"Change we can believe in" could lead to a permanent Democratic majority

[alienlovechild 75]

I didn't say the election hinged on it. I said that she patronised the electorate by trying to crudely divide them into "real" and "fake" americans.

Almost as patronizing as the meaningless "hope and change" mantra but Obama did a better job of peddling his nonsense. Believe me, those buzzwords may haunt Obama more than a forgettable rhetorical flourish from a GOP campaign that never really had a chance.

[HAL 9000 96]

It is a bit of a mystery then. Lets ignore the voters I guess.

[alienlovechild 75]

It is a bit of a mystery then. Lets ignore the voters I guess.

The voters get ignored after the election at least until another election nears.

[HAL 9000 96]

It is a bit of a mystery then. Lets ignore the voters I guess.

The voters get ignored after the election at least until another election nears.

Yet you're ignoring them in the whole 'pandering' business of what is an election campaign up to the moment of declaring a winner in the actual election.

Somehow I will manage to keep my trap shut as to criticizing those politicians that still haven't taken office until they have had some time to get something done.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

In other words - George W. Bush has done enough damage to the GOP's (and this country's) reputation to put the party in the weeds.

McCain didn't exactly help what with his selection of that Palin woman - especially after her antics at the Republican governors' convention where she tried to upstage the others and virtually had to be dragged off the podium by Rick Perry. McCain and his team should take the main blame for picking her, but the racism. the vulgarity and the ignorance of her campaign in which she divided 'other' Americans from 'real' Americans must surely be one of their most shameful moments. I thought the whole gang of them revealed just how far they were prepared to go to lay hands on power and took Roveism about as far as it could go before the public could stand no more. Until Republicans return to their core values, they won't have any respect from me and probably won't win too many elections.

If, as President-elect Obama maintains, things will get worse under his stewardship in the next 2 years before they start getting better, the GOP may not have to do anything in order to win big in the mid-terms and win back the Presidency in 2012. And that is a frightening thought.

Yes. I'm frankly amazed at how much people think Republicans have to "change", blah, blah, blah. If the Democrats fail Pat Robertson could be the the GOP nominee and promise "change back" and the country will follow. If the Democrats succeed, why would people vote for Republicans under a new brand or an old brand?

To a point, I agree. However, I don't think the Republicans can stand firm on some of the notions they've embraced going back to Reagan - the biggest one being that deregulation is best. When Sarah Palin quoted Reagan, that "Government can't solve all our problems and often times is the problem," - the meaning of that in the context of what has happened with the financial institutions, is almost sublime. Yes, the government was in this case the problem by not adequately regulating the market.

I don't see how the GOP could continue trying to sell to the American public that the government messes things up and then they go to Washington with the intent on proving their ineffectiveness.

[alienlovechild 75]

Yet you're ignoring them in the whole 'pandering' business of what is an election campaign up to the moment of declaring a winner in the actual election.

Just the opposite is true as I clearly went over the campaign buzzwords and which ones had the most effect with the electorate.

Somehow I will manage to keep my trap shut as to criticizing those politicians that still haven't taken office until they have had some time to get something done.

Ok, we'll see how you calculate Obama's performance, in what, the first 100 days?

[HAL 9000 96]

Yet you're ignoring them in the whole 'pandering' business of what is an election campaign up to the moment of declaring a winner in the actual election.

Just the opposite is true as I clearly went over the campaign buzzwords and which ones had the most effect with the electorate.

Somehow I will manage to keep my trap shut as to criticizing those politicians that still haven't taken office until they have had some time to get something done.

Ok, we'll see how you calculate Obama's performance, in what, the first 100 days?

Performance based on what?

I'm sure you went over what you think are campaign pandering moves over and over. And I also very clearly delineated that its perhaps not buzzwords that resonated with voters this time around, either. Hence polls picked up on people getting turned off by divisive campaigning more so from the McCain camp than from the Obama camp- whom if you forget, pretty much brushed off divisive politics in favor of something a little more unifying. Plenty of youtube for that if you need a refresher in recent history.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Pretty much what I was saying - the divisive campaigning turned people off.

As it should have done.

[HAL 9000 96]

Pretty much what I was saying - the divisive campaigning turned people off.

As it should have done.

Amen.

[alienlovechild 75]

Performance based on what?

Whatever seems most pressing to the American people and I say the economy is the most prominent issue now. Check ou leading economic indicators and whether Obama is widely credited for any improvement.

I'm sure you went over what you think are campaign pandering moves over and over. And I also very clearly delineated that its perhaps not buzzwords that resonated with voters this time around, either. Hence polls picked up on people getting turned off by divisive campaigning more so from the McCain camp than from the Obama camp- whom if you forget, pretty much brushed off divisive politics in favor of something a little more unifying. Plenty of youtube for that if you need a refresher in recent history.

You're probably right that it wasn't just the campaign slogans but a weak economy, gas prices hikes, the same party in the White House for 8 years and the oldest candidate who didn't generate much enthusiasm even among the GOP. The devisive politics polls are as meaningless as the phony "we are one" theme of the Obama campaign. The idea that anyone who disagrees with Obama is on the outside looking in is a simple "bandwagon" advertising gimmick or a cult of personality we've seen before. Obama could easily take the high road with heavy media backing and big money in his warchest once Hilliary was history. McCain didn't have a clear message to stick it to Obama and didn't really go negative compared to past presidential campaigns. The reality is a lot of people didn't vote and the big increase in voter turnout didn't happen despite Obamamania hype.

[HAL 9000 96]

Performance based on what?

Whatever seems most pressing to the American people and I say the economy is the most prominent issue now. Check ou leading economic indicators and whether Obama is widely credited for any improvement.

I'm sure you went over what you think are campaign pandering moves over and over. And I also very clearly delineated that its perhaps not buzzwords that resonated with voters this time around, either. Hence polls picked up on people getting turned off by divisive campaigning more so from the McCain camp than from the Obama camp- whom if you forget, pretty much brushed off divisive politics in favor of something a little more unifying. Plenty of youtube for that if you need a refresher in recent history.

You're probably right that it wasn't just the campaign slogans but a weak economy, gas prices hikes, the same party in the White House for 8 years and the oldest candidate who didn't generate much enthusiasm even among the GOP. The devisive politics polls are as meaningless as the phony "we are one" theme of the Obama campaign. The idea that anyone who disagrees with Obama is on the outside looking in is a simple "bandwagon" advertising gimmick or a cult of personality we've seen before. Obama could easily take the high road with heavy media backing and big money in his warchest once Hilliary was history. McCain didn't have a clear message to stick it to Obama and didn't really go negative compared to past presidential campaigns. The reality is a lot of people didn't vote and the big increase in voter turnout didn't happen despite Obamamania hype.

Sure- and do you really think that 100 days will be enough to reverse the course the economy has been taking for a much longer time frame under the current administration? Lets use temporal parity.

Obama's positive slogans did work. All I'm thinking is that people (voters) are tired of cheap divisive politics being plaid- specially while the country is IN a crisis.

With or without humongous voter turnout- enough voted in very significant amounts for Obama.

[alienlovechild 75]

Sure- and do you really think that 100 days will be enough to reverse the course the economy has been taking for a much longer time frame under the current administration? Lets use temporal parity.

I didn't make it up. That's how long the "honeymoon" period typically is for a president and does your temporal parity mean we must 8 years to give a verdict to be equal with Bush? Bush didn't have a honeymoon at all in 2000.

Obama's positive slogans did work. All I'm thinking is that people (voters) are tired of cheap divisive politics being plaid- specially while the country is IN a crisis.

With or without humongous voter turnout- enough voted in very significant amounts for Obama.

There's a sucker born every minute and Obama did a better job in getting them to vote this time around. I like the way now you're crediting the slogans and bandwagon appeal for Obama's victory without mentioning any other factor.

Obama won what 52% of the vote- that's not "very significant" but enough all the same.

[HAL 9000 96]

Sure- and do you really think that 100 days will be enough to reverse the course the economy has been taking for a much longer time frame under the current administration? Lets use temporal parity.

I didn't make it up. That's how long the "honeymoon" period typically is for a president and does your temporal parity mean we must 8 years to give a verdict to be equal with Bush? Bush didn't have a honeymoon at all in 2000.

Obama's positive slogans did work. All I'm thinking is that people (voters) are tired of cheap divisive politics being plaid- specially while the country is IN a crisis.

With or without humongous voter turnout- enough voted in very significant amounts for Obama.

There's a sucker born every minute and Obama did a better job in getting them to vote this time around. I like the way now you're crediting the slogans and bandwagon appeal for Obama's victory without mentioning any other factor.

Obama won what 52% of the vote- that's not "very significant" but enough all the same.

Yes, everyone here knows what those 100 days are all about.

I assume you'll find some equally incongruous comparison to criticize where there is little to criticize. Bush has his record and his Presidency was assumed under different circumstances, need you be reminded of that too?

52% of the vote was significant enough given the present circumstances and the resulting electoral college map. Like I said- enough did. But we could compare numbers once again. Obama's first term election results got him 52% in favor. What was Gore's % in the 2000 election?

[Danno 1,228]

For the people who elected Obama and the increased Democratic majority, “change we can believe in” isn’t about bailouts for corporations and banks. It isn't about wearing American flag pins on your lapel while the military budget continues to escalate and bankers and corporate CEO’s wine and dine. “Change we can believe in” isn’t about a spruced up version of trickle down theory or the same policies behind a fresh face in the White House.

It is about reversing and repealing the policies that have both led to the immediate financial crisis and looming global depression. It is about ending the post-World War II policies that led to the long-term stagnation and decline of the labor movement. It is about creating a national public health care program more than 50 years after it was established in other major industrial nations, and handling a national debt which has increased 10 times since Ronald Reagan became president in 1981.

A “single payer” national health system – known as “socialized medicine” in the rest of the developed world – should be an essential part of the change that the core constituencies which elected Obama desperately need. Britain serves as an important political lesson for strategists. After the Labor Party established the National Health Service after World War II, supposedly conservative workers and low-income people under religious and other influences who tended to support the Conservatives were much more likely to vote for the Labor Party when health care, social welfare, education and pro-working class policies were enacted by labor-supported governments.

In addition, passing the Employee Free Choice Act to make joining a union easier and to expand the base of union voters who supported Obama by nearly 50 points on Nov. 4 seems only logical. It would also provide a massive boost for working families struggling with stagnant incomes, high health care costs, retirement costs and job insecurity.

The best way to win over the the portion of the working class in the South or the West that supported McCain and the Republicans is to create important new public programs and improve the social safety net. National health care, significantly higher minimum wages, support for trade union organizing, aid to education should all be on the agenda. These programs will improve the quality of our lives lives directly, giving us greater security and establishing the social economic changes that will bring reluctant voters into the Obama coalition. That is how progress works.

The right-wing propaganda machine will scream socialism, and that is also a good thing. Because the more socialism comes to be identified with real policies that raise the standard of living and improve the quality of life for the working class and the whole people, the more socialism will be looked at seriously. A stronger left that follows the tradition of the Communist Party in its unbreakable commitment to a socialist future and to educating people about the value and necessity of socialist policies in the present could follow.

<a href="http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/7722/" target="_blank">http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/7722/</a>

Had Obama only listened and followed this advice, all would be secure.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Had Obama only listened and followed this advice, all would be secure.

Nah. Obama the Socialist had to keep playing the divisive and class card over and over to even have a hope of winning. The only way to win elections is to go for the independents. The independents only go for who ever offers them the most. The Neocons kept offering lower taxes so they went for that. Now the Neocons can't offer that as the deficit is too high so the Socialists have learned to stop talking taxes but they are the tax and spend party so they decided to make the regular business person that higher s most of the workers in this country out to be a bad man. They made sure to say over and over that there will be NO middle class taxes but only tax the rich. The independents ate it up thinking they were going to get health care but not pay for it for all and the bad man was going to get milked and raped. They are going to get it but all off a sudden they saw that their health care bill was going to be a lot higher. Taxes were being bandied about as needed and so on.

Now the resurgent GOP pulls out the non tax pledge and talks of reducing the Fed again like they did before and failed to do and again the independents ate it up believing it. The only thing I suspect is that both parties have learned to only cater to the independents by offering them the most.