Tea Party will gain influence within the GOP (Gray)
Enough Tea Party-supported candidates are running strongly in competitive and Republican-leaning Congressional races that the movement stands a good chance of establishing a sizeable caucus to push its agenda in the House and the Senate, according to a New York Times analysis.

With a little more than two weeks till Election Day, 33 Tea Party-backed candidates are in tossup races or running in House districts that are solidly or leaning Republican, and 8 stand a good or better chance of winning Senate seats.

While the numbers are relatively small, they could exert outsize influence, putting pressure on Republican leaders to carry out promises to significantly cut spending and taxes, to repeal health care legislation and financial regulations passed this year, and to phase out Social Security and Medicare in favor of personal savings accounts.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10...

And what about the progressives? Chopped liver? Imho this success of the Tea Party, in spite of their outright insane candidates, shows what progressives could have accomplished if they only had concentrated on increasing their share of the vote, and their share only. Instead of dividing up into "ignore the smell" adovates and "third party" fans and wasting the energies in catfights, with a united effort more would have been possible to achieve for the PCCC, too. Damn.

There are tea party candidates that aren't outright insane?

Well, I wonder about this, too.
The NYT seems to think at least some are electable. I dunno...
[ Parent ]
Well, Rand Paul is electable
since he's leading in his race, but he's truly batshit crazy.  Nate Silver's got health care chicken trader Sharron Angle up on Reid.  

They're electable, that doesn't make them not crazy.  

[ Parent ]
The left in this country put too much emphasis on rational
thought, and not enough on winning. Being the rational person in every  conversation is not always the best strategy.
[ Parent ]
Yup. Especially when you're so rational...
...that your reasoning becomes too complicated for the average Jane and Joe to understand. Like, for instance, 11 dimensional chess. Often, less is more.
[ Parent ]
There are all these myths and believes that they have built up
about themselves that results in strategic error, For instance the whole arrogance over the Tea Party was something that I was concerned about when I started to see them win. Rather than going after the Democratic leadership full force , the approach has been to call the GOP crazy (which is true) without making sure there's a real alternative to the Tea Party on the left.
[ Parent ]
Jeez, it's good to read comments like this
Welcome to OpenLeft!

When yours truly found out that we'd been stabbed in the back, by Obama, re his deal with Tauzin, and then there was NO effort by progressives to "make him (Obama) do it" by, e.g., demanding an apology and informing the clueless American electorate what Obama had done (while still remaining fixated on the Tea Baggers), it just reinforced not only how bad the government is, but also how coopted or weak so-called leaders of so-called progressive groups are.

The promotion of the Tea Partiers via sympathetic media exposure, on the one hand, together with antagonistic and even smearing media exposure (Keith Olbermann, lefty blogosphere) on the other, distracted the public from focussing their anger on both the Dem Congress critters and the Republican Congress critters.

Cui bono? The destruction of the American middle class and our march towards a corporate fascism continues apace.

See my diary Call for investigation of Left HATEKeepers (and Right HATEKeepers, too)  if you dare. If you're overly partisan or overly ideological, you're not going to like what I wrote.


435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

[ Parent ]
+4

[ Parent ]
Kentucky is just republican
like most of the rest of the south.  it's shocking the dem is doing so well.
[ Parent ]
They're also incredibly poor
and like many red states, depend on federal subsidies.  Especially the eastern Appalachian part of the state.

I wonder why the states that depend on government the most are the same ones that hate it the most?

[ Parent ]
There are several that will be elected
Rubio of FL, the guy down in Alaska, etc in the Senate alone. I have not followed the House races because I assume the House is lost. And yes they are electable. This has been the issue all along as the left blogs have been trying to be elitist about them and populism.
[ Parent ]
Except some of the one's set to win are insane
and the issue ironically with the left as typical here is that it suggests a mirror for why the left loses.

The Tea Party fought for its evil ideas and are set to win. The left sits around talking about compromise, analyzing the psychology of others, talking about messaging and generally looking down on such movements as the Tea Party. Yet which one is gaining power?

Tried to discuss the need to be this single minded lately with others. We lose because we aren't willing to go all in like others are when it comes to winning.  

[ Parent ]
You know what, though?
The tea party people built a movement and ran primary challenges.  The left waits till after the primary and the bitches and moans and threatens to stay home or vote third party.  
[ Parent ]
Bullshit
Yeah, your comment illustrates why the left loses,b ut not in the way you mean. In your mind, I am sure calling them whiners makes sense, but its precisely this I am better than yo attitude that's the problem. It must be nice to be arrogant and superior while losing, but you are still losing. The truth is there is no rule to this. Do whateve rit takes. DOn't worry about short term consequences. Be willing to scortch the earth whether it is primaries or the general. The tea party doesn't care about the crap you just mentnioned. In many cases they are going to lose, but they are willing to accept that because its  not about fearing losing.  
[ Parent ]
the tea party did exactly the crap I just mentioned
If Castle had won that Delaware primary, do you think they'd be actively campaigning against him in the general, or just ignoring him?  I read teabagger sites, and they're not telling their voters to stay home in Iowa and vote Constitution party rather than Grassley.  They're just ignoring him and supporting the candidates that favor their agenda.

Instead, they did what it took to systemically take over their party.  Which is what hard-core conservatives have been doing since the '70s with the Republicans.  

[ Parent ]
I am not interested in playing this game with you
There are examples that illustrate that you are wrong, but you then choose those that reinforce what you want to believe regarding your single minded and simplistic frame. The point that I am trying to make is that it takes different strategies, including some that you personally find unsavory. Let's be honest- that's your real problem with the idea of a progressive Tea Party approach. That its not your cup of tea. You aren't the point, and this discussion as far as I am concerned is over.
[ Parent ]
I am not interested in playing this game with you
There are examples that illustrate that you are wrong, but you then choose those that reinforce what you want to believe regarding your single minded and simplistic frame. The point that I am trying to make is that it takes different strategies, including some that you personally find unsavory. Let's be honest- that's your real problem with the idea of a progressive Tea Party approach. That its not your cup of tea. You aren't the point, and this discussion as far as I am concerned is over.
[ Parent ]
Whatever, you're grapsing at straws far more than I am
If it isn't manifest that the Tea Party isn't a movement within the Republican party, with its largest representative being led by Dick Armey, and another large faction being led by Newt Gingrich, then this conversation is pointless.  

the movement building has to happen first.  Unless that happens, the rest of it is pointless.  If these posts were about how to build an effective pressure group that could then do whatever, fine.  But invariably it just becomes 'fuck all of the democrats, no matter if they're Liberman or Sherrod Brown, they're all corrupt jackasses, and I'm never voting for any one of them ever again', and that line of reasoning is vacuous at best.  

Hell, if there was even any realistic discussion about HOW to build a third party (start from a regional base), then I'd be more sympathetic.  But it is invariably a devolution into 'if I take my ball and go home, and they lose a bunch of seats, THEN they'll listen to me'.  

It's nonsense.  

[ Parent ]
And if there's going to be this growling about unseating Obama
It should be really obvious that the only way that this can happen unless your candidate is a random millionaire like Bill Gates or a celebrity with 100% name rec like Martin Sheen is a surprise and dramatic win in Iowa or New Hampshire (as winning there is the only cheapish way to springboard a Presidential campaign), and therefore, the talk should be about messaging in those two places.  Yet there is nothing about that, either.  

The way that I"m suggesting to push the Democrats at least has some minimal connexion to reality, other than just yelling at the moon for the hell of it.  

[ Parent ]
the religious right aka the tea party
sits out in the general on perceived moderates all the time.  That is why George Bush the First and Bob Dole lost.
[ Parent ]
Yes, his statements are counter to historic facts
His assertions just illustrates how vested "progressives" are in believing their own bullshit as to why they must capitulate to the Democratic Party.  
[ Parent ]
More examples, less psychologizing
What specific points of fact does Valatan make that you disagree with?  You use descriptions like "single minded" and "simplistic" to characterize Valatan's position, but fail to identify a single data point in his argument that is false.

Valatan is talking about the connection between movements and parties. He or she correctly points out that the conservative movement has successfully taken control of the GOP over the past fifty years, and that the tea party's explicit aim is to take over that party's institutional infrastructure.  This seems pretty obvious.

You may agree or disagree with the attempt to extend this logic to the Democratic party, but your failure to go beyond personal attacks makes what you say insipid. It's not so much the position you endorse, but your rationale for doing so that counts in a debate over whether its best to focus movement activity on cultivating a power base in the Democratic party or not.  

And the idea that anyone is building a "third party" in a nation with dozens of political parties is stupid and should give any sensible person pause to consider why any number of parties that espouse the radical agenda they themselves would seek to promulgate have proven woefully unsuccessful.  But that would require going beyond ad hominem attacks and presenting a logical argument based on real data that is susceptible to public debate.    

[ Parent ]
I don't feel like wasting my time giving examples as
has already been tried here only to have them denied or ignored. The problem is that anything given will be parsed to claim its different,e tc. when the real issue is that it holds your ideas culpable in the mess you see. So you will deny deny deny. Its what people do. So no thanks to your entire post.
[ Parent ]
A number of Tea Party candidates
Used the threat of mounting alternative party campaigns to force the established GOPper leadership to accept them as GOP nominees.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
In other words, despite what Varlatan claims above
They were willing to scorch the earth with the GOP if they didn't get what they wanted out of the party. Whereas the typical approach amongst "progressives" is to attack anyone with such a scorched earth/ let's not be reasonable strategy.  
[ Parent ]
But they didn't actually do it
That's the thing.  They didn't successfully build a third party.  
[ Parent ]
And this why you lose
See how even when faced with stories that illustrate why your mind set is wrong you still cling to it anyway. Here, there are several stories that I can give in which they actually did not care, and have run even when the GOP didn't want them to run, and yet, you intransigently keep claiming you are right. If only you had such passion for actually winning as a group, then you might actually matter.
[ Parent ]
They *DID* do it
Hoffman in NY-23, Tancredo in CO-Gov. It doesn't take too many of those to get the party to knuckle under.
[ Parent ]
And there are yet more examples where they
pressured the GOP establishment.  
[ Parent ]
Oh, yeah, NY-23! That was effective for them.

[ Parent ]
So what?
Alternative Party or GOP - the point is that the Tea Party candidates appear to be on the brink of the kind of electoral success that progressives have yet to accomplish.

One part of that success was making it very clear that they were willing to walk away and not support establishment GOPper candidates.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Exactly.

[ Parent ]
Fine by me.
But we shoudl note that, as a low estimate, 90% of it has come from primary victories, and beyond the challenge to Lincoln and a few house races, the progressive left was really silent on primaries this election cycle.  
[ Parent ]
And whose fault was that?
It's kinda hard to start, let alone win, a primary challenge when you got Obamabots and Democratic zombies constantly yelling in your ear to fall in line.

Not to mention Obama supporting Lincoln and then idiot voters who still swoon over his dark skin color mindlessly obey their Leader's orders.

[ Parent ]
How does failure to support GOP candidates
mean that the tea parties primary point of focus isn't on taking over the GOP itself?

Withholding support from Republicans who defeat tea party candidates in no way indicates that the tea party movement isn't ruthlessly dedicated to what it sees as the health and prosperity of the Republican party.  

By all means, do not ever support another neoliberal candidate.  I certainly won't and, along those lines, cannot possibly vote for Barack Obama in 2012. But that does not mean that it makes sense for the left to dedicate precious resources to building another party when many progressive and radical parties already exist.  

Why is it that progressive and radical parties have completely failed to affect the agenda of the Democratic party?  What does is say about the relationship of movements to parties that James Birney got 2.3% of the vote in 1844, yet his Liberty Party party transformed the party system while Ralph Nader got 2.74% in 2000 and the Democrats have lurched further to the right?

Take on questions like these and you'll see why people on the left committed to a robust liberal socialist agenda scoff at the idea of giving over what little we have relative to the bottomless resources of multinational corporations to a party-building enterprise that isn't focused taking control of the Democratic party.

 

[ Parent ]
See I had not even gotten out of this quick hit yet
and you are a lready doing what I describe above.
[ Parent ]
You can't handle facts
which makes what you say meaningless.

You're talking about your own highly subjective emotional states, not politics.  

[ Parent ]
Again several races were mentioned. I can mention several
The Senate races in Fl, Ak, PA, AZ, NH, and on and on. And your response will be same. Thus, what's the point? The problem is exactly that you feel you are right without regard to whether you actually are right. I don't care about what motivates the right. its what motivates that left that concerns me since youa re the counter weight to the right or at least you are suppose to be, but often aren't
[ Parent ]
Again several races were mentioned. I can mention several
The Senate races in Fl, Ak, PA, AZ, NH, and on and on. And your response will be same. Thus, what's the point? The problem is exactly that you feel you are right without regard to whether you actually are right. I don't care about what motivates the right. its what motivates that left that concerns me since youa re the counter weight to the right or at least you are suppose to be, but often aren't
[ Parent ]
You do realize why merely mentioning elections
doesn't address the concerns I raise, don't you?  
[ Parent ]
In other words, despite what Varlatan claims above
They were willing to scorch the earth with the GOP if they didn't get what they wanted out of the party. Whereas the typical approach amongst "progressives" is to attack anyone with such a scorched earth/ let's not be reasonable strategy.  
[ Parent ]
Pls don't forget it's easier to do this when you're in opposition.
Because you don't have that much to lose then! The situation looked a bit different from the progressive point of view. However, I stomped for a strategy of "damn the party, fight for progressives", too, so I see the point.
[ Parent ]
We are in opposition to the Democratic leadership
The only people who don't seem to realize that are progressives who think we are sitting at the table when actually we are under the bus.  
[ Parent ]
And they still insist we shouldn't cut the fuel line!
As if getting dragged along on the road to ruin is so much fun...
[ Parent ]
They are vested in their position as you can see Varlatan
is above. basically the comment made by Varlatan would require a basic 10 minute google search to disprove, but frankly what's the point. They believe what they believe. the mentality of failure.
[ Parent ]
Also, note who you're arguing against
if you're going to accuse others of not noticing what they're talking about.  
[ Parent ]
IMO, theTea Baggers have been rewarded for their eagerness to draw electoral blood.
I.e., throw Republican incumbents under the bus. See here  and here

Perhaps someday progressives will get smart enough to hire a competent political game theorist to advise them. Like Bueno de Mesquita. They seem awfully slow to pick up, though, so I'm not holding my breath.


435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

game theory was developed by a paranoid schizophrenic
that thought everyone was a sociopathic Ayn Randy, and his theories have been proven wrong, though this is not reported in the friggen corporate media.  It has no application for the left, because one, the theory is wrong and two, you can't form a left philosophy based on it.   Watch the documentary The Trap, by Adam Curtis.

[ Parent ]
Riiiight. Again more b.s.
Game theory actually comes from several sources. I love the way however you are trying to tell us to ignore an idea because you have labeled it far right. This is akin to the people at Daily Kos labeling an actual far right idea, the excise tax, as progressive because of its source too. There's nothing inheritly left or right about game theory. In fact, some of it by definition can not be right wing because it goes into the fact that people can not be definition have perfect information such as with the prisoner's dilemma.  In that scenario, its impossible to be completely rational as a Libertarian would believe because there is no way to know what the rational answer is since perfect information is impossible. It is interesting , however, to see just how badly the "progressives" think on issues. This is like the assumption I suppose that branding is per se bad as a concept. Or as i said yesterday that economizing to focus on the most critical issues rather than spreading oneself too thin with minor issues etc are all far right wing concepts too.  
[ Parent ]
That is the argument neoliberals make with
classical economics, and that is why we have the third way.  How well has it worked out for you.
[ Parent ]
Wow, spin job central
Now I am a neo liberal. I suppose I am suppose to run for the hills based on accusations alone. For the record the reason why these concepts are important is that they give us insight into how we think

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

THe prisoners dillemma as a critique to ideas that come out of game theory would not be possible without having first thought of the ideas

The difference between you and is that I am ctually more progressive in actions as far as what I expect of the Democrats that you are. Why you sit around discussing theories that ultimately are meant only as models rather than something you follow like its an absolute statementa bout the world. In other words, there are ideas we can learn from game theory and anything else. It doesn't make one "neo liberal" to realize that negotiation strategy is a good idea when your goal is to obtain a left policy. These are not concepts that are locked into being right wing ones unless you choose to make them so. It must be easy to walk around doing that, but it leads you to be predictable and controllabe as the true neoliberals like to do with folks like you. They just throw out some candidate with the right labales, and end of story.

[ Parent ]
There's been serious discussion of game theory at FDL
(Here at OL, virtually nothing)

Unfortunately, while it's helping people wake up to the fact that a lesser-evilist voting strategy is a losing one, I think that some people are sort of mindlessly taking it on faith that individually voting to punish (on a case by case basis) is necessarily a high-value strategy.

I claim otherwise.

In a sort of worst case scenario, one could be subsumed in a progressive voting bloc which was large enough to have elected a Democrat, decided to punish (i.e., vote against a bad Dem), but due to lack of organization, the Dem pooh-bahs don't believe that such a vote bloc exists. One can't really blame the pooh-bahs too much, since the progressives, by failing even a minimal level of organization and public self-declaration, can't be sure that they constitute a significant vote bloc, either!

Consequently, the leverage which could have been gained by punishing in the last election is still lost for the next election! Doesn't seem like a winning strategy to me. The basic conceptual impediment can be thought of as one of granularity. The important player in a political game is the vote bloc, not an individual who doesn't even know how many others there are out there, pursuing the same goal.

Nathan Aschbacher is one of the main guys at FDL who talks about (and knows about) game theory.

Somebody needs to take the next step, IMO, and at least create a website where a) theoretically viable game theory strategies are put forth by domain experts (and explained clearly to laymen) and b) frustrated progressives can at least publicly declare their sympathy for one of the strategies. By "sympathy", I mean a willingness to vote in accord with the strategy. Eventually, there needs to be a concensus about which strategy most people can sign on to.



435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

[ Parent ]
Yes, that's what I said to another online blog
about gay rights. The issue is to form a) a voting bloc and b) build coalitions to produce political power.

Your analysis is spot on. Thanks.

Unfortunately, as you see from the resistance here there is a tendency to frame strategies as if they are right or left versus whether they may be used regardless of whether one is right or left. That is to say- if one wanted single payer over Obamacare, one could still use game theory and other strategic ideas to do so. Instead, there is a kneejerk and often ideological emotional lashing out to the vary idea that the liberals/progresives/the left should engage in hardball tactics to get what it wants. They do this in face of the evidence that these tactics work, and then explain it away as "oh they have much more power than I do in society" without discussing how leverage works to address unequal power. The example of voting blocs, and collectively acting with a clear agenda, is one of them.

For my efforts to point out the need for focus- I was attacked here so I am guessing this sort of analysis is considered not a good thing here.  That neo-liberals know they can simply wait out a non focused and often willing to capitulate over time left seems to me as clear s the sun coming up. Yet here it seems to be some kind of bad thing. My only guess is the psychobabble I raise about the fact it  brings up the progressive/liberal/left's role in the corrupt system we see.

Otherwise, i can not understand the complete denial of what can be seen in both history and present outcomes.

[ Parent ]
Well, it's never a good idea to obsess over nay-sayers...
if you really believe that there's a better way to proceed.

You have to remember that most people never heard of game theory, and if they heard of it at all, their understanding is probably limited to watching A Beautiful Mind. I, myself, although educated in physics and mathematics, never studied game theory, though I may have read an article or two on the subject, decades ago.

IOW, the very unfamiliarity of the idea, at this point, is working against it's adoption. (That's in terms of the public. In discussions with Nathan Aschbacher, he agreed with me that corporations and lobbying firms are likely using political game theory for their selfish ends. The way Nathan put it was "They'd be stupid if they didn't.")

The fact that the idea can be seriously discussed, at least at FDL, is a good sign. But again, nobody is yet taking any baby steps, such as I indicate. If somebody provides those baby steps, then you and I would have more to talk about than just an abstract "Say, why isn't this being tried? And can't you see how well Bueno de Mesquita did with it?" We could, instead, point to a web site that explains the concept and gathers online signatures, for public display, of voters that are looking to vote as a bloc, and draw lines in the sand.

I think the best attitude is for 'believers' in applying game theory to simply accept the burden of proof*, and proceed on their own to at least take baby steps. Expending excess time arguing about it, and not taking those baby steps, is not very smart or responsible. It's OK to talk about it, and argue, but not at the expense of making it a reality.

* that proof obviously can't be provided right now. So, what I mean is accepting the burden of starting the process that can supply the proof, in the future.  

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

[ Parent ]
That's so strange to me
I assume a lot of people here come from a political science background as I do so its odd to me to realize that they are not grounded in these ideas. How can you have a conversation on politics without understanding what shapes power and the ability to negotiate for desired policy outcomes? That would be like me saying I want to perform surgery without having taking a course on basic anatomy. I am not a believer or unbeliever. I just see its a tool like any other tool.  Just like there is a time for the carrot, there is a time for a stick like hardnosed negotiation. To deny one strategy altogether with no better reason for than ignorance isn't good.  The problem I have is where someone oddly labels the tool neoliberalism.  Thus suggesting they really have no idea what either of the terms mean.
[ Parent ]
I would hope that such a vote bloc would vote Green at the state level
This is to emphasize that, eventually (and hopefully) progessives will have enough political muscle to replace a bad Dem with a Green in Congress, rather than simply throw the current election cycle result to a Republican, in order to punish. Such a threat is more credible if a progressive Dem/progressive Green voting bloc has already displaced Dems at the state level, replacing them with Greens.

Please see "Dump Corporate Dems" - Going Green at the State Level, to "make Dems do it" at the Federal level  

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

[ Parent ]
You can't base a left wing philosophy on mathematics, either!
Sry, Dame-o, but I think you got that seriously wrong. Spieltheorie is a TOOL. You can use it for good or bad purposes, this depends on the intentions of those who use it. There's nothing inherently bad about it. And, sry, but it's ridiculous to try to base an ideology, a philophy or a theory on a tool. Come on, you can't base a skyscraper on a hammer, either!  
[ Parent ]
This is why I often think the point is to deliberating
tie the hands of the left by pretending that there are only certain viable strategies, and those strategies just all happen to fit in with the left having to capitulate to the right if one were to take them seriously.  
[ Parent ]
Game Theory offers an explanation for altruism
One such phenomenon is known as biological altruism. This is a situation in which an organism appears to act in a way that benefits other organisms and is detrimental to itself. This is distinct from traditional notions of altruism because such actions are not conscious, but appear to be evolutionary adaptations to increase overall fitness. Examples can be found in species ranging from vampire bats that regurgitate blood they have obtained from a night's hunting and give it to group members who have failed to feed, to worker bees that care for the queen bee for their entire lives and never mate, to Vervet monkeys that warn group members of a predator's approach, even when it endangers that individual's chance of survival.[6] All of these actions increase the overall fitness of a group, but occur at a cost to the individual.

Altruism is hardly something that the selfish Randians would support, eh?

Quote from here.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
I took a quick look at the wikipedia page for game theory
Nothing there about Ayn Rand or libertarian. Methinks Dameocrat's claim is complete nonsense. Everybody can see for themselves.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com
[ Parent ]
A Proposed Framework for an Expanded Dump Obama Movement
I just posted a new diary:

A Proposed Framework for an Expanded Dump Obama Movement

The three pillars that I suggest can be thought of as a synthesis of various strategies that would comprise a grand voting strategy, for progressives, that flies in the face of lesser-evilism-voting. The term "Dump Obama" is kept, for now, because it's parsimonious and a good proxy name. "Dump Lesser Evilism Voting" won't fit on a bumper sticker, and would confuse a lot of people, even if it did fit.  :-)

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

[ Parent ]
Dumping lesser evilism voting should be easy
now that we've seen that no one can get anything done unless there's 60 unified votes in the Senate.

So even if Republicans take over the House and the Senate and Sarah Palin becomes President, as long as we've got 41 good Democrats in the Senate, nothing the Republicans want will ever happen.

In other words, Republicans don't scare me.

[ Parent ]
The tea party has corporate American and the media
on their side.  There are no lessons to be learned from them,  other than it pays to suck corporate cock in a plutocracy.
Right. Hope that comforts you to pretend that
its all about corporate America/etc. The truth is far more complicated.  
[ Parent ]
They're creating a substantial power base
within one of the two major political parties in the United States.

There is a tremendous amount of useful information for people on the left to learn from the tea party.  

[ Parent ]
Well, imho progressives can copy some ideas.
Sure, the tea party's success is largely based on corporate money, no doubt about that. But still, they used their leverage on the party to force it to the right. And by ceeating a plausible threat to abandon the ship and thus disabling the party to gather a majority of the vote, the progressives could do the same. Imho the tea party example shows that it pays off to draw a line in the sand. It's like the coalitions in parliamentary democracies: If the biggest party runs roughshot over the smaller one, it will soon lose the majority and be frced out of government. And imho the progressives should learn from that to increase their independence from party leadership, by supporting not the D-orgs but the P-orgs instead, to come up with a program that shows where the lines in the sand are, and to communicate their own profile to the public, making "Progressive Democrat" a real brand! Imho that's the most realistic way to overcome the limits of the two party system and to increase the political influence of the Dems' left wing.
[ Parent ]
Yes, but again, I think that implicates the left in its own
weakness and playing  a role in ineffectual outcomes.  
[ Parent ]
Why haven't the Progressives been able to manage such success?
Perhaps, if you could put aside your hatred you might see that the MECHANISMs the Tea Party used might be useful to the Left.

No?

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]




USER MENU


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you

Donate to Open Left
QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox