Last edited Sun Dec 21, 2014, 01:51 AM - Edit history (1)

play out. Inequality started with Reagan with union declines. The genie inequality coefficient put the USA between Russia and Mexico on equality before Obama got elected. The banking crisis made inequality worse and in no way was Obamas fault. But Cruz gently sorta, kinda, gently implies it was Obamas policies that increased inequality. The synapses of the base will make the implied connection. And Cruz is done.

ass

chooses to lie. That is how much contempt he has for Americans.

Yeah, Texas is a utopia of reducing income inequality....

when TC discusses anything political period.

All three are eager tools of Wall Street.

Thank you for clearing that up for me Mr Nader.

And I think Cruz's wife works or worked for Goldman Sachs.

They are providing material support for those aligned against open & honest democracy for all people.

And only very ignorant people are not already aware of that.

... as for as unemployment benefits and such, the Democrats are are better.

But as far as ENABLING Wall Street and the banksters to loot with impunity, the Democrats are every bit as bad as the Republicans, maybe worse.

To root for Team A like they are so much the solution to our problems compared to Team B shows a lot of ignorance. And it is getting us no where, the tiny half-measure regulation called Dodd-Frank is already being dismantled with a lot of help from Democrats and signed by a Democratic president. Pathetic.

and the truth is the left has just as hard a time breaking away from the status quo in their party as the right does.

You can see things slowly turning, people on both sides are looking for a populist candidate. The only question is.. how long will it take and will it be too late?

the lies on DU are as bad as those from Ted's mouth!

We could really use an FDR right now. Someone like E Warren.

Not Ted Cruz though. {{shudder}}

because he drastically cut capital gains taxes. And continues to rise. Gee, wonder why.

when he recently appeared before a group of middle eastern Christians and told them they must support Israel. They all started yelling, "Stop it, stop it!" and "Get out of here!", haha, he had to leave the venue. Now THAT was funny.

Clinton sure did play a part by signing NAFTA.

think "Obama" when they heard "Hillary" in 2016.

So. There's that.

what if politicians were lawyers before politics? Oh wait....

and obstructed every single aspect of the President's agenda. And he's proud of it. Repugnant little worm.

It's just happening sooner than I thought.

Republicans are going to start down the populist route for the 2016 election. Democrats have neglected to campaign on populism, and the republicans are not going to miss an opportunity to take that from them. Add to that the coziness of Democrats will Wall Street and they will be in real trouble here if this is something all republicans run with.

It's a core plank of the platform.

You know people aren't stupid right? They can see the coziness to wall street. Democrats can put whatever they like on their 'platform' but no action means people stop believing them. That's what happening now. No one believes them anymore. Republicans will take advantage of this because that's what they always do.

Until then, your only actions are to minimize the damage caused.

the tone at the top matters. That's what people listen to. People will vote Democrats into a majority in the house when they are happy with Democratic party leaders' actions. Or when they are fed up with Republicans governing like '08. You can take your pick as to which scenario you would prefer to precede a Democratic majority in the house.

I'd rather we just take back congress and stop shitting on Democrats.

The Republicans are much more unified than the Democrats, that's why they keep winning.

is because Democrats refuse to do what is necessary to take back power. Let's get this straight: it's not because people are shitting on the Democrats that they cannot take back Congress. The reason the Democrats cannot take back congress is because they have moved so far to the right, have become so distanced from a populist message that voters have become apathetic. They don't feel anyone is there for THEM. Those of us who can see this, do the shitting. It's not a chicken or egg question in the least. Democrats have been talking one game and acting on another for some time now. People are starting to realize this. I criticize because I want to see them succeed. I want to see them win, and FOLLOW THROUGH on their promises. Or at least fight tooth and nail to follow through.

The ONE REASON Republicans win is because they have a strong message and they stand behind it. Rarely do you see a republican waffling in public about core conservative principles. Democrats need better party whips and fast. And they need a populist message. If the republicans are able to get out a populist message and stand behind it as fervently as they do their idiotic other stances, Democrats will have a slim chances of winning the House and Senate again in my lifetime.

Oh, nothing, they just vote together, they're unified, and they don't shit on each other.

Really. That's all it takes for the Republicans to be so powerful and to have held congress for the past half decade. That's it!

The Democrats were at a disadvantage because the Republicans gerrymandered the districts together. It doesn't help that people like yourself say that Democrats are DINOs (in effect) and suggest that no one should vote for them. The gerrymandering is the key reason Democrats have had difficulty winning districts.

The Republicans don't have a "strong message." It's all over the fucking place. The Republicans are merely able to pander to single issue voters more effectively, because their base doesn't shit on itself like Democrats do. Many Republican voters are for social things like Medicare and Social Security, but they vote against their interests because the Republicans are liars. Indeed, they won in 2010 actually claiming that the Democrats were creating "catfood comissions." And liberals repeated the Republican talking points.

Hillary Clinton will usher in a sweep of the states in 2016 and by 2020 we should have a good chance of cementing Democrats for generations to come. Bookmark this statement. Your negative attitude toward Democrats and defeatist attitude carrying water for Republicans won't change this outcome. Demographics are one way. The white, right wing, selfish, boomer generation doesn't have much time left in this world.

Republicans do so have a strong message compared to the Democrats. Their main message? They are against Democrats. Whereas Dems are always trying to play the whole 'we're friends' thing with Republicans. People see that as weakness.

I do agree with gerrymandering. But who talks about it? No one. Why are Democrats not screaming from the rooftops?

I strongly disagree with your assertion that liberals are helping Republicans. I think it's the go-along-to-get-along gang that is the problem. And of course Republicans are liars. And the Democrats rarely stand up and say, "you're lying." They allow them to get away with it.

I will bookmark your statement, because I think it's way off. Hillary may win, but nothing else you say will happen. The boomer generation may be on its way out, but people are people and most are easily manipulated, which is what Republicans do best. I wouldn't count on demographics to win it for you.

Look, I'm a Canadian and I have seen what it takes for the left to win. Strong stances, media blitzes, hard campaigning, solid message. Democrats have done the opposite. And you insist that is how they will win, because demographics. I think that is hopelessly lazy and dangerous. A lot more is needed than that. And to blame the left is absolutely the death knell of the party, IMO. I always find it ironic those who shout 'unity!' are also those who constantly attack the base of the party. Ça fait pas d'bon sens.

It would be weak of them to complain that they lost the majority of elections due to gerrymandering, because that's how it is, they didn't have the local districts, they couldn't write the maps. Only in severe cases can Democrats really rebuff the district lines, and in those cases the courts have overruled the Republicans. In some cases it would be good to advocate for CA-like computer generated disricting, but that is a 2020 battle, and isn't relevant to current politics. Indeed, you got to actually elect people to fight for that in 2020, if you don't, then the gerrymandering continues!

As far as being a Canadian, I don't discount your opinion, but I do take umbrage with Canadians who have consistently elected right wingers in the past few years, bashing the US, whose top leaders are doing great liberal things. This especially repulsive when Canada is so far removed from the UK and AU and shouldn't be trending toward the politics in those countries, but somehow, it manages to do so.

The US is capitalist. It makes me shake my head when people bash capitalistic approaches to things. They will happen. It's not going away, no major candidate is going to bash capitalism. It's just how it is. Capitalism, as a single issue, is far and away the least important thing to the American people. It's a joke.

No, the entire party isn't always on the right side, but the only people that are, are part of the party.

People shitting on Democrats need to reassess their priorities.

Importantly, the progressives can convince the more blue dog Democrats to vote for good issues, as they did on the ACA and DADT, etc. Of course, when the democrats overwhelmingly voted for the ACA, the ACA was deemed a Republican project. When the democrats overwhelmingly voted to shut down DADT, the credit went to the log cabin Republicans. Yes, these things happened.

The Republicans are brilliant, amazing, at appropriating good progressive things, and turning it against democrats.

Proof that Ted Cruz will fix THAT one too.

Cruz missile gets away with lying all day, because we have a lazy media that loves to support republicans.

and weak corporate regulations, how does Mr. Cruz propose to improve income equality?

To deal with the causes the government would have to raise taxes on the rich, legislatively empower unions, fund an effective safety net and impose tight regulations on corporations. My guess is that Mr. Cruz and his fellow republicans would not exactly be falling over each other to endorse such "FDR/socialist" policies.

I can 'only laugh' when a republican poses as a friend of the working person and in favor of income equality.