IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Actually no
If a significant majority want change (isn't that how Obama got elected in the first place?)

A PORTION of those that elected Obama want the level of change you want. Many of them have other specific areas that caused them to vote for him. You conflate your goals with everyone else's. Since the majority of US citizens currently have healthcare, and they fear it getting worse, then they'd simply like to keep the status quo without too much change, since change is often for the worse for those who already have a piece of what is changing.

These are not the sheeple you are looking for.
New The "portion" was the determining factor.
Without that "portion" Obama wins neither Indiana nor the election.

Now, that they're completely disillusioned, I doubt very seriously they'll be back in 2012 - which is why even a toad like Mittens is polling so close to Bam-Bam. Just so you know, the people in that portion of America are called Progressives. And Progressives know that you won't get anywhere by being a Partisan Democrat.
There are essentially two major camps left-of-center in American politics, and the divisions between the two are often as deep and wide as the rifts between the two major parties.

One camp is composed of Democratic partisans — a group that goes to great ends to stifle any and all criticism of President Obama and other Democratic politicians.

Commonly referred to as ‘Democratic loyalists’, ‘Obamabots’, ‘Obama Loyalists’ ‘Obama apologists’, ‘sheeple’ … they are fueled by a deep conviction that the Democratic Party — no matter what they do and how far to the right they swing — must have our full unflinching support to ensure their eventual reelection.

The second camp is composed of progressives — a group whose loyalties lie ONLY with progressive policies. These individuals relentlessly pursue the truth irregardless [SIC] of which party suffers from their findings. Unlike partisans, they refuse to cherry-pick, or engage in historic revisionism, or even to pull punches as a way of sparing Democratic politicians embarrassment.

Commonly referred to as ‘the Left’, ‘the populist Left’, ‘truth-tellers’, ‘the professional Left’, ‘non-partisan Left’, ‘ideological purists’, … they tend to vote Democratic, but will at times — depending on the options available to them — consider voting for Greens and independents.

The Left has been especially critical of President Obama over the last three years. He won a decisive victory in 2008 having campaigned on the following progressive platform: a public option as the vital component to any health care reform legislation; allowing the re-importation of prescription drugs; ending Bush tax cuts; scrapping the Patriot Act, which he deemed ‘shoddy and dangerous’; ending the warring policies of the neocons; closing GITMO; ending ‘Too Big to Fail’ on Wall Street (so as to avoid future TARPS); rewriting job-killing NAFTA-like trade policies, etc. etc. Once elected, he instantly turned his back on all these campaign promises, instead cutting back-room deals with the wealthy entrenched interest groups who profit from the very deep structural problems he vowed to reform...

Progressives are of the mindset that the only way to transform this country into a more progressive one, is to heighten politicians’ FEAR of their own constituents in a way that rivals the fear instilled by deep-pocketed interest groups. Progressives know that politicians strategically move towards their ideological base, whenever confronted with political insecurity.

When the Left calls Obama out in a way that penetrates the inner-beltway bubble — and becomes quantifiable by corresponding poll numbers — the President’s political advisers interpret this as voter repudiation. They realize his policy pendulum has swung too far Right in favor of entrenched interests and to the detriment of his own political stability. And it’s at this moment he begins to fear his supporters — the ones who elected him, and who will actually cast the votes in 2012. This leaves him with little choice, but to pivot towards his base and attempt to diffuse rising populist dissent.

Therein lies the key crucial difference between the two camps:

Progressives understand that when a President’s poll numbers drop he is more likely to push progressive priorities to appease his supporters. As such, the Left doesn’t believe its criticism of Obama in any way threatens the ends it hopes to achieve: progressive policies. If Obama stubbornly refuses to pivot to the Left then he has only himself to blame for a disenchanted, unenergized base come election time.

Partisans are always in campaign mode — viewing actual governing as little more than the muddy tracks of a perpetual horse race — and thus equate lowering poll numbers as a precursor to defeat. Therefore, as a group, they are incapable of ever pressuring their politicians to champion progressive causes or to promote meaningful change.

The message partisans continue to send to their Democratic representatives is this: “Just ignore me and everything I want, because I intend to campaign for you and vote for you regardless of what you do. I’ll even lie for you and cover up how you’ve screwed me every which way til Sunday — anything to ensure those scary Republicans don’t win.”

The Left hopes to send them the exact opposite message.

http://www.alterpoli...ident-obama-fear/

But, but, but, He didn't have the votes!
New IIRC, you didn't expect him to win IN in the first place.
You think progressives in IN put him over the top there? Really? I think he won IN because lots of people (including a few progressives) wanted to give change a chance and lots of new voters were enthusiastic about him.

Sure, many of those people stayed home in 2010, but that's always the pattern - fewer people turn out in off-year elections, and the President usually loses seats. I've seen little that indicates the pattern was generally different because Obama was there.

I didn't find the article you posted persuasive. Or I think it only describes a small number of people. Carville versus Kucinich or something. E.g. "The Left has been especially critical of President Obama over the last three years." Really? http://www.gallup.co...remains-high.aspx Or is this a "no true Scotsman" argument?

If you want the system to change, you have to work within it. That means supporting the better candidate(s). They're not all the same.

FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.

New No dispute. I did not think he would win in 2008.
I'd hoped he wouldn't because I knew if he came to "pass for a Liberal" let alone a "Progressive" as his campaign indicated, we'd be forever strapped with apologists who say "well, at least he's more liberal than Dick Armey" or some such. The bar for being labelled "Liberal" in this country was already so low that I suspect even Nixon could be so labelled. And that's the discussion we're bound to keep having from now on, thanks in no small measure to Obama's victory in 2008.

Obama's policies have turned us into a nation debating whether we should be as liberal as Nixon or as conservative as Armey or Bachmann. With Obama as the Left Sentinel, there is no longer a middle in American politics nor is there likely to ever be.

I'll not repeat my mistake of 2008. The only thing I will predict this go 'round is that if you go to sleep now and wake up in 3 years, review the implemented policies of the 3 years when you were asleep, you won't know if Mittens or Obama won. There's not as much guessing in this prediction because I have three years experience to draw upon.
     Why PPACA is inexcusable, in a nutshell. - (mmoffitt) - (45)
         Corner cases are always there. - (Another Scott) - (39)
             A corner case? - (mmoffitt) - (38)
                 How many votes were there for single payer? - (Another Scott) - (37)
                     Hey... how many times... - (folkert) - (6)
                         Different animals. - (Another Scott) - (5)
                             I am not... - (folkert) - (4)
                                 Understood. Me neither; ditto. :-) -NT - (Another Scott)
                                 In the absence of real leadership... - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                                     I can agree with that... - (folkert)
                                     "real leadership"? - (crazy)
                     Your President killed Single Payer in the crib. - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                         We've been through this ad nauseum... - (Another Scott)
                     See what happens when you let the option on the table? - (mmoffitt) - (27)
                         States are free to implement single payer if they want. - (Another Scott) - (26)
                             You've never been more wrong. - (mmoffitt) - (25)
                                 You do understand that Obama isn't king, right? - (Another Scott) - (24)
                                     Well, then, similarly - (hnick) - (21)
                                         Heh. - (Another Scott) - (20)
                                             Swing and Another miss. - (mmoffitt) - (13)
                                                 The votes weren't there. Reality intrudes again. -NT - (Another Scott) - (12)
                                                     Changing arguments mid-stream gets you only so far. ;0) -NT - (mmoffitt)
                                                     Re: The votes weren't there. Reality intrudes again. - (Ashton) - (10)
                                                         So, can you or Scott help me out here? - (mmoffitt) - (9)
                                                             Obama isn't the problem - Congress is the problem. HTH. - (Another Scott) - (4)
                                                                 The question remains. - (mmoffitt) - (3)
                                                                     We'll see in November. I'm optimistic myself. YMMV. ;-) -NT - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                                                         See post below. Either way, we all lose. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                                                             Meh. -NT - (Another Scott)
                                                             Actually no - (crazy) - (3)
                                                                 The "portion" was the determining factor. - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                                                                     IIRC, you didn't expect him to win IN in the first place. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                                                         No dispute. I did not think he would win in 2008. - (mmoffitt)
                                             I suppose that's good to know. - (hnick) - (5)
                                                 Reread DeLong's recent post. - (Another Scott) - (4)
                                                     I remain sceptical - (hnick) - (3)
                                                         Who would have been your candidate in 2008? - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                                             Serious answer - (hnick) - (1)
                                                                 Thanks. I understand the disappointment. - (Another Scott)
                                     Really? I thought he could kill people whenever he wanted. - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                         <sigh> -NT - (Another Scott)
         That's a crock - (crazy) - (4)
             So, she should ... - (mmoffitt) - (3)
                 The PPACA is much better than nothing - (malraux) - (1)
                     We'll see. I doubt it. -NT - (mmoffitt)
                 You did not read what I wrote - (crazy)

Real classics should flash or jiggle or fade to black.
60 ms