Franklin Delano Roosevelt won the Presidency 4 times running on a progessive economic platform.

[bemildred]

A Constitutional amendment was passed to keep it from happening again. The first "term limits".

[Drale]

1. And FDR did not have to deal with a Media empire who's

goal is the turn the country right wing. People voted with their own interests in mind back then, Union workers voted for pro union candidates and stuff like that and that does not happen anymore.

[DJ13]

3. I dont know, many newspapers were pretty much rightwing back then

Pre TV they had as much importance as the cable news channels now.

[Drale]

6. It is far harder to indoctrinate someone with a newspaper that comes out once a day

With the 24 news cycle its far to easy for the right wing to make people believe what they want them to. Its 100% true that if you hear something enough you will start to believe it to be true.

[jefferson_dem]

9. Nowhere near true.

While the papers were very partisan, they were read primarily by community "opinion leaders". Politics were party-driven. Our culture today is saturated by mediated noise. There are millions of voices on the media channels, and highly-loaded (dis)information is easily disseminated to those who are not even seeking it out.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

4. Well, there was the Hearst press. Although today's monopolies would either give him a huge

woody of envy.

[bemildred]

5. The hell he did not. nt

[xchrom]

2. Recommend

[jefferson_dem]

7. You do realize he first won the presidency 79 years ago, right?

That political-social-economic-technological-informational-demographic world is literally unrecognizable by today's standards. These comparisons are beyond silly. Please stop.

[bemildred]

8. You do realize if it happened once, then it could happen again, right?

Empirical evidence is much more convincing than hypothetical fear, please stop.

[jefferson_dem]

12. What exactly is "it" that is possible?

You're offering historical, not empirical, evidence.

If you want to discuss observable realities of TODAY, fine. Start with acknowledgment that what was true in American politics 80 years ago probably doesn't carry much weight today.

[bemildred]

14. Winning on a progessive, even a "radical" economic platform?

And thereby saving the country?

[jefferson_dem]

16. Oh.

Why would you even think Obama would run on a "radical" platform? Not his style (thank goodness). Have you not been paying attention since 2004?

Besides, Democrats/Liberals are firmly in Obama's camp. It's Independents that are up for grabs.

[bemildred]

19. I think he could. Whether he will remains to be seen.

At this point, I would guess not.

[ProSense]

10. FDR also

focused on defict reduction

<...>

FDR’s initial response to the Great Depression provides an interesting case in point, for Roosevelt came into office as something of a fiscal conservative. In keeping with the fiscal orthodoxy of the time, he called for a balanced budget during his campaign, was reluctant to deficit spend once in office, and even pressed for the successful passage of the 1933 Economy Act as one of his first major pieces of legislation-an act which cut federal spending by nearly 250 million dollars during the first months of his administration.

<...>

Further evidence of FDR’s inherent fiscal conservatism can be seen in his decision to cut federal spending at the start of his second term-a move which resulted in the so called “Roosevelt recession” of 1937-38 and which led to the first increase in the unemployment rate since his assumption of office in 1933. Stunned by this unfortunate turn of events, FDR began to heed the advice of those who advocated the economic policies of John Maynard Keynes. In 1938, therefore, the President would submit a budget that called for an increase in federal spending but without any concomitant increase in federal taxes. The resulting deficit, the President argued, was necessary to enhance “the purchasing power of the nation” so as to expand the economy-and the tax revenues that would flow from it-and reduce unemployment.

<...>

And here we are nearly eight decades later lauding his other achievements.

[bemildred]

11. Well, like I said elsewhere, it's around 1932 now, or maybe 1931.

Obama could still come around and kick some ass, I can't tell.

[jeff47]

21. You might wanna read that quote a little more carefully....

"In 1938, therefore, the President would submit a budget that called for an increase in federal spending but without any concomitant increase in federal taxes. The resulting deficit, the President argued, was necessary to enhance “the purchasing power of the nation”"

Running up a deficit is a really bad way to focus on deficit reduction.

[ProSense]

22. Hmmmm?

"In 1938, therefore, the President would submit a budget that called for an increase in federal spending but without any concomitant increase in federal taxes. The resulting deficit, the President argued, was necessary to enhance “the purchasing power of the nation”"


And in 1933 and 1937? Here, you may want to read it "a little more carefully"

<...>

FDR’s initial response to the Great Depression provides an interesting case in point, for Roosevelt came into office as something of a fiscal conservative. In keeping with the fiscal orthodoxy of the time, he called for a balanced budget during his campaign, was reluctant to deficit spend once in office, and even pressed for the successful passage of the 1933 Economy Act as one of his first major pieces of legislation-an act which cut federal spending by nearly 250 million dollars during the first months of his administration.

<...>

Further evidence of FDR’s inherent fiscal conservatism can be seen in his decision to cut federal spending at the start of his second term-a move which resulted in the so called “Roosevelt recession” of 1937-38 and which led to the first increase in the unemployment rate since his assumption of office in 1933. Stunned by this unfortunate turn of events, FDR began to heed the advice of those who advocated the economic policies of John Maynard Keynes. In 1938, therefore, the President would submit a budget that called for an increase in federal spending but without any concomitant increase in federal taxes. The resulting deficit, the President argued, was necessary to enhance “the purchasing power of the nation” so as to expand the economy-and the tax revenues that would flow from it-and reduce unemployment.

<...>

[jeff47]

23. Yes, FDR realized focusing on deficit reduction was stupid. So he changed course

He got talked back into it in 1937, economy tanked, so he dropped deficit reduction as a terrible idea.

Then WWII happened, the mother of all deficit spending, and the economy boomed.

FDR figured out that focusing on deficit reduction was a mistake. Obama hasn't figured that out yet. Saying "FDR made the same mistake" is not a good thing. It demonstrates inability to learn from history.

[theaocp]

13. ...and Obama's hero is Reagan.

FDR comparisons are lacking weight.

[bemildred]

15. Well, it's true Obama has talked more about Lincoln.

But I would prefer not to do the Civil War over again, even if Obama disagrees. He was supposed to be uniting us and all that.

[ClarkUSA]

17. That's false; e.g., unlike Hillary, he never listed Reagan as a favorite President on his website.

However, President Obama praised Reagan's communication skills but never his policies:
http://www.newser.com/story/16799/dems-slam-obamas-praise-for-reagan.html

DLC Hillary, on the other hand, was a cheerleading Young Republican who campaigned with Reagan to elect Barry Goldwater:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=727588&mesg_id=728178

As a Young Republican, Hillary also attended the 1968 Republican convention when she was almost 21. When she ran for President,
she even listed Reagan as one of her favorite presidents: http://www.newser.com/story/16799/dems-slam-obamas-praise-for-reagan.html

[bemildred]

20. True. nt

[jefferson_dem]

18. Now you're just making shit up.

Fail.

[JoePhilly]

24. Putting Japensse Americans in camps was very Progressve.

Oh wait ... when we think about FDR, we must never think about his mistakes. That ruins the mythology.

Kind of like how the GOP has created a mythical Reagan.

[bemildred]

25. I am not that big a fan of FDRs, but he did get elected 4 times, on a progressive economic platform?

It can happen, yes?