This is just my opinion...

[kentuck]

But I believe there is not enough philosophical distance between the two Parties to help voters decide how they want to vote.

In my opinion, Democrats have surrendered too much ground to Republicans on tax policies, on defense spending, on poverty issues, on social equality, on human rights, and even, on the role of government itself.

By doing so, voters have a tougher time making a distinction between the Parties. This is not saying that both Parties are the same. They are not. But, on many issues, there needs to be a more definitive difference between the two Parties so that voters can clearly distinguish between the two. There should be no guesswork.

In my opinion, Democrats should be holding both the House and Senate by huge majorities at the present time. After the disastrous governance of the Republicans, there is no rational or logical reason that they are now holding the House, favored to win the Senate, and have a chance at winning the White House.

I simply do not believe that we would be in this precarious position today if we clearly defined the differences between ourselves and the radical Republicans. Just my opinion.

[vi5]

1. I agree....

Doesn't mean I'm not voting Democrat as there is JUST enough distance for me to support them and be frightened of Republican rule.

But I fully agree that we wouldn't even be this tight and in this much of a horse race and in this precarious a position politically if our elected officials resisted the temptation to "Me too!!!" and follow the money.

And for the record this downhill roll all started in the 90's under Clinton so it's not a recent phenomenon, nor is it Obama's fault (although I don't think he's done nearly enough to counter it).

[rfranklin]

2. Yes, it is largely how the issues were framed...

For instance, when manufacturing jobs were being shipped overseas during Reagan's tenure, he and other Republicans told those thrown out of work that it was welfare queens and affirmative action that was taking their jobs when it was actually Republican patrons that were responsible.

Now, they blame the "illegals" for the crappy job market when Republicans are the most avid employers of slave wage workers.

They always manage to make it seem that they are fighting for the middle and working classes while they are doing everything possible to screw them.

[JHB]

6. Or a similar example of that...

When Pat Buchanan was making one of his Republican presidential primary runs, he did a photo op at a closed shoe factory in New England.

In his stump speech, he blamed the closing on China dumping shoes on the market at below cost. Whatever China may have been doing then, he was wrong (and indifference to checkable facts is a form of lying) about what closed the factory.

When reporters looked into the actual facts about the closing, it turned out to be due to a leveraged buy-out, the sort of vulture-capitalist scams that is finally back in the news due to Rmoney's doing the same sorts of deals at Bain. It was profitable but "struggling" (i.e., it wasn't sending enough money skyward as the Wall Streeters thought it should, which by their definition made it "underperforming&quot .

The wheeler-dealers made money off fees and stripping assets, while the employees lost their livelihoods.

WhooHoo! Go "successful people!

Naturally, the follow-up got microscopic attention compared to the initial hot air.

Sorry, don't have links handy: it was print coverage from way back when.

[uponit7771]

21. +1, I read somewhere Luntz et al are MASTERS at framing to get out conservative emotions....

...and that's what their wording aims at

[ewagner]

3. Agree

Liberal values have been discredited by slick PR campaigns and appeals to the most base of human instincts.

[bigtree]

4. so you have your personal view about the differences, but I strongly disagree

There is a chasm between parties from where I sit.

As for the voting public, I think that overall they are less progressive in their views polled than most folks here, so it's not surprising to find someone here projecting all of that on the general electorate. Fact is, there hasn't been any significant movement toward a more progressive politics by the public and it would be political folly for many candidates around the country to assume so in their policy positions and campaigns.

You'd make a more convincing argument, though if you focused on a particular race or a particular district or region, rather than expecting folks all over to be pining for what most of us here expect out of government.

[kentuck]

7. I think the present reality proves you wrong.

I wonder what age you are? Do you have any historical memory pre-Reagan?

[bigtree]

10. dude

I'm almost 52 and I've been politically aware since Johnson withdrew and politically active since my teens. Try making your argument without questioning my knowledge of politics. It's just obnoxious and insulting.

[kentuck]

47. I disagree with your politics.

Perhaps you are more in the mainstream of the Democratic Party than I? It's good to hear you have been politically aware since you were 8 years old and politically active since you were 13 or 14 with the Watergate scandal.

It seems to me you are insulted by everything that is progressive or questions the present status quo of the Party? Do you think the Party needs to change anything and what would that be? Or are we on the right track?

[Kaleko]

52. I admire your patience.

Really.

[bigtree]

60. Questioning the motives of folks who answer your posts isn't 'patience'

. . . it's a sad game; set 'em up, and if anyone disagrees with your leading query that you've loaded with stuff you can't defend, knock 'em down. That makes you 'progressive' apparently.

[bigtree]

59. so you make another smart ass assumption

where the fuck you get that I have some hostility toward progressivism is beyond me . . . except when I consider the last reply of yours which is equally insulting and void of anything but your own projections.

I've written the history of my political interests and activities many times on here before, but you don't really need me to explain all of that just to answer your leading posts, do you? You're content with just making it up as you go along. Good luck with that.

[bigtree]

63. still attacking

. . . shows me just how insecure you are with your own politics that you've chosen to create a caricature of me and my views to posture off of.

Again, casting people who post things you disagree with as 'republicans' and anti-progressive doesn't enhance your own political standing; it's just more sophistry. It's a sick and sad game you're playing here. To what end? Didn't you get enough hurrahs for putting me in my place? No?

Well you can just eat your words, as far as I'm concerned. I'm a lifelong Democrat. I have been one since I had my knuckles rapped with a ruler and put in a corner in nursery/day-care when I cried at the announcement on the radio that Johnson wouldn't run. My dad gave me a Humphrey button to make me feel better that was almost as large as my head.

My parents were very politically active and my father rose in government to become Director of Civil Rights with EEO. I have a very rich and detailed political history of advocacy and activism which is rooted in my father's belief in the primacy of the federal government in guaranteeing and defending my rights as a black American. That's where my support for the Democratic party lies and that's the root and substance of my progressivism.

Nothing you can say or do can change that at this point in my life, so I think it's just sad that you feel the need to try and recast my life and views just to suit your defense of your petty and nonfactual post. You think you can serve progressive politics by rolling over folks like me? You're deluding yourself on so many levels, it leaves your complex reasoning (at least in the mind of this man you're projecting all of your nonsense toward) with nothing but the phony bait you serve up in your replies.

I don't need your idea of a 'break,' btw. It's as phony as the rest of the crap you've said here. Save it for someone who actually believes you care enough to mean it.

[kentuck]

64. My post says, "This is just my opinion..."

Yet, for some reason, you feel the need to attack me and not expect me to defend myself? Get some help or take a break. If you follow this thread, anyone can see who is "assuming" and attacking the other person. I don't appreciate it. And I will not take such bullshit off of you or anyone else.

[bigtree]

65. I didn't attack you at all, I said I disagreed.

you went on to your usual questioning of my politics. . . . tiresome and sad . . . You've completely miscast my politics and views to suit your own little post. Really inspiring. It's nothing but bait, I think. I'm not biting anymore.

[LanternWaste]

74. "This is just my opinion-- XXX is an asshat." Yet for some reason, XXX got mad...

"This is just my opinion-- XXX is an asshat." Yet for some reason, XXX got mad...

[Teamster Jeff]

27. Most of todays dems

would be welcome with open arms in the pre Reagan GOP

[zeemike]

11. Yes but only on things that don't matter to the 1%

Like gay rights and abortions...those things yes there is a chasm.
But on support for the Military Industrial Complex and the wars that they want there is little difference and all will thank a soldier for his service and support the troops and cheer them on.
And the same for economic problems...one party wants to give the bankers more and the other party wants to cut back a little on the money they slop the pigs with...thus we get Obamacare instead of single payer....better than nothing but still far from a solution.

[bigtree]

13. well, that's pretty much how most folks operate in real life

Most Americans don't isolate their activities, work, spending, from those elements of government, business, military and society which are objectionable to us in their daily lives. No massive boycotts, demonstrating, or resignations of, or from those interests which aggravate our progressive mindsets. Instead, most incorporate (and thus support) elements of those in everything they endeavor to accomplish. There's no massive move away from the military, for instance. There's no mass exodus from objectionable corporations either. If we saw that, I'd assume the American public was fed up with these.

That might be a function of the influence of our media; or. it may be just a pragmatic sense that they couldn't abide without them. I think that's where most of Americans settle. We may well want to reform these institutions and enterprises, but most of the population looks to feel that there is some personal benefit in preserving and maintaining them, often above and beyond the criticisms.

[zeemike]

29. Oh it is definitely the influence of the media...

They have fed us a steady diet of propaganda that is intended to entertain but used to shape our thinking...show kids war stories and killing over and over and there is a good chance they will like it....and because it was brought on slowly we did not even notice it.
But the things that are not important to them they use to divide us with because divided we have no power....and yet we have two parties locked in conflict about everything but the corrupt institutions and enterprises...which they want to maintain and have succeeded in doing for the last 30 years or so.

[raouldukelives]

37. People like being told what to think, what to feel.

The scarier the world around us becomes, the scarier we make it become, the more we withdraw to our own self-financed illusions of reality. We are all complicit in some way with the "corporate feedback loop" we are in. Our money spent & invested is used to expand power and influence. The consolidation of all of our media & press is only a natural evolution of our goals. We spend billions trying convince ourselves we are generally good people with the assimilation of ourselves as the final goal. With the transference of our consciousness and concepts of morality reflected back at us every waking hour.
Or as Professor Oblivion would say "The television screen has become the retina of the minds eye."

[freshwest]

38. +1

[zeemike]

43. So true.

"The television screen has become the retina of the minds eye."

[Shankapotomus]

5. I think you are right, in a public context

but in a private context, I think there is a lot more distance than democrats want the voters to see. You may be right and we would win more elections by proudly "flying our freak flag", so to speak, but I think the democrat strategy is to not risk alienating anyone and try to subtly appeal to all voters. Not saying that's the best. Just that seems to be the strategy.

[Honeycombe8]

8. The Republicans think that, too. That's why they don't like Romney.

I think, however, that there IS a clear difference. Very clear. We just saw an example of it when the S.Ct. held ACA constitutional, and the Republicans went bezerk.

[Romulox]

23. ACA was originally called "ROMNEYCARE", when it was first implemented in Mass, though.

Hard to hang our hats on ACA as the major difference when substantial portions of it were first proposed by the HERITAGE FOUNDATION and first implemented by MITT ROMNEY himself.

[jimlup]

9. Yep spot on /nt

[deutsey]

12. I agree

For quite some time, the Democrats have been too eager to say "Me too!" when it comes to the GOP agenda. That might be, in part, because the powers that fund both parties are the ones that ultimately set that agenda.

[canoeist52]

14. I keep looking for a concrete list

of line-in-the-sand democratic platform policies, that I can share with friends. All I find is vagueness. We need to address this, particularly with the younger generation. They require concrete examples, having well-developed bullshit detectors, for them to see the differences between party policies. And I'm assuming we want their votes.

[Scuba]

15. Yes, we can pick up a lot more votes by moving left than (further) right.

[flamingdem]

67. The undecided voter is in the middle unfortunately

If anyone on the "left" is voting Romney, or not voting, they are a losing proposition to begin with, imo

[Scuba]

69. A full 40% of the electorate sits on their hands during a PRESIDENTIAL election...

... because no one represents their interests, including the Democrats in any way that gets them to the polls.


If the Dems came out this fall and said "raise the minimum wage and legalize pot" they'd win in a landslide.

[flamingdem]

71. Well since neither side will do that -

fact remains that they fight over the low info middlers.

I believe that Obama would be further to the left if he could be -- as it is we can see it will be a struggle in November. The liars rule in this environment

[Scuba]

73. And we enable them when we don't demand they refute the lies and move left.

[flamingdem]

75. IF we retake the house and win the senate + Potus

Then and only then will I have a shit fit about needing to move left.
Naturally that would be preferable, that is a given.

But there's a lot of ground to cover first and no proof that moving
left will gain us anything, and it would just as likely cost the election.

[democrat_patriot]

16. Republicans stay on message. Always.

Hours after the ACA decision: "We need to repeal, and replace with a common sense, step by step approach." Which to the average person sounds pretty damn reasonable.

They have no steps, can't name any, but they have that message.

Democrats have: "ACA good."

Can the Demcoratic party not hire a PR firm to get them all on message? How hard is it? Hell even adopt "Obamacare" - be proud.

"Obamacare saves people you know. Sons, Daughters, Mothers and Fathers; by providing affordable care NOW." "It is working and the Republicans have NO PLAN".

"Republican Governors across the country are DENYING health care coverage to sick children to make a political point. It's already paid for by your tax dollars"

"The ACA that is working now VS. a fictional plan maybe sometime in the future"

"Do you really trust this congress to create another Healthcare plan? How long will it take?"

[CrispyQ]

31. Obamney care some clever DUer called it yesterday!

Let's force them to open the exhibit:

[Egalitarian Thug]

17. K&R. As you say, tax policies, defense spending, poverty, equality, human rights,

the role & purpose of government, and most importantly to our daily lives the belief that capital is superior to labor. And this last is the root of every deficiency in our party, indeed our nation, today.

[aikoaiko]

18. Really? Do you think voters are guessing between rep and dems?

I think the vast majority of voters can easily distinguish between the parties.

[uponit7771]

20. Not the philosophical differences but what dems will stand up AGAINST and hollar loud about...

...they ceded too much to GOP mouth pieces vs being one themslelves..

They are not the same party but it seems like dems tolerate too much conservatism

[uponit7771]

19. +1

[Romulox]

22. Economic policy is nearly 1:1: Deregulation, "free trade", bank bailouts, tax cuts for the rich,

opposition to Single Payer, opposition to any WPA type program...

[abelenkpe]

34. We need a WPA style jobs program

To rebuild our infrastruction. And single payer would help keep jobs here by lowering labor costs. Between healthcare costs and tax incentives (bribes) the entertainment industry has been losing jobs to Canada, new Zealand, and England at an alarming rate.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

24. The DC Media needs to get out of DC too.

Get them out of their cocktail parties and award ceremonies and take a tour of foreclosed neighborhoods and shelters full of children.

Then ask the bastards if they intend to keep acting like "Populist" is a dirty word.

[Overseas]

25. K&R. I agree.

[Wounded Bear]

26. Sad, but all too true....

Dems have not gone out of their way to distinguish themselves. I hear almost daily the tired old "they're both the same" argument from so-called independents, who at the time are spewing RW talking points, but don't know it.

Harry Truman said it best: "Given the choice between a real Republican and a Democrat acting like a Republican, they will vote for the real McCoy." (paraphrased)

We need a LOT more of Bernie Sanders' ilk and far less of the Blue Dog Pseudo-Dems.

[CaptJasHook]

28. You can't look at Presidential politics for your answer.

US politics operates on multiple levels because our electorate votes at multiple levels.

Congressional politics are were you usually see a wider difference between candidates. And if you take it to the local level you will see even greater differences.

At the presidential level, candidates on not trying to win the votes of the left or the right. They are trying to win the votes of the small percentages of undecided voters in swing states. That is why they hide their positions so much. They need to be in the middle. What you look at is actions and regardless of what the media is trying to tell you, Obama has moved forward on Progressive issues and continues to do so.

Lillie Ledbetter. Check
ACA. Not single payer, but progress. Check
Withdrawal from Iraq. Check
Upcoming withdrawal from Afghanistan. Check
Support of marriage equality. Check
Financial, real Support of Auto Industry and Alternative energy. Check
Holding fast on no taxes for the middle class. Check
Continuous stream of (failed) legislation and rhetoric to raise taxes on the 1%. Check


If you can't see the difference, you need to step back from presidential politics and look past the media for your research.

[freshwest]

39. +1.000

[NRaleighLiberal]

30. Perhaps, but I have a caution to this - the gulf between the informed and uninformed

Which goes beyond the difference in the parties. I think we all here who are deeply involved misunderstand how much of the public - including the voting public - are apathetic, disconnected, lazy, uninformed, anesthetized by the TeeVee - so don't even think when they pull the lever.

And they are the most vulnerable to just voting what they are told in the countless TV ads, or their church, etc.

[harun]

32. Majority of people vote emotionally, not rationally or reasonably.

If people voted rationally GOP would hold about 10-20%.

[Egalitarian Thug]

77. Most Americans vote for the last and loudest commercial they see.

That is those that aren't wedded to one party or the other.

[frogmarch]

33. I agree, and

I think that racism plays a big part in this too. Also, the republicans present themselves as the Christian party, dangling Jesus out there as bait to draw in the faithful.

[Johonny]

35. I think the problem is that debate in this country is basically over conservative ideas

ideas the media insist are what the voters are interested in learning the position of the candidates even though a vast mass of Americans never vote because of total apathy over political discourse. I don't think Democrats have surrendered ground on tax policies, on defense spending, on poverty issues, on social equality, on human rights, and even, on the role of government itself. During their convention I have no doubt they will talk about these issues. But then they'll enter into the "campaign" again and the media will once again try to frame issues that aren't issues at all. So far this year the media has spent a hell of a lot of time talking about contraceptives, the poor job creator, taxation of the top 1% and bombing Iran. Even when the 99 % gathered in mass to protest to try to get their voices heard the media's message was, well the 99 % are angry but we can't tell what about. They are too garbled. Yeah right. I don't think you will get the clear air between the two parties from a campaign or debate or even congressional policy until the people force the two parties to constantly talk about real issues and from a left-center prospective. When will that happen if the 99 % movement couldn't even make that happen

[YoungDemCA]

46. Agreed.

Good post!

[CrispyQ]

36. 'NAFTA on Steroids': The Trans-Pacific Partnership (Why didn't we know)

http://www.thenation.com/article/168627/nafta-steroids#

Think of the TPP as a stealthy delivery mechanism for policies that could not survive public scrutiny. Indeed, only two of the twenty-six chapters of this corporate Trojan horse cover traditional trade matters. The rest embody the most florid dreams of the 1 percent—grandiose new rights and privileges for corporations and permanent constraints on government regulation. They include new investor safeguards to ease job offshoring and assert control over natural resources, and severely limit the regulation of financial services, land use, food safety, natural resources, energy, tobacco, healthcare and more.

The stakes are extremely high, because the TPP may well be the last “trade” agreement Washington negotiates. This is because if it’s completed, the TPP would remain open for any other country to join. In May US Trade Representative Ron Kirk said he “would love nothing more” than to have China join. In June Mexico and Canada entered the process, creating a NAFTA on steroids, with most of Asia to boot.

Countries would be obliged to conform all their domestic laws and regulations to the TPP’s rules—in effect, a corporate coup d’état. The proposed pact would limit even how governments can spend their tax dollars. Buy America and other Buy Local procurement preferences that invest in the US economy would be banned, and “sweat-free,” human rights or environmental conditions on government contracts could be challenged. If the TPP comes to fruition, its retrograde rules could be altered only if all countries agreed, regardless of domestic election outcomes or changes in public opinion. And unlike much domestic legislation, the TPP would have no expiration date.

Failure to conform domestic laws to the rules would subject countries to lawsuits before TPP tribunals empowered to authorize trade sanctions against member countries. The leaked investment chapter also shows that the TPP would expand the parallel legal system included in NAFTA. Called Investor-State Dispute Resolution, it empowers corporations to sue governments—outside their domestic court systems—over any action the corporations believe undermines their expected future profits or rights under the pact. Three-person international tribunals of attorneys from the private sector would hear these cases. The lawyers rotate between serving as “judges”—empowered to order governments to pay corporations unlimited amounts in fines—and representing the corporations that use this system to raid government treasuries. The NAFTA version of this scheme has forced governments to pay more than $350 million to corporations after suits against toxic bans, land-use policies, forestry rules and more.

~more at link

It doesn't matter who's in office, this is where we're headed. The human species is so fucked.

[rbnyc]

55. +1 (nt)

[Doctor_J]

40. It's 99% media saturation

Your OP has some merit (look at the Walker recall, where the Dem machine supported an appeaser and loser instead of a pro-labor outsider in the primary), but I believe the problem is very easy to pinpoint.

IMO we are pretty much doomed unless we the people personally dismantle the right wing propaganda apparatus. If real Dems like Bernie Sanders & Sheldon Whitehouse were permitted on Big Media, we'd be fine.

After the 2000 coup and all that has flowed from it (CU and so forth), I personally believe that nothing short of a civil war is going to stop the stampede toward fascism. At this point the only question is whether we end up like Haiti or like Rwanda. Our resistance is prevented by 3 things: 1) Those true believers who think that all of the disasters over the last 20 years are anomalies, and that the system is working just fine, and we just need to be patient. A typical member of this group would be one who thinks that imprisoning the shooter is ample retribution the attempted murder of Gabby Giffords (while Beck infests millions of minds every day); 2) Those who are physically afraid, and would rather live on their knees than die on their feet. They don't relish the thought of living in Haiti, but prefer it over Rwanda; 3) Those who are socially liberal on issues like GLBT rights and drug use, but like corporate rule (DLC types).

Again, I think some sort - any sort - of realignment of the country's media is a sine qua non. Unless this happens, no major shift in the political trajectory has any chance.

[kctim]

41. There is plenty of difference

It's just the further left or right you go, the less you notice it.

[tofayel]

42. Now Election Can't Encourage People.

Now nobody can encourage people for vote. I this will be plus for Republicans. Because no bad reputation means, good reputation.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

44. Politicians seek votes, and the money to get votes. Not ideals, honesty, or even decency.

"History has tried to teach us that we can't have good government under politicians.  Now, to go and stick one at the very head of government couldn’t be wise." Mark Twain

[Comrade_McKenzie]

45. Capitalism or capitalism lite, basically. nt

[whatchamacallit]

48. Starting to look more like fascism or fascism lite. nt

[99Forever]

49. An opinion shared by many of us.

Also one that is at best ignored, but more often is the subject of hateful derision from the Third Way Corporate buttkissing crowd, or as I think of them, Republican Lite.

[CanSocDem]

50. I agree.

For many years, my province was governed quietly and efficiently and graced with an overwhelming spirit of social democracy. We were surrounded with abundance. The people were devoted to the public interest.

And then, out of the blue, came the Free Enterpriser's and turned a large majority of our contented citizens into 'enemies of the state'.

So far I've concluded that our sitting social democrats didn't spend enough time extolling the virtues of public enterprise over private enterprise.

Lately I've been able to, at least enunciate the problem in my own head......

How do we turn people back into social democrats?

Since there are so many more ways in this modern age to send messages, the establishment can no longer set the agenda and questions, like yours, elict a wide response.


.

[Kablooie]

51. I agree the Dems have moved much closer to the Reps on many issues but ...

The Republicans have moved into the Twilight Zone so there is still a clear distinction.

It's disturbing that Democrats have picked up old Republican policies.
There is hardly anyone over there on the left working for us anymore.

But even old Republican ideas were based on some kind of consideration of the country and the world.
Nothing like today where ideas are based on rabid ignorance of reality, fairytales disguised as religion, and faith in magic to solve the world's problems.

The Democrats are still worth supporting if only to prevent the mentally insane from controlling our lives.

[cherokeeprogressive]

53. I think the philosophical difference is clearly defined. Democrats favor the working man while

republicans favor corporations and the well-off.

Where the line between the two parties blurs for me is in personal behavior. I think anyone who has served more than two terms in Congress is now, or has been in the past, a dishonest, lying, thieving, cheat. I think the more time one has served; the more likely that person is to have more than one of those four qualities. And I don't mind saying I don't think one party or the other has a monopoly or even a majority of dishonest people.

The only possible straight-shooters are those serving their first terms. The problem is that our system is so fucked up that from day one their only aim is to be re-elected so as to have some kind of juice with their peers. To do that, they take money, goods, trips, and gifts from lobbyists. So even if they do show up on Inauguration Day with pure ideals, it's in short order that those ideals become something to be seen in the rear view mirror.

I have a hard time thinking there's some other kind of fix for this than term limits. Maybe not a limit on total terms, but a limit on consecutive terms.

[joshcryer]

54. Both parties have actually moved away from each other.

It's just that the Republicans have moved so much further to the right than the Democrats that the Democrats have still moved right!

[Egalitarian Thug]

78. During election season. They know we have the memory of a brain damaged gnat. n/t

[Raine]

56. I agree too, totally. nt

[Scootaloo]

57. It's the "play nice" problem

Simply put, Democrats have been "playing nice" for nearly 40 years, because, for whatever damned reason, they've got it in their heads that Americans hate partisanship.

No, what Americans hate is not having viable CHOICES when they go to vote. Democrats have been trying so so hard to "save the relationship" with the Republicans, trying to walk softer, talk quieter, and never question. In effect in many cases they've become flimsy Republicans. Americans are figuring, why settle for the second-rate knockoff when you can get the real thing for the same price?

Democrats need to throw some punches. It's one of the things that I truly like about the Obama team; they know how to put together a message and propagate it. They know how to punch the hell out of the other guy. Compare to Kerry's campaign, which revolved mostly aroud avoiding getting "too personal," or Gore's campaign, which strove to distance him from the Democratic party.

[muriel_volestrangler]

58. Poll: Partisan Polarization Surges in Bush, Obama Years

As Americans head to the polls this November, their values and basic beliefs are more polarized along partisan lines than at any point in the past 25 years. Unlike in 1987, when this series of surveys began, the values gap between Republicans and Democrats is now greater than gender, age, race or class divides.

Overall, there has been much more stability than change across the 48 political values measures that the Pew Research Center has tracked since 1987. But the average partisan gap has nearly doubled over this 25-year period – from 10 percentage points in 1987 to 18 percentage points in the new study.

Nearly all of the increases have occurred during the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama. During this period, both parties’ bases have often been critical of their parties for not standing up for their traditional positions. Currently, 71% of Republicans and 58% of Democrats say their parties have not done a good job in this regard.
...
In recent years, both parties have become smaller and more ideologically homogeneous. Republicans are dominated by self-described conservatives, while a smaller but growing number of Democrats call themselves liberals. Among Republicans, conservatives continue to outnumber moderates by about two-to-one. And there are now as many liberal Democrats as moderate Democrats.

http://www.people-press.org/2012/06/04/partisan-polarization-surges-in-bush-obama-years/

So it does seem that there is a demand for more separation; but this also seems to be a new thing. Consider that there used to be Eisenhower and Rockefeller Republicans. That 71% of Republicans saying their party doesn't stand for its 'traditional' positions are ignoring that kind of Republican, and concentrating on people like Barry Goldwater, or fringe loons like the John Birch Society, and deciding that is their 'tradition'.

This page goes into more detail about the divide: http://www.people-press.org/2012/06/04/section-1-understanding-the-partisan-divide-over-american-values/ . Democratic shifts have been to become more supportive of immigrants, more concerned about equal opportunities, and less religious; Republicans care far less about a social safety net, and the environment, and hate unions far more than they used to.

It seems to me, however, that most candidates reflect these pretty clearly. If there were still moderate Republicans around, you might have a point - Democratic candidates might look similar to them. But moderate Republicans are like coelacanths - a few of them hidden away, and largely seen as 'living fossils'.

[dtom67]

62. Social and economic

You are correct. Economic policy is not far enough to the left. This is due to corporate corruption of our system.

Democrats are only allowed to have their opinions on social issues because they really do not affect the business world that much.

The proof of corporate ownership of our government is in the so-called carpet-calls we have had for the big banks.
Jamie Dimons' "hearing" was more like walk down the street of a red light district.
" Mr. Dimon, is there anything we can do ..." Whilst smooching his @ss...

or the way that the big bank CEO's said "fuck you " when Obama called them on the carpet? They couldn't be bothered to even show up. He's only the President of the United States.

[flamingdem]

66. I disagree fervently

This meme is a MSM meme and I'm tired of it. It's too easy to get applause from the jaded saying that the parties are the same instead of recognizing the step by step situation we're in -- and especially with kamikaze psychotics on the other side of the isle willing to TAKE DOWN THE WHOLE COUNTRY to win.

[Egalitarian Thug]

70. How very classy. Have the OP banned from his own thread and then continue your rant. n/t

[hfojvt]

72. I think that would help in some ways - hurt in some other ways

If you look at the Senate races http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=890052

More ideological separation is not going to help us win in places like Nebraska, Montana, Missouri, or Virginia. A Democrat NEEDS to blur the distinction in those states in order to win conservative or moderate Republican and independent votes. A Democratic Party that was further to the left would just be an even bigger ball and chain in states like Montana and Nebraska, and even New Mexico and Wisconsin are not THAT liberal.

We are in danger of losing Wisconsin for the Senate because Republicans have a very strong candidate. I personally cannot stand Tommy Thompson, but Wisconsin voters elected him Governor 3 or 4 times and Thompson has, and can raise, lots of money.

In a similar way, I would be interested to see how many Congressional districts Obama won. I bet that in many Congressional districts that we have an uphill battle.

Some of that is because of messaging. The Republican message is pounded so much it is practically like background noise, and our own message, does too often echo them. I was annoyed with both Jean Carnahan (Senator from Missouri) and Dennis Moore (Congressman from Kansas). Both of them ran for re-election in 2002 and said in ads "we voted for the Bush tax cuts". Now, presumably they had to say that because voters in their districts approved of the Bush tax cuts. But as a guy who works on his own to spread the message that "the Bush tax cuts are bad for America" I thought it really sucked to see two Democratic candidates undermining my message.

[mike_c]

76. this is largely what I've been saying since 2000....

Dems should present real alternative visions for an American future, not different flavors of the same security state, corporate business culture, etc.

[coalition_unwilling]

79. As usual, Chomsky nails it:

[Kaleko]

80. ¡ Of course !

And yet we're endlessly dealing with this:

[URL=http://imgur.com/Y01bA][IMG][/IMG][/URL]