Let us be realistic, ladies and gentlemen. Suppose Romney wore a Swaztika to a rally TOMORROW

[Zalatix]

and said "we'll get rid of the poor, disabled, unemployed and minority problem".

How many independent voters do you REALLY think he would lose if he said that today?

What do you think the mainstream media would do?

I'm not really sure anymore that he would be ruined for such a move.


I have been getting out the vote for a month now and I was mainly doing it for California. In retrospect I was poorly uninformed about the rest of the country. We Dems have it good in California. The rest of the nation? Let's just say I've been getting educated on the fact that many other parts of America is not doing as well. I mean, we're winning, yeah, but nothing remotely close to the margins that you would expect from a rational populace.

For the first time in many years I'm actually scared. The 47% remark should have meant the collapse of all independent support for Romney. The media did get that meme out. The political atmosphere was full of flammable gas and the spark was struck. There was just no Earth shattering kaboom.

Now I'm not going to despair and freeze up. I just don't know what the fuck to do. People around ME are horrified at Romney. People I talk to at a distance in Middle America... not so much. I don't know what could reach these people. They're not die hard Republicans, those people I have already written off. It's the people who remain confused even after being informed of the absolute madness of the GOP that's taking the starch out of my legs. There's got to be some way we can reach them.

We're not going to get the media to clean up its act until the people themselves regain a moral compass and a solid concept of right, wrong and downright atrocious.

What do we do? Any ideas? I'm stumped.

[RagAss]

1. The average IQ is 100.

[Care Acutely]

16. And amazingly, about half are less than that!

Yer preddy funny

[Revolutionary Girl]

2. I agree about the 47%.

That should've been the end of this election. A politically suicidal statement behind closed doors that was given plenty of publicity play. In any sane world, that would've been Romney's moment of self-immolation.

Well, it's just a testament to how dumb people really are that it didn't happen that way.

[loyalsister]

12. Sadly it's not always stupidity

There are a lot of people who think like romney. Especially those who feel like they have been threatened economically. To some extent they have. But for some, the anger manifests in greed. It feels better to hate people who are powerless than those who screwed them over in the first place. They like the idea of a president who shares that sense of greed.
It's tempting to believe that the response to the economic disaster has been universal, but it hasn't. Things are way more complicated than if these guys screw someone over they will automatically side with the other team. People are more complicated than that. It's not stupidity, it's emotionally driven.

[still_one]

3. I know we like to believe people do not think critically, but for the most part they would not

Support them

[ruffburr]

4. Ok so I'm not alone-

I have been thinking this about the whole right wing, The similarities are enough to give one chills

[man4allcats]

5. Doesn't Robme always wear a swastika? I thought he did.

The problem is you're assuming "a rational populace." I hate to keep harping on the same thing I've been harping on all night, but the truth is this country's gone to intellectual hell. The satire/documentary movie Idiocracy tells the tale.

[Zalatix]

10. I'd like to call it Idiocracy, but that doesn't explain why these same people jump on Obama

for the slightest PERCEIVED gaffe.

Idiocracy implies the electorate just doesn't care either way. In reality they don't care if Romney fucks up, but if the media gets a bug up their Plutocracy-funded butts and declares that Obama fucked up, suddenly they care.

[man4allcats]

14. You make a valid point.

The media sucks it up every time it's to their benefit to do so. They are bought and paid for.

[SmileyRose]

6. he could slaughter baby and at worst it will

Cost him 3-5%. He'll break 45% of the final popular vote no matter what.

[limpyhobbler]

7. I think the Democrat needs to have a more populist economic program so people see a clear choice.

To draw a clear difference, be more on the side of the the working class.

The Dem should have more different policies from Republicans on a few things. Like "free trade" deals, guest worker programs, clear support for labor, clear defense of programs like Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid, a New Deal WPA-style jobs program, guaranteed full employment, a living wage for all, and Medicare for all.

With these policies then those people "at a distance in Middle America" would appreciate it more.

It's pretty easy to blame the people and say they need to "regain a moral compass and a solid concept of right, wrong and downright atrocious." If we want to put back together an FDR-style, New Deal coalition, then we need to have that type of economic populist policy. It's too easy to just say they're too stupid to vote for Democrats.

Racism and homophobia are also a problem. But clear populist economic policies are the best way to combat the hateful alternatives.

[Zalatix]

11. You have some very good points.

I am not sure if that would jar people out of their funk, but I sure as hell would love to see everything you pointed out, embedded into the Democratic Party line. And I don't mean just thrown out there as a promise, but actually made good upon once we capture both the White House and Congress.

[loyalsister]

13. Seems like a good formula

But, after decades of cultivating hate for people who have anything to do with government assistance, I find it difficult to believe that some of the people who need it most would respond. So many people are blind with anger and the best measure we have is the lack of outrage at the 47% comment.

From my experiences talking to people who are middle class and below, I really believe that anger at banksters and wall st. has been redirected toward anyone who fits the stereotype that has been identified by mitt and the republicans for decades. What better way to pay the spite forward than to support someone who they know will screw people less fortunate, whose lives seem not to have changed as much over. See, some of the elderly and disabled didn't have as much to lose and therefore have weathered this thing out better than middle class. We are the obvious targets.

This is a totally different time. We can't undo the damage republicans have done to the American psyche. Even if it was present after the depression, it could not be mobilized the way it can be now. Hate can be organized and mobilized in today's world. I also do think there were more people who cared about their neighbors than there are now. Thus FDR's 4 terms.
I don't know what the solutions are, but I think it will take more creativity and possibly more time before people will accept anything resembling what we saw succeed in the past.

[Zalatix]

15. We've been there before... twice.

First there was Jay "I can pay half the working class to kill the other half" Gould, in the Gilded Age. Then there was mass hypnosis, carried out in Germany.

This situation smacks of both, leaning more toward mass hypnosis. At least Jay Gould had to pay one half to fight the other half; this time around the Plutocracy's help is happily unpaid.

[limpyhobbler]

17. I'm not really particularly outraged at that 47% thing.

That's always been the view of the Republicans so it's just their position. Yes their whole shtick is outrageous, but that's just what they are and everybody already knows it. So it's not really a new outrage.

Like you said or implied, the real problem is that a lot of people actually identify and agree with what Romney said about the 47%. People think they are in 53%.

People are complex. So it's not like there is a simple answer to how to address that problem.

But in my view, to some degree, the cause is that the liberals have abandoned the economic interests of the middle class and working class. Liberals have taken the position that everybody should get an equal opportunity, that everybody should have the opportunity to make the most of their God-given talent.

But at some point liberals abandoned the ideas of the New Deal and the Great Society, the idea that we ought to collectively provision for the general welfare, the idea that people ought to be free from economic fears in their daily lives.

It may have actually been necessary to retreat from those positions, because it was clear in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s that it was not a winning position. The Republicans had adopted a successful "southern strategy" that used racism and other cultural values(guns, god, homophobia, abortions) to wedge apart the working class/middle class coalition that had comprised the Democratic Party from 1932-1968.

Maybe to some extent we had to retreat from class-based economic populism in order to address other pressing and important issues first: racial equality, women's rights, secular humanism, and gay rights.

At this juncture, we should go ahead and start putting back together the working class coalition by taking on these economic populist issues once again. There is still racism and all the other intolerance. But there is certainly less racism and homophobia now than there was in 1932 or 1968. Maybe people will care more about their neighbors once it is clear that we are dedicated to building a more caring society. One where we value collectively providing for the general welfare ahead of protecting the private profits of wealthy individuals.

What you said also made sense, I'm not discounting the issues you raised, but there are just alot of different angles and facets to issues and stuff.

[Zalatix]

18. The party has shifted to the right, and declared the Left a bunch of loonies, alarmists, what-have-u

How we managed to rationalize a difference between working class issues and civil rights, I don't know.

MLK Jr. was assassinated because he was turning toward fighting for workers' rights. Hell, the African American community sits on the ready to mobilize if the Democratic Party were to go back to war for workers' rights. My family is black and Latino and I know the LATINO community is ready to mobilize, too. We just need a party that will totally stand up for the working class.

Your analysis is really spot-on, in my opinion. Are we in this mess because both parties have abandoned the working class? You could argue that. I certainly don't see how we could NOT benefit by taking a hardline stance for policies that mandate livable wages and better working conditions, not to mention a complete renegotiation of ALL trade policies and agreements.

First, though, we have to define populism. Populism comes in many forms, not all of which are good.

[lonestarnot]

8. It is really stumpifying.

I don't fucking know. It's downright creepy.

[mucifer]

9. It's sooo ugly that money is "free speech"

money that we should be giving to true charities is going to the political industrial complex and they still have way more than us.

[porphyrian]

19. The idea that a significant number of voters are still undecided is ludicrous.

It is a lie being perpetuated by the media, who has a profit motive for making the election seem closer than it actually is. Don't believe it. Anyone who is still undecided is just as likely to miss voting on Election Day because they forgot. The voters that matter know who they will be voting for, and record numbers have already cast their votes.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. If He Really Did That His Support Would Drop To Around Thirty Percent

Ninety percent of Republican office holders would abandon him. Don't forget George H W Bush supported Edwin Edwards (D) when he ran for governor against Klansman, David Duke (R).