Why is the Democratic Party Leaning so Far Left/Progressive? (health care system, vote)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Go take a look at what just happened in Canada. Turns out that far left does appeal to folks quite a bit. Bernie sanders running is one of the few non-corporate options. And in a way in many of the discussions on CD here thats what have warned about with the rise of inequality. The far left candidates will become immensely popular.
Go take a look at what just happened in Canada. Turns out that far left does appeal to folks quite a bit. Bernie sanders running is one of the few non-corporate options. And in a way in many of the discussions on CD here thats what have warned about with the rise of inequality. The far left candidates will become immensely popular.
The United States has never been as far left as Canada, and comparing the two does an injustice to the conversation at hand.
I think that calling someone an ideologue as an insult when you disagree with them is childish.
Also the Bill Clinton argument doesnt work simply because you are wrong. Democrats were already the majority in congress when Clinton took office.
President Obama carried more Democrats than Clinton and won a much larger share of the popular vote. If anything, being more progressive was the way to go, not more centrist.
The economy tanked and he was poised to become the first black candidate. 2008, and 2012 to a lesser degree, were all about identity politics, not the real issues.
Remember how Mitt Romney was framed as an old, white, out-of-touch 1%er? Is Hillary not the same thing?
The economy tanked and he was poised to become the first black candidate. 2008, and 2012 to a lesser degree, were all about identity politics, not the real issues.
Remember how Mitt Romney was framed as an old, white, out-of-touch 1%er? Is Hillary not the same thing?
Identity politics may not have been everything in both elections, but there is no doubt it played a very large part in both, that's for sure.
But of the two, 2008 was the most remarkable and singular of our lifetimes; for the very first time, now matter who won, America would either have a woman or a person of color in one of the 2 topmost offices in our government. That was a true first for both, and now, electing a woman for President is no longer a thought that is an impossibility.
Mitt wasn't the only nominee who was framed as old, white, and out of touch. McCain was also framed as exactly the same, and if anything, got it worse than Mitt. By the election, out here in the west, I was seeing McCain-Palin signs with Palin's name on top, above McCain's! It seemed to me that a good share of the conservatives out here were hoping McCain would die on the job if elected! McCain's age became a more important issue than everything else.
That, too, is a first. Other Presidents have faced sudden challenges from their chosen Vice Presidential candidates, but I have never seen one in my lifetime face a mutiny within their ranks once they were nominated by their party's convention. The Republican party went with their nominee, but there was no joy in their hearts in either 2008 or 2012 for their guy.
Just as there wasn't any joy in Democratic hearts for John Kerry in 2004, a year when Democratic outrage with the sitting President was just as high as the Republican outrage has been with Obama. Bush was far from invincible in 2004. The Democrats simply failed to present their best candidate.
Every Presidential election is a crap shoot. Landslides have been the rare exception throughout our history, never the rule.
Our nomination process is slow, lengthy, convoluted, expensive, and not at all suited to the fast pace of our modern world. But I don't expect it to change in my lifetime.
This far away, anything anyone says is just as valid as anything someone else says. The only thing about our 21st century elections that has become predictable is their unpredictability.
I assume the OP is both young and uneducated. The Democratic Party hasn't been progressive/left since FDR.
This is what happens when you let talk radio teach you history and civics.
Many of President Obama's initiatives have been very progressive and even hard-left. No other president has every put forward such a radical restructuring of the health care industry as did Obama who pushed it forward on a party line basis. He's been pushing hard for radically changing the labor laws in this country, and has actually changed the rules in favor of unions in the NLRB. He's a big advocate for expanded government presence in schools, as well as in the bedroom with his push for free prophylactics as well as promoting the courts to legislate same sex marriage, instead of leaving it to the state legislatures. He actually accomplished increasing tax rates both in income tax as well as the death tax.
You can like Obama's actions, or dislike them, but there is no denying that they have been uniformly hard left and progressive, even with a minor amount of push back from the loyal opposition in Congress (which FDR didn't have).
Many of President Obama's initiatives have been very progressive and even hard-left. No other president has every put forward such a radical restructuring of the health care industry as did Obama who pushed it forward on a party line basis. He's been pushing hard for radically changing the labor laws in this country, and has actually changed the rules in favor of unions in the NLRB. He's a big advocate for expanded government presence in schools, as well as in the bedroom with his push for free prophylactics as well as promoting the courts to legislate same sex marriage, instead of leaving it to the state legislatures. He actually accomplished increasing tax rates both in income tax as well as the death tax.
You can like Obama's actions, or dislike them, but there is no denying that they have been uniformly hard left and progressive, even with a minor amount of push back from the loyal opposition in Congress (which FDR didn't have).
Obama has (marginally) slowed our steady march to the right (and toward feudalism) that's been going on since the early 80's. He's not even remotely 'left' compared to the rest of the developed world.
For instance, Obamacare is based on a model initially proposed by the Heritage Foundation as an alternative to single-payer. Please look it up and educate yourself.
How are Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton any different from FDR?
Oh ... My. You really have no idea what a real progressive actually is, do you? Probably you're very young. That must be it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
