absolutely
You have failed to actually demonstrate that so don't respond to me as if it's a given while also ignoring my refutations both to your original post and to your follow up.
Donors are not to the right of the party on economics. (I think Sean McAlwee just did a thing on this.) The reason you get lower taxes and less social welfare spending is GOP dominance for the past half century. The people pulling policy to the right are the electorate and the Senate setup which overweights white rural America.
The public option was removed because a few Senators refused to vote for it and they needed 60 votes cause they didnt nuke the Fillibuster. And one of them wasnt even a Dem cause his party primaried his shitty ass. (Lieberman) It passed the actually-representative-of-the-caucus House just fine.
Joe Lieberman was very much not part of the party.
i provided a measure (tax as percentage of GDP) and challenged anyone to find a better measure to disprove my claim
what are you even saying here?
this is an important point
i think the argument is that those senators refused to do it because their donors were against it
My counter argument was asking you if you believed that Democrats not utilizing the slim filibister-proof majority that they held for less than a year to undo eight years of Republican tax policy while they were in the middle of scraping together the votes for healthcare reform was properly evidentiary of Democratic economic policy being center-right. To which you responded by moving on to a different talking point.
That you are choosing to make no substantive responses to my points and it isn't cute.
If you don't think that the Dems are substantially to the left of the GOP on economics you don't understand much about economics.
That you started with a deliberate "Democrat Party" in the title. Using a GOP/conservative slur.
because many european countries had right-wing (on economic policy) governments at the time
Hint: There is a second part of that post you failed to engage woth.
It does because I reported it and it was changed by a mod. And then you went and deliberately repeated the slur a second time when responding to Autodidact.
i am not anti-democratic party
sure, because the american constitution is broken, i concede that they probably couldn't have done more
Yes, more right-of-center Conservatism masking as "Centrism", that's what we need. We're certainly not in the condition we're in now because of nearly 40 years of it.
No, we're in this position now because this racist-ass country has only given Democrats unified control of government for 8 of the last 50 years because white people keep punishing Democrats for deciding black lives mattered.
mainly because the EMU is badly designed
Sure you don't. I'm sure the other poster who used it at the same time he claimed they were deliberately losing elections didn't mean anything by it either.
"Democrat Party" is a decades-old slur that's been used by the Republicans since the 1940s
Does all this superfluous verbiage contain an admission that the Democrats are not center-right because, as has been said, they embraced stimulus rather than austerity? Because otherwise, you just wasted your time writing this or you deliberately avoided answering the question directly. I'd like to assume the best of you and think the former, but I have reservations.
Again, while I like McElwee generally, his methodology for this particular claim is an absolute joke. The cutoff for "large donors" in the data they used was only $200.
i tried to honestly engage with you and answer your question
And yet as that same article points out, the individually wealthy are the most likely to raise the most money, and the individually wealthy are more likely to be to the right economically.
But it's a bar EU right-wing parties failed to pass, suggesting that it is a very real bar indeed.
i am suggesting that it is a bar for competence and not a bar for ideology
This seems to be you deliberately moving goalposts so that you don't have to acknowledge it as ideology. (i.e., right-wing ideology is the reason shitty policy instead of competent policy ends up happening w/ right-wing parties, much like how religious nuts will make shitty sex-ed policy instead of competent classes that actually reduce birthrates)
not really?
I edited just now to be clearer- Right-wing ideology is the reason shitty policy instead of competent policy ends up happening w/ right-wing parties, much like how religious nuts will make shitty sex-ed policy instead of competent classes that actually reduce birthrates. The reason you don't get the shitty policies with the Dems is because they're not a right-wing party.
