The parties have stark differences but mostly because republicans have gone off into fringe whackadoodle land. So we feel assured we are not even though we have been pushed to the right with this smoke and mirrors game. We end up being satisfied were not bloodthirsty cannibalistic monsters and fine with fact we have become moderate republicans instead of racist Hitlerites. But also many House members are actual liberals and some Senators. Naturally as you reach the executive level this diminishes...at least in appearance. I personally blame the Clintons for pushing the center to the right.

Last edited Tue Apr 14, 2015, 01:29 PM - Edit history (1)

But the same policies march forward regardless of which holds the Presidency or Congress.

Why is that?

Compare the legislation that passed Congress from 2008-2010 with everything that's passed since then.

Or you could ask the DREAMers. Or GLBT citizens. Or women whose right to control their own bodies STILL is one SCOTUS vote away from disappearing.

Or you could ask everyone who died in Iraq.

Voter suppression, inequality, wages, healthcare. A healthy and prosperous USA for all is a strong country. Helping the ones who need assistant and uplifting - JC's teachings.

I agree with PK, there is a major different between the parties. Gawd forbid if Walker gets in, just look at how he effed up WI. Let alone the crazies, Cruz, Paul, Rubio, and for pete sake Jebby, oh lordy.

Ya think the 47 and the house GOPers are insane, wait for the coming months. GOP party wants one party and none other. Keeping people dumb and poor can be better controlled.

million innocent people were slaughtered. That is a HUGE issue for me and most Democrats I know. Good leaders don't make tragic errors like that. That was a pivotal moment for anyone who wanted to continue to lead this country. You don't get to go back fix such a disastrous error.

I like my leaders to get things right the first time. To at least be as smart as, well ME. I mean I knew Bush was lying!

And it was obvious he wanted a war against Iraq-- he started bombing Iraq almost as soon as he slithered into the White House. And started committing one outrage after another. It's too bad those early DU archives were forever lost-- they painted a clear and concise picture of a man intent on creating mayhem.

to "both parties are the same".. their rhetoric is meaningless.

Yeah, they could ask anyone's loved ones of those who died in Iraq under bush-cheney-judy miller-etc bogus Lies .. if both parties are the same.

The reason the Teahadists haven't done more damage is because of the veto threat.

Also remember who voted for, and who opposed, the stimulus in 2009 and every infrastructure bill since then.

we have treated Wall Street and stacked the financial appointments with Wall Street Toadies.

I think there are two causes that often get overlooked:

1). Wall Street pays WAY more than anyone else, and can entice even well-meaning people by offering them big bucks to give money away to charity or direct investments to socially responsible businesses. It's easy to deride people as sellouts, but most of us have not had job offers that tripled the salary of anything else available.

2). It's hard to regulate Wall Street without experience on Wall Street to know where they bury the bodies. It's the same dynamic on wildlife reserves, where they hire poachers to become game wardens.

As Krugman points out:

"For example, any Democrat would, if elected, seek to maintain the basic U.S. social insurance programs — Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid — in essentially their current form, while also preserving and extending the Affordable Care Act. Any Republican would seek to destroy Obamacare, make deep cuts in Medicaid, and probably try to convert Medicare into a voucher system.

Any Democrat would retain the tax hikes on high-income Americans that went into effect in 2013, and possibly seek more. Any Republican would try to cut taxes on the wealthy — House Republicans plan to vote next week to repeal the estate tax — while slashing programs that aid low-income families.

Any Democrat would try to preserve the 2010 financial reform, which has recently been looking much more effective than critics suggested. Any Republican would seek to roll it back, eliminating both consumer protection and the extra regulation applied to large, “systemically important” financial institutions."

The wealth gap began to widen under Reagan and GHW Bush, but really didn't take off until Clinton took office. Things only got worse under GW Bush, with no signs of slowing down under Obama.

None of the Democratic Presidents in the last 40 years have done anything to slow down our rapacious military/foreign policy machine.

Democrats gave us NAFTA, and GATT, and Welfare 'Reform', and DOMA, and the TPP.

We rearrange the deck chairs from time to time, but the overarching theme has remained unchanged since Nixon.

So Obama has done nothing at all that was different from Dubya, Poppy, or Ronnie?

Really? No, seriously, really?


[IMG][/IMG]

But the core policies are the same, and those policies need to change.

Pay equity? Different.
Tax policy? Different.
LGBTQ equality? Different.
Gender equality? Different.

On and on they go. That "equivalent parties" line will wash a LOT of hogs.

Surveillance state? The same. Militarized police? The same. Jailing whistleblowers? The same.

These things are every bit as important, or more so, than the things you list.

We can't continue to let the foundation rot while we slap on new coats of paint.

Again, not true. Many details are different.

Obama is much tougher of Whistle Blowers,
and, despite his campaign promises, The US is now Drilling and Fracing at a record rate.
Environmentally sensitive areas have been opened to drilling off the Atlantic Coast.
There ARE differences.

Health insurance is more regulated and affordable.

Tens of thousands of troops are home.

Our taxes are lower.

More federal lands are protected.

Environmental standards are higher.

Just because everything isn't perfect doesn't justify this false equivalence tommyrot.

Plus, even if the bashers won't listen, somebody less biased might read the thread: so it's worth doing.

I'm not a political-wonk but I sense that there are negative forces running throughout these conversations.

We should keep a steady eye on where we are, where we want to go, who can help us get there; and importantly, who are trying to make us lose that vision.

"There's something going on in the counter-arguments."

I guess there are some here who actually believe that

[IMG][/IMG]

AIR!

because RWers said so and the regurgitated RW talking points are infesting Progressive Sites as fact.

more income from investments and less from income. The dot com bubble burst at the beginning of Bush II's first term and the wealthy took a large hit in the amount of their wealth. Did Bush II do something to help the lower income Americans thereby decreasing the gap in wealthy equality? No, what you are claiming is nothing more than a function of the stock market. Both Obama and Clinton increased taxes on the wealthy. Bush decreased taxes on the wealthy. I have a feeling you know all this, just didn't want your misinformation to go unchecked.

not. It is a function of the business cycle and the stock market.

Right now the Pres gets credit for low prices, when the reality is that little of what he's done is the reason for it. Slow economy overseas, fracking & OPEC are the main reasons. I'm not bashing him, its just the way it is. And if the price was 4.00 a gallon, he'd also get the blame for it even thought that wouldnt be his fault either

putting the oil leases back on the auction block. Apparently, the big oil companies would buy up all the available oil well leases and then stall on developing them to reduce supply and boost prices. They always claimed they were doing "feasability tests" and other b.s. Obama said use it or lose it and the oil companies were apoplectic. LOL. It was only a minor help, but a rare instance of when gov't policies affected prices.

The Big Lie is "What's good for Wall Street is what's good for America".

It's NOT.

Wall Street doesn't drive the economy. It bets on it. It doesn't make money, it transfers it.

Further, Wall Street is the only place in America where gas prices falling at the pump is BAD news.

good for Wall Street is good for America." My comment was on how wealth is calculated. If the stock market goes up, those who own stocks will show greater wealth for government income data. Doesn't matter how or why. I'm only commenting on the numbers.

Mine isn't a statement on the very large problem of wealth inequality. I was only disputing that wealth inequality had grown or shrank as the sole result of the sitting President.
There are many factors and certainly a President's policies and Congress' laws affect that, (such as Clinton & Obama increasing taxes on the wealthy & Bush cutting them for the same group.). I was cautioning that when one discusses wealth the top 10% derive the majority of their wealth from stocks, etc. As a result, when the stock market increases or decreases their welath is greatly affected. If one attributed those swings solely to the sitting President then we would have to say that Bush Jr. decreased wealth inequality in this country (due to the dot com bust that happened shortly after he took office) and Clinton & Obama increased it.

and he disagrees with your assertion:

It could have been one reason why Al Gore didn't get as many votes as he should have (although he still got more than Bush).

https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=hAW0BAAAQBAJ&pg=PA674&lpg=PA674&dq=tech+stock+bubble+burst&source=bl&ots=C3PHNoehG9&sig=YxCkuAsZncO82jzH2zVL6ir-DyM&hl=ja&sa=X&ei=0x0tVfnZBovg8AXO-oH4Cw&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=tech%20stock%20bubble%20burst&f=false

then falling again under Bush II and his Great Recession. Taxes on the rich rose under Clinton after falling under the 'trickle down' tax policies of his republican predecessors and his republican successor.

Do you have evidence that the income gap "took off" under Clinton? I have found just the opposite to be true. And trade does not cause inequality. If it did, Europe would be a cesspool of inequality. It is not.

large stock market gains/losses. Income inequality is affected by political and governmental plans, but it is heavily influenced by the economy in general. When the economy is booming unemployment is down and workers can get higher wages (laws of supply and demand) the reverse happens when the economy slows down.

While Clinton & Obama's policies helped reduce income inequality and the reverse is true for Republican presidents a good portion of the rise/fall of income inequality came from the economy in general and the law of supply and demand. Clinton & Obama's policies helped improve the economy in general which has a greater effect on workers wages than individual legislation. Ofcourse you need both, but one has to be careful when calculating inequality and assigning the changes solely to the current President.

Due to Obama's administration the economy has improved greatly. Unemployment is down, but it is just now coming down into the range where there will be competition for workers. This competition will create a rise in wages, but that increase will mostly come under the next President. Does that mean if a rube like Rubio becomes President and income inequality drops that his policies were responsible for the drop? No. His policies will likely make it worse in the long term, but the rising wages due to an improved economy will hide the effect of bad Presidential policy.

THe Dems dont have the political clout or strong enough will to get meaningful tax increases on the rich. It needs to go up 15% / over 50% at least but they consider a tiny 3% increase a victory.
When they had the chance in 2009 the whole world economy was teetering and they had their hands full with health care reform which was also a modicum compromise improvement.
They did get a lot of things thru. But most are small improvements.

Only way to change ANYTHING for the better.

Progessive Dems would be best.

We have GOT to get involved in the candidate selection process.

making huge profits in so doing, it's also true that their control is not 100% -- at least, not
yet. And the best way to reduce their power is to elect Progressive Democrats into office.

But there are precious few Progressive Democrats...

are voting more and more for Progressive projects. I think Elizabeth Warren's dynamic leadership
is having its effect.

I've seen some of this at the state level, but not much federally.

Here in Oregon, our Democratic majority is pushing through some good stuff - a clean fuels program, automatic voter registration and class-action lawsuit awards legislation.

So good, in fact, that the local rag felt compelled to concern-troll them:

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/04/dominant_oregon_democrats_leav.html

Headline: "Dominant Oregon Democrats leave Republicans in the dust: Will it come back to bite them?"

quite the same (but somewhat similar) showed up in my email:

<< Last week, Jon Stewart told Elizabeth Warren on the Daily Show that the Warren wing is growing.

JON STEWART: You have your own wing now!

ELIZABETH WARREN: (Smiles.)

JON STEWART: ...of the Democratic Party. There is a Warren wing. I think it may be growing. Do you feel that sense?

ELIZABETH WARREN: You know, I do feel that sense. It's not my wing, it's "our wing." The idea is...

JON STEWART: It's the Warren wing. Don't fight the alliteration. It works.

It grows even faster when we show how strong it is.

Check out this map of bold progressives who signed up to get an "I'm from the Elizabeth Warren wing of American Politics" bumper sticker last weekend!

Chip in $3 or more, and we'll send you a sticker so the Warren wing can be represented in your neighborhood.

[Too bad the map doesn't show up here]


We're sending stickers from Anchorage to Miami, to red and blue and purple states, and it's no wonder why: The Warren wing stands for big, bold popular issues that help everyday Americans -- like investing in infrastructure jobs and expanding Social Security benefits.

The ideas of the Warren wing are popular everywhere.

Chip in $3 or more to our work growing the Warren wing, and we'll send you an "I'm from the Elizabeth Warren wing of American Politics" sticker!

--Kenton Ngo, PCCC organizer >>

What do they call people who communicate false statements?

The rest of your message was a redolent platter of meadow muffins, barnyard buns, and lawn-based linzer tortes.

and didn't just hurl insults.

You have a wonderful life.

is correct and we also have to look at the U.S. Supreme Court, this present right wing majority court as eviscerated the middle class and the working poor and they have sided with the haves more than the have not's.
And if a republican gets into office and there are three possible four replacements for this court -----LOOK OUT

Then we won't have problems with any more "Nader spoiler" candidacies.

Then we won't have to "hate" liberals outside of the party, and can welcome them as friends to help promote progressive principles both in their own parties and in our own party when outside big money has less power to "buy the field" to try and take away Democratic candidates from their dedication to their real constituency of voters and real democratic principles.

What will solve the problem is for Democratic/liberal voters to stop being politically naïve and realize we live in a two party form of government. That's reality.

In an oligarchy where we no longer have a democracy, then what you say, if you accept it, is correct.

For many of us traditional democrats, we can't just "accept" this "reality". We want changes made to help make our politicians more answerable to us rather than to big money.

If you want to see how the public feels, and how they might be receptive to this, look at how Oregon in last election voted down the "Open Primary" (measure 90) BS that wealthy people across the board (oil billionaires as well as Bloomberg) tried to push on us here, to disempower parties in general and having any kind of useful primary where the grass roots can select their leadership.

Through social media and other messages that both the two major parties as well as third parties put out, we were able to vote down this proposition heavily to the point that it got less voting support than the measure that sought to give undocumented people driver's license here, which was expected to heavily lose here.

There can be bipartisan and even universal support for changes, as the voting for this measure demonstrated, if we mobilize support out there in the trenches, and that people of all parties see the value to it, even if the 1% doesn't want it.

The billionaires were trying to fool those frustrated with their government in to voting for changes to our voting system, but people realized that was what was going on, and voted it down. I think there is a thirst for some real change, but it won't happen unless it can be shown to benefit most of us. I think that IRV, if it can get decent enough grass roots support and campaigning, could win, and could help fix the system for the better for all of us. Those that complain about spoilers like Nader, should be the first in line to help this, as this would END spoiler campaigns by third parties, as ranked voting would allow voters to avoid having to vote for "spoilers" and putting in office those they rank low on their list.

If you see the latest book that Nader has written, he has talked about the need for mobilization across party lines on certain issues that we all have interests in fixing, but don't have the support of the 1% and the media it controls in trying to get those issues a national platform for our politicians to work on. The national media just looks to divide us on social issues and avoids like the plague any discussion on far more important and potentially damaging legislation like the TPP, which both parties are being bought to support to push through congress in secret.

And so is the idea of a third party. We live in a two party system, and by the time we got through all the magical unicorn thinking of everyone that wants to empower a third party we will have 7 conservative justices on the USSC with lifetime appointments.

The damage Nader did to this country, like the damage done by the resident Nader installed may never be undone. That's the bottom line.

Gore WON.
Nader didn't make a difference.
The Supreme Court stole the election for Bush.


The mild mannered consumer activist did not knock the wheels off of the entire Democratic Party.
If you think so....what do you think about Superman or Spider man?

But at this point I know one thing for certain - people that voted for Nader will never admit the truth of what he did. They cannot bear to even begin to accept their responsibility for Bush and the USSC we got as a result.

... then how do you change it? Some of us try to do it from the inside, and in this environment that potentially has less down side, but has been more difficult to accomplish with the barriers in front of us today. Those trying to do so from outside the party are blamed for our party's bending of it's original principles to get money from the wealthy donor class and the corruption of the party's agenda of a result of that, that makes it so that they feel they have to work outside the party to be heard.

I know some like Sanders as a third party try to work within the system more to not have bad consequences result from someone like him running as a third party candidate for president, but I'm sure he and many out there would love to be able to vote for him as a 1st choice and the Democratic party candidate a second choice that would still have either him or the Democrat (like Clinton) win the election over a Republican if we had IRV rules in place. If he ran as a third party candidate, there would be a lot more opportunity for him to voice stances on issues that wouldn't get heard if he had to be a Democratic party candidate. Now I think if he does run, he'll be prepared to join the Democratic Party to not cause adverse consequences, but this is a systemic problem to blame and the two major parties embracing corruption that highlights and makes that systemic problem worse that is the major issue, not an issue to blame just the third party candidates on who become "spoilers" in such races.

... by splitting the liberal vote, that's for damn sure.

Until then, third parties need to be careful not to run in races where they can be a spoiler, but we should be working together with them to get this in place.

You do agree that the Republican Party is the main party of money do you not? If so, then you can see why an instant runoff voting set of laws would HELP the Democratic Party as well as third parties in some instances when they have a very strong candidate, that might work well for us in those instances, and in those cases won't allow for a Republican to be close to winning at all either.

If those who are in the Democratic Party or who want to vote for it and third parties that also don't want money, then they will rank both Democrats and their candidates highly over Republicans, which will ultimately provide more votes for Democrats, especially if they are doing things like working to get money out of politics, which they SHOULD be doing, and not just trying to be "as good as the Republicans" are here by succumbing to the politics of corruption to get elected.

And if initial vote totals in an instant runoff voting scheme (not the ultimate totals subtracting out candidates in each "round&quot can give us a better idea of where voting constituencies really feel about all of the different parties in a given election and what they are running on, it will ultimately give the person who wins a better measurement of what kind of things he/she needs to do to make sure that this group of voters are happy with what they do in office if they work for all of their issues.

They don't care what they enable. Nader is proof of that.

He IS trying to be careful, but still be a voice that is not heard usually within the Democratic Party that many people want to hear.

I think it is more like many people like YOU that don't question what the Democratic Party has been manipulated and changed in to that no longer represents what many of its traditional voters want basically don't care about that corruption, and don't care to really do anything to fix it and write it off as "reality" and we should just stand behind and cheer for the same "football team", no matter what they stand for or how they change. Do you really care about what the Democratic Party is doing now in many cases that is working against older and traditional Democratic Party principles supporting the common man?

Nader is an egomaniac. No doubt about that.

... you (not you specifically here, but those that want to blame Nader) are more just personally offended that a Democrat didn't win and you're trying someone to blame and dislike for this. If you really want to fix the system to ensure this sort of thing from happening, you should work less towards trying to marginalize people like Nader, and more to constructively fix the election system to make a "spoiler" candidate less of a problem and finding a way for voters to better be represented ultimately in how they vote. That's what working for IRV would help. You might then try to criticize other third parties for not jumping on board if they continue to choose to run as spoilers and not try to jump on board to help put in place such fixes, but I think most of them would like a system where even if they don't get elected, they feel that the voter is better represented and they and their parties at least have a voice that is heard more.

I like Bernie Sanders approach now more than I liked what Nader did too, but I don't just blame Nader for what happened, which arguably hadn't had as costly problems in the past in other elections as it did then. And as some argue here, if the votes had been counted properly and other forms of voter suppression hadn't happened with Katherine Harris, Nader as a "spoiler" would have been a non-issue too.

There are so many things that Nader has done for this country that we shouldn't forget, and we should be thankful for him for his work in the past on things like making our automobiles and other consumer products more safe for Americans that have saved many lives. We shouldn't forget that.

If we split the presidental vote between two progressives/liberals candidates we are 100% assured of losing. You're not going to see IRV in a presidential.

Yes, what we have now requires us to vote for the LESSER of two evils in some instances. But are you happy with an evil just because they have a label of "Democrat"?

Why can't we have change in this country? Why can't we work for change in this country? That is the basis of what this country was founded upon. That citizens have the right to representation, and will have means to have that representation make changes to fix problems they face today. We should be able to do that with IRV. It won't necessarily happen tomorrow. But if you don't want something like that, then I would argue that you WANT the current system that screws the 99% and want to blame people like Nader for trying to fight it in different ways. If we work on ways to get IRV put in place, whether it starts at local or state levels, then that's the way we can get it to repair this mess, so that you don't have to hate people like Nader any more. Don't you want to be able to not just hate people any more?

I'm 53 and a history buff. I've never seen an evil democratic president yet. Do I agree with every thing every democratic president has ever done? No, but none of them have been evil. So I reject that phrase out of hand. On the other hand, we have had more than our share of evil republican presidents. That's for sure.

It is not realistic to think we are going to have IVR in presidential elections. Ever. Not going to happen.

And I am not going to waste my vote on an egomaniacal spoiler, only to enable another Bush type disaster.

Their citizens are obviously more empowered to put have leadership to put in place such laws more than ours.

You can say that we are just going to continue to go to where political office in this country is only bought, and the election is just window dressing and that this is something we should just accept it. I don't think it's being an egomaniac to want and demand what our forefathers created in this country.

DEMOCRACY!!!!

REPRESENTATION OF REAL PEOPLE, NOT CORPORATE PEOPLE!

The problem happens when we accept this infestation instead of fighting it. Then democracy is lost.

Most democratic presidents have things we praise them for. But just about every one of them have some evils that depending on the degree either damage this country or at least have had to be fixed in subsequent years.

Even FDR had the evil of Japanese internment camps, even if he had so much other stuff that has helped Americans that I look thankfully back for. Lyndon Johnson had a lot of problems with many actions of his in the Vietnam war, but he was instrumental in getting the Voting Rights Act passed, Medicare set up, and so many other really good things too.

Obama has helped really lead the fight for gay people's rights recently, but has had a lot of problems (and I would say "evil" with what he's doing with things like the TPP, drone strikes, and domestic spying).

Evil is a relative term. No one president, even most Republicans are TOTALLY evil! There are some things even Ronald Reagan did which were relatively better than other presidents. His justice department actually prosecuted and put in prison many of the criminals involved in the Savings and Loan scandal of his day. Today of course we haven't done jack to prosecute the banksters that have committed many crimes that should be prosecuted.

The bottom line is that most of the evil today in many politicians is an aspect of a corrupt system that demands that they run for office with heavy debts to campaign finance donors in terms of favors and other treatment that isn't the way a politician should be working in a democratic system. And those that profit from it and are a part of it, but don't at some point fight it to fix this corruption and say that the corruption is just "today's reality" are in my book part of the evil that is infesting Washington now.

We send them to Washington to run our country and make changes in laws where it is needed to run more effectively and run more in the interests of all of us as a whole. If they can't do that, they don't belong there.

nary a peep from the so-called principled democrats on those people.

is lying to themselves as well as the rest of us.

I have no time for it.

...had FAR more to do with the Democrat's problems in 2000 than Nader could have EVER caused.
Loosing an election is ALWAYS the fault of Party Leadership.
Blaming the voters is stupid and non-productive, but feels good in an adolescent sort of way.
Those same voters will be here in the next 4 years for you to blame again.

Now, if LEADERSHIP is willing to address their shortcomings,
then the problems can be fixed, but blaming the voters ain't gonna fix anything.

... as reality too. It would take about the same kind of effort to get a constitutional amendment to overturn that and the judicial activist notion that is now law that "money is speech" that it would to get in instant runoff voting to fix what is broken about a 2 party system that lets it be bought and our democracy owned so that all we really are doing is "blessing" one of two choices by the oligarchs with our "vote" now.

I'm all for dealing with the present rules and trying to make the best of them as well. But that shouldn't mean we should stop trying to change the system for the better. It is what our founders would have wanted to happen. That's why they put the idea of constitutional amendments in to our constitution and the fabric of our government.

A number of founders were concerned when two parties developed of the winner take all nature of them. Australia has modeled it's government after ours, but has also incorporated instant runoff voting, mandatory voting (or fines), and some proportional representation. It has worked there, and I think that even though proportional representation would require a lot more work and fundamental changes in our government, I think that instant runoff voting could be adapted to our system more practically and with less changes needed.

Absent congressional action on the issue. CU will live for decades or longer before a new USSC will reverse it. Stare decisis - which means we are stuck with it.

That's why these boneheaded moves matter so much.

Now that's strategic thinking.

I wish we had a multiple party system as well, but we don't. And all the wishing and hoping in the world is not going to make that happen.

AND I have seen where the fantasy of a third party gets us - it got us George W. Bush and a conservative USSC instead of Gore and a liberal USSC that never would have passed Citizen's United, which now makes the third party fantasy and absolute impossibility.

It's been 15 long years since Nader handed us that debacle. I simply cannot believe people learned nothing from it. But it seems I must accept that people whitewash history in their own head so they can ignore the lessons they should have learned.

The Supreme Court did that. But before you blow that off, let me just add one thing.

More conservative Democrats voted for Bush than liberals voted for Nader. So by your logic, the conservative Democrats are more to blame than Nader voters.

People cross normal party lines in every election. No surprise there. So, one question to rid us of these rationalizations that have no purpose other than to try to excuse Nader.

Does it help or hurt the democratic party when the progressive/liberal vote is split between two presidential candidates? Help or hurt?

Answer that honestly and you will no longer need the rationalizations/excuses.

Again, there were a lot fewer liberal Democrats who voted for Nader than conservative Democrats who voted for Bush. What's more, every single conservative Democrat who voted Republican had twice the effect of every liberal Democrat who voted for Nader, since they not only subtracted one vote from the Democrats, they added one to the Republicans. So if you're determined to blame voters, you have to blame conservative Democrats.

I also don't know what you meant by offering "people cross party lines all the time" as an excuse, since that's what those liberal Nader voters did, too. Anything you say about liberals who voted for Nader applies quadruple to conservative Democrats who voted for Bush, sorry.

But again, none of that even matters since it was the Supreme Court that handed the election to Bush. Gore won.

.... That actually bought his BS that there wasn't any difference between Gore and Bush. I'm sorry, but how naive do you have to be to swallow that?

Conservative "Democrats" and liberal "Republicans" are neither. They are swing voters. Always have been, always will be.

They did exactly the same things-- only one type voted for GW Bush. It's odd to condemn one and not the other, and yet again, as I said, the point is moot anyway. The SC handed the election to Bush. Gore won the vote.

Because you don't want to acknowledge that Nader is culpable. Again, remember he lied to big donors in promising he wouldn't run in swing states. Why did he lie?

And I get the feeling you're under the illusion that I voted for him. I did not, for what it's worth.

But I also don't blame people who did for handing the election to Bush. Because they didn't. That was the Supreme Court. And as I said, if you do want to blame Nader voters, you'd better reserve about four times the blame for conservative Democrats who voted Republican.

Just laying some reality on you. When we split the vote between two liberal candidates we lose. 100% of the time. Guaranteed. Every time.

My fixation with Nader is based on the concept that it would stupid to repeat the dumb idea that gave us Bush. Except will probably will if we are too naive to understand how it happened.

I'm always amazed at the idea that some people can't grasp a simple idea of what happens when a third party plays the spoiler.

Name me something positive that came out of Nader's actions? Absolutely nothing. To the contrary it was an absolute disaster from which this country may never recover.

Third parties only become a factor when the party isn't doing it's job-- by definition. When people feel that their usual party isn't addressing their concerns, some will wander off into third parties. Bemoaning that is like cursing the rain.

So if you don't want third party spoilers to become a factor, you should not cheer for the party as it ambles rightward and alienates voters.

Ever work with the lefist of the left on an issue? I have. They live in a world of magical thinking. A politician does one thing they don't agree with and they want to primary them.

That's exactly how we got so many extreme right wingers in congress. No wish for our party to repeat that. Let the cons do it - it gives an advantage in the presidential election.

Most people and issues that are classified as "extreme left" today are in fact what half or even a majority of the people support. It is only labeled by those people at the top in such a way to keep the agenda moving rightward to favor rewarding them at the expense of the rest of us.

Yes, there's a reason why many states in the last election voted for raising the minimum wage ("extreme left" position), and at the same time unelected many Democrats in those states. Because those Democrats weren't standing up for traditional Democratic Party principles and were swallowing the Korporatist Koolaid!

So put your Kool aide images away. And check your assumptions. I've never voted for a Republican in my 35 years of voting - not a single time. But I've sure had to navigate around the looney left to get things done.

The first is their circular firing squad purity test. And that's prevalent here. People think we can never ever have a single local, state or fed candidate unless we agree with them on every issue - right down to the stop lights versus stop signs. In reality all you need to agree on is a basic value system. This "lesser of two evils" bullshit needs to stop.

Secondly, when I moved to WA the main reason LGBT people didn't have equality in a solid blue state was because of the wacky leftists. The main reason we could not get it through a vote was because of nutball leftists SCREAMING at legislators - even ones on their side. I saw these people up close, and I talked to Dems In the legislature. The lefist acted crazy. And got no where. Even people in the legislature on our side were like "fuck these lunatics."

Finally, we marginalized them in favor of adult activists. We worked to help supporters get elected and they voted our way. And then I got married. That's how politics works.

ETA - In the real world.

get Republicans into Congress in 2010 and 2014. Why do you suppose that is? Do Republicans recognize that their loudmouths are likely to stay home and not vote if the Republican Party treats them rudely?

I think that Democrats treat so-called "leftists" very badly, and that is why the "leftists" desert the Democratic Party from time to time.

Right now, the "left" in the Democratic Party is actually the FDR-wing of the party. It's very strange. I am 71. My mother lived until her 90s. We agreed on almost every political issue. She was a true blue, FDR Democrat. So am I. But I am probably viewed as somewhat to the left. It's the Democratic Party that has moved rightward, leaving some of us behind. Fortunately, my member of the House is a Progressive and agrees with me on most things. He can count on being re-elected. He really serves the people and is a true Democrat. That's what it takes to get elected over and over. The right-wing Democrats need to learn that rule. Serve the people with a progressive agenda and policies and you will be re-elected. We saw that clearly in the 2014 election.

Perhaps dems have watched the lunatic right and now think they can mimic the same on the left. They forget two important things.

1. Democratic politicians live in reality land. Screaming and spitting and having a temper tantrum devoid of reality doesn't typically sway rational people. I'm not exaggerating here. In the real world of rational leaders it's an exit, not a strategy. That's why rethugs buy it - they are not rational. They will do whatever the fuck they have to do to get elected or not primaried. If we allow these irrational nutball tea Partiers to define politics we have lost. Maybe we already have.

2. The Democratic Party has moved to the right because we have voted for nitwits like Nader who told us there was no difference between Gore and Bush (are you FUCKING KIDDING ME) and Obama (I will COMPROMISE with republicans) instead of Hillary (I will kick republican ass from the WH to Capital Hill).

That's reality in DU land.

When they don't compromise with the left and only with the right and corporate interests!

They then are representing corporate interests and not the interests of the people and in my book in that case are NOT rational people to deal with. At least not rational in any sense of wanting to build an economy and country that works for all of us and not just the select few.

The tea party extreme issues that they yell about are mostly social issues, and not fundamental issues that govern society and the financial interests of everyone. That is why they are allowed to yell and get some power in congress, so that their people will go blindly along and sell out their own financial interest to the corporatists that control the Republicans so that they can keep the rightward shift going, and make it look like the Democrats are the "left" when they just work on a few of the social issues that Democrats want but completely IGNORE and make sound like they are "FAR LEFT" issues like single payer, decent minimum wage and taking down the wealth disparity for all, that the corporatists in both the media and the Third Way of the Democratic Party depict as "far left" screaming, when it is the majority of Americans that feel this way.

That is why they want to marginalize "the left" when they try to be heard on these issues. Because they know these populist issues resonate more than just with the Democratic Party, but with the nation as a whole, which was demonstrated in last election when Democrats were voted out in the same states where they put in place minimum wage in statewide propositions.

And people that call Nader and others that have tried to work hard for the rights of the people as "nitwits" ARE the problem with this party now, not those that are trying to get back the traditional values of the party. The *reality* is that more people are moving away from the Democratic Party when they feel that the nation is getting destroyed when both parties are negotiating away things like Social Security and other things that the party of the past has worked so hard to put in place.

And if you call Hillary "kicking ass on Republican" with her stance on this issue instead of COMPROMISING (or actually COMPLICIT) with Republicans like Orrin Hatch who push this corporatist serving program, then you have another thing coming!

you can't bring yourself to admit that the Democrats that voted for Bush were every bit as culpable as Nader voters, if not more, of making the race closer and allowing the SCJs to hand the keys to Bush.

the last few years.

It always baffled me how so many people on YouTube were throwing his name around and acting like he's God's gift to politics, while offline he is irrelevant and is widely seen as a nutcase.