"America's anti-liberal myth"

[memphis]

There never was much to the Left in the United States. Public schools and Social Security are great things, but supporting them hardly makes one a leftist.

[RFayette]

Please liberals, take the advice and nominate Sanders or Warren. 

And say hello to President Walker.

Right, the conservative Democrat always wins. Mark Pryor didn't just lose by 17 points. Got it.

1. Believing that a more conservative Democratic nominee is more electable than a much more liberal one does not mean that said conservative Democratic nominee will win, just that they'll do better than the alternative.  If Liz Warren ran in Arkansas, she would've lost by more than 17 points.  It's a conservative state.

2. Comparing Hillary to Mark Pryor is disingenuous.  To my understanding, Hillary supports gun control, raising the minimum wage, opposes the Keystone XL pipeline, and has other positions well to the left of Pryor.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Please liberals, take the advice and nominate Sanders or Warren.  

And say hello to President Walker.

Right, the conservative Democrat always wins. Mark Pryor didn't just lose by 17 points. Got it.

1. Believing that a more conservative Democratic nominee is more electable than a much more liberal one does not mean that said conservative Democratic nominee will win, just that they'll do better than the alternative.  If Liz Warren ran in Arkansas, she would've lost by more than 17 points.  It's a conservative state.

2. Comparing Hillary to Mark Pryor is disingenuous.  To my understanding, Hillary supports gun control, raising the minimum wage, opposes the Keystone XL pipeline, and has other positions well to the left of Pryor.

Baldwin, Brown, and Franken are liberal Democrats who won in swing states. And not a single class 2 or 3 Senator is a Senate Democrat from a Romney state, regardless of how liberal or conservative the nominees were.

[RFayette]

Please liberals, take the advice and nominate Sanders or Warren.  

And say hello to President Walker.

Right, the conservative Democrat always wins. Mark Pryor didn't just lose by 17 points. Got it.

1. Believing that a more conservative Democratic nominee is more electable than a much more liberal one does not mean that said conservative Democratic nominee will win, just that they'll do better than the alternative.  If Liz Warren ran in Arkansas, she would've lost by more than 17 points.  It's a conservative state.

2. Comparing Hillary to Mark Pryor is disingenuous.  To my understanding, Hillary supports gun control, raising the minimum wage, opposes the Keystone XL pipeline, and has other positions well to the left of Pryor.

Baldwin, Brown, and Franken are liberal Democrats who won in swing states. And not a single class 2 or 3 Senator is a Senate Democrat from a Romney state, regardless of how liberal or conservative the nominees were.

Baldwin and Brown ran in Obama states with weak opposition (Tommy Thompson was popular, but a very poor campaigner) in a year with significant Dem coattails.

As for Franken and Merkley, I absolutely agree a liberal can win in "swing" states [neither are *that* swing-y though] and liberals can help fire up a Dem base.

However, for red states and the country as a whole, the Dem base isn't enough to win without a good share of independents.  The right kind of liberal Democrat can do that.....I think Brian Schweitzer would be a good example.  However, a cookie-cutter liberal Dem who toes the Liz Warren/Progressive Caucus party line is going to alienate cultural conservatives a ton (Hillary would too, but a really liberal Democrat would only exacerbate this) and potentially scare of fiscally moderate swing-voters.  Warren and Sanders are less electable than Clinton.  I think that's pretty much a fact.

[AggregateDemand]

It is amazing how clueless American liberals are. The US has higher per capita spending per beneficiary, compared to other OECD nations. Yet, according to left-wing Democrats, the socioeconomic catastrophe and lack of benefits caused by American spendthrift is actually the work of naughty neoliberals, defense-hawks, and heartless budget cuts.

America liberals are spoiled little teenagers who can't figure out why indiscretion and laziness aren't reaping the dividends they'd hoped for. They talk like neoliberals about investment and other nice-sounding concepts, but it's time to redirect spending, they have an existential breakdown.

Genuinely useless people whose reckless display of incompetence invites plutocratic despotism.

[Thunderbird is the word]

Please liberals, take the advice and nominate Sanders or Warren. 

And say hello to President Walker.

The problem isn't liberal ideas, it's that working class voters in middle America have come to associate them with coastal elites. Somebody like Brian Schweitzer who governed as an old school prairie populist winning in Montana is proof that progressive ideas can win if they're framed in the right context. The problem is a culture war narrative and shallow identity politics dominating our current discourse instead of economic populism.

[RFayette]

Please liberals, take the advice and nominate Sanders or Warren. 

And say hello to President Walker.

The problem isn't liberal ideas, it's that working class voters in middle America have come to associate them with coastal elites. Somebody like Brian Schweitzer who governed as an old school prairie populist winning in Montana is proof that progressive ideas can win if they're framed in the right context. The problem is a culture war narrative and shallow identity politics dominating our current discourse instead of economic populism.

Agreed.  See my above post.  But remember Schweitzer is pro-coal and pro-gun.  I just can't see a down-the-line progressive Democrat having a lot of appeal nationwide.  Something's got to give (social/cultural/energy issues usually).

[Sumner 1868]

It is amazing how clueless American liberals are. The US has higher per capita spending per beneficiary, compared to other OECD nations. Yet, according to left-wing Democrats, the socioeconomic catastrophe and lack of benefits caused by American spendthrift is actually the work of naughty neoliberals, defense-hawks, and heartless budget cuts.

America liberals are spoiled little teenagers who can't figure out why indiscretion and laziness aren't reaping the dividends they'd hoped for. They talk like neoliberals about investment and other nice-sounding concepts, but it's time to redirect spending, they have an existential breakdown.

Genuinely useless people whose reckless display of incompetence invites plutocratic despotism.

Typical "balanced budget" fanatic. Nonsensical rant with no substance whatsoever.

[AggregateDemand]

Typical "balanced budget" fanatic. Nonsensical rant with no substance whatsoever.

I'm not particularly concerned about balanced budget. I'm am concerned about millions of American voters who think the US is run by a conspiracy of skinflints who won't spread the wealth around.

Congress is a prolific spender and a reluctant investor. Every year, entitlement spending crowds out investment and employment spending. American liberals are just auctioning jobs to the highest foreign bidder to fund their pet projects. Complete lack of self-awareness.

[anvi]

It is amazing how clueless American liberals are. The US has higher per capita spending per beneficiary, compared to other OECD nations. Yet, according to left-wing Democrats, the socioeconomic catastrophe and lack of benefits caused by American spendthrift is actually the work of naughty neoliberals, defense-hawks, and heartless budget cuts.

The last OECD study I looked at actually had a few countries (Luxembourg, Norway) with higher public spending per beneficiary than the U.S.  But, given the relatively low percentage of the populous who benefit from public spending in the U.S. compared to other countries, the reason the per-capita spending is so high here is because health care costs themselves are so high.  Americans go for physician visits and hospital stays less than citizens of other OECD countries because of high tech costs, general lack of cost inflation control measures--and less coverage--here.  And still, for all that spending and tech, we get less satisfactory health outcomes here in lots of important measures than other countries anyway.  Importantly, these other countries have broader-based tax systems than the U.S. too, which makes spending on beneficiaries easier to finance.  The American left is, in my view, often blind to the fact that, in order to get better broad-based benefits, everyone, and not just the top few percent of income earners, needs to pay more taxes.  But we also need to contain costs much more effectively than we do, and if we're not willing to do that, which we've proven that we're not, than any framework we come up with will bankrupt us in the long, or not-so-long, run.

[Mr. Reactionary]

At this point it seems like the discussion has broken down to: "Why can't the U.S., with 300 Million people, 50 separate States, 6 time zones, and a racially/culturally diverse population, be more like a teeny, tiny European country that is small and homogeneous in population."

[politicus]

At this point it seems like the discussion has broken down to: "Why can't the U.S., with 300 Million people, 50 separate States, 6 time zones, and a racially/culturally diverse population, be more like a teeny, tiny European country that is small and homogeneous in population."

Baseless.

[King]

At this point it seems like the discussion has broken down to: "Why can't the U.S., with 300 Million people, 50 separate States, 6 time zones, and a racially/culturally diverse population, be more like a teeny, tiny European country that is small and homogeneous in population."

When I think UK and France, I think homogenous.

[AggregateDemand]

The last OECD study I looked at actually had a few countries (Luxembourg, Norway) with higher public spending per beneficiary than the U.S.  But, given the relatively low percentage of the populous who benefit from public spending in the U.S. compared to other countries, the reason the per-capita spending is so high here is because health care costs themselves are so high.  Americans go for physician visits and hospital stays less than citizens of other OECD countries because of high tech costs, general lack of cost inflation control measures--and less coverage--here.  And still, for all that spending and tech, we get less satisfactory health outcomes here in lots of important measures than other countries anyway.  Importantly, these other countries have broader-based tax systems than the U.S. too, which makes spending on beneficiaries easier to finance.  The American left is, in my view, often blind to the fact that, in order to get better broad-based benefits, everyone, and not just the top few percent of income earners, needs to pay more taxes.  But we also need to contain costs much more effectively than we do, and if we're not willing to do that, which we've proven that we're not, than any framework we come up with will bankrupt us in the long, or not-so-long, run.

I appreciate your sober interpretation of federal policy, but we have a wide tax statutory base. That's the problem. The wide tax base and onerous regulations for unskilled workers are smothering the lower classes, giving the appearance of a narrowing statutory tax base.

It pains me to say it, but one way to narrow the statutory tax base would be single payer. Single-payer would simultaneously eliminate the Obamacare employer mandate and transfer more economic benefit to the lower classes. As employment rates and labor force rise so will tax revenue.

Single payer is lousy compared to a functional private system, but we wrecked private sector medicine with bad regs long ago so we're stuck taxing the bottom quintiles without providing any benefits.

[anvi]

When one considers federal taxes, provincial taxes and VATs in counties with either "single payer" or Bismarck systems, no, the U.S. does not have a wide tax base.

[All Along The Watchtower]

There never was much to the Left in the United States.

[Mechaman]

There never was much to the Left in the United States. Public schools and Social Security are great things, but supporting them hardly makes one a leftist.

Mostly this.

Even George McGovern's campaign has been largely whitewashed as some sort of great left wing crusade against the fascistic Nixonians.  Truth is, the only thing that was real radical about him was his Vietnam position (ie, get out now) and his support of reducing defense spending substantially (which at the height of the Cold War, obviously very liberal).  Other than that, he was a generic drug warrior for his day who wanted to keep abortion at the state level.

So yeah, kudos to the OP article for pointing out that Mondale campaigned largely as a deficit hawk, but a few points off for acting like it was just some real recent trend for Democratic nominees to "triangulate".  That has been going on since Jefferson.

[Citizen Hats]

There never was much to the Left in the United States. Public schools and Social Security are great things, but supporting them hardly makes one a leftist.

Mostly this.

Even George McGovern's campaign has been largely whitewashed as some sort of great left wing crusade against the fascistic Nixonians.  Truth is, the only thing that was real radical about him was his Vietnam position (ie, get out now) and his support of reducing defense spending substantially (which at the height of the Cold War, obviously very liberal).  Other than that, he was a generic drug warrior for his day who wanted to keep abortion at the state level.

So yeah, kudos to the OP article for pointing out that Mondale campaigned largely as a deficit hawk, but a few points off for acting like it was just some real recent trend for Democratic nominees to "triangulate".  That has been going on since Jefferson.

The sheer number of 'New Democrats' who found there legs in the McGovern Campaign should be telling

[AggregateDemand]

When one considers federal taxes, provincial taxes and VATs in counties with either "single payer" or Bismarck systems, no, the U.S. does not have a wide tax base.

The only thing you've told us is that Canada has a vendetta against its lower middle class.