Beware Of Media Darlings

The Democratic primaries would have been historic no matter who won, the first woman at the top of a major-party ticket (and possibly the first descendant of Native Americans to do so; genealogists still are debating the records on Clinton's French Canadian and Metis heritage) -- or the first African American (and first child of an immigrant father in 130 years, more than half of U.S. history).

The general election would have been historic no matter who won, one of the above or the ticket with a woman for VP as well as some other, lesser oddities (first president born in Panama, etc.).

Ten posts since the host told you to stop.

It's not that they don't agree with Democratic policies and values (they do), it's because they don't trust the Dems to do the right thing (and the Dems keep proving them right, unfortunately).

Oddly, many voters prefer the policies of Democrats to the policies of Republicans. They just don't trust the Democrats to carry out those promises.

When we conducted our election-night national survey after last year's Republican sweep, voters strongly chose new investment over a new national austerity. They thought Democrats were more likely to champion the middle class. And as has become clear in the months since, the public does not share conservatives' views on rejecting tax cuts and cutting retirement programs. Numerous recent polls have shown that the public sides with the president and Democrats on raising taxes to get to a balanced budget.

But in smaller, more probing focus groups, voters show they are fairly cynical about Democratic politicians' stands. They tune out the politicians' fine speeches and plans and express sentiments like these: "It's just words." "There's just such a control of government by the wealthy that whatever happens, it's not working for all the people; it's working for a few of the people." "We don't have a representative government anymore."

SNIP

Our research shows that the growth of self-identified conservatives began in the fall of 2008 with the Wall Street bailout, well before Mr. Obama embarked on his recovery and spending program. The public watched the elite and leaders of both parties rush to the rescue. The government saved irresponsible executives who bankrupted their own companies, hurt many people and threatened the welfare of the country. When Mr. Obama championed the bailout of the auto companies and allowed senior executives at bailed-out companies to take bonuses, voters concluded that he was part of the operating elite consensus. If you owned a small business that was in trouble or a home or pension that lost much of its value, you were on your own. As people across the country told me, the average citizen doesn't "get money for free." Their conclusion: Government works for the irresponsible, not the responsible.

Everything they witness affirms the public's developing view of how government really works. They see a nexus of money and power, greased by special interest lobbyists and large campaign donations, that makes these outcomes irresistible. They do not believe the fundamentals have really changed in Mr. Obama's Washington.

We understand that by setting our goals high, we may be disappointed, but if all we are ever going to aim for is the point where not being disappointed is guaranteed, how does substantive, positive change ever happen?  When has lowering expectations ever inspired anyone to greater things?

Democrats used to be the party that demonstrated by its policies the power of government to improve the quality of people's lives; by abandoning the belief that government is useful and not just a giant money-sucking machine - the latter being what all this Obama-driven deficit hysteria has been pushing - you stop giving people reasons to vote for Democrats: if Democrats are going to govern like Republicans, well, who needs the Democratic Party?

I'm proud to call myself a liberal; I'm not afraid of it, or ashamed of it.  I don't care what percentage of people self-identify as liberal - and I don't have to call myself a "progressive" because someone told me that "liberal" was too scary a label.

Screw that.  

Your dispassionate recitation of poll numbers is emblematic of why you get such negative reaction here, and why you get so little respect - you don't appear to think for yourself, but check polls to see if today is the day it's safe to support this or that, and to see if you need your liberal hat in much the same way others watch the weather forecast to see if they need a jacket.  It's hollow, it's craven, it's devoid of principle and meaning.  It's a perfect demonstration of why it's so hard to amend the Constitution: because the founders knew that popular opinion should not be determinative of the protection or elimination of basic rights.

Majority reject making cuts to Medicare, SS, Medicaid

Majority thinks we should tax the rich to help solve deficit problems

Majority wanted DADT repealed

Majority are pro choice

Majority think banks should be regulated

The republican party is against all of these things.  The dems favor them.  The republican party was also reeling after the great recession.  The fact that Obama could not deliver the kind of results the country needed is due to his inability to lead (or more cynically, he does not really share the same policy viewpoints of the left which I don't believe).

          Posts numerous times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread; or