|
A page or two late, but all of this talk about how Obama ran in 2008 as a strong liberal always makes me chuckle. There was so much projection and wishful thinking about candadite Obama by the left. Go back and read the speeches. He ran as a moderate compromisor who would unite the country after 8 years of hyper partisanship and fear mongering. "There are no Red States or Blue States, there is the United States, of America" Even "Yes we can"was all about this idea that the People, writ large, could come together and make government work again. It shaped the entire Republican strategy to oppose him. Straight out of the Rove playbook, Republicans took his strength and discredited it. They refused to unite and compromise and framed Obama as an overreaching liberal. The Obama coalition in 2008 consisted of minorities, well educated liberals, and white blue color types who voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 but were fed up with Bush and GOP partisanship and scared about the economy. By refusing to work with Obama, the GOP drove a wedge between the liberals and the moderates. Obama could either continue to try "compromise", antagonizing the liberal wing, or fight back, and lose the moderates. The choice to pursue the "moderates" is easy to understand in the context of a two party system. Dem leadership assumed that while liberals might get mad, they wouldn't lose their votes. But if they antogonized the moderate Bush voters, they would go back to the GOP. It turned out the Dem establishment was half right. Liberals wouldn't vote for Republicans instead, but they wouldn't vote for Dems either. They would just stay home. Hence 2010. Liberals who thought Obama was one of them were just seeing what they wanted to see and hearing what they wanted to hear.
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 19:16 |
|
|
Grayly Squirrel posted:It shaped the entire Republican strategy to oppose him. Straight out of the Rove playbook, Republicans took his strength and discredited it. They refused to unite and compromise and framed Obama as an overreaching liberal. I agree with the rest of your post but this, this was always going to be their strategy because it's been their strategy for dealing with every Dem president/candidate since Clinton. It fires up their base and demoralizes the left. But what could Obama do about it? As long as the left is a small fraction of the overall electorate Dems are going to keep chasing the middle.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Also, apparently the man rides a rascal to get around I'm honestly shocked he's not borne on a sedan chair by four large black porters with white gloves.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
Grayly Squirrel posted:A page or two late, but all of this talk about how Obama ran in 2008 as a strong liberal always makes me chuckle. More to the point, they saw Obama's background as driving him towards more liberal policy choices than Hillary, which may well have been true.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
Family Values posted:As long as the left is a small fraction of the overall electorate Dems are going to keep chasing the middle. That's true as long as America has First-Past-the-Post elections. A party seeking to win control cannot be as extreme as their most extreme wing. A majoritarian party must moderate itself to be successful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
copper rose petal posted:Or the two in LV who shot and killed two cops, draped their bodies in Gadsden flag and a manifesto with swastikas on it, but they were democrats because they "got kicked out of the Bundy ranch". Wait what? Can I get a link for this story?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
copper rose petal posted:Or the two in LV who shot and killed two cops, draped their bodies in Gadsden flag and a manifesto with swastikas on it, but they were democrats because they "got kicked out of the Bundy ranch". A lot of people seem to be incapable of distinguishing "a stupid person said a dumb thing to try to spin something" with "normal people actually believed that dumb thing" and this post is a prime example of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:More to the point, they saw Obama's background as driving him towards more liberal policy choices than Hillary, which may well have been true. This, and the post you quoted, are what every single D&Der who voted for Obama believed (including me). Egg on our faces, eh?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:...as they should, at this point in time. When someone tries to bomb the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, it isn't because they opened up the yellow pages and flipped to a random page.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
BetterToRuleInHell posted:This, and the post you quoted, are what every single D&Der who voted for Obama believed (including me). Egg on our faces, eh? The alternative case, where Hillary wins the presidency in 2008 and goes on to be more liberal than Obama, has yet to be convincingly argued IMO.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
Phone posted:When someone tries to bomb the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, it isn't because they opened up the yellow pages and flipped to a random page. I have no problem with you saying that this was almost certainly racially motivated. I agree. But you're not the FBI spokesman speaking to the media who should be extremely cautious in general about any sort of public speculation and it is entirely appropriate for the FBI to not be commenting on motive publicly even though I'm sure that's what they believe as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:and the Capitol Grille as in the restaurant inside the capital building in Washington DC. It's actually a few blocks away.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:The alternative case, where Hillary wins the presidency in 2008 and goes on to be more liberal than Obama, has yet to be convincingly argued IMO. What if she would have been slightly less liberal but more effective? Would we accept a less liberal ACA in exchange for Grassley's energy bill passing too?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I have no problem with you saying that this was almost certainly racially motivated. I agree. But you're not the FBI spokesman speaking to the media who should be extremely cautious in general about any sort of public speculation and it is entirely appropriate for the FBI to not be commenting on motive publicly even though I'm sure that's what they believe as well. Oh yeah, I understand the need for professional organizations to be careful and calculated with what they're saying; however, it's completely analogous to someone asking if the sun rises in the east and sets in the west and the FBI spokesperson going "I can't comment on that right now". There are some things people and organizations should be able to call a spade: Bombing an NAACP office? Organizations like the FBI shouldn't have to put on the kid gloves and beat around the bush.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I have no problem with you saying that this was almost certainly racially motivated. I agree. But you're not the FBI spokesman speaking to the media who should be extremely cautious in general about any sort of public speculation and it is entirely appropriate for the FBI to not be commenting on motive publicly even though I'm sure that's what they believe as well. They upgraded it now to "an act of domestic terrorism is certainly one possibility" http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/01/07/naacp-explosion-colorado-terror/21385711/
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:More to the point, they saw Obama's background as driving him towards more liberal policy choices than Hillary, which may well have been true. That's called seeing what you want to see and hearing what you want to hear. To straw man: "Yeah the words coming out of his mouth might be centrist platitudes, but he is a Ivy Leauge educated black guy with a community organizing background. He must be a secret progressive. He is just saying what he needs to say to get votes, but once he's in he will be a true liberal champion." "nth demensional chess" became a byword in D&D. The projecting and wishful thinking was so hard and fast that people believed things totally contrary to the actual words coming out Obama's mouth because there just had to be some secret liberal strategy behind it all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
If only those dumbass kids would vote, maybe the Democrats would cater t... Oh wait, I guess I'm full of poo poo. Turns out today's youth don't vote because nobody caters to anything that's remotely important to them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
Grayly Squirrel posted:That's called seeing what you want to see and hearing what you want to hear. The biggest mantra I remember in the early days was along the lines of "He's a constitutional law professor!
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
Grayly Squirrel posted:"nth demensional chess" became a byword in D&D. The projecting and wishful thinking was so hard and fast that people believed things totally contrary to the actual words coming out Obama's mouth because there just had to be some secret liberal strategy behind it all. "nth dimensional chess" also applies to the seemingly unending own-goals that the Obama administration as a whole undertook. It took a while for a lot of us, myself included, to admit that the Obama administration sucked at politics as much as it has. It just seemed so unbelievable the number of stupid greasing the wheels poo poo they hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
Radbot posted:If only those dumbass kids would vote, maybe the Democrats would cater t... I don't know what you think that chart's saying but it's not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I don't know what you think that chart's saying but it's not. It's a good refuting of "those durn kids these days!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
Phone posted:Oh yeah, I understand the need for professional organizations to be careful and calculated with what they're saying; however, it's completely analogous to someone asking if the sun rises in the east and sets in the west and the FBI spokesperson going "I can't comment on that right now". There are some things people and organizations should be able to call a spade: Bombing an NAACP office? Organizations like the FBI shouldn't have to put on the kid gloves and beat around the bush. I mean, 99 times out of 100 it's going to be an act of racial terrorism but that one other time it's some idiot who mixed up the buildings, or his ex works there. And that mistake when you're the FBI spokesman gets magnified into discrediting the organization. When the evidence is that it was an NAACP office and that's it so far, everyone else can connect the dots: you need the FBI to connect the dots for people once there's additional information the FBI has turned up. You don't need the FBI to tell you what it means that the bomb was outside an NAACP office and so it's much better that the FBI sticks to making whatever internal assumptions it thinks are helpful, while only making public statements about what the facts uncovered from the investigation are. It's not like this is some conspiracy, it's the FBI being institutionally cautious which is a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I don't know what you think that chart's saying but it's not. I think the chart's saying that youth vote turnout, at least for presidential elections, hasn't significantly changed in 30+ years and so is unlikely the cause for Dems not catering to them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I think the chart's saying that youth vote turnout, at least for presidential elections, hasn't significantly changed in 30+ years and so is unlikely the cause for Dems not catering to them. You drew the conclusion that youth don't vote "because nobody caters to anything that's remotely important to them" which sure as hell isn't supported by the chart. In fact it supports exactly the opposite, because the youth vote being relatively steady over time means that it's likely not affected by if politicians cater to them or not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
Welp, Obama says he will veto the Save American Workers Act. Why won't you save America's workers Obama?  Also the White House may veto the Hire More Heroes Act, which just passed 412-0 in the house, but might just sign it anyway if the Senate can't kill it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
Relentlessboredomm posted:In case you didn't see it yet: Joe should just go full Wooderson at this point. "That's what I love about these senator's daughters, man. I keep getting older, they stay the same age"
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:You drew the conclusion that youth don't vote "because nobody caters to anything that's remotely important to them" which sure as hell isn't supported by the chart. In fact it supports exactly the opposite, because the youth vote being relatively steady over time means that it's likely not affected by if politicians cater to them or not. That's what I loving said: quote:hasn't significantly changed in 30+ years and so [voter turnout] is unlikely the cause for Dems not catering to them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Welp, Obama says he will veto the Save American Workers Act. Does this "name the bill literally the opposite of what it does" trick even work?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
^ It worked for the ACA  Radbot posted:That's what I loving said: But you're just strawmaning, no one is arguing that "if only more youth voted for the president, the democratic party would more cater to the youth."
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:^ Try the last page: uncurable mlady posted: There isn't really a "youth vote", I'm not sure what any politician has to gain by pandering to people who don't even show the gently caress up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Welp, Obama says he will veto the Save American Workers Act. Why won't you save America's workers Obama? Good, that change would strip coverage from 1 million people, make the bill cost $74 billion more (lost penalties), and incentivize hour cutbacks for people working 40 hours a week (44% of the population) It would have made life worse for a lot of people, all so the GOP could then point to the ACA and say "look how it is making things worse!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:^ Premiums in many states are down and the cost curve for overall health care costs has been bent since it was passed. It wasn't a very effective on lowering costs (since its purpose was expand coverage, not lower costs) but it has done what it says on the tin.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
Save are workers!!! Yeah that'll open up tons of 39hr/WK jobs due to current employees dying of easily curable disease.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
And so it begins http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/07/1356098/-House-Republicans-attack-Social-Security-on-day-nbsp-one quote:What's a bigger priority for Republicans to attack even than Obamacare? Social Security. They proved it Tuesday when they included a new rule in their rules package governing the 114th Congress that will prevent it from authorizing what has been routine reallocations of funds between the two Social Security programs, the retirement fund and the disability program. Reallocating funds between the programs has been entirely non-controversial and routine—Congress has done it 11 times, from and to both programs when one needs shoring up. But now House Republicans want to end that, presumably with the aim of forcing a crisis in 2016, when Social Security trustees say the disability program will run short.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:"nth dimensional chess" also applies to the seemingly unending own-goals that the Obama administration as a whole undertook. It took a while for a lot of us, myself included, to admit that the Obama administration sucked at politics as much as it has. It just seemed so unbelievable the number of stupid greasing the wheels poo poo they hosed up. There was a lot of cognitive dissonance going on. When you volunteer for someone and vote for someone and advocate for someone you get invested. It's hard to admit that "your guy" isn't what you thought he was. But I don't think Obama was especially bad at politics. It was a tough situation. Put yourself in that position. You have a three part coalition. Minorities, liberals and compromise hungry moderates. You are elected on a platform of unity and healing America. But the GOP refuses to work with you. What do you do? At the time, the idea of "hey, let's just keep trying to compromise, we will look like the adults in the room, we make the moderates happy, and the liberals and the minorities will hold their nose and stick with us no matter what" wasn't a terrible idea. Its what all of the Very Serious People thought was best. Hindsight is always 20/20 but knowing what you knew then, how would you have proceeded?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:And so it begins Another rule they put in is that fiscal notes on bills now have to include "economic impact" of legislation, which is highly subjective and economic forecasts beyond a couple of years are basically huge guesses, but hell let's make it that much easier to pass tax cuts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:"nth dimensional chess" also applies to the seemingly unending own-goals that the Obama administration as a whole undertook. It took a while for a lot of us, myself included, to admit that the Obama administration sucked at politics as much as it has. It just seemed so unbelievable the number of stupid greasing the wheels poo poo they hosed up. I never believed he was a radical, but I did and do still believe that he is personally more liberal than his administration overall. The problem is that the president is not as powerful as people believe/want to believe. He's at the top of a huge bureaucracy that has massive institutional inertia, and even at the top there are a lot of policy movers and shakers besides just him. I also think he was naive in thinking that he could be the adult in the room that would get the Reps to be sensible and compromise on things. I think he formed that attitude during his time in his state's legislature, but the federal level is a different ballgame. The lame duck years will be interesting to watch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Try the last page: But you only posted about the president. Youth voters don't vote in congressional elections at anywhere near the same rate as the rest of the population. Youth vote is also down 10% since the 60s:  Grayly Squirrel posted:There was a lot of cognitive dissonance going on. When you volunteer for someone and vote for someone and advocate for someone you get invested. It's hard to admit that "your guy" isn't what you thought he was. I'm just talking about stupid little petty poo poo. Like forgetting to invite the home senators to meet pro-ball teams when they meet the president. The little things that are dumb but failing to do them make senators and representatives butt hurt.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
copper rose petal posted:Or the two in LV who shot and killed two cops, draped their bodies in Gadsden flag and a manifesto with swastikas on it, but they were democrats because they "got kicked out of the Bundy ranch". Did that make the LVPD into a wartime police department? Or is that something that only happens in contract disputes?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 19:16 |
|
|
I'm more disturbed by media narratives that refuse to label anything done by a white person as terrorism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:38
|
|