were way ahead of Washington in their outrage at Wall Street being bailed out.  And they continue to be outraged. And rightfully so. If the Democrats would have delivered a simple Medicare for All reform, broke up the big banks and restored Glass Steagall and did an old fashioned FDR Jobs program, we wouldn't be talking about the same old tired talk of left/right divide and how conservatives are mean goobers and liberals are the cool kids in high school.

Lake should retire.    

[ Parent ]
I think a simple application of Occam's razor (0.00 / 0)
will do wonders here.

We have seen how little difference there has come to be between republican and democrat supplication to corporate money and power.

The republican base is fine with that. The democrat base mostly is not.

And as the democrat base and independents see Obama bend further to the will of corporatism, their support for him will falter as well.

We hold these truths to be self-evident (0.00 / 0)
Seems like there's little argument that progressives are pissed off at the lack of progress by the Democrats.  What more evidence do you need than the posts and comments on this blog?  What, you don't think Tokarski, Steve W., Jed, or JC are progressives?  Sure they are -- read the comments.  But they and many others out here are having some trouble swallowing the blah, blah, blah from Wulfie and Co. about how wonderful the Dems are.  Anybody read today's piece on how great the public option is going to be -- oh, when it kicks in in 2019, it might cover 2% of the uninsured for a higher price than private insurance.  Now that's delivering, Dems.

One thing Jay really got right in the original post here -- the "Meh" over Celinda Lake's "analysis."  Let us recall her sage advice on health care to Dems early on -- you remember, parroting the Baucus line that we don't say "single-payer" that we say "uniquely American."  Kee-rist, fellow travelers, why anyone would ever listen to anything she has to say, let alone pay her for it, is a total mystery.  But she knows where her bread is buttered and she'd much rather offer Democrats a convenient excuse for their blathering and lack of accomplishment than actually put it in their faces that they have abandoned the promises that got them elected, have sold-out their supporters to the corporate powers that be, and have racked up a wholly underwhelming record of non-accomplishment during their year in control of Congress and the White House.  Is it any wonder you're seeing the commenters (and WAY more than Tokarski, obviously) reflecting the poll results that Dem supporters from the LEFT (not the Middle) are hugely disappointed?  

I wrote a piece called "Lake and Lakoff: (0.00 / 0)
A Dangerous and Tragic Cocktail. I wrote it after I read Kip Sullivan's exposure of bad polling and skewing the results by main stream media. http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/10/1...
Pollsters, reporters and bloggers are also selling the unproven claim that the public supports the "option" described in the Democrats' legislation. Pollster Celinda Lake, who actively participated in the bait-and-switch campaign for the "option," was quoted recently saying, "Poll after poll shows that large majorities of Americans support reform that offers a choice of a public health insurance plan or private insurance." To take another example, in an interview on October 15 Tamryn Hall of MSNBC asked Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), "Do you believe in the polling data that says that the American people want a public option?"

Lake's statement and Hall's question were not demonstrably false (it's possible a majority of Americans support the mousey version of the "option" called for in the Democrats' legislation), but they sure were misleading. The fact is we simply don't know what the public thinks of the moribund little "option" proposed by the Democrats. Perhaps someday we will. Perhaps someday pollsters will get around to asking accurate questions about the real "option" - questions that do not suggest the "option" will be available to all and do not suggest that it will resemble Medicare.

Indeed Lake knows where her bread is buttered.  So she continues to collude with the corporate DLC controlled party to try to put lipstick on a pig, but in this case it's a donkey.

[ Parent ]
Sad, Georgie (0.00 / 0)
You're drinking the Tokarski kool-aid.  I do find Democrats preferable to the alternative; but if you think I've ever commented about how "wonderful" they are, then you'd best man-up, show those vaunted research skills, and quote where I did that.  Or, you could wise-up and get over your own bullshit ... like that's ever gonna happen.  You're obviously less deluded than Tokarski, so you show what you claim you know.

It isn't just the Dem supporters from the left who are disappointed.  You aren't special little progressive snowflakes.  There's a lot of us, even moderates, who are clearly disappointed, one might even say "hugely".  If there's a real difference between us, Georgie, it's that I'm not going to blame everyone else for a failure to do the right thing, except those who actually have a hand in it.  You can keep blaming me if you like (it's about all the importance you have anymore), but I prefer a more rational approach, that is if you don't mind. ~pheh~

The funny part is, I know exactly what I wrote that pissed you off so much.  I wrote and believe that we do need a "uniquely American" solution to the health care problem.  You, being the ever self-important George, thought you knew exactly what I meant.  You don't have the first clue, do you?  Here's a hint.  The solutions to problems in the American health care system are inextricably entwined in the system (poor as it is) of government that we have to deal with.  That means, as much as you frothing ideologues hate the fact, we have a two-party government and a corporatist control structure to our economy.  So use that, or bitch and moan at commenters on a blog.  It's pretty obvious which path you've chosen, Georgie.  Good luck with that.

[ Parent ]
I'm with Wulfie... (4.00 / 1)
Where the h*ll did you get the idea that any or all of us here are happy with the progress the Democratic party is making? Just b/c Mark T and ol Jed make a lot of noise about how the rest of us are a bunch of sold-out corporatist "Reagan" Democrats isn't indicative of anything other than their obvious bent towards 60s-era ideological dick-measuring.
[ Parent ]
"ideological dick measuring" (0.00 / 0)
That's a good one.
[ Parent ]
We're not alone (0.00 / 0)
This just in.  Worth the read.  Short and to the point.
Healthcare Hoax from Hell
By David Swanson
http://davidswanson.org/

Lies, damn lies, and promises from Democrats. An amendment allowing states to create state-level single-payer healthcare has been stripped out of the House healthcare bill, after having passed in committee back in July by a vote of 27 to 19. And rumor has it that a vote on national single-payer that was promised in July in exchange for skipping a committee vote on it will now be denied.

very simple (0.00 / 0)
it is indicative of a total lack of courage on the part of the people we elected. they completely ignored the will of the people on health care reform.

at this point i am going to have to root for joe lieberman and hope the filibuster works.

here's hoping the resulting anger of the american public will enable us to enact single-payer in 2012.

Not So Simple (0.00 / 0)
What I don't get is the mechanics of going from a weak bill getting rejected in 2009 to a winning effort in 2012.  I think it's much more likely that we get Palin (or Palinism) as a result of the failure of moderate liberalism.  Why do I think that?  Because that's how American politics has worked my whole life time.

Better a crap bill now, which then gets improved (and it needs a lot of improvement) once it can never be taken away, than a victory now for the Limbaugh freak show.

Confirm thy soul in self control, thy liberty in law.

[ Parent ]
Got any examples? (4.00 / 1)
Charley - the whole idea that you pass a terrible bill now to somehow deprive the Republicans of a "victory" and then "improve it" later is  a nice theory, but I can't think of any major legislation that has been improved over time. What actually happens is that you give the opponents endless shots at trashing it depending on who is in charge of Congress and the White House.  You know, those whose ox is realistically or perceptually gored get after it because they have a vested interest and the populace at large winds up being apathetic (especially if the legislation, like the health bill, is a bummer to start with).  I'm thinking Clean Air Act (which Max is now taking aim at with weakening amendments), Clean Water Act (targets have continually be extended into the future), Superfund (defunded), Medicare (donut hole), Social Security (age went up), etc., etc.  Do you have any specific legislation that you think actually got improved after it was passed?  The real bummer is that the Dems are NOW in charge of both Congress and the White House and, instead of putting out great legislation that they know will be weakened in the future, they have blown their majorities on an already terrible bill -- with more to come on climate, wars, Patriot Act, etc.  Why they're doing that is beyond logic.
[ Parent ]
SCHIP? Medicare? (0.00 / 0)
Some will claim that Medicare (originating in the 1965 Social Security Act) has been on an incremental improvement. Here's a brief history. One can argue that the proposed Medicare for All single payer systems would be a logical progression.

SCHIP, though coming from less sweeping legislative roots (basically an outgrowth of Medicaid) has evolved legislatively quite a bit since first authorized in '97. And let's not forget the Healthy Montana Kids Initiative last year authorizing a major increase in SCHIP funding.

Medicaid, not so much.

Then again, it's much easier to advocate for health care for poor kids and old people than it is for the rest of the great unwashed masses.

[ Parent ]
So Zero Is The Answer? (4.00 / 1)
I can't imagine that opposing initial passage of the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, Superfund, Medicare, or the Social Security Act would have been the sensible progressive course, although each of these enactments had significant flaws.

I wish Dems could be more organized, but I don't have any illusions about how the politics of this country works, regardless of how one issue or another might be polling today or tomorrow.  Best get what we can, when we can.  Holding out for the perfect solution is, ime, much more likely to end badly.

I think we're better off getting something, both because it's something that can be improved, and because I've seen the consequences of a Dem majority failing to enact health reform, and I'm not interested in a re-run of 1994.  On the former point, the right-opponents are scared to death of the creation of a new entitlement, a one way ratchet.  Even a blind chicken finds a grain every now and then, and I think they may be on to something here.

That said, I'm willing to be convinced that there's some method to opposing the current effort.  Explain the mechanics: how to we get from Limbaugh Victory to Single Payer?  Why is it a more certain path than Inadequate Coverage to Single Payer?  

Confirm thy soul in self control, thy liberty in law.

[ Parent ]
Shorter Carp (0.00 / 0)
What sort of congressional composition do think think would give us a great bill in 2012 that wouldn't give us improvements of the 2009 bill in 2012?  Why do you think failure of the current majority would give us that composition?

Confirm thy soul in self control, thy liberty in law.
[ Parent ]
Charley, have you read this historical account of the Clinton health care attempt? (0.00 / 0)
http://www.counterpunch.org/na...

It's pretty interesting.

[ Parent ]
Reminds Me of the Carly Simon Song (0.00 / 0)
Really, he thinks it failed because it didn't go far enough?  I mean, sure, he can beat of the stupid strawman of the thing having gone down over the calendar all he wants -- I can't imagine that any serious person believes that this was of any consequence at all.  However, an article on the failure that makes no mention of Gramm or Kristol belongs in unicorn land.

As does the idea that the DLC was created for the purpose of restraining leftward movement of the population.  It, and the center shift, was to win elections.  In a country where tens of millions of people pulled the lever for Sarah Palin.  It worked: DLC type centrism got Carter, Clinton, and Obama elected, and got Gore a majority.  What were Jesse Jackson's chances of being elected president in 1988?  Zero.  Less than zero.  I don't care how many progressive activists he could get at the convention (This is not to say that his candidacy wasn't very important on a number of levels, and I did vote for the guy).

No one is answering my questions about the mechanics, because no one can imagine how to get a populist US Congress, without some kind of magical thinking.  

Confirm thy soul in self control, thy liberty in law.

[ Parent ]
So your theory is Graham and Kristol caused Democrats to stay home and Repos to vote in the same numbers as (0.00 / 0)
in 1990, the previous mid term? How did they do that? I'm interested in hearing. Those are the numbers, and they don't make sense using your analysis.

Are you claiming that  Dems stayed home because they were pissed off about the left-ward shift of the Clinton administration?

Well I was there, and I was a Democrat, and I almost stayed home because I was pissed off at the rightward shift of the Dems, and I was pissed off at how Clinton had sold us out on healthcare with their rightwing bullshit and complex solution that cut all the activist out of the game and put the largest insurance companies into the game. I sure didn't go out and campaign for the Dems. It would have felt like campaigning for the  Republicans.

Kucinich got elected to his first term in congress that year, '94. He was the only Dem in the whole country to take a seat away from the Repos in either the House or the Senate. His being very  liberal didn't hurt him.

Again, are you going to give Gramm and Kristol credit for that?

Also, Carter wasn't DLC in the slightest, in fact the DLC wasn't formed until the mid-1980's after Carter was out of Office and Mondale lost to Reagan. Carter was never a member of the DLC. So please to check your facts before to type.

I didn't address most of what you said because it was late and I was tired, so I thought perhaps I'd address your most glaring mis-analysis, that the party was too left in 1994 to win election.

It was too far to the right to win election, at least elections that depended on Democrats coming out and voting. The unions stayed home, in particular, out of disgust over NAFTA and out of disgust for how rightwing, complex and stupid the health care proposal was. Nobody was defending it except the White House. Not congress and not the people.

Here's some more history for you. It sounds like you need to brush up. It's from Wikipedia, but it's accurate.

The DLC was founded by Al From in 1985 in the wake of incumbent President Ronald Reagan's defeat of Walter Mondale in the 1984 presidential election. Other founders include Democratic Governors Chuck Robb (Virginia), Bruce Babbitt (Arizona) and Lawton Chiles (Florida), Senator Sam Nunn (Georgia) and Representative Dick Gephardt (Missouri).[3]

The model on which the Democratic Leadership Council was built was the Coalition for a Democratic Majority.[4] Founded by "Scoop" Jackson Democrats in response to George McGovern's massive loss to Richard Nixon in 1972, the CDM was dismayed by two presidential election losses and the organization's goal was to steer the party away from the New Left influence that had permeated the Democratic party since the late 1960s and back to the policies that made the FDR coalition electorally successful for close to 40 years. Although Senator Jackson declined to endorse the organization, believing the timing was inappropriate, future DLC founders and early members were involved like Sen. Sam Nunn and Sen. Charles S. Robb.

In the early 1980s, some of the youngest members of Congress, including Representative William Gray of Pennsylvania, Tim Wirth of Colorado, Al Gore of Tennessee, Richard Gephardt of Missouri, and Gillis Long of Louisiana helped found the House Democratic Caucus' Committee on Party Effectiveness. Formed by Long and his allies after the 1980 presidential election, the CPE hoped to become the main vehicle for the rejuvenation of the Democratic Party.[5] The CPE has been called "the first organizational embodiment of the New Democrats."[6]

The DLC started as a group of forty-three elected officials and two staffers, Al From and Will Marshall, and shared their predecessor's goal of reclaiming the Democratic Party from the left's influence prevalent since the late 1960s. Their original focus was to secure the 1988 presidential nomination of a southern conservative Democrat such as Nunn or Robb. After the success of Jesse Jackson, a vocal critic of the DLC, in winning a number of southern states in 1988's "Super Tuesday" primary, the group began to shift its focus towards influencing public debate. In 1989, Marshall founded the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank which has since turned out policy blueprints for the DLC. Its most extensive series of papers is the series of New Economy Policy Reports.

By the way. I don't recall the article or myself asserting the claim that Jackson had a chance to win in the general, speaking of "straw men." The article pointed out that Clinton stole Jackson's rhetoric on health care while changing the solution on health care to a corporatist model. That's true, that's what was done.

But it didn't fool anyone who was paying attention.

The way we will get single payer health insurance is in a state. The California legislature has passed it twice, for instance. I you believe Brian Schweitzer, he says a majority of Montanans support single payer. I think he's right. Then it will spread.  That's how we got Social Security. We already know single payer works extremely well to contain costs and to deliver quality care to everyone because it's been done repeatedly around the world with good results. It's been done here with FDIC, VA, Medicare, and Federal Flood Insurance. It's not some new fangled market based solution that's already failing in MA to contain costs and is causing people to have their benefits cut, like the Romney/Obama care model is. And we saw how well the Clinton proposal, managed care,  has worked where it's been tried. It doesn't work well at all. Good thing we weren't stuck with that turkey.

[ Parent ]
No, I Agree that Failure Killed Dems in 1994 (0.00 / 0)
Which is why I have no patience for those who prefer failure this time around.

Gramm/Kristol killed HRC's reform to deprive the Admin of a victory, not because of any merits.  It worked.  Why on earth do people want to rerun this?  Are you saying it would be different this time?  Why on earth would any sane person want to gamble on that?

Kill the 2009 bill, you get Palinism.  Pass it, organize to improve, get the configuartion you want, and then, in 2011 or 2013, get the bill you want.  That's what's on the menu.

Confirm thy soul in self control, thy liberty in law.

[ Parent ]
Meta (0.00 / 0)
I don't usually go for meta-commenting, because I think it's a waste of time.  As much of this thread demonstrates.  I'll take your challenge though.  I was there too.  I know exactly what the DLC was for -- it was to win elections by running to the center, because it was obvious that running left wouildn't win general elections.  Nothing in the Wiki entry says any different at all.

I know perfectly well that Carter wasn't in the DLC.  Which is why I used the term 'DLC-like' in my comment.

Kucinich?  You're f-ing kidding me.  We elect reps in districts.  They are different from each other.  Pat Williams won in 1994 too, but that doesn't tell you anything about national viability.

Again, I really really did not say that the Dems were too far left in 1994.  (And have never said so in my life). I said that failure to pass health reform, a failure engineered by the right, made the difference.

I think state single payer systems would be a fine thing.  I don't have much faith that we're really going to get that here, not for a decade at least, and I'm afraid that the collateral consequences of failure of the 2009 effort are likely to doom us on that front, as well as many others.  

Confirm thy soul in self control, thy liberty in law.

[ Parent ]
Carter wasn't centrist Carter was quite liberal, in almost anyway you slice it. (0.00 / 0)
You think we lost congress in a national vote in 1994? We lost it one district at a time, where Democratic voters stayed home.

And the only district to flip from Repo to Democratic was the one Kucinich won.

The right had little to do with defeating the health care bill because then, like now, we controlled both houses and the presidency. When you control the house you set the agenda. But the house didn't want to pass the bill, Democrats included. Neither did the Senate.

Why did Democratic voters stay home who were the most liberal? They are the people who disliked  Clinton's market based solution, managed care, the most. So why did they stay home?

You haven't explained it in any way that makes sense. Why did particularly union voters not show up in 1994?

You say it's because the right killed the Clinton bill. Why would that lead to union voters staying home? That makes no sense. Wouldn't that energize people if they wanted the bill passed to come out and punish the right. Wouldn't it?

Can you name any left groups, groups that were organizing on single payer that supported the Clinton Bill? I can't.

Can you name any left groups who were opposed to NAFTA? I can. The unions. all of them opposed NAFTA, and did so quite vocally.

See, I think you are buying into a myth. I thought this at the time, and as I thought about it longer and harder and from the distance of many years, i think it even more.

The reason the Democrats enjoyed such a long run from the thirties until Ronald Reagan was because they really were a lefty party. They passed bills that did things that were very good for people, not things that were particularly good for the corporations.

All that changed in the 90s. And it hurt the Democrats. Of course, they had also lost the south due to civil rights and the Nixon Southern Strategy. But when they abandoned people for corporations under the DLC (not centrist, corporatist) they lost another major part of their coalition. Frum and his ideology is why the Democrats lost in 1994. But you don't expect he is going to take credit do you?

An awful lot of people who voted for Al Gore in 2000 did so holding their nose. They were less than enthusiastic. That's because they knew that the charges levied by Nader rang true, even if they were unwilling to risk voting for Nader.

The Democrats veered right and tried to make the case that the country had gone with them. But it didn't. And that's why the Dems didn't do so well.

Any way, we can agree to disagree, but if you can explain to me why the right killing a bill that the unions wanted (as you say they did) or even didn't want (as I say they didn't) would cause union voters who vote Democratic to stay home in droves, I'd sure like to know why? What motivated them to stay home?

[ Parent ]
PS, Pat Williams opposed and voted against NAFTA And Kucinich ran against NAFTA (0.00 / 0)
when he took the one Republican seat in 1994. Yet more circumstantial evidence that Navarro's analysis is the correct interpretation.

Then there is this, from a David Sirota Column on the 1997 Peruvian Free Trade Agreement
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...


"In 1994, the Democrats lost control of the House after turnout amongst labor households and non-unionized working class families declined. Polling found that upset about NAFTA's passage and specifically about local representative's support of NAFTA moved many traditional Democratic party voters to stay home on election day. The 1994 elections were remarkable in that low turnout -- not swings from Democratic to Republican party support -- decided many of the seats which switched parties on margins of fewer than 1000 votes."

I'm bound and determined to attempt to educate at least one human being about what really happened in 1994.

The myth that the right wing, who didn't control either house or the executive branch, somehow were able to derail the crappy Clinton plan is bunk. The plan was crap.

The second half of the myth posits that as a result, the right wing was able to take over both houses of congress for the first time since the Eisenhower administration.

i'm sorry that you are the guy i'm trying to educate and change your mind, cause you seem like a pretty decent chap, Charley,  and nobody ever appreciates their myths being disassembled, at least in the short run.

But this is a myth that is so crucial to our current situation with a shitty health care bill, that it's really important to disabuse as many people as possible of the misinformation that they accept as reality.

The crappy Clinton Health Care Bill had zero effect on the 1994 Democratic loss of both houses except that it re-enforced the perception that Democrats were in bed with the corporations just like  Republicans, so why bother to show up and vote?

I don't ask you to agree with me, Charley. I'm only asking you to question your myths, to question what you've been led to believe.

If you can come up with a decent reason that so many Democrats stayed home because the right wing sank the Clinton's "great" health care bill, then please share what their (the Dem voters) motivation was. Thanks.

[ Parent ]
Hmmmm (0.00 / 0)
Steve, leaving the debate over health care to the side in favor of the more political one, I've noticed that you and others consistently refer to the Democratic electoral failures of the '90s as being the response to the rightward shift of Democratic politicians.

I'm just kinda curious, here.  Do you actually think that Democrats could have held the Congress in '94 and '96 and '98 and '00, and '02 if they had been more liberal?  Which way was the electorate moving?  If you say to the right, I will agree strongly.  I will also point out that Charley is correct.  The DLC was formed to take political advantage of that fact.  That may not have been what you wanted; it certainly wasn't what I wanted.  But your comments have the distinctive smell of a disenchanted liberal.  If only others had really agreed with you, it could have been different ...  Uhm, a lot of people did, and it served us not at all.  Because a lot more people were actually moving to the right.  Kucinich is proof of nothing except his own district.  I'd really like to know what evidence gives you this idea that a leftward moving Democratic party would have been successful in that period.

Things now are different.  9/11 happened.  Neo-cons got us into an expensive and useless war.  Our economy tanked.  But what Charley has pointed out, quite accurately, is that we are where we are.  Feeding him bullshit about Graham and Kristol at this point is useless.  He asked a damned fine question:  How do you get a populist US Congress without some kind of magical thinking?

Instead of focusing on the minutia of how Charley Carp doesn't know as much as you, perhaps you could answer the question.  My answer would be public financing of political campaigns.  Consider that that would require politicians to vote against their own self interest.  None too likely.  So, I ask you for the umpteeth time: given what we have, how do you get there from here?  

[ Parent ]
charley carp - (3.00 / 1)
the real trend line here (which our own reps and senators have ignored) is a trend toward more - not less- progressive polling. i am not that worried about 2012. the far right is getting more and more irrelevant as they drift further and further into the far reaches of extremism.

the republican party is viewed by the majority as out of touch with real people. in other words, as weak as our leaders are, i see no realistic alternative. but i am hopeful that these same leaders who were elected (many of them in 2006) to get us out of 2 wars in the mid-east and to provide decent affordable health care for our citizens will finally listen in 2012 after three mo re years of intolerable treatment by our private health insurance industry.

maybe they will continue to remain spineless, but the resulting anger of an increasingly impatient voter base should shock them into action by then. i call it the cattle prod approach.  

Out of Touch (0.00 / 0)
And yet barring some sort of miracle, Rep Rehberg will be re-elected handily.  In '10 and, if he wants it, '12 as well.  Whether Sen Tester will win in '12 will depend on his Republican opponent.  I'm thinking it'll be a weak run, unless, of course, he looks vulnerable because there's no legislative accomplishment to point to.

Cattle prods don't work.  Instead, you have the Jimmy Carter problem: draw too much blood and you get anemia.  

Confirm thy soul in self control, thy liberty in law.

[ Parent ]
they already have anemia charley (0.00 / 0)
the next step is full-on zombyism. but at least the democrats all stagger off in different directions.
none of them can agree on the same flavor of brains.
[ Parent ]
this isn't 1994 anymore charley (0.00 / 0)
look around you. we're at the threshold of hell. people are pissed off about the health insurance companies now. how hungry will they be for single payer by 2012. this bill is a failure and if it passes, everyone will blame the democrats when the health insurance leeches start to take even more of our gnp after this bill entrenches them.

obama's chances are better in 2012 without the bill. especially if the repubs kill it. let them take the blame. store that anger and harness it in 2012 for single payer.

The fact that Republican turn out in 1994 was almost identical to their turn out in 1990 (0.00 / 0)
shows that the Republicans were not gaining any voters, they were staying static.

The Democrats were losing their voters who showed up in 1990. Were the Democrats moving to the right from 1990 to 1994? Yes. They passed NAFTA which was very unpopular. It was a Republican idea. Did their voters abandon them? Yes. Why? Why did their voters abandon them?

They didn't vote Republican. They stayed home.

The electorate was moving toward staying home instead of voting for a bunch of Democrats who were acting like Republicans.

I know you have zero respect for Harry Trumen, Wulf, and you think he was exceeding stupid when it comes to politics and that he didn't understand the electorate like you do. but Truman said;

"Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time" - Harry S Truman

Well you know me Wulf. I'm just an old fashioned Democrat and I think Truman knows more about politics than you do. Sorry.

Charley claimed that Carter, who won office in 1976, was DLC and now you are pointing to the mid-nineties, 10 years after the DLC formed. You both are a decade off but in opposite directions. I think you both need to check your facts a little better. It's hard to do good analysis when your facts are so screwy.

The only thing in your whole piece that makes any sense at all is that you say my comments have the sound of a "disenchanted liberal." Disenchanted liberals stay home instead of showing up and voting for a bunch of Dems who act like Republicans, so I think I'd have to agree with that particular part. I wasn't the only one that was disenchanted in the whole country, you know? A lot of people stayed home.

Just like the numbers show that they did.

See, it's those pesky numbers from the mid-terms in 1994, that prove my point. The ones where the Republicans got exactly the same amount of votes as they did in 1990 when they lost seats. The Dems stayed home instead of coming out and voting for a right-turning party.

I didn't bring up Gramm or Kristol. Neither did Navarro in that great article about the history of the Clinton Health Care commission and how and why Clinton failed. Charley claims that anyone who discusses the  1994 mid terms without bringing up Kristol and Gramm are remiss; Now you attack me for addressing Charley about Kristol and Gramm. There is just no pleasing some people, is there?

I did answer the question. Single payer will be enacted in a state and then it will spread, is what i think.

Most people support single payer. It's the bought off congress who is resisting the idea, So we will pass it in some states and it will spread. Kind of like medical marijuana; The people are way ahead of the congress.

There, I've written it twice now. Third times the charm,maybe?

SINGLE PAYER WILL BE PASSED IN THE STATES FIRST

Got that, Wulf?

No shit, Sherlock (0.00 / 0)
I haven't disagreed with you on any particular, but you need an enemy other than those you are too frightened to face. So you choose me, coward.  You challenged me, Ive answered, multiple times.  You ignore the answer because you wish to seem important.

Funny that you bring up a topic of discussion that you won't carry forward because it would require courage on your part.

I got you, asshole.  The only one who seems incapable of recognizing that is you.  Gee, I wonder why ...  

[ Parent ]
I can't help it that if brains were electriciy, you couldn't light a one watt bulb, Wulf. (0.00 / 0)
Don't you understand that's not my problem?

I feel sorry for you dude. Life must be really getting you down to fill you up with so much rage.

Don't forget to breathe.

[ Parent ]
So, in other words (0.00 / 0)
We just disagree about the process, and you can't abide any disagreement.  Which of us is full of rage now?  You have have to make up stances for me just so that you can rage against them:

I know you have zero respect for Harry Trumen, Wulf, and you think he was exceeding stupid when it comes to politics and that he didn't understand the electorate like you do.

You know nothing of the kind.  And yet it is obviously desperately important for you to believe that.  Without a safe enemy, your house of cards comes tumbling down.  I suggest in the future that if you are in an argument with me, you might want to avoid those arguments you're having with the voices in your head.
[ Parent ]
I'd challenge you to a battle of wits but you are obviously an unarmed man. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
And, (0.00 / 0)
I'd challenge you to a battle of honesty, but you're obviously an unarmed man.  So, let's begin both battles with a simple question:

Why, since our very first encounter, have you felt it necessary to fabricate for yourself what I believe?

[ Parent ]
Did your mom drop you on your head, Wulf? (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
KMPT-AM (0.00 / 0)
http://www.kpax.com/Global/sto...

Perhaps the change in format from "Progressive" to Conservative is telling.  People vote with their feet and their dollars.

Yes, Craig (0.00 / 0)
People will pay for bullshit, regardless of how stupid it is.  This is not new news.  Nor is it really that telling about the general populace and their political leanings.  It's rather more indicative of the obvious; people will pay for what they want.  Just because progressives don't want to pay for businesses who want to pay for radio time, doesn't mean they aren't progressive.

Perhaps the change in format from "Progressive" to Conservative is telling.

And perhaps, it's really not ...

[ Parent ]
Drop in left's approval indicative of...what? | 63 comments
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

Bookmark and Share

Poll
Voting. Useful or not?
Yes!
No!
Maybe, but only if you vote my way.
There are theories that ...
Meh ...

Results

Blog Roll
  • A Secular Franciscan Life
  • Big Sky Blog
  • David Crisp's Billings Blog
  • Discovering Urbanism
  • Ecorover
  • Great Falls Firefly
  • Intelligent Discontent
  • Intermountain Energy
  • Lesley's Podcast
  • Livingston, I Presume
  • Great Falls Firefly
  • Montana Cowgirl
  • Montana Main St.
  • Montana Maven
  • Montana With kids
  • Patia Stephens
  • Prairie Mary
  • Speedkill
  • Sporky
  • The Alberton Papers
  • The Fighting Liberal
  • The Montana Capitol Blog
  • The Montana Misanthrope
  • Thoughts From the Middle of Nowhere
  • Treasure State Judaism
  • Writing and the West
  • Wrong Dog's Life Chest
  • Wulfgar!
    		•
     
    Powered by: SoapBlox