Are we much better than the Republican-voting rednecks?

[DerekG]

Over the years, I've directed a great deal of contempt towards the "What's the Matter With Kansas?" boobs who vote against their economic interests.

But in all honesty, are we much better? We fancy ourselves to be intelligent and educated, and yet our last three Democratic presidents (sorry, Carter fans) have spurned FDR/LBJ liberalism. In their respective tenures, they've shoved deregulation and neoliberal trade deals down our throats, and we keep cheering for the schmucks. Shouldn't they be afraid of us, rather than taking our support for granted?

[tridim]

1. We are MUCH better than Republican voters.

Next question.

[nichomachus]

22. Our team good. Their team bad. Yay, us!

[tridim]

23. Yes, Republicans are bad. nt

[BlueCaliDem]

51. Yes, Republican Team BAD.

People who don't understand this and how it effects policy and who gets what in this country, are rooting for Republicans. Period.

[LWolf]

62. Period.

Using the word "period" to conclude a statement of opinion, as if that closes the subject and makes the opinion fact, is a weak tactic.

It's what my mother did when I, as a child, tried to argue with her about a decision. It's a "might makes right, don't question it" tactic.

Of course, it was effective in that I grew up determined to question everything. The opposite reaction Mom was hoping for.

And, of course, as an adult, when someone says <insert any opinion.> "Period," I simply do this:

Edited to add: Of COURSE Republicans are bad for the nation; that's beside the point of the OP.

[BlueCaliDem]

66. And when I encounter people who assert themselves as rebels without cause

or common sense, I use this ---> , too. So...

[LWolf]

68. "Rebels without a cause."

That's a shitload of assumptions, right there.

[BlueCaliDem]

70. Naw. It's truth. eom

[LWolf]

80. You are just filled with truthiness. nt

[BlueCaliDem]

82. Sho'nuff.

[Jackpine Radical]

2. Hey, if the DNC wanted your input,

they'd have sent you a request for a donation.

[cyberswede]

5. LOL...

but also

[LWolf]

63. Yep. nt

[Octafish]

81. +$

Public financing of political campaigns dropped off the Party radar and it's been all Wall Street all the time ever since.

[11 Bravo]

3. Yes.

Hope that helps you.

[randys1]

4. And the alternative in November 2016 to voting for whoever the Dem is?

[Jackpine Radical]

6. Moving to Sweden as a refugee.

[bigwillq]

7. We're better than the folks we elect.

The political system is broken. It's really not set up to nominate great candidates, just the lesser of two evils, imo.

[Exhibit A]

9. That's pretty much what I think, too. n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

25. So you think Clinton, Gore, Kerry and Obama were all evil .nt

[bigwillq]

26. A lesser kind.

I'm a fan of very few politicians.

edited

[RobertEarl]

48. Remember the daze, bigwill?

When we were young and innocent and trusting?

And f'n stupid to believe that our politicians were so pure?

[bigwillq]

49. Yup.

Didn't take me long to figure out how wrong that thinking was.

edited

[DanTex]

8. Of course. But let's see here.

Obama has for the first time ever established near-universal healthcare.
He has passed the most significant financial regulations in many many decades.
He rolled back tax cuts for the wealthy.
He passed a large package of domestic stimulus spending.
He's a vocal advocate for things like higher minimum wage, free community college, etc., which won't get passed only because of the Republican congress.

On what planet is he spurning FDR/LBJ liberalism?

[JEB]

10. Planet TPP.

[1StrongBlackMan]

16. Oh, you mean the trade deal that isn't? ...

If the worst you have (or the first thing you can think of) against the President Obama tenure is to point to something that isn't ... well ... that probably should have you re-thinking your position.

[JEB]

30. My position on TPP is likely not to change.

Many of President Obama's policies I approve of but certainly not all.

[1StrongBlackMan]

34. That is, probably, a true statement ...

Regardless of what is, or is not, actually in the TPP.

I suspect that this TPP concern will fizzle, just like the "he's just itching to bomb the Assad Regime" over the gas issue concern, and the "he's gonna cut Social Security" over the CCPI concern, before that.

[JEB]

76. Give the track record of trade agreements,

I'd say the burden of proof is on the proponents.

[1StrongBlackMan]

18. There are still poor white males in America ...

so none of that matters.

[ND-Dem]

72. under fdr highest tax rates were something like 90%. under obama something like 32%.

yeah, he's just like fdr.

advocacy ain't action. you don't get credit for advocacy; otherwise we'd have that public option.

[DanTex]

73. Too bad for LBJ, then, who cut the top rate by 20%. No liberal there!

Obama actually raised the top rate, of course, but who's paying attention to that. As far as blaming Obama for the fact that the GOP congress blocked a lot of his agenda, well, if you're really looking despise the man irrationally, no doubt you will succeed.

[ND-Dem]

74. yeah, from 91 to 70%, still way higher than anything today. reagan raised taxes too. so what?

question is what's the economic climate and what's the effect.

The stated goal of the tax cuts were to raise personal incomes, increase consumption, and increase capital investments. Evidence shows that these goals were met to some degree by the tax cut.[4] Unemployment fell from 5.2% in 1964 to 4.5% in 1965, and fell to 3.8% in 1966.[4][5] Initial estimates predicted a loss of revenue as a result of the tax cuts, however, tax revenue increased in 1964 and 1965.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1964


and Obama didn't 'raise' the top rate, he restored it to what it was pre-bush tax cuts -- the ones that had a sunset provision he'd postponed due to the recession.

still less than 40% top rate.

and the elephant in the room is corporate rates.

[DanTex]

75. Well, the effect of Obama's economic policies were to prevent a second great depression.

So there's that.

I'm not sure how you expect Obama to get a 40% top tax rate through the Republican congress. I actually agree that we should have a higher top rate, but there is vote-counting reality. If he had LBJ's congress, the top rate would be higher, there would be a higher minimum wage, and there would be free community college, a public option, and so on.

You realize LBJ had the senate by 30 seats and the house by 80, right? And this was before the filibuster was used on every bill.

Oh, and I seem to recall a little military conflict in southeast Asia during LBJ's presidency. Funny, same people who think Obama is a warmongering neocon because he drops bombs in the middle east are yelling "why can't you be more like LBJ!"

[Bluenorthwest]

83. Oh but Reagan lowered the top rates and corporate rates, oil windfall profits tax reduced in 81

and eliminated in 88. 1981 Reagan reduced Corporate and Top Marginal rates, which were adjusted back up a bit but were never restored. 1982 saw an increase in the Payroll Taxes. The 1986 Reforms again cut the top marginal rates while 'closing loopholes'. Rates for lower incomes were increased.
" Personal income tax revenues declined from 9.4% GDP in 1981 to 8.3% GDP in 1989, while payroll tax revenues increased from 6.0% GDP to 6.7% GDP during the same period.[4] This represented a more regressive tax regime, with more revenue derived from the flat payroll tax versus the progressive income tax."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

[ND-Dem]

84. I don't disagree that Reagan's increases were largely regressive. That's why I don't think

blanket statements about so & so raising/lowering taxes are very useful.

question is what's the economic climate and what's the effect.

The stated goal of the tax cuts were to raise personal incomes, increase consumption, and increase capital investments. Evidence shows that these goals were met to some degree by the tax cut. Unemployment fell from 5.2% in 1964 to 4.5% in 1965, and fell to 3.8% in 1966. Initial estimates predicted a loss of revenue as a result of the tax cuts, however, tax revenue increased in 1964 and 1965.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1964


and Obama didn't 'raise' the top rate, he restored it to what it was pre-bush tax cuts -- the ones that had a sunset provision he'd postponed due to the recession.

still less than 40% top rate.

and the elephant in the room is corporate rates.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. I never voted to deprive a person of his or her rights so I am better./NT

[AZ Progressive]

12. We keep getting fooled...

Clinton used 99% populist rhetoric and Obama pretended to be a liberal, at least to get through the primaries.

And when we are stuck with the candidate for the general election, we have no choice but to vote for the Democratic candidate...

The American two party election system is what preserves the status quo and allows both parties to stay in power and shove neo-liberalism down our throats.

[Left coast liberal]

13. Good question...

[Egnever]

14. Our candidates are a result of a process

Last edited Mon Feb 23, 2015, 09:00 PM - Edit history (1)

We get the ones that appeal to the widest swath of Dems. Despite many people thinking Du reflects the Democratic party it really does not. One need only look back to the last presidential primary where the leading candidates on DU were Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards. Both of which were horrible general election candidates.

There is a big difference in mainstream electability and ideology.

[1StrongBlackMan]

19. Who needs "electability" ...

we have principles!

[MannyGoldstein]

27. We seem to have neither principles nor electability

Maybe there's something to that?

[1StrongBlackMan]

29. I think if you were honest ...

you would note that those unelected ran away from President Obama and those elected didn't.

[MannyGoldstein]

31. Whoosh!!! Holy crap!!!

Those flying goal posts almost hit me!

Be more careful next time, please!

[1StrongBlackMan]

37. I don't understand ...

The electable candidates choose to run away from President Obama. How is that goal post moving?

[MannyGoldstein]

38. Correct.

You don't understand.

[1StrongBlackMan]

42. Thank you for that cogent explanatory response ...

is this where I protest about making personal attacks?

[MannyGoldstein]

43. Even when I agree with you, I'm awful?

Tough crowd.

[1StrongBlackMan]

45. You were agreeing with me?...

I couldn't tell with all the "goal post moving" and "you don't understand" assertions.

[MannyGoldstein]

47. You wrote that you don't understand

And I agreed that you don't.

What am I missing here?

[1StrongBlackMan]

50. Ohhhh, you were being cleverly antagonistic ...

for no particular reason other than to cry victim when I become antagonist back.

[MannyGoldstein]

54. This is very discouraging.

One of my therapists suggested that I try to be more agreeable, try to find ways to agree with people so that they'll like me more. I tried, but this attempt has clearly not gone well.

[1StrongBlackMan]

57. Clearly ...

perhaps medication might help.

Or, maybe just a little more respect.

[Doctor_J]

40. And how does that seem to be working for the party?

[Egnever]

41. Seems to be working out pretty well

Dems have held the white house for 12 of the last 20 years and only had a break for dimson both of whose elections were questionable.

[Doctor_J]

44. so you believe the party's standing is "pretty good" compared to what is was

20 years ago? 30? 40? 50? Why don't you look up the Senate House profiles, and governors' mansions and state houses for those years, then tell me how we're doing. Or maybe point to some legislation that compares to the New Deal, Civil Rights Act, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, or Voting Rights Act.

[Egnever]

46. The 30s 40s etc were a different time

Fox news was not part of the equation then nor was the rise of the evangelical vote. Also Congress had not reached the abuse of the philibuster they have mastered today ensuring no big ticket legislation passes.

The ACA however was passed and like SS can be built on to become every bit as historic. Part of the rise in power of the Republican party can be traced back directly to the times you talked about as well when Dems controlled everything many of the people that are the most dependable voters were born in that era and have voted Republican all of their lives in direct opposition to democrats of those times.

Despite all of the good legislation that you listed in many cases during those years the Democrats in power abused the control they had and people are still voting against them because of it.

[840high]

55. ...^ that

[Recursion]

53. It's won 5 of the past 6 Presidential elections

Remember Dukakis? Mondale?

[Doctor_J]

59. Unlikely, since Smirk won twice

But even ignoring your math deficiency, please read reply #44

[Recursion]

61. Forgetting 2000 already? Smirk lost that one (nt)

[Doctor_J]

65. OK, I will grant you that

See reply 44

[LondonReign2]

67. Let me fix that for you

"Our candidates are a result of a process. We get the ones that appeal to the richest set of donors."

There you go. No charge.

[progressoid]

15. We?

Some of us aren't. Some of us are.

[phylny]

17. My guess is that using a perjorative term like "redneck" makes "us"

better than no one.

[cordelia]

69. Pejoratives are seldom if ever useful.

Terms like "redneck" are divisive and cause much more harm than good.

[BrotherIvan]

20. You ask a very fair question

One I have asked quite a bit lately. If the party knows in advance that you will vote for whomever they put forward, there is NO LEVERAGE to get a candidate who supports your ideals. The early posts on this thread show that many so-called Democrats don't really think we can do much better. But I think that we can and that the country will elect a liberal. We just did, TWICE, in the sense that Obama campaigned as an old-school liberal. That swanky campaign knew what people wanted. He didn't campaign as a moderate Republican of the Reagan era. Now it's time for the rhetoric to match the governing philosophy.

[daredtowork]

21. DU aiding and abetting

Many around here demanding zombie loyalty Hillary, and she hasn't even won the Primary yet.

She's.Shown.No.Intention.Of.Representing.Left.Dem.Social.Interests.

Do I need a bullhorn or something?

[Katashi_itto]

24. +1

[olddots]

28. take away the politics

and maybe people are just wired differently , assuming they are how do we go about getting along when politics is about polarizing people .
I believe there are peace makers and war makers , that and 2 bucks buys a cup of coffee . These 2 species are allways at odds with each other but the room we have to share gets smaller with a growing population .End of dumb thought

[newthinking]

35. Not a dumb thought at all

Lot of truth in it.

[Generic Brad]

52. Great observation

When I first observed this for myself decades ago I referred to this as "mind tribes". Glad to see I am not totally alone in how I see the world.

[edhopper]

32. Those Presidents

didn't do enough.

The GOP ones went the other way and did harm.

BIG difference.

[newthinking]

33. There has been a slow slide. Our side is even using angry attack language in ways

we never did before.

It is the system that drives everything down.

[LiberalElite]

36. They're not afraid of us -

their minions just have to say "lesser of two evils", and nothing ever changes.

[840high]

56. xactly - but more and more

of us don't listen to that phrase anymore.

[LiberalElite]

79. .

[blue neen]

39. Seriously?

Did you read this thread?:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026268382

[Iggo]

58. Yes. Much.

Well, I am, anyway.

[alarimer]

60. Yes.

Kind of a silly question.

We are better, we are smarter and we tend not to vote against our own best interests.

Our leaders, on the other hand, kind of suck. They are beholden to Wall Street. We vote for them because we are not given any real choices. Money in politics is the real problem.

[mmonk]

64. They are more afraid of corporations and the media.

[BubbaFett]

71. Politicians

are mostly scumbags. Not all, but the vast majority.

They are not statesmen or the best among us.

[Martin Eden]

77. There is a HUGH difference ...

... WE vote for the lesser of two evils
... THEY vote for the greater of two evils

[jmondine]

78. Not when we use the word, "redneck".