Skip to main content

View Diary: A guide to the conservative movement in one handy chart (219 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  However, it can lead to laziness... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    apimomfan2

    If I simply disagree with Republicans because they "Suck", I therefor support Democrats because presumably they "Do not Suck".  Why bother even reading anything else or commenting at all?

    The answer you propose is simple, vote for Democrats because Republicans suck.

    Or, maybe you can demand that Democrats do more than just "suck a little bit less than Republicans" by challenging them when they start to drift (I'm talking to you President Obama and your new dinner buddies).  

    "Sucking less than Republicans" is not enough anymore.

    We need legislators to fight "FOR" us instead of against us and we need them to represent what is best for the general welfare of this country rather than the members of their country clubs.  

    Democrats and Republicans both suck right now and focusing on the minute differations of just how much they each suck is like pointing out how much more humane being electrocuted is rather than being hanged.  You're fucked either way.

    "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour..."

    by Buckeye Nut Schell on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 12:24:17 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Democrats won't win unless they have (4+ / 0-)

      A bloc of voters in the coalition who do not operate at an intellectual level higher than "Republicans suck".  I read and comment because I operate at a higher level than that, but I am not so naive as to think that everyone can do it.

      One part of getting legislators to fight for us is to give them a good definition of what "us" means in an "us vs. them" sort of way.  I spend some of my time here arguing that "us" should be defined more in economic terms rather than social and demographic terms.  As such, I think it is more important to be inflammatory over banksters and corporations than it is to fin up outrage over abortion and gay marriage.

      Get more knee-jerk support for Democrats, then start an internal war within the party.  That strikes me as a better strategy for fixing the Democratic Party than threatening to secede if things don't go your way.

      •  I do not disagree with your logic... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        apimomfan2

        But I disagree that it will make things any better.

        I do not like being pushed into a corner where I have to vote for "A" because "B" is so bad.  By offering a block of voters who will vote for a Democrat simply because they hate the opposition, how do the politicians get more voters?  Move to the center.  With the Republicans pushing their party so far to the right, the center moves to where the Republicans started.

        For example, Let's say an election has 100 voters.  30 of them are definitely voting for politician A and 30 are voting for Politician B.  That leaves 40 in the middle to swing.  Do you think Party A is going to listen to what the 30 votes they already have wants? No.  However, Party B not only listens to what  B voters want, they go beyond what they want.  This may seem like a losing strategy because all Party A has to do is convince 21 of those M (middle) voters their way so they find the middle of ground of the M voters.  Here is my attempt at a graphic representation.

        a_a_a_m_m_A_ m_m_b_b_b _B

        ("a"s & "b"s are for sure votes, "m"s are undecided and "A" & "B" are the candidates)

        "A" wins the election but look where the center between the two parties are now. It is in the center of the first "b".  The candidate may be "a" but the policy is "b".  You end up with "b" policies put in place by "a" and "a" gets all of the blame because it they won the election and they implemented the policy.

        How is that a victory?

        "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour..."

        by Buckeye Nut Schell on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 03:22:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think the parties are asymmetrical (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Buckeye Nut Schell

          The Democrats are a center-left party (with arguments over how much center and how much left) while Republicans are a strictly right-wing party.

          So take your 100 voters.  Imagine only 20 of them are definitely voting for liberal politician A and 40 of them are definitely voting for conservative politician B.

          Let's put them on a [0,1] continuum, where 1=liberal and 0=conservative, and 0.5=moderate.  To win, politician A needs 20 liberal votes and 31 moderate votes, for an average of 0.696.  Politician B needs 40 knee-jerk conservatives and 11 moderates, for an average of 0.11.  Increase the number of knee-jerk liberal voters to 30 and the average value of the minimum coalition to elect politician A becomes 0.794.

          Of course, it doesn't matter where the middle between two parties is if you win enough seats.

          •  I like that way you construct your argument... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            apimomfan2, Cordyc

            But we will have to agree to disagree.

            I find the center agreements between the parties so far to the right that I believe they would have been considered too extreme for the conservatives just a generation ago.  Remember who first proposed what is now called  Obamacare and who implemented it first and now it is called extreme left socialism.  George Bush got soundly rejected when he tried to privatize and cut Social Security even from his own party but now Obama is offering the some of the same things and is still seen as a leftwing socialist extremist.

            How did we win an election and yet we are still offering to go to the right of George Bush who got us into this mess?  Why is President Obama not even suggesting allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices?  Why isn't he even throwing out there the possibility of raising the cap on social security let alone removing it?  Why are we not demanding a fair price on resources extracted from Federal lands?

            I realize that the Republicans would fight these things tooth and nail but at least we should be making them fight.  We are accepting that they would not let it happen and start fighting for the center while they are fighting for the extreme.  When we finally find middle ground and compromise, we are squarely on their ground and they still make it look like we have forced them into communism.

            "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour..."

            by Buckeye Nut Schell on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 04:24:45 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site