Originally posted by rwingettYou can't possibly expect them to start waging class warfare when they can hardly win in the battlefields of washington politics.
Because they don't have the spine to attack the rich the way Bernie Sanders did for 8+ hours last night. When the Democrats decide to start waging class warfare, and provide a substantive alternative to the elitist Republican party of the rich, then they would never lose another election. But they're afraid to tap the full potential of that populist grounds ...[text shortened]... fiddle to the Republicans in a rigged system than risk letting "the people" have their way.
The democrats don't have the people on their side, while the republicans evidently have an admirable talent in producing populist figures and capitalizing on the anger of the masses.
Originally posted by generalissimoThat just tells you how incompetent the Democrats truly are. Every single thing the Republicans have done for the last 30 years has been for the benefit of the wealthy. Middle class wages have stagnated or fallen, inequality has risen, and economic instability has become rampant, but a sizable percentage of the working class population thinks the Republicans are on their side.
You can't possibly expect them to start waging class warfare when they can hardly win in the battlefields of washington politics.
The democrats don't have the people on their side, while the republicans evidently have an admirable talent in producing populist figures and capitalizing on the anger of the masses.
Originally posted by rwingettI really don't agree. On economic issues, the polls show that most people support "progressive" positions; higher taxes on the rich, government creating jobs, extensions of unemployment benefits, etc. etc. The people gave the Democrats overwhelming victories in 2006 and 2008 to put these policies into effect. They failed to effectively do so.
That just tells you how incompetent the Democrats truly are. Every single thing the Republicans have done for the last 30 years has been for the benefit of the wealthy. Middle class wages have stagnated or fallen, inequality has risen, and economic instability has become rampant, but a sizable percentage of the working class population thinks the Republicans are on their side.
Originally posted by rwingettI think Republicans are skilled at manipulating many "useful idiots" via appeals to ethnic culture.
That just tells you how incompetent the Democrats truly are. Every single thing the Republicans have done for the last 30 years has been for the benefit of the wealthy. Middle class wages have stagnated or fallen, inequality has risen, and economic instability has become rampant, but a sizable percentage of the working class population thinks the Republicans are on their side.
- Joined
- 03 Sep 03
- Moves
- 89331
Originally posted by no1marauderYou think the democrat victories in 2006 and 2008 were about domestic economic policy?
I really don't agree. On economic issues, the polls show that most people support "progressive" positions; higher taxes on the rich, government creating jobs, extensions of unemployment benefits, etc. etc. The people gave the Democrats overwhelming victories in 2006 and 2008 to put these policies into effect. They failed to effectively do so.
- Joined
- 03 Sep 03
- Moves
- 89331
Originally posted by no1marauderBut it was hardly the focus of the campaigns and it certainly wasn't the focus of 2006. IIRC, 2006 Iraq and patriot act, etc all served to push the democrats into power. In 2008 the financial "meltdown" didnt' really hit the mainstream until the late fall of 2008 near the end of the campaign season. Iraq and all that mess was still a big part of getting the liberal base motivated as well as a large number of independents.
2008 for sure. There was this little thing called the Financial Meltdown.
Originally posted by tmetzlerObama and McCain was a tossup in the polls until the financial collapse occurred. That was no coincidence.
But it was hardly the focus of the campaigns and it certainly wasn't the focus of 2006. IIRC, 2006 Iraq and patriot act, etc all served to push the democrats into power. In 2008 the financial "meltdown" didnt' really hit the mainstream until the late fall of 2008 near the end of the campaign season. Iraq and all that mess was still a big part of getting the liberal base motivated as well as a large number of independents.
1 edit
Originally posted by tmetzlerAs to 2006, sure the Iraq debacle rightly hurt the Republicans BUT:
But it was hardly the focus of the campaigns and it certainly wasn't the focus of 2006. IIRC, 2006 Iraq and patriot act, etc all served to push the democrats into power. In 2008 the financial "meltdown" didnt' really hit the mainstream until the late fall of 2008 near the end of the campaign season. Iraq and all that mess was still a big part of getting the liberal base motivated as well as a large number of independents.
Polls show that swing voters -- the category that candidates most want to attract -- are unhappier than the rest of the population about their economic circumstances. According to a recent survey by Bloomberg News and the Los Angeles Times, six in 10 self-described independents said the economy was doing badly, and seven in 10 said the country was on the wrong track. A Fox News poll, taken at the end of last month, showed that 23 percent of Americans consider the economy the most important factor they will weigh when they cast their ballot in November -- more than those who cited Iraq (14 percent) or terrorism (12 percent).
And a recent poll conducted for the AFL-CIO by the Democratic Garin-Hart-Yang Research Group found that 55 percent of voters said their income was not keeping up with inflation, and that the economy was a more effective campaign theme against Republicans than either the war or corruption. This rings true to many Republican strategists and their allies: Despite the unpopularity of the president's Iraq policies, Bush's approval rating is higher among voters who see the war and national security as the top issues in November than it is among voters who rate the economy as their top issue, according to one veteran GOP pollster worried about his party's prospects this fall.
Republicans have approached the problem partly as a matter of perception. Eager to frame the issue for the fall, Bush recently met with economic advisers at Camp David and later announced that the economy is "solid and strong" and "creating real benefits for American workers and families and entrepreneurs." The gross domestic product, the sum of all goods and services produced, has slowed a bit since the beginning of the year but is still growing at a respectable annual rate of 2.9 percent. And the unemployment rate is near its five-year low.
But the sour mood is not simply a matter of psychology. Since 2003, the inflation-adjusted median hourly wage of most workers has fallen by 2 percent, according to the Labor Department. And this summer marked the first time since 1991 that the annual inflation rate exceeded 4 percent for three consecutive months, driven partly by $3-per-gallon gasoline.
Then there is debt. According to a study by the Federal Reserve Board, the ratio of financial obligations -- primarily mortgage and consumer debt -- to disposable personal income rose to a modern record of 18.7 percent earlier this year. The amount of mortgage debt alone has more than doubled since 2000, to nearly $9 trillion. And in July, for the 16th consecutive month, consumers in the aggregate spent all of their disposable income and dipped into savings or borrowed to finance the things they bought.
Among the most exposed are those who bought into one of the great fads in mortgage lending in recent years -- adjustable rates. Next year, $1 trillion worth of adjustable-rate mortgages -- about 11 percent of all outstanding mortgage debt -- is scheduled to readjust to a higher interest rate for the first time, according to LoanPerformance, a research company. This will come after more than $400 billion of readjustments this year. That means millions of homeowners will either have to refinance or shoulder an increase of perhaps 25 percent in their monthly payments.
The political implications of these trends are obvious. "A large number of voters have a definite foreboding about the economy, and that isn't good news for incumbents," said Gregory S. Casey, chief executive of the Business Industry Political Action Committee, a nonpartisan electoral analysis organization. "They feel disappointed in government institutions that they think have let them down."
"Republicans are worried," added R. Bruce Josten, an executive vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a significant backer of pro-business -- and therefore predominantly Republican -- congressional candidates. "You have a portion of the middle class that doesn't believe it's benefiting from good economic news, and, in fact, it's not. . . . All the blame doesn't go to Congress, but voters are going to take it out on Congress anyway."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/04/AR2006090401108.html
Originally posted by rwingettI agree, but it's the nature of Democrats to try to work with Republicans to push the lawmaking process forward. The G O P does not operate this way. Yes...the Democrats need to grow a spine, sadly, they too are afraid to anger big business, which might affect there little gifts and kickbacks.
Because they don't have the spine to attack the rich the way Bernie Sanders did for 8+ hours last night. When the Democrats decide to start waging class warfare, and provide a substantive alternative to the elitist Republican party of the rich, then they would never lose another election. But they're afraid to tap the full potential of that populist grounds ...[text shortened]... fiddle to the Republicans in a rigged system than risk letting "the people" have their way.