"Why Democrats Are So Confident"

[applegrove]

Why Democrats Are So Confident

By Ronald Brownstein at the National Journal

http://www.nationaljournal.com/political-connections/why-democrats-are-so-confident-20140702

"SNIP........................


Reversing their frequent ambivalence after the 1960s, Democrats are now following their president into an unswerving embrace of cultural and demographic change. That shift reverberates through Obama's defiant recent pledges to act unilaterally if necessary to ensure equal workplace treatment of gays, protect undocumented immigrants, confront climate change, and overcome the Hobby Lobby decision allowing religious-based private companies to exclude contraception from their health insurance plans.

Some disagreement has persisted, but Democrats have unified around this agenda far more than on similar questions earlier. Even red-state Democratic senators facing reelection, such as Arkansas's Mark Pryor and Alaska's Mark Begich, quickly condemned the Hobby Lobby decision. No Senate Democrat last year voted against either immigration reform or legislation prohibiting employers from discriminating against gay workers; only four dissented on universal background checks for gun purchases.

In mirror image, Republicans are solidifying against these ideas. Not only red-state but also swing-state Republicans uniformly praised the Hobby Lobby decision. Though some GOP senators sided with Obama, House Republicans have blocked action with little dissent on immigration reform, workplace protections for gays, and universal background checks. House and Senate Republicans uniformly decry Obama's climate initiatives.

The risk for Republicans is that on each of these conflicts, polls show Obama's position represents majority opinion today—and that majority will likely grow because the groups that generally support his views most are increasing as a share of voters.




.......................SNIP"

[Dawson Leery]

1. k/r

[Anansi1171]

2. G. O. T. V. !-nt

[Thinkingabout]

3. I can not say when the RW will wake up and realize they havecand still are painting themselves in a

Corner but if nothing else there will come a day the ones holding to their beliefs will nit be around and the inability to win elections will end their rule. Some are calling for changes but the TP has buried themselves deep into the party. The TP can not win alone, the libertarians can not win alone, the Dixiecrats can not win alone and this leaves them with a fractured party.

On the other hand the Democrats are going to have to pull together, elect Democrats on every level in order to regain control of the Congress and as the conservative side of the SC leaves they can be replaced with strong judges who does not make decisions like the Hobby Lobby.

[ffr]

25. +1 GOTV & elect Dems at every level. Seek them out on the ballot!

"...On the other hand the Democrats are going to have to pull together, elect Democrats on every level in order to regain control of the Congress..."

[nomorenomore08]

4. On the one hand, informed criticism of the President and party is always valid (and necessary).

On the other hand, it's pretty clear that the two parties stand on opposite sides RE: cultural and demographic change.

[Armstead]

9. But not so much on issues of Money and Power, unfortunately

[nomorenomore08]

10. True. They are certainly too close together on economics and foreign policy. n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

13. I beg to differ ...

There are real and substantive differences in the Democratic (versus the republican) approach(es) to addressing these issues. For example, on economics, Democrats favor job creation, income increasing and banking regulation (to name a few), whereas the republicans do not. Regarding foreign relations, Democrats favor a sensible winding down of U.S. foreign aggression; whereas, the republicans are all war, everywhere.

To deny this is to deny the actual positions of the parties.

[nomorenomore08]

14. Sure there are important differences. I just wish that the Dems would highlight those differences

more than they do at times - if nothing else, it would help them electorally.

[1StrongBlackMan]

15. I think they do ...

and will. They just seem to be out-shouted by those "Democrats" saying that the two parties are essentially the same.

[nomorenomore08]

16. If Hillary is the nominee, I'm crossing my fingers she makes a decisive move to the left.

But we'll see...

[1StrongBlackMan]

17. Well ...

I think HRC is farther to the left than most are willing to give her credit ... Her healthcare Reform Plan was.

[nomorenomore08]

18. To me, she's basically a moderate who can be pulled left or right depending on the issue

and depending on who's doing the pulling.

[1StrongBlackMan]

20. LOL ...

Agreed.

[AndyTiedye]

22. We Don't Get to Do That On TV

I just wish that the Dems would highlight those differences
more than they do at times - if nothing else, it would help them electorally.

The Tee Vee only wants to see Democrats who talk and act like Republicans.
Real Democrats don't get airplay.

[nomorenomore08]

23. Correct. Everybody has to conform to the "mushy middle" (which is really more center-right). n/t

[Armstead]

19. Words versus actions and policies

When people like Larry Summers, Robert Rubin and Jeff Imelt and Alan Greenspan are seen by the Democratic establishment as gurus of economic policy, that doesn't say a whole lot for any fundamental differences.

When a Democratic President appoints a lobbyist associated with one of the worst abusers (Comcast) to guard the media and Internet henhouse, that's not a whole lot different than something Mitt Romney would do.

I agree with the Democrats and Obama on a lot of things. But whenever push comes to shove, they also give more to the wealthy and to powerful corporations than to the larger public interest.

[1StrongBlackMan]

21. First ...

Summers, Rubin, Imelt and Greenspan, were (past tense) seen as gurus of economic policy ... none of whom play much of a role in the President current economic plans and initiatives (other than a "this is what I'm thinking ... what do you think&quot .

When a Democratic President appoints a lobbyist associated with one of the worst abusers (Comcast) to guard the media and Internet henhouse, that's not a whole lot different than something Mitt Romney would do.

I so dislike that form of argumentation ... I order to argue that you must believe that people take private sector jobs as a political statement. Wouldn't another way to view that appointment be: President Obama appointed a highly knowledgeable, highly effective manager to head up industry regulators?

I agree with the Democrats and Obama on a lot of things. But whenever push comes to shove, they also give more to the wealthy and to powerful corporations than to the larger public interest.

Agreed ... and that will only change when we get a significantly MORE partisan, Democratic Congress ... but that is unlikely to happen because history has shown (with this President) Democrats have an aversion to partisan showings.

[Armstead]

26. Second..

Actions like appointing people who are knee deep in an industry (including previously representing the interests of a particular company Comcast that is now being reviewed for approval of a major monopolistic major merger plan) goes beyond mere expertise. It is a blatant conflict of interest -- or at the very least extremely unseemly and inappropriate. There are plenty of people with expertise and backgrounds representing the public interest who could have been chosen instead.

Rubin and his ilk are still greasing the wheels for these "free trade and raid" deals, pulling strings behind the curtain.

Democrats, including frustrated ones -- do make partisan showings. Overall Democrats got more votes for the House last time than Republicans, but we're currently stuck with gerrymandering that gives the GOP an artificial edge in representation, no matter how many Democrats vote.

[Iliyah]

5. Ya'think what the GOPers are doing now and since 2009 was bad, nope.

2010 was a mere sample. 2014 as you can see will be worse and now GOPers have HL vs. Women on their side.

[AndyTiedye]

24. They Don't Care What the People Outside Their Gerrymandered Districts Think, They Don't Have To!

[riqster]

6. GOTFV!

[blkmusclmachine]

7. Ah, "campaign promises." Evaporates on impact.

Poof!

[JDPriestly]

8. K&R for the OP. Did not read the article.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

11. Ever notice the concept of Democrats being POPULAR is treated as a curiosity by the media?

[C Moon]

12. Hence, the GOP wants to pour more money into Benghazi.

I'm sure with the millions the GOP is proposing, they can find someone to create a great lie.

[4139]

27. Didn't see this here yet, but why we should be smiling:

The 7 states where Libertarians could swing control of the Senate
http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/07/07/the-7-states-where-libertarians-could-swing-control-of-the-senate/