Why are Democrats always such pushovers?

[Jacobtm]

It's undeniable that Republicans do a much better job of getting what they want. When they are in the majority, Democrats are afraid to oppose them. When they are in the minority, Democrats are afraid to get them mad.

Democrats are just weak willed pushovers, they just are always looking to capitulate, to compromise, to meet Republicans half way. Republicans are just always looking to get their way, and they accomplish their goals much more effectively that way.

Why?

What is at the root of Democrats being such pushovers?

[Frodo]

It all comes down to money, the black oil that lubricates our political system.  The strength and self-confidence of the Democratic Party has always in modern times been linked to the trade union movement.  Democrats weren't such pushovers when they knew they had more than a third of the private sector unionized, and therefore could afford to put corporate America in its place. 

Now that corporate America has run amok and pretty much done away with labor unions, both parties are operating in a completely different landscape, one much more suited to the GOP which has always been more business-friendly.  Democrats are conversely operating at a strategic disadvantage, and therefore feel the need to tread lightly lest they imperil what financial support they do get from corporations to stay competitive.   

[dead0man]

Maybe Republican voters will actually stay home on election day if their elected representatives don't do what they want.  Democratic voters don't care (aren't paying attention, think their masters know best, whatever) and will show up regardless.  I don't know...maybe.

Democrats are conversely operating at a strategic disadvantage, and therefore feel the need to tread lightly lest they imperil what financial support they do get from corporations to stay competitive.   

Of every dollar raised for political reasons during the 2008 election cycle, Dems collected 57 cents of it (nearly $800 million more than the GOP).  I think they are staying a bit more than competitive.  To be fair, in 2010 they only raised 50 cents of every dollar (to the Pubbies 49) which was only $50 million more than the GOP.

Damned facts and their liberal bias!

[Jacobtm]

So then, if not money, what makes Dems such whimps?

[Beet]

It's not that Democrats don't raise money, it's that the sources where their money comes from makes them cowards.

If your platform is higher taxes on the rich, and your source of money is the rich, your attacks won't have as much bark.
If your platform is to replace the health care system with single payer, and your source of money is the health care industry, your attacks won't have much bite.
If your platform is to eliminate the role of big money in politics, and your source of money is big donors who like to play in politics, your attacks won't have much determination.
If your platform is to regulate Wall Street, and your source of money is Wall Street, your regulations won't go too far.

That, is the problem with the Democratic party.

[dead0man]

Knowing that, how the hell do you vote Democrat?  That's got to be hard for people with brains AND integrity. (not something most Dems have to worry about )

[Beet]

I've voted for them because they were less bad than the Republicans, but if a more left-wing alternative (particularly one that addressed the issues above) got any traction I would probably join them.

[dead0man]

The Greens maybe?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

LOL, the party that nominated Ralph Nader?

[dead0man]

The Dems have never nominated somebody you didn't like?

[Beet]

Possibly. They haven't seemed to be leaders on any major issues in the past few years, but new leadership could certainly make them relevant. Before the freak 2000 disaster, Nader was alright.

Really though, I'm kind of hoping for an insurgency within the Democratic party.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The Dems have never nominated somebody you didn't like?

The Democrats have never nominated a megalomaniacal sociopathic fascist.

[Redalgo]

I reckon Democrats are not pushovers so much as many of them have different values than many Republicans, and are relatively less likely to have strong RWA tendencies or be social dominators.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Obama administration has been no pushover when it has come to standing up to liberals. Sadly he can probably safely ignore liberals against whatever disaster the Republican party nominates.

[Link]

It's undeniable that Republicans do a much better job of getting what they want. When they are in the majority, Democrats are afraid to oppose them. When they are in the minority, Democrats are afraid to get them mad.

Democrats are just weak willed pushovers, they just are always looking to capitulate, to compromise, to meet Republicans half way. Republicans are just always looking to get their way, and they accomplish their goals much more effectively that way.

Why?

What is at the root of Democrats being such pushovers?

You can't negotiate with terrorists.  You will never win an all out confrontation with someone that is crazier than you assuming you are equally armed.  Republicans don't care if their policies blow up the country.  Democrats always worry about the long term future of the nation.

For example Republicans say lets just let anyone buy an assault rifle and let's also cut off all welfare.  Great now you have a bunch of broke pissed off desperate people with machine guns.  How is that going to end?  Or let's ban all contraception and abortion and end all welfare.  Okay. How is that going to end?  It's just short sighted incoherent and crazy.  Look at the Catholic organizations providing insurance coverage for contraception. 98% of Catholic women use contraception.  What issues in America do 98% of the population unequivocally agree on?  But look at what a big issue it's been turned into.  How do you do battle with that?  I'm open to suggestions.

It's like arguing with a three year old.  Do you really think you are going to "win" that conversation?

[dead0man]

I don't know if I smell straw or just ignorance...but there is something in the air.

[krazen1211]

It's not that Democrats don't raise money, it's that the sources where their money comes from makes them cowards.

If your platform is higher taxes on the rich, and your source of money is the rich, your attacks won't have as much bark.
If your platform is to replace the health care system with single payer, and your source of money is the health care industry, your attacks won't have much bite.
If your platform is to eliminate the role of big money in politics, and your source of money is big donors who like to play in politics, your attacks won't have much determination.
If your platform is to regulate Wall Street, and your source of money is Wall Street, your regulations won't go too far.

That, is the problem with the Democratic party.

Democrats in the last couple decades have implemented policies towards all those platforms. Very curious to say that they dont get what they want.....

[tpfkaw]

What, exactly, has the Republican "base" gotten in Congress that it's wanted in the last 10 years?  That is, including stuff that the Republican "base" supported and then the GOP pushed through (i.e. banning abortion), not stuff that GOPher elected officials supported prior to the "base" supporting them (i.e. invading places).

(Or 50 years, for that matter?)

[memphis]

What, exactly, has the Republican "base" gotten in Congress that it's wanted in the last 10 years?  That is, including stuff that the Republican "base" supported and then the GOP pushed through (i.e. banning abortion), not stuff that GOPher elected officials supported prior to the "base" supporting them (i.e. invading places).

(Or 50 years, for that matter?)

Tax cuts and wars.

[Person Man]

I reckon Democrats are not pushovers so much as many of them have different values than many Republicans, and are relatively less likely to have strong RWA tendencies or be social dominators.

Pretty much. The rapist (he who gets  the girl that the Democrat gives up on by simply keeping  on asking as she becomes more and more under the influence) who works out in the Affliction Tshirt at the gym is more likely to be Republican than Democrat. Same thing with the fat kid at the party who eats the last peice of pizza. Of course, it could just be someone coming off as inconsiderate because they are having a lapse in  their very limited attention scope and span.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It's not that Democrats don't raise money, it's that the sources where their money comes from makes them cowards.

If your platform is higher taxes on the rich, and your source of money is the rich, your attacks won't have as much bark.
If your platform is to replace the health care system with single payer, and your source of money is the health care industry, your attacks won't have much bite.
If your platform is to eliminate the role of big money in politics, and your source of money is big donors who like to play in politics, your attacks won't have much determination.
If your platform is to regulate Wall Street, and your source of money is Wall Street, your regulations won't go too far.

That, is the problem with the Democratic party.

Democrats in the last couple decades have implemented policies towards all those platforms. Very curious to say that they dont get what they want.....

They have done none of these things except arguably the last.

[krazen1211]

It's not that Democrats don't raise money, it's that the sources where their money comes from makes them cowards.

If your platform is higher taxes on the rich, and your source of money is the rich, your attacks won't have as much bark.
If your platform is to replace the health care system with single payer, and your source of money is the health care industry, your attacks won't have much bite.
If your platform is to eliminate the role of big money in politics, and your source of money is big donors who like to play in politics, your attacks won't have much determination.
If your platform is to regulate Wall Street, and your source of money is Wall Street, your regulations won't go too far.

That, is the problem with the Democratic party.

Democrats in the last couple decades have implemented policies towards all those platforms. Very curious to say that they dont get what they want.....

They have done none of these things except arguably the last.

In 1993 Bill Clinton signed a piece of tax legislation increasing taxes on the, uh, rich. Point 3 of course is not actually part of their platform; Obama IS big money.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It's not that Democrats don't raise money, it's that the sources where their money comes from makes them cowards.

If your platform is higher taxes on the rich, and your source of money is the rich, your attacks won't have as much bark.
If your platform is to replace the health care system with single payer, and your source of money is the health care industry, your attacks won't have much bite.
If your platform is to eliminate the role of big money in politics, and your source of money is big donors who like to play in politics, your attacks won't have much determination.
If your platform is to regulate Wall Street, and your source of money is Wall Street, your regulations won't go too far.

That, is the problem with the Democratic party.

Democrats in the last couple decades have implemented policies towards all those platforms. Very curious to say that they dont get what they want.....

They have done none of these things except arguably the last.

In 1993 Bill Clinton signed a piece of tax legislation increasing taxes on the, uh, rich. Point 3 of course is not actually part of their platform; Obama IS big money.

I wasn't aware of the 1993 tax legislation. I was only aware that the Democrats have, more recently, failed at anything of the kind.

[Link]

I don't know if I smell straw or just ignorance...but there is something in the air.

Nope.  You're smelling reality.  Plenty of level headed Republicans got "primaried" by far right wing crazies who subsequently lost general elections.  It's a very fanatical and suicidal mindset.  There is no negotiating with some of these people.  Michael Castle could have been a R Senate seat pick up, but nooo... He got primaried by Christine O'Donnell.  It was a completely suicidal thing for the Republicans to do.  Boehnor can't get anything done in Congress because he has a bunch of freshman Tea Party hoodlums contend with.  You iron out a reasonable deal with Boehnor then in come the clowns and bam you are right back to square one and the public loses faith in the whole institution.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Concern troll is concerned.