|
As someone who actually came from crippling poverty instead of just using them as a rhetorical human shield, 'having the luxury of disengaging from politics' has always been an absurd statement; disenfranchised citizens don't leave the womb with a voter registration sheet, and putting faith that politics will get them out of their predicament is a price few can afford. I understand what you're poorly trying to verbalize, that it's easier to not care when it doesn't affect you, but 'having the luxury to disengage from politics' is an asinine statement when more than half of america does not have enough faith in politics to bother voting for president. As much as it might pain you to admit, there are in fact minority and poor citizens who simply are not inspired by current parties, irregardless of actual voter supression. That doesn't mean supression doesn't exist, only that it's not the only factor. Just as how you can't create a successful leftist movement without integrating both social and fiscal leftism, you cannot have a successful voter-generating strategy with just voter enthusiasm or voter suppression. The two are interlocked, where the higher the barrier for entry, the higher the required enthusiasm, and the higher the required enthusiasm, the lower the required barrier for entry needed to get them to vote. There isn't a messianic wave of voters aching to give democrats every state and position of governance, held back by voter suppression alone.
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 10:59 |
|
|
Shbobdb posted:I'm not talking about reality. I'm talking about history. They are different things. Uh, there are definitely a lot of historians (and people) that don't think Grant was a bumbling corrupt fool. The ones that do tend to be Lost Causers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 03:34
|
|
|
Quorum posted:I for one am having fun at least. Also the father of the family really wants this godawful tax plan to be passed 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 03:51
|
|
|
I also don't ever see Obama of all presidents being historically remembered as corrupt.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
Motto posted:I also don't ever see Obama of all presidents being historically remembered as corrupt. History is going to be very kind to Obama considering who he succeeded and who then came after him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 04:12
|
|
|
Yeah Obama is only corrupt by normal human standards, in other words if you compare him to the insanely turbocorrupt presidencies surrounding his he looks like a saint.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 04:19
|
|
|
Motto posted:I also don't ever see Obama of all presidents being historically remembered as corrupt. VitalSigns posted:Yeah Obama is only corrupt by normal human standards, in other words if you compare him to the insanely turbocorrupt presidencies surrounding his he looks like a saint. It's going to heavily depend on how much of the DNC bloat blame gets assigned to him IMO. He's lucky here in that it seems like Hillary is taking all the grift blame.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
Obama will probably be helped a bit as Hillary has become the go-to villain for everyone inclined to tarnish his legacy. It's kinda weird, to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
The Muppets On PCP posted:the state department in all likelihood gave their tacit approval The state department is still horribly understaffed, especially at the higher levels, they also gave tacit approval for the Saudi debacle with Qatar which ended with Qatar even deeper in the Iranian camp. I suppose the question to ask is would a sane state department give approval, which i think doesnt matter since this looks like an entirely internal affair so at best it might have less looked like a straight up purge.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
I mean, if we're talking Clinton (Bill), Reagan, HW Bush, Jr, and Trump as the presidents he is compared to in the modern era then yeah, he's going to come out of it looking swell.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
That's because Obama's a swell dude.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 05:00
|
|
|
he's clearly top 10 in presidents of all time, but then again almost all presidents have been murderous imperialists so thats not exactly the highest bar
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
Everyone pretty much thinks Obama was a good president except for republicans, anarchists, left-libertarians, and other assorted oddballs. That said, he made some bad mistakes, was too willing to compromise with republicans, and apparently his organization hosed up the DNC really badly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 05:29
|
|
|
Look iff America actually tries to unfuck itself and create a decent future where at least an overall majority get by, Obama will probably be considered a halfway decent president whose only real fault was not having enough vision. If the poo poo hits the fan. Say the GOP somehow does pass their dreamed of CC that makes America utterly ungovernable, or the cnetrists decide they would be fine with a split opposition and try to steal 2020 then he'll be considered like Millard Filmore.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 05:40
|
|
|
the only criticism obama is going to get from historians other than continuing our terrible foreign policy adventures is going to be history professors arguing over the 2016 primaries and the collapse of the democratic party
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 05:50
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:the only criticism obama is going to get from historians other than continuing our terrible foreign policy adventures is going to be history professors arguing over the 2016 primaries and the collapse of the democratic party So Millard Filmore. The last Whig president,
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 05:52
|
|
|
We can bring back the whigs now that the Dems are about to collapse. We can call them the Neo Whig Party.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 05:57
|
|
|
eh its more going to be incredibly bitter arguments over just how much attention a 21st century president needs to pay attention to the inner runnings of the party
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 05:57
|
|
|
I still maintain that Obama's going to be lucky to go down in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnN_JoIBkzw
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 06:06
|
|
|
Season 134 of The Simpsons will feature a reprise of that song, we'll see who's in it
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 06:10
|
|
|
Aves Maria! posted:Uh, there are definitely a lot of historians (and people) that don't think Grant was a bumbling corrupt fool. The ones that do tend to be Lost Causers. You are so close. So close to getting what I was saying. But you keep missing it. Shbobdb posted:Obama will be remembered as one of the most corrupt Presidents, like Grant. Now that I've helped you read, try again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 06:27
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:We can bring back the whigs now that the Dems are about to collapse. We can call them the Neo Whig Party. It already exists. http://www.modernwhig.org/ It is as sad as it sounds.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 06:34
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:It already exists. lol  
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 06:46
|
|
|
http://action.modernwhig.org/ quote:The Modern Whig Party is the spearhead of a pragmatic, centrist, solutions-oriented political movement dedicated to the restoration of representative government in our nation. We believe broad citizen participation at all levels of government is necessary for our civic, political and economic lives to thrive, and we are determined to take practical, sensible action to support our fellow Americans in returning control of their government to their hands.  quote:The idea of reviving the Whig name occurred to members of the American armed forces serving in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2007, and the Modern Whig Party was officially formed in Washington, D.C. in December 2009. From the very beginning our sole purpose and reason for being has been to serve in the spirit our military veterans understand so completely. We are a party committed to authentic service, and pledged to a simple motto: Courage. Common Sense. Country. Oh. Oh dear.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 06:55
|
|
|
It's OK, usually when former corporals who think they're smarter than they actually are decide to form a Common Sense political party, it looks a lot worse for minorities. Just make sure none of these clowns tried to go to art school.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 07:08
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:the only criticism obama is going to get from historians other than continuing our terrible foreign policy adventures is going to be history professors arguing over the 2016 primaries and the collapse of the democratic party The hundred-years-out analysis of Obama is going to be "was elected on a populist wave promising left wing reforms, but then once in office was met with right-wing intransigence and was only able to deliver modest incremental reforms rather than sweeping change, and thus ultimately failed to address the systemic failures that had made his own election possible and that in turn left the door open for the election of a right-wing populist demagogue in the form of Trump." and the rest of the book will be an illegible mass of sodden wood pulp and scorch marks
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 07:20
|
|
|
Never would've thought Clay as a hero. Feels very democrat centrist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 09:12
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The hundred-years-out analysis of Obama is going to be "was elected on a populist wave promising left wing reforms, but then once in office was met with right-wing intransigence and was only able to deliver modest incremental reforms rather than sweeping change, and thus ultimately failed to address the systemic failures that had made his own election possible and that in turn left the door open for the election of a right-wing populist demagogue in the form of Trump." lol if you think people are going to be writing books about American presidents in 100 years when the planet is an irradiated hellscape
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 14:40
|
|
|
It's going to be like that quote about the Civil War and slavery. When you know a little, you think Obama was a good president. When you know more, you think Obama was a bad president. When you know a lot, you think Obama was a good president.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/927407322300846080 Incredible political operation from the very smart party under Tom Perez.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
D +2 among likely voters who turned out in 2014 when the Dems were in power and not very popular and most Dem voters were apathetic vs D +11 among all likely voters. Hmm I wonder which number they'll choose for their headline.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:D +2 among likely voters who turned out in 2014 when the Dems were in power and most Dem voters were apathetic vs D +11 among all likely voters. Are all these voters going to be turning out for data center consolidation?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
Nanomashoes posted:https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/927407322300846080 That particular segment of that particular poll measures only the most die-hard voters from the 2014 midterm. The last time that cohort of voters came out, it was a crushing defeat for the Democrats in Congress. That group polling at parity in 2018 isn't a good sign for taking back Congress, of course, but a) it still displays a substantial shift in opinion, and b) it is incredibly unlikely that the 2018 electorate will look just like the 2014 electorate, in the same way for the 2012 electorate didn't look just like the 2006 electorate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
Nanomashoes posted:https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/927407322300846080 I'm gonna cross-post what I said in Trump thread here so people don't Covok. axeil posted:Eh, I mean it's a useful bit of info for modeling the electorate. You typically want to compare things to a bunch of different elections to get a sense of things. For example, if you're trying to model the VA-GOV electorate for tomorrow there are 3 recent baselines you can use: axeil posted:And this is the key thing. 2006 was a great year for the Dems, as was 2008. Based on that if you modeled the election to look like 2006 you'd expect the Dems to maintain or expand their margins in 2010, which obviously didn't happen. axeil posted:The bigger issue is that it is unlikely that using 2014's turnout model is appropriate for 2018.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
Yeah if the same group that gave a huge Republican victory now shows a narrow Dem win that points to a huge shift that, with an increase in Dem turnout, would point to larger Dem win in 2018. Also polling a full year out from the midterms is an exercise in futility in the best of circumstances since so much can and will change.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
Keep in mind that this is "Generic D", which rarely matches up to the real deal. Especially depending on what they consider to be "Generic D". Which is to say, a real Generic Democrat likely will not enjoy the same advantage as a blue cardboard cutout you can project onto.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The hundred-years-out analysis of Obama is going to be "was elected on a populist wave promising left wing reforms, but then once in office was met with right-wing intransigence and was only able to deliver modest incremental reforms It's actually going to be "was elected on a populist wave promising bipartisan consensus solutions, but then once in office was met with right wing intransigence and was only able to deliver modest incremental reforms"
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Keep in mind that this is "Generic D", which rarely matches up to the real deal. Especially depending on what they consider to be "Generic D". ....so why not run the cardboard cutout? that guy did better than ossoff in ga-6 last year
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:It's actually going to be "was elected on a populist wave promising bipartisan consensus solutions, but then once in office was met with right wing intransigence and was only able to deliver modest incremental reforms" So, translation for the average person: was elected on a populist wave promising UHC through moderate bipartisanship, then was unable to deliver because moderate bipartisanship involves getting rightwing democrats
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 10:59 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:It's actually going to be "was elected on a populist wave promising bipartisan consensus solutions, but then once in office was met with right wing intransigence and was only able to deliver modest incremental reforms" Nah, Campaign Obama made a lot of promises that were starkly left wing and that he failed to deliver. Examples: Closing guantanamo http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-broken/ Go down that list and it's a left-wing dream basket. This is partly because "bipartisan consensus solutions" is a process descriptor, not a policy descriptor; he promised a bipartisan process but promised, and then failed to deliver, left-wing policy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 17:34
|
|