DU is the "canary in the coal mine", we are out in front of the voting public by some variable time depending on the issue(s).

Where DU is now the voting public will be at some point in the future, maybe not as strongly as DU but they will move toward that point as the low information voters become slowly exposed to that information which DUers eagerly soak up like sponges.

Just the wealth of alternative news sites I've learned has made me a more informed voter. The people I try to enlighten about some things we take for granted look at me like I have lobsters coming out of my ears, because they "Never heard that" with the MSM as their only input.

"discover" it and report it as their "breaking news" :rofl:

Years in some cases..

DU's value as an alternate news source is genuine, and I don't question that.

I was referring to the assertion that DU can be used as a measurement of trends in popular thought. It'd be hard to collect evidence either way given that DU hasn't be around all that long, relatively speaking. But I've not personally noticed any major issue where the collective wisdom of DU in and of itself was any kind of particular indicator of where the public's opinions would go.

My base observation is that we as a group seem more reflective than predictive.

Since, say 2001..

When bushie was overwhelmingly popular in late 2001, DU didn't like him, we saw his flaws.

Eventually he left office as one of the most unpopular presidents in history, thanks to things that DU saw many years before.

The same is true of issue after issue, not 100%, no one is perfect, but enough to make the case.

But is DU predictive or reflective, and how do you measure the difference?

DU, as a group, didn't like Bush because he is, by definition, antithetical to everything this site is about. This site was *created* in opposition to him and drew those to it who disliked him. The fact the public at large grew to dislike him also is a function of experience and time.

What else, other than not liking Bush, has DU, as a group, proved to be predictive? I can think of a few examples where we might seem to be, but in most of those examples, I don't think I could accurately say that DU has a collective opinion. By contrast, I could think of a number of things on which DU's "sense" has not in any way predicted popular thought, but, again, the idea that DU collectively has an opinion is elusive.

Sorry to be so pedantic about this. Your phrasing just struck me as odd, as though we're the Paris to the fashion industry of public sentiment.

that's why it is so disconcerting that the dem leadership pretty much ignores DU.

they ignore us completely.

That's fucking hilarious.

DU is is the far left and will always be the far left, just as FR is the far right and will always be the far right.

Correct about Iraq, correct about Afghanistan, correct about corporate control of our government..

and wrong about corporate control of our government.

1 out of three ain't bad.

Afghanistan is turning out well?

What color is the sky on your planet?

Yep.

Blue.

And our government is almost entirely in thrall to the corporation, anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.

Our government is NOT "almost entirely in thrall to the corporation". Anybody who thinks so is delusional.

It's not almost.. It's *entirely* in thrall to the corporations..

The health care fight in congress shows that to be true.

Corporations exert their influence via marketing campaigns directed at the masses within the polity.

It's the people who have control over their government. That corporations can influence those people so easily is where your argument lies.

know he's a



Good job taking him on, however.

:thumbsup:

he's a DINO.

Big corporate supporter.

must work for AIG. LOL

Maybe I could interest you in a million dollar condo in Miami? Afhganistan is bankrupting the government. How does killing a bunch of goat herders without electricity, or indoor plumbing, protect Amerkia!

Tell us then, oh sage, what will be the outcome of Vietghanistan?

You're joking, right?

If that were the case, the world would be a much better place than it is now.

Ranting and raving about "sell-outs" putting up a "piece of shit" may be cathartic, and I have engaged in it myself, but the fact remains that the majority will never be in line with the far left.

The key is discovering methods to get as much as you can.

I've seen issue after issue where the DU view has eventually become the generally accepted view.

Of course it's not true 100%, nothing in human affairs is perfect.

and on and on.

In terms of ideological radicalism, we have nothing on the various anarchist groupings, or the million and a half organizations corresponding to all the different flavors of Leninist. But we are hardly more representative.

Just as FR is the far right.

Accept it. Embrace it. Live it. Love it.

Just realize that the policy choices of the far left will never be implemented as is and must be diluted to be palatable to the center and you'll be okay. Otherwise, you'll live a life where you're constantly pissed off at "sell-out Democrats" and "sheeple".

He was the overwhelming Presidential choice of DUers.

DU is not even CLOSE to the far left. From my years on the 'net, on various message boards of all kinds, DU is fairly representative of everyone that's not whackjob conservative. I laugh when people call DU 'far left'. Obviously they have no idea what that means. Comparable to FR? hahahahaha. *sigh*

I could show them some people that would make them long for the sanity of DK supporters. ;)

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias".

Not even close.

If you think that DU is far left, then maybe you are standing too far to the right?

The Democrats still haven't figured out how to get ahead on getting their message out there. This healthcare fiasco really began to go off the rails when the teabaggers came on the scene. While small, they made a lot of moise with simple catch phrases that the corporate media echoed and soon Democrats were confronted with "death panels" and "socialized medicine". By that time this Admnistration was on the defensive and doing a poor job at it. That made them weak, energized those who wanted to gut this legislation and IMHO led to a lot of good elements of this legislation getting dumped.

Yes, DU has been on the right side of many issues and is right on this one as well, but we're not the "base"...or at least in the eyes of the Democratic party...and they're right. However our messages generally are...just they're usually heard too little or too late.

The lesson is to find ways to get ahead on the message...it would have been so much easier of a sell had this Administration gotten in front on the public option and came up with a slogan like "control your own healthcare"...but they underestimated the lobbyists and the opposition...and thus we have a bad bill that we're told is better than no bill at all.

Lots of folk really don't pay attention until it effects their wallet. That is why the "Teabagger" propaganda has worked efficiently for the GOP.

As long as the Dem fail to equate the Public Option with Health Care Savings, or refuse to reign in Health Insurance Companies discretionary spending such as the fleet of Lawyers and Plan Administrators that comprise the companie's "Claim Denial Division" (leading to over head cost 3 times that of Medicare) the general public (low information voters) won't hear it

And it will become evident to the monetary voters in the fullness of time.

Which is why I say DU is out ahead of the curve, we are paying attention to the details and there are enough different viewpoints here that almost all issues get a very thorough discussion and analysis.

But yeah, DU is way ahead of the general population.

First, people don't actually become all that much more informed over time. On an issue like health care reform, people will probably become more informed in terms of actual experience with the system--but, then, DUers don't have that either.

Second, it's not as if the only difference between DU and the voting public is level of information. There are lots of conservatives and centrists who follow politics obsessively too. DU is both far more informed and far more partisan than the voting public: not just the first. And ideology probably influences political views more strongly than level of information does. People interpret the world through their own lenses.

Third, playing into the second point, the information DUers pay attention to is not the same information the "median" informed voter pays attention to. DU puts a lot of stock in the analyses of respected progressive media figures, for instance, and by the very fact that we are here, we are probably much more Internet- and blog-inclined than average.

DU does not reflect the voting public, and the voting public at any point in time is never going to reflect the current views of DU. The notion so many people on the Left have that our views represent the "real" views of the people, and if only it weren't for corporate domination of politics they would be enacted, represents an unwillingness to honestly face political reality, and one that only hurts our cause.

Nothing human is perfect, that's a given.

But on the whole the voters end up where DU was at some point in the past.

Bushie was overwhelmingly popular in late 2001, DU saw his flaws then. Bushie ended up leaving as one of the most unpopular presidents in history.

In late 2003 there were "support the troops" stickers *everywhere* over the Iraq War, at the time it was known on DU that it was going to be a disaster, now I haven't seen a "support the troops" sticker in probably at least a year.

I could go on for some time in this vein.

We would have loathed any Republican; the public, on the other hand, loathed him in particular. We loathed him because of ideological disagreements first and foremost, long before the disasters of Iraq and Katrina (well, that and the stolen 2000 election); the public for the most part ending up loathing him because he was manifestly incompetent, didn't care all that much about Florida, was sympathetic toward the tax cuts, and thought the Iraq War was more a mistake than a moral crime.

I bet DU would have been strongly opposed to the Gulf War, too, and quite possibly rightly so, but that ended up being pretty popular. To make the case you're making you would have to use a wider body of evidence; what you've done is just select two disasters that DU predicted, but perhaps DU predicts lots of disasters that the public only agrees with sometimes.

Some, but not a whole lot. Many were already there. Many may have voted for the same candidates that DUers supported, but that is far from an indication that those voters share the viewpoint of DU, even if there was such a thing.

60 million people voted for mccain/palin. if that's "on the whole", then that phrase has a different meaning that it used to have.

While its great that information from DU gets disseminated outside DU, but its silly to think that its impact isn't offset by the amount of information being disseminated from RW sites.

:applause:

Exactly what I was thinking, except I would have dashed off a sarcastic one-liner. Nicely done :patriot:

On a macro scale I think you are not.

I really don't meet many "centrists" that are obsessed with politics and information, if you are obsessive about politics you are far more likely to drift to one side or the other politically.

Of course DU is not 100% perfect, nothing humans do is.. But we have a wide range of opinions here and I've seen time after time that the general public ends up somewhere near where DU was quite some time ago..

Anyhow, thanks for well thought out and expressed post..

and there are daily reminders of that here.

macro moves at a snail's pace...micro zooms around the net in a "poutrageous" fury..

I see us a lot in the vein of something Robert Kennedy said.."... see things and ask, why NOT..."

many of us here have lived a long time, and have seen many administrations come and go, and we have been hurt time and again by dashed hopes, and accomplished blunders.. we have the weight of history on our shoulders, and see time as our enemy. The more time that passes, without significant advances, is time lost that we can never regain, and it also means that the problems only get larger with time..

And so many things are a matter of perspective.

Like the old story of the blind men and the elephant.

on most, if not all, issues. Many times what is a "breaking story" on the tv or mainstream media has been talked about at DU for months, sometimes years. I am glad to have du, but it is frustrating sometimes to see the lag time between du and the general public.

and seeing it does not necessarily reflect the big picture. We might like to believe we are prescient and predictive of the future, but the shotgun blast is pretty wide here so some of the buckshot will always hit the mark.

On so many issues, we reached a consensus months or even years ahead of the general public.

Bush is a moran
the Iraq war was premised on lies
there was no yellowcake, the documents were fake
High level officials were involved in the Plame leak
we were being manipulated by OSP
Rumsfeld was out of his league
Blackwater is evil
our constitutional rights were being eroded
Gonzales and Justice broke laws
the economy was much weaker than we were being told
the bailouts were a clusterfuck

etc.

The reality of the PNAC and the Neocons. Cheney's rump Pentagon. Diebold...etc.

DU is, as usual, ahead of the curve.

Kill the bill.

Forcing people to buy insurance is no more the answer to a failed health care system than forcing people to buy houses is the solution to homelessness.

:dem:

-Laelth

I would say it was right up there with the national average.

Don

we were skeptical that Bush could manage it and we knew about the failure at Tora Bora pretty quickly. Also though Karzai was corrupt ages ago.

Seeing that it was becoming FUBARed happened pretty quickly here though..

I do know that I was against it from the beginning, but then I'm a dilettante with a passing knowledge of history, pretty uncommon in America.

...the general public does not, neither does the MSM either.

We know what is going on before the talking points arrive.

And that bodes very ill for established Democrats.

than the Admins or the mods. The funny thing is, WE, the members of DU are indeed the canary in the coal mine. The Admins. and the mods may or may not catch up. Or they'll just throw all the progressives off leaving just the cheerleaders. :shrug:

and I found the group I served with to be a rational, well-educated lot.

I'm sure you do.

current form. The public will get there when it hits them in the face in 2014.