Why Is It That Dems Are More United When They Are Against Something Than......

[global1]

when they are for something?

Just an observation. When Bush was President we Dems were more united when we were against him. Now that we have a Dem President it seems like we are less united as a group.

Would we have been better off if Obama lost and McCain won?

[Mass]

1. Because it is always easier to oppose something than it is to agree on solutions.

People see different ways to do things. They will be disappointed if less than they want is done.

This is also why the GOP is generally more united than the Dems. They dont want to do anything, just destroy what exists. How does not matter.

[RandomThoughts]

2. That is easy to explain.

Any asshole can burn down a house.



Side note, I am still due beer and travel money, and many experiences.


Funny thing, people think that it is me that has to pay for that. And that is funny. They actually think that it is me that is paying :rofl:

[joeybee12]

3. Did the Republicans run this past election on what they were FOR

No, they ran on what they were AGAINST...politics is always about that.

[zipplewrath]

4. Because the reasons don't have to agree

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

If several people all don't like some policy, they are in agreement. It doesn't matter WHY they all oppose it. When people are trying to agree on a policy, they have to agree on why.

[TheKentuckian]

5. I'm still against the exact same things as when the Chimp was in command

It brings me great grief that Democrats have adopted his policies and ideology.

[jpgray]

6. Because progressive ideas do not receive a hearing

On balance we are losing ground, not gaining it. The only policy that gets seriously debated represents some concession or compromise of progressive ideals. There are good progressive things this administration has done, but they were buried in an agonizing glut of horrible graft to corporate interests, and often undermined by measures to shrink government to the point of incapability.

We have little to root for in what makes it to the policy debate in this country, and a whole lot to root against.

[T Wolf]

7. Interesting question... It is always easier to rally against something than for something.

If McInsane had won, things would probably be worse than they are now. the question is - how much worse?

On the war front, not much difference unless another country was invaded.

Economically, the bailouts could not have been any more corporation-friendly, so not much change there at all.

Social issues - maybe the minor things "accomplished" by this admin would not have passed, but no major difference there either.

Health insurance company subsidy - this would not have come up at all. By the same token, we would not have wasted the best opportunity in my lifetime (past, present, and future) to fix this problem.

That principle applies to every issue. This administration came in on hope and change, but did little to alter the status quo.

Personally, I think another four years of thug rule would have pushed even more people to see (and reject) the rightward dash of America. Then, in 2012, we might have been able to make real progress with a real liberal. As things have turned out, Obama's victory is just continuing the decline.