You want Democrats to shift left? Start with the ignorant American people

[TonyMontana]

Poll: Majority Reject Evolution

'Obama Is Muslim' -- Poll Says That More People Believe It

Young Americans shaky on geographic smarts

Just why can't 1 in 5 Americans find America on a map?

Percentage of Americans Believing Iraq had WMD Rises (In 2006)

More Americans “Pro-Life” Than “Pro-Choice” for First Time

Poll: Fewer Americans support stricter gun control laws

Capital Punishment's Constant Constituency: An American Majority

In U.S., Two-Thirds Continue to Support Death Penalty

Poll suggests political consequences from U.S. healthcare deal

Poll: 51 Percent of Americans More Afraid of Government Making Health-Care Decisions than Private Insurance Companies

U.S. Teens Trail Peers Around World on Math-Science Test

Poll: By two-to-one Americans oppose new oil, natural gas industry taxes

Poll Reveals Most Americans Don't Know They Got a Tax Cut

Only 12 percent of the public say that the Obama administration has lowered their taxes

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37423674/">Poll: Americans stressed out by debt

American adults getting fatter

Study shows more Americans taking prescription drugs

Gallup: Americans’ Global Warming Concerns Continue to Drop

Poll: Support for Arizona Immigration Law Hits 57 Percent

More people believe in haunted houses than other mystical ideas

The reason Democrats can't actually get majorities in Congress (especially in the Senate) is because a number of Democrats are forced to take conservative stances on liberal issues, lest they lose their seats.

I don't blame the Democrats for nothing getting done. I blame the ignorant, uninformed, apathetic American voter. Frankly, I'm shocked Obama was able to get as much done as he did so far. And yet it's looking like in a month or so, Americans will put the people responsible for this giant mess back in power, only 2 years in. Because people are impatient, spoiled, and dumb. They're like little children, wanting everything to be rosy right now or else they'll throw a temper tantrum.

If you're asking me how to fix the problem, I don't know how.

[Edweird]

1. BS. Americans embrace left policies - you just can't point out that they are 'left'.

How many times did FDR get re-elected? Even now, how do teabaggers feel about cuts to social security?

[Greyhound]

7. +01

[LoZoccolo]

20. FDR?

Wasn't that over sixty years ago?

And wouldn't it actually be more right wing for them to get upset that the money that they paid into Social Security is going to something else and not back to them?

[Marr]

23. How would that be "more right wing"?

It's a complaint about a socialist policy being undercut, not a demand to dismantle the program and privatize it. That would be right wing, and that idea was thoroughly rejected by the country (including the Republican base) when Bush Jr. tried to advance it.

[LoZoccolo]

26. Because right-wingers usually want to keep their money?

Rather than give it to other people through the government? You know, because they've been paying in to Social Security through their paychecks? So they want it back rather than having it spent on other things?

[Marr]

34. You're saying that people who want their Social Security payments are

expressing a right-wing sentiment?

The right-wing position would be demanding Social Security be dismantled or cut, not that it be efficiently administered.

[LoZoccolo]

36. You're saying that right-wingers would rather let the government have the money

that they've already taken for years under the guise that it would be paid back later, and not repay after they've spent it on other things, many of which right-wingers disapprove of?

A right-winger might not want a program like Social Security to begin with, but they're also not going to want the government to run away with the money that they said they'd give back eventually if they've been obliged to give a portion of their paycheck for years.

[LoZoccolo]

27. Because right-wingers usually want to keep their money?

Rather than give it to other people through the government? You know, because they've been paying in to Social Security through their paychecks?

[pnwmom]

24. How LONG AGO was FDR elected? This is a different country

and a different world. There is no longer a strong, countervailing pull to the left.

With the break-up of the U.S.S.R., the "center" moved more to the right. Communism is no longer viewed as a viable possibility, so socialists are now considered far left.

[Marr]

35. I'd say it's a little more like, since the USSR's breakup,

the west has been slowly shedding it's more appealing social programs, because there's no longer any need to advertise the virtues of democracy in contrast to a Brand X.

[pnwmom]

44. That's part of what I was getting at but you said it better. Thanks. n/t

[Eugnid]

46. The physics of Polosi back as Speaker

Headline:

REPUBLICAN LANDSLIDE....OBAMA FAILURE WILL RESULT IN VOTERS OUSTING DEMS FROM CONGRESS!!!

Oh yeah, I heard this from a lot of Dems. They're so scared-- exactly as in 2004-- that they now just want to copy Rove tactics again because that's what political operatives do: COPY SUCCESS!!!

But wait a minute, Obama's no failure.

Sure, he compromised a lot and what he gave us kind of stinks. Yet, he gave us something. And, if you just stop and compare it to what Bush and the Republicans gave us for 8 years-- then take a deeeeeeeep whiff-- you'll suddenly realize that you're smelling ROSES when you smell the accomplishments of a Dem Congress!

Now what Dems need to do is stop being elitists and realize that Americans-- even Teapartiers-- have noses just like theirs. Of course, when you're screaming mad you can't smell, but after all the campaign hoopla, each American is going to be alone in the voting booth facing a screen with names on it. The list will be: those that are "in" vs. those that want TO BE "in." That's when, in the quiet of the booth, calm and collected, they will suddenly stop and think-- with no sneaky ads from Americans for…” to listen to-- just their brains telling them: THINK BEFORE YOU VOTE!

First they'll say outright: What did Obama and the Dems do for me? NOTHING!

Then they'll say: So what's the alternative?

Suddenly a thought will come to them: wait a minute, the alternative's not something NEW or unknown...It is the same people who ruled with Bush...THEY'RE THE ONES WHO GOT US INTO THE MESS WE'RE IN.

So whom do I want?

(a) The guys whom I'm mad at because they have NOT YET succeeded but are STILL TRYING....

(b) Or the guys who put us all into this situation that wrecked my life...

Obviously, if I vote-in the Dems, they'll just keep trying...

But if I vote in the Republicans they'll just drop us down from the few inches Obama took us up and will drive us deeper past the bottom, this time into the sub-sub-sub-basement.

So if I vote for the Dems it's not to reward them for a job well done!

But:

a) they’ll keep the Republicans from really finishing off me and my America…

b) I’ll give them more time to move things in the right direction

Yea, yea ALL POLITICS ARE DIRTY AND ALL POLITICIANS ARE PIGS. But the issue here is more pure physics:

So far Obama has tried to take all these Congressional forces (represented as vector arrows that sum up as one big "RESULTANT" arrow of pluses & minuses) but hadn’t had enough resultant force behind him to fly us to the top where America belongs. But the little that he did do sums up into a resultant which points in the RIGHT DIRECTION !

So, if I vote Democrat, I'll just get a longer lasting resultant of accumulated Democrat vectors in Congress, all pointing in the same UP direction….forces that just might yet produce a resultant that rockets us out of the hole.

But if I vote in Republicans, I'll be left with an enfeebled President fighting a much bigger resultant forcing us deep down again, this time well PAST THE BOTTOM!

It's all a matter of survival physics. I'm mad at Obama for failing-- SO FAR-- but I'm not going to crush my face to spite my nose. I'm not going to elect the DEVIL in protest of disappointment with what God did for me. I may be disappointed with the good but I'm not going to join the evil in protest. Nope, I'll just give the Dems another chance because I know their efforts WILL CONTINUE to be in the right direction. The worst they could do in the next two years is to bring us only a little higher from where they brought us in the last two. But that's still UP...for the Dems took us in the right direction.

The Republicans are corporate cannibals. THEY EAT LITTLE PEOPLE. And all those angry teabaggers are little people being eaten by corporate funds disguised as the Tea Party of angry Americans. Yeaaaa, I remember all those town halls where the teabaggers came in snorting and shouting. They all had SCRIPTS, scripts written by the Rove&Co. stooges of the cannibal corporations. And now, the several candidates the Tea Party put up are all blow-up sex dolls and weird freaks from another planet, shills for perverted big money guys, hiding behind corporate anonymity like "Americans for this..." and "Americans for that..."

HEY DEMS, REMIND PEOPLE OF ALL THIS, EVEN THOUGH THEY WILL REALIZE IT AFTER ASLL THE HOOPLAH IS OVER AND THEY'RE THINKING QUIETLY TO THEMSLEVES IN THE VOTING BOOTH. Don't hide from or deny your failures because, LIKE YOUR SUCCESSES-- they're all in the right directions. The Republican vectors are all IN THE WRONG DIRECTION for they are paid to feed you to the cannibal corporations that left you half eaten and suffering as Bush left office. Do you want them now to finish you off in the next two years?

Tell people that it's all simple & clear physics. They're not dumb, they're just mad, so they'll grasp your point. But you've got to do it door to door, not from some convenient phone banks or distributing leaflets. They have to see what an Obama Democrat looks like and realize: "Hey, I like that kid."

THEN-- AND ONLY THEN-- WILL THE DEMS GET ANOTHER CHANCE. Why even if you do nothing, beautiful Momma Polosi will still be swinging the gavel for the next push IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION as Speaker of a Democrat House....It is simple physics!

[Historic NY]

2. Knocking Fox off the air wave would help.

[totodeinhere]

11. How would you propose to do that? n/t

[Historic NY]

42. Follow the Murdoch money trail...for a start.

[stray cat]

3. Recent polls indicated more democrats did not know the current VP compared to republicans

[Go2Peace]

4. The reason they are confused about progressive policies is LEADERSHIP!

Sure, the population is confused, because the Right, for all of it's idiocy, understands that that movements and changes in attitude occur when people stand up and look strong.

You can talk all you want about trying to get individuals to talk amongst each other. But in the modern world LEADERSHIP is needed to drive mass movements.

I hate it when people post stuff like this. If things worked this way the country would be 70% hard left and 30% hard right. There would be few undecideds because there are lots of folks and groups trying to get word out.

Fact is LEADERS on the democratic side are FAILING, when it comes to leading.

[Hannah Bell]

16. +100

[LWolf]

5. Okay. The first thing to do is to outlaw propaganda in the media. nt

[totodeinhere]

10. I think we have a little thing called the First Amendment which allows propaganda. n/t

[LWolf]

14. We sure do.

That makes the question this: How do we prevent the spread of false information without impeding free speech? Where is the line drawn?

Not only that, but: When "speech" is intended to manipulate the public, should it always be "free?" In what cases should, or shouldn't, speech intended to manipulate people be considered "free?"

And finally: Is it okay to manipulate perception by controlling the message to the masses? What responsibility does the media have to protect the integrity of public discourse by presenting factual information in a neutral way?

[Arkana]

18. We are supposed to have a free and independent media in this country.

Unfortunately, folks like Rupert Murdoch have ruined any notion of that. You want people to become more educated? Go after Murdoch's empire.

[LWolf]

21. So...

Stronger, and better enforced, anti-trust laws, re-regulation of public airwaves, some sort of modernized fairness doctrine?

[Arkana]

22. Bingo.

However, define what you mean by re-regulation of public airwaves.

[LWolf]

31. Restoration of the regulations that Reagan abolished.

Among others. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 signed by Bill Clinton didn't help things.

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/mediatimeline.html

[totodeinhere]

28. We don't prevent the spread of false information. Rather, we counter that false information

with the truth and then let the people decide what they want to believe. And after all, much of what we see in the media is one person's opinion, and opinion is neither true nor false, it's merely one opinion, and again, it's up to the public to judge that opinion one way or the other.

[LWolf]

That's problematic at best.

To allow the spread of false information, and "let the people decide what they want to believe..."

Truth is not the same as opinion. Forming our own opinions is fine, but rejecting fact in favor of false information?

Much of what we see in the media IS opinion. Unfortunately, it's often opinion presented as fact. Frankly, I think we should be seeing both less and more opinion. Less, in that I think the media should be focused more on fact than opinion. More, in that, if opinion is going to be presented, it should be presented as such and equal time should be given to ALL opinions, not just one pov.

[Arkana]

12. Who defines "propaganda"?

We don't get to control the flow of information. All we can do is present the truth as best we can and hope to God that people listen.

[LWolf]

15. Should the flow of information to the masses be protected,

ensuring that it is factual and neutral?

[Arkana]

17. It's a wonderful idea in theory, but who gets to decide what's factual

and neutral?

We define it one way, but what happens when the other guys get power and they decide that Olbermann and Maddow and the others are all unclean propaganda?

[totodeinhere]

29. No it should not be protected. Rather, we need a wide variety of sources of information.

Who are you going to set up to be the one who arbitrates what is factual and neutral and what is not?

[LWolf]

30. A wide variety of sources

would indicate stronger, better enforced anti-trust laws and some sort of modernized fairness doctrine...

[Mandate My Ass]

6. It is not - and never has been - the job of politicians to pander to

the most ignorant in society and wring their hands helplessly to the rest of us.

Those that do pretend so (and there's a whole lot of them) exhibit cowardice, not leadership.

[Cali_Democrat]

39. Unfortunately it's not about pandering to the most ignorant

American society as a whole is extremely ignorant.

Just read those links! :scared:

[spanone]

8. polls schmolls

[LoZoccolo]

9. Thank you, but that would require work.

By and large people are trying to use the Internet to cow scare politicians into taking risky positions that can just be steamrolled by the opposition after they get run out of office. If they worked on the populace - effectively, not just getting in stupid arguments on newspaper sites - the positions would no longer be risky.

People would rather waste their timeout the Internet, where they can somewhat satisfy their emotions even if they don't get much done.

[54anickel]

13. I REALLY take offense to the insinuation that fat=ignorant. That article is a great example of

ignorance if you believe it proves there are more Americans walking around looking the the person pictured. They are getting their numbers and labeling people as obese based strictly on BMI. Taken alone, it's an inacurate measurement for a population-wide study. Heck, most athletes would fall into the obese range. Perhaps as a population we are getting heavier, but collectively we are also older and more ethnically diverse. So are the numbers really growing? I'll grant them leeway on the child study, but "American adults"? Too many questions for that statement to carry.

The obesity "epidemic" is faux science and fuzzy logic. It feeds and lines the pockets of the weightloss industry, not to mention the huge agricultral industry that bring us those "healthy" grain based cooking oils, foods and a food pyramid that just happens to weigh heavily in their favor.

Sure, there are fat people, there have always been fat people. I'm a fat person, and it is not from a lack of trying or stupidity. I can only maintain a healthy weight and blood profile by avoiding grains, eating low carb and higher fat and working out at least 90 minutes daily. That's just for maintenance!

I really don't want the "highest levels of government" telling me I need to go back to eating what makes me fat to begin with, or worse, penalizing me for using what works for me. I keep asking, what might be the real agenda behind articles like this?


I'd take issue with a few more of your polls as evidence of other people's ignorance. Suffice to say I just don't believe polls are much evidence of anything meaningful. They are leading, misleading, bating and basically provide an incomplete picture of nothing but generalities.

[stuntcat]

19. I'm with you

Very honestly, I've lost hope in humans. Most of them don't care about how their actions affect next week, and it's really beyond them to imagine 10 or 20 years from now. People don't care how much energy it took to get their cheap subsidized food and Stuff to them, and they don't think about what happens to it when they're done with it or how unhealthy it's making them. We have a selfish entitled mindset we can't shake off, and I blame the baby-boomers for it.. no, I do not blame them for being evil, just for the comfort they've taken for granted for so long. All we know now is "grow grow grow, more more" Those days are coming to an end.

just my opinion of course :hi:

[pnorman]

25. Great collection of useful data. THANKS!

(I wish I could say the same about some of the comments here)

[derby378]

32. Why is a gun-control poll part of the OP's list?

Support for Second Amendment rights is not a conservative issue or a liberal issue.

And if I said it once, I said it a hundred times - Dallas has concealed-carry, gun shows, no FOID requirement, and is friendly to legal NFA ownership of automatic weapons, and our crime rate continues to go down. Whatever problems with crime we might have, guns are not a factor.

[Cali_Democrat]

40. Ever wonder why the USA has thousands more gun deaths than other industrialized nations?

Look no further than our gun laws my friend.

[derby378]

48. You apparently didn't read my post

Besides, the term "gun deaths" is too broad. China has plenty of gun deaths, too - from the government gunning down pro-democracy advocates.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Desertrose]

37. lol

:evilgrin:

[bigwillq]

38. .....

:thumbsup:

[Canuckistanian]

41. ..

[leftstreet]

43. You mean the same ignorant people who elected Obama?

:shrug:

[grahamhgreen]

45. It's easier than that - MOST WANT US OUT OF IRAQISTAN. PERIOD.

[quaker bill]

47. It is simpler than you think

You show up, you work, you donate, you organize, and you vote. As long as the left portrays itself as a conditional part of the constituency, we will have little influence. However if the pols get the message that they can count on us to back them, rain or shine, compromises for political necessity nowithstanding, then and only then will we be paid attention.

This is the destructive bit the left does to itself. For a pol, if moving to the center gets him/her more reliable votes, volunteers, and contributions, he/she will go there consistently. If on the other hand we became a reliable, significant, and critical portion of a coalition that he/she can count on to be re-elected, then supporting our concerns will become important. Pols have no time for fair weather friends.