Misreading Polls And The Need To Euthanize The Post Partisan Unity Schtick

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 09:19:01 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The latest Gallup poll demonstrates, for the umpteenth time, that political analysts and reporters do no understand polling:

In a survey of 1,000 adults taken Tuesday, 34% say demonstrations at the hometown sessions have made them more sympathetic to the protesters' views; 21% say they are less sympathetic. Independents by 2-to-1, 35%-16%, say they are more sympathetic to the protesters now.

The findings are unwelcome news for President Obama and Democratic congressional leaders, who have scrambled to respond to the protests and in some cases even to be heard. . .

The reporter who wrote this, Susan Page, is a classic CW type who basically spouts whatever her colleagues are saying. This is another example. My reaction to the poll is this - only 34%? That's great news for Obama. These type of polling questions are simply restating the basic question - do you oppose health care reform? Only 34% say they do? That's not bad at all. As for the "independents" nonsense - it is important to realize that true independents are a small percentage of "independents." 75% of "independents" are weak Dems or Republicans. This silly trope is trotted out all the time. Anything else worth noting in this Gallup poll? Let's see on the flip.

There is a silly argument coming from some on the Left that say there are contradictory findings in the poll regarding the attitudes towards the town hall protests. There aren't imo. For example, some argue that the finding that "shouting down a supporter of a bill" is considered "abuse" whatever that means) by 59% is ocntradictory to the finding that 51% consider "angry attacks" against a bill "democracy" (as opposed to "abuse.") These are not contradictory at all. I can "angrily attack" a bill while not simultaneously "shouting down a supporter." Of course, these questions are the height of stupidity and Gallup again demonstrates how little we can learn from polls. One thing we do learn is this - it is time to euthanize the Post Partisan Unity Schtick - more evidence that the post partisan unity schtick is a complete failure:

Reaction to the protests is highly partisan, with a little more than half of Republicans saying the protests have made them more sympathetic to the protestors' views, compared to 35% of independents and 17% of Democrats. About 4 out of 10 Democrats, on the other hand, say the protests have made them less sympathetic to the protestors' views.

At the end of the day, this is the key finding that if unabsorbed by the Obama Administration and Democratic officials, will spell disaster.

Time to fight. For Democratic value and policies. Time to rally the base. The reaction to all of this should be a hardening of the Obama view on health care reform. If Dems pols do not fight for Dem ideas, then why a lot of the Dem rank and file will decide there is no reason to for them. and that is how the Dem could lose, not just on health care, but on the only thing that matters to the Emanuel types -- elections.

Speaking for me only

< Court Rejects Bail for Bernie Madoff's CFO Despite Gov't. Backing | Context: Hillary Clinton In Africa >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Misreading Polls And The Need To Euthanize The Post Partisan Unity Schtick | 66 comments (66 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

PPUS has been brought before the death panel (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by ruffian on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 09:31:02 AM EST

and declared unfit to live.

Or does the death panel come to you? I'm not clear on that detail.

Problem is I am no longer sure there are 50 Dems in the Senate that would know a Democratic idea if it hit them in the face. Sen. Franken better work fast to educate them.

I am feeling pretty post partisan myself these days, in that I'm disgusted with them all.

: Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by MO Blue on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 09:51:05 AM EST

PPUS was always a fantasy IMO and needs to be buried.

If Dems pols do not fight for Dem ideas, then why a lot of the Dem rank and file will decide there is no reason to for them. and that is how the Dem could lose, not just on health care, but on the only thing that matters to the Emanuel types -- elections.
Since obtaining a majority, I've seen more Dems promoting or accepting what I would consider Republican agenda items than Dem ideas.
This is particurly true with the current health insurance package being considered in Congress. I would be pounding the streets for good health CARE legislation but will not lift one finger in support of using taxpayer money to expand the insurance industry's profit base.

: yes, exactly (none / 0) (#61)
by moderateman on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 01:15:07 PM EST

> Problem is I am no longer sure there are 50 Dems
> in the Senate that would know a Democratic idea
> if it hit them in the face.
Problem is, too much political capital was spent on the stimulus bill (exactly what was that supposed to accomplish again?) and not on things that Dems should care about. Where are the Trumans and Kennedys of old? Those were Democrats.

It's hard (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by jbindc on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 09:40:45 AM EST

to "harden the Obama view on health care reform" since he doesn't seem to have one. He talks about "health INSURANCE reform", remember? Obama's view on health care is whatever will pass that he can count a "win" and that which will help him with the 2012 campaign.

Getting behind (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by dk on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 09:45:02 AM EST

HR676 (Medicaid-for-all) would be one way to rally the base. I doubt any of the current plans supported by Obama and the Congressional Democratic leadership will do that, though.

: Yup - good plan, simple message (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by ruffian on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 09:56:21 AM EST

And squarely in the realm of what Dems have stood for since FDR.

: I'd definitely pound the streets (none / 0) (#7)
by MO Blue on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 09:56:19 AM EST

in support of HR676. I'd even compromise and support a real ROBUST public option that was available to all.
Strengthening the health insurance industry through expanding their profit base is not something that I will support.

You just can't rally ... (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by Robot Porter on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:02:04 AM EST

behind an unclear position. It's impossible.

That's a failure of humanity (none / 0) (#13)
by The Last Whimzy on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:13:42 AM EST

And it's why I've always shunned rallies and protests and the like no matter what the cause.


: Just to add something to my comment (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by The Last Whimzy on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:27:46 AM EST

This is a wikipedia summary of Don DeLillo's novel, Mao II:

The last sentence of the prologue reveals an important and major theme in Mao II: "The future belongs to crowds." Crowds feature heavily in the book, from the opening crowds of thousands at the mass-wedding at Yankee Stadium, to the crowds living in Tompkins Square Park, to the thousands of mourners at the Ayatollah's funeral as observed on television by Karen. The nature of crowds and their relation to personal and collective identity are explored.
In predicting an age of terror in which "the major work involves midair explosions and crumbled buildings," DeLillo was eerily ahead of his time in contemplating the profound effect that political terror was soon to have on American society. The question of the efficacy of art in the context of dogmatism and violence of a massive scale is central to the narrative. In preparing the novel, DeLillo's editor at Viking, Nan Graham said "Long before he had written anything Don told me he had two folders -- one marked 'art' and the other marked 'terror.'"[1]
In short, I really do not like crowds.

Of course you can (none / 0) (#51)
by Steve M on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:49:38 AM EST

the Republicans do it all the time. You just have to make a values-based argument instead of a technocratic one.


: Then they're not rallying ... (none / 0) (#64)
by Robot Porter on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 01:53:22 PM EST

behind the position, are they?
They're just doing the my President, right or wrong, bit.

Even though (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by Steve M on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:07:58 AM EST

the current bill is not exactly as base-pleasing as it could be, it can still be sold in a much more base-pleasing manner.

Obama is a smart guy and he has been forceful, for the most part, about pushing back against the worst of the Republican attacks. But his affirmative case has been way too dry and technocratic.

To rally the base - which will be pretty important right about a year from now, by the way - he needs to go deeper and spend more time talking about how this proposal will advance core Democratic values, like social justice and equal opportunity. Health care is just about the most bread-and-butter Democratic issue there is, and so it really shouldn't be hard to get the base excited about it. But as ever, Democrats are better at making a logical, policy-based case for something, while Republicans are better at tying their case to deeply-held values. There are things we can learn from the other guys.

Well, because the (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by dk on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:11:28 AM EST

current plans are so bad, trying to portray them as propelling Democratic values would not be honest. That's the big problem, IMO.

Sure, I'm sure they will be able to market this bait-and-switch plan in such a way to get "a" bill passed. But it will be bad policy (which will likely lead to Democratic electoral defeats down the line, since in the end the ruling party is judged on the results of its policies). IMO, that won't be cause for rejoicing.


: Well (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Steve M on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:27:56 AM EST

we disagree on whether we look to be getting something worse than nothing, which is fine. Of course it's entirely possible that they'll keep watering this down to a point where I'll hate it too.
Too many of the traditional Democratic groups are on board with Obama for me to agree just yet that it's a clear sellout of our values. But I'm reserving final judgment until the thing coalesces more.

That (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by CST on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:12:36 AM EST

and a bill with a "robust public option" would help too. It's much easier to get behind something you can sum up in three positive terms than something like a "non-profit health insurance exchange" - whatever that means.

To be clear, I am in the "take what we can get" camp, but I think they can get it, and it would be an easier sell to the public, if they can get the blue dogs to see past their own wallets.


Although I believe that single payer (5.00 / 2) (#37)
by MO Blue on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:07:31 AM EST

is the best way to provide affordable health care to all, I would get behind a real ROBUST public option that is available to all.

This is not directed to your personally but I firmly believe that a "take what we can get" stance by Democratic activists is the reason why Republicans get more from politicians than Democrats. They demand the world and get quite a bit. OTOH Dems state they are willing to settle for much less than they want and often don't even get that.


I rather prefer (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by Anne on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:30:50 AM EST

Medicare-For-All, with a robust private option...


: Yeah Everyone Would Prefer Something (none / 0) (#45)
by squeaky on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:38:37 AM EST

And how about $50,000 for every american per year. That would be great for the economy and great for moral.
lol

Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by CST on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:35:35 AM EST

but for now (until the next election) we gotta live with the democrats we have not the democrats we want.

Let me put it this way, I don't see how this plan will get us farther away from a robust public option. I do see how it can get us closer.


Really? Seems like you said (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by dk on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:42:33 AM EST

it yourself down below. It will become more like no child left behind than social security.


Okay (none / 0) (#52)
by CST on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:49:50 AM EST

I guess I just don't think that will happen. Mainly because I don't think president Bush would touch this with a ten foot pole.


Um, no child left behind (none / 0) (#53)
by dk on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:52:50 AM EST

was a bi-partisan bill. Both parties came together for that boondoggle, as both are now for the current healthcare boondoggle, IMO.


say what you will about the healthcare bill (none / 0) (#55)
by CST on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:55:15 AM EST

but republicans are most definitely not on board.

Which is about the best thing I can say for it.


: All it takes (none / 0) (#60)
by dk on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:34:50 PM EST

is one or two. Then the rest of them can go back to their base and say they opposed it.

IMO it is a matter of how (none / 0) (#54)
by MO Blue on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:53:24 AM EST

to get the most out of the politicians we have NOW. If everyone who wants real health care reform would demand the everything we want from the politicians, we might get a better public option now.

The way things are shaping up there is a high probability that the final version will not contain even a weak ineffectual public option.


It's called (5.00 / 1) (#62)
by jbindc on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 01:27:47 PM EST

"Negotiation 101" which Obama and the Dems have failed miserably at. When you want to end up at a certain point with adversaries, you don't start by giving away the store and starting at the point of what you'd actually accept - you always start further out so you have room to negotiate. If you start in the middle, the other side has no incentive to cede anything.


: Evidently that point was missed entirely (none / 0) (#63)
by MO Blue on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 01:50:54 PM EST

I'm kinda hoping WJC will stump for it (none / 0) (#14)
by andgarden on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:15:58 AM EST

tonight.


I hope not (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by Cream City on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:20:35 AM EST

as it's not what he, Truman, et al., wanted and knew that this country needed. Let the Dems that think it's enough defend it.


I think you have an entirely distorted (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by andgarden on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:22:08 AM EST

view of the proposal. It's not that far from the 1993 plan, and it's better than Medicare (supported by Truman) because it will cover many more people.

I'll bet you anything Clinton supports it.


By the way, (5.00 / 2) (#26)
by dk on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:34:49 AM EST

very few people will be covered by the plan. See here for a good summary.

few or none of the uninsured would be covered till 2013
you could be forced to purchase junk insurance
the right to bargain drug prices down has been given away
the administration won't reimport Canadian drugs
the public option will only cover about 10 million people instead of the promised 120-130 million
the public option won't be able to keep insurance companies honest or drive prices downward
the public option was emphatically NOT Medicare, and expressly designed not to lead to any version of single payer or Medicare for All.
nobody knows what the "health care co-ops" which the administration has agreed might be substituted for the public option are, whether they are "co-ops" of health care providers or health care consumers or health insurance brokers or providers, and no explanations have been offered

I rather doubt Cream City has a (5.00 / 2) (#39)
by Anne on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:28:26 AM EST

distorted view of the plan, as she and a lot of others of us have been doing a lot of reading of the plan, and about the plan, for some time now.

It would be interesting to me to read your analysis of these plans - there are five of them at last count - and your explanation as to why you think they improve on 1993.

I think your focus on the simple political calculus that requires rallying the base to get something passed so Dems can campaign on their "accomplishments" and hold their majorities is too narrow, and does not take into account the political effect on 2010 and 2012 when voters who thought they were going to get help NOW find out that the help isn't arriving for three more years.

You are a lot younger than I am, so I have spent many more years than you have being told or encouraged to rally behind Democrats regardless of whether those Dems were doing a good job or a terrible one; I can't do that anymore. I cannot rally around a terrible plan that is not going to work, just to make sure Dems without the courage to put their plans to the test now can have more years of selling me out.

Just as there was something wrong with the Congress and the president ignoring the voice of the people on the Iraq war, there is something very wrong with them ignoring the people on an issue like health care that is, in many ways, a lot more personal, and has a much more direct financial. They've ignored polls, they've ignored the phone calls and faxes and e-mails and letters, they've catered to and coddled the insurance industry, made backroom deals, and none of that is my idea of "representative" government.

I suppose on one level, I admire your ability to be so detached from the actual issue, but there are times when it comes off way too glib and dismissive for me; you have a lot of future ahead of you - and I have no doubt you will have much success and probably will not have to worry about how you will pay for health care, regardless of whether you have insurance - but for those of us with less time left, coming to the end, or already at the end of our professional lives, with children to worry about, what happens now on health care has the potential to affect our lives in much more immediate and devastating ways. Maybe that's where the passion comes from, but my feeling is that as much as I need to fight for this now, how hard I fight and how successful I am at that fight may determine how my children and their children fare in the future.

I just wish the people we elected to represent us were fighting that same fight, instead of the the election-protection fight and the corporate-contribution-and future-income-stream fight.


It's not 1993 anymore. (none / 0) (#19)
by dk on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:24:53 AM EST

True: this time it might actually pass (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by andgarden on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:26:45 AM EST

Or this time (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by dk on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:28:28 AM EST

72% of Americans want a government run healthcare that everyone has the option to join.

Too bad the "serious" folks aren't on board.


Show me the votes (none / 0) (#25)
by andgarden on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:33:50 AM EST

You're the one bragging (none / 0) (#27)
by dk on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:37:59 AM EST

about having wanted to rally the base all month now. I'm pointing out that there is a 72% base of people who want everyone to have the option for government run healthcare (Medicare-for-all is nice way to put it).


I think the base will be easily persuaded (none / 0) (#28)
by andgarden on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:40:51 AM EST

to support this over nothing at all, which is the alternative.


Acutally (5.00 / 2) (#32)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:47:20 AM EST

i dont think the "it's better than nothing" is really operational any more. That did work in the 90's but things were different then. Obama has a huge majority to work with and the reason that everyone is scattered over this is that he has no ability to lead and he's a pushover (at least that's what Froomkin says)


I gripe as much as any (none / 0) (#57)
by brodie on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:58:07 AM EST

lib about the 60 Dem majority not getting things done, but I have to accept that when you look past the superficial overall numbers, you see what some would call a "big tent" party, composed of libs, mod-libs, corporatist centrists, and reflexively cautious mushy centrists.

And given the near ideological purity of the Repubs, with maybe two of them potentially available to work with, it's about a 50-50 matter of whether the pro-reform side can get just a bare majority to vote for substantial health care legislation.

So at the end of the day I have to concede that Obama and Reid probably deserve some slack (within reason) for having to deal with difficult, corporatist types like Max Baucus and DiFi, Blanche "Obviously No Relation to Abe" Lincoln, Holy Joe, the Nelson boys, and maybe 4-5 others.

So much different from 44 yrs ago when the Dem leadership and Lyndon had about a dozen or so reasonable Repubs who were willing to be persuaded, numbers that could make up for the 20 or so ultraconservative southern Dems they were never going to persuade.


: I realize (none / 0) (#66)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 03:35:08 PM EST

that there are all kinds of Dems but here's the problem: there's no leadership. I doubt Obama could get SCHIP enstated like CLinton did when he had to deal wtih a GOP majority. What's wrong with him? IMO he's too much of a compromiser and a conceder. The fact that he's just 5 years out of a part time job in the IL state senate is really showing. Will he grow in the job? I hope so but so far he hasn't been moving that way.

Well, if the base (none / 0) (#29)
by dk on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:42:13 AM EST

is the insurance industry and big pharma, I guess I wouldn't disagree with you.


Cute (none / 0) (#33)
by andgarden on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:47:47 AM EST

I'll put you down for "do nothing," then.


: I guess I just prefer (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by dk on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:50:10 AM EST

my base to yours, that's all.

I agree, it is not 1993, (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by KeysDan on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:46:47 AM EST

but it may be shaping up to be 1988 when the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act was passed (which, in my view was not bad, but it did increase taxes and reform some benefits). The vehemence against it took Congress as well as AARP (which supported it) by surprise. Dan Rostenkowski, then Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, was so startled by the reaction of his constituents at a meeting at his NW side Chicago district that he drove away with an elderly woman clinging in protest to the hood ornament of his car. The act was repealed in 1989. More recently, George Bush found that his"expenditure of political capital" to privatize social security did not yield the dividends he expected (and can you imagine what would have happened if it was proposed so as to finance extended unemployment benefits). These are among reasons I have been uneasy with linking Medicare reform with getting the job done for extended health care , or even good insurance reform for those under 65.


Nope, from what I read (none / 0) (#30)
by Cream City on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:43:41 AM EST

it's not the 1993 plan in some significant ways -- nor is it sufficiently adapted to significant changes in the health care and health insurance situations that we face since then.

At least one of my members of Congress, a Dem, has spoken about how this plan differs from 1993.


: Would you please provide a link (none / 0) (#36)
by MO Blue on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:56:59 AM EST

on how this plan differs from the 1993 plan. My google skill are rather primitive and I am very interested in the subject.

Paul Begala (none / 0) (#38)
by CST on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:07:42 AM EST

Makes the "take what we can get" case today in the post.

I just hope this ends up more like social security and less like no child left behind.


An interesting piece (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:31:42 AM EST

That is unrelated, in my opinion, to the actions of activists. That is advice for politicians, not activists.


I think the kinds of changes (none / 0) (#43)
by andgarden on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:34:12 AM EST

activists can make at this point fall within a narrow range. Pushing to scrap the whole thing in favor of expanding Medicare just isn't going to work.

That should have been the Democratic plan years ago, but for various stupid reasons it just doesn't have enough support in Congress.


It doesn't have the (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by dk on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:40:48 AM EST

support in congress because many who should be on the side of the activists have become too "serious". It's a vicious circle.


: lets not forget (none / 0) (#50)
by CST on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:47:01 AM EST

Big pharma and the money and muscle they can swing around Washington. They have a lot riding on this. I don't think a public option is going down because of activists who became serious - if anything I think many on the left are getting their voices heard in support of a public plan. I think it's going down because too many senators are too busy watching their pockets rather than that of their constituants. That's why the support is missing in congress. They are given cover to oppose it because of "socialism" and the rowdy town halls - but they were looking for that excuse, it didn't find them by accident.

Medicare could be incrementally (none / 0) (#58)
by Anne on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:19:38 PM EST

expanded starting now, perhaps opening it up first to those 55-64, and then ever downward such that everyone could be enrolled in relatively short order.

Since Congress isn't listening to the people, I am hard-pressed to understand why we have elections, other than to provide a money-laundering operation for corporate America, which is really in charge of the show.


: Yeah (none / 0) (#59)
by squeaky on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:24:55 PM EST

And with the Robert's activist court, it may get even worse. He pushed up a case that stands to overturn the ban on corporate campaign donations.
Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission

Yeah, Begala's piece (none / 0) (#49)
by brodie on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:45:33 AM EST

tracks the on-air views of another liberal Dem strategist, Bobby Shrum, whom I mentioned previously as coming out in favor of something rather than nothing, and a co-op plan rather than nothing.

It's just that the expections in 2009, after 60+ years of waiting for substantial reform of the health care situation, are so much greater with a majority of the public than the minimum expectations (if any) FDR faced in proposing his novel Social Security.

Roosevelt had plenty of political room to send up something quite a bit less than 100%. LBJ with Medicare also was given the time and space, given a non-hostile MSM, to arrange to have something substantial cobbled together over many months in Congress.

Obama faces a much higher hurdle. And right now he needs to continue to improve the messaging that will make it palatable for reform-minded Dems to get on board with a bill that is shaping up to be only 50-60% of the optimum.


Well, if Bill (none / 0) (#18)
by dk on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:24:26 AM EST

does try to defend Obama's plans, I would hope that the "progressive netroots" would blast him for supporting the massive giveaway to for-profit insurance that these plans boil down to.

Of course, that won't happen. If Bill defends Obama's plan, he will be lauded for finally getting on board.


: RE: giveaways to Big Insurance and Big Pharma (none / 0) (#47)
by Dr Molly on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:40:55 AM EST

See current headline at HuffPo.

Bill already is for the plan (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by lilburro on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:52:06 AM EST

(link) and I am sure he will stump too.


How can he stump for something (none / 0) (#65)
by ruffian on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 03:05:56 PM EST

that might not pass the Max Baucus threshold? He may tak about the principles he wants, but he can't talk about a bill that does not exist.


Republicans didn't start losing elections (none / 0) (#1)
by The Last Whimzy on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 09:28:25 AM EST

Because they ignored and disrespected the people who attacked their policies, they lost cause their policies didn't work.

So it would appear to me that sure, you can ignore and disrespect the people who attack your policies as long as your policies do work.

I've been saying all month (none / 0) (#3)
by andgarden on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 09:31:20 AM EST

that rallying the base is what's needed. BTW, gutsy using "euthanize" in the title.

Hey Big (none / 0) (#17)
by DFLer on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:23:30 AM EST

What does classic CW type mean? And/or what does CW stand for?

Straight up question.

"Conventional Wisdom" (none / 0) (#24)
by jbindc on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:30:29 AM EST

: Aha! (5.00 / 0) (#56)
by DFLer on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:57:24 AM EST

and here I was thinking Country Western
Thanks

Krugman: Post Partisan/Clintons (none / 0) (#42)
by Stellaaa on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:32:44 AM EST

He quotes today in his blog from a January 2008 post, that voting for Obama vs. Clinton should not be "on the desire to avoid unpleasantness". http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/