Is the Democratic Party committing suicide by refusing to accept its mandate for leftward change?

And in so doing so, is in danger of giving up brand loyalty from many constituencies.

Third parties only guarantee us a Repub dominated govt. until we give up and try to take back the Dems.

At least that's been the case so far. I suppose if people get pissed enough they might be open to new parties. I have
a hard time imagining most Americans getting that involved. They might miss American Idol or something.

... let Republicans win than give liberalism a chance, even though they were plainly elected to bring leftward change.

It's pretty distressing that the threat, likelihood even, of many Dems losing their elected offices isn't enough to get them to respect and respond to the base.

It could mean going from the Republican right-wing being in control to choosing a party that takes a more moderate, centrist course of action.

everything again, moving the nation even more to the autocratic, corporate supremacist right.

Thanks for the thread, Iwcon.

;)

To me that would include single-payer health care,
nationalization of banks etc.
increased media regulation

And the Democrats didn't run on any of those in 2008.

Bush is incompetent

Cheney is a thug

Too many Republicans in Congress are crooks



That is the essential feeling of the voters in those two elections.

and voters seem to think Democrats are better for the country during hard economic times. Maybe that's what the OP is referring to as left-wing mandate.

www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html

in 2004, 72 MILLION Americans identified as Democrats

--while only 42 million identified as independents.

only 55 million identified as a Republican in the Bush/Kerry election year.

(and of course, Ohio was stolen, just as 2000 was, so the claim that Americans are more conservative than liberal seems to be a HUGE LIE. Independents do not mean centrists. Independents also include those to the left of the democratic party and those who have no idea what any party is about.)

So, since the MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN THE NATION identify with democrats, after years and years of Republican attempts to smear democrats as nazisocialistfacistwhatevershittheycanthrowagainstthewallofstupidity...

it would seem that the Democratic Party might want to consider what these numbers mean for the direction the nation prefers.

instead of letting a minority of right wingers determine how we, the people, live in our nation.

It may not kill the party but it is not making us any stronger or more credible when we most need both qualities. It is not a wise course to choose especially now when they have seen how people are reacting. Think Scott Brown.

We're supposed to narcotize ourselves by blaming Martha Coakley for the loss. After that, we'll have a new excuse, no doubt.

and I would never have voted for anyone like Scott Brown. I'm not narcotizing or trying to get anyone to think what was done was the right thing. If you reread my post I think you will find that I was giving that as an example of what can happen if your base and others get angry enough.

Personally, I would have gone and voted for the Democrat just to have the number and one additional seat.

I said in another post that I would rather set my butt on fire than vote Republican. That doesn't change. Since we are talking a large area of singed skin, I think you can see why it would not be a desirable alternative for me.:bounce:

but apparently that means only positive consequences for the 1 percenters, and, per usual, shit sandwiches for the rest of us.

I wanted someone smarter than Bush who gave a damn about working Americans - is that the left you speak of?

I don't, however, see that he gives a damn about working Americans.

on every issue. Not sure why it's so hard for DU to comprehend that there can be more than one approach to dealing with certain issues.

WWRD: What would Reagan do.

:nopity:

Dr. Dean did a lot for the democratic wing of the Democratic Party, but Rahm Emanual is DLC's Rove.

Both political parties cater to the corporations and those that own those corporations. I think I might live long enough to see another revolution of sorts in this country.

If you thought you voted for a progressive when you voted for Obama, you only were fooling yourself. Just because the MSM says he's the most liberal doesn't mean a thing.

He never promised radical transformation and has a history of trying to reach consensus. Remember this one: "There is no red America, no blue America, there is the United States of America!"

that only the top is ok, the rest of us are nothing.

But I don't think "fooled" would accurately describe me, an Obama skeptic since 2006.

However, the American public clearly embraced the "change" message, change from Bushism -- and the resounding votes for Dems in 2006 and 2008 bear this out.

The lukewarm support for Dems in my home state of Massachusetts during the recent Senate election suggests that the lack of change has knocked the wind out of the party's sails, as do the projections for the midterms.