Obama’s Path to Victory
From David Plouffe’s statements, we know team Obama’s plan: 1) Allow the Republicans to nominate a nut bag. 2) Allow some Independants to drift over to the D side, and 3) Allow Dems to vote for Obama, because honestly, what else can they do?
It reminds me more of the Gore/Lieberman path to victory than the Obama/Biden ’08 path to victory, but on the plus side, it is a plan that is in keeping with the passive brand that team Obama has worked so hard to build up over the past few years. There is no jarring disconnect when you hear that plan. Obama basically has to be his cool, calm collected, middle-of-the-road self and let the GOP go bonkers. And while it is a safe bet that the GOP’s “free candy van” will creep everyone out,
….there are a few assumptions embedded in the team Obama strategy that are not such safe bets.
The biggest, and least safe assumption is that the indies at the “center” will break for Obama. That assumption is based on the false notion that people who regard themselves to be neither Republicans nor Democrats favor “moderation.” That’s a strange conclusion to draw from the last few elections. A much more reasonable conlcusion to draw is that the “center” is comprised of a bunch of bandwagon chasing losers who only want to vote for the person that they perceive as the “winner.” The notion that people have no strongly held opinions on current events will make a rational decision to vote for the advocate of the least offensive policies rings false to me. Not only that, but the 50% +1 electoral college strategy is is more likely to make Obama seem wishy-washy and values impaired than it is to make him seem reasonable. The loose cannon voters like candidates that are authentic and feisty, not mushy.
Although he pursued the middle, Bill Clinton’s feistiness allowed him to pull it off without seeming like a needy loser. I suppose team Obama is banking on the fact that their candidate has that same sort deep likability, or that enough of Obama’s fight will come out to please the empty-headed middle. Still, it is a risk to think that “the middle” so beloved by the DC villagers, is swayed by anything other than momentum. One tasty campaign snafu, amplified a million times by the media’s lazy tunnel vision could make the difference for these voters.
The other un-safe assumption built into team Obama’s strategy is the idea that Dems will vote for their candidate. While they certainly will not vote FOR the Republican, they might vote against another Obama term by staying home. I’m still waiting to see how Obama plans on appealing to non-centrists that will need to turn out on elections day. (Someone nudge me awake when he starts looking for my vote.) In the meantime Plouffe’s cavalier assumptions about equalling their ’08 numbers for teens, latinos and other occasional voting groups should give every Democrat pause.
So, what’s the worst that could happen? Team Obama chases a few counties in Florida and Ohio while ignoring the Dem base, then some slip up (a literal fall perhaps) and BANGO! We are looking at President Bachmann. That’s crazy, right? So, what’s the second worst that could happen? The second worst outcome (and the outcome that team Obama seem to be working for) is a narrow electoral college victory while losing more seats in the house and senate. The strategy team Obama is pursuing continues to give back all of the gains Democrats made during the last Presidential election. Where once we were competitive in the west and upper mid-west, the narrow electoral college strategy does not give down ticket Democrats anything to run on. It is a sad undoing of the spirit of ’08 and a pointless turning away from the proven 50 state strategy. Hello Florida recount. You were so fun the first time, we came back for more!!
Of course, there is another possibility. There is a clear path to victory that I’d love to see team Obama try.
They could reboot the 2008 campaign. Sure it would be tough, but I still think that it is doable. It would have to start with a big mea-culpa about not “changing Washington.” Admitting that he let himself get pushed around by the Dems in the Senate and the Republicans in congress and therefor didn’t pursue and aggressive enough agenda. He’d basically have to fire some inner circle people and run against Obama 2009, Obama 2010, and Obama most of 2011. That would be controversial, but he’d have the bully pulpit to start pointing the finger of blame where it belongs – at the horrendous Republicans. Their Presidential candidate will be helpful when it comes to making the case that Republicans are zealots who are flatly uninterested in sensibly governing. It is a message that America loved once, and they are thirsting to hear again.
Ah. Another emoProg post.
This from McManus’ article is key:
This really should tell you something. And the first thing it should tell you is that for all of the whinging about “the base” among progressives, the real base is basically AOK here. So he is quite free to chase independents.
It should tell you that progressives have been spectacularly ineffective in moving the needle their way. Unlike the teajadis who keep moving their party ever to the right.
And while Bill Clinton was certainly fiesty, his basic job after losing the house in 94 was to fight with Newt Gingrich. All he had to do was look more reasonable than Gingrich and that certainly worked for him. But Clinton quite abandoned his larger agenda after 94 — in the meantime, Obama is still working at his. You many not like how this looks, but he still has his list and it isn’t as though progressives have shown up to help, much less move the agenda at all.
But then again, I don’t quite get the emo discussion so I’m assuming that all of this just makes you *feel* better for not showing up otherwise.
Carry on!
“The president’s job approval rating among Democrats, Plouffe said, is in the 80% to 90% range in many states.”
They should have asked how many Obama primary voters regret their vote.
But listen, I just want the guy to win, is that so wrong?
And really? It is the progressives fault that they haven’t “shown up to help.” That’s rich. They may have got the message that they were not welcome. And yet, they showed up after Obama put balancing the budget through SS cuts on the table.
Cassandra, if you really think that Obama has tried to bring the progressive movement (which from my perspective, he hoodwinked in ’08) into his administration and they have resisted, you are nuts.
I spent the whole of the Bush Admin berating Republicans for not accepting reality, now I see Democrats on the same track.
“emoProg”
Next she’ll be calling us libtards or something.
I hate the the strawman game of calling everything left of GWB “progressive.”
I don’t know if Obama is going to win or not, but it is clear he is throwing Democrats under the bus in the attempt.
Dems were on the offense after the vote on the Ryan budget, but Obama is handing it all back and is getting ready to blast an enthusiasm gap deep and wide.
You realize if we do get a President Bachmann it will be part of a GOP wave that also gives us a Speaker Cantor and a Senate Leader DeMint.
Cassandra, if you really think that Obama has tried to bring the progressive movement (which from my perspective, he hoodwinked in ‘08) into his administration and they have resisted, you are nuts.
And right here is your strawman. This is not a thing that I have ever even claimed. And wouldn’t, not that it would mean anything to the oppositional need here.
But I’m going to ask “What progressive movement?” If there really is one, they all went home to bitch from their keyboards after the inauguration. You are a movement if you can actually *do* something. And moving the needle has not been something that progressives could rouse themselves to do.
In the meantime, teajadis are primarying Dick Lugar who is busily trying to sound like a teajadi every day in order to save his skin. *This* is what doing something that people will take seriously looks like.
So tell me — the local progressive movement (no need to ask you to be accountable for the whole country) is standing up who, exactly, to take on Tom Carper? Or what has the local progressive movement done to get John Carney from being a Blue Dog?
I want Obama to win too, but the whinging that centers *progressives* and the secret sauce to re-election is the non-reality here. And there’s a long list of Obama policies that testify to that.
I guess we are at an insolvable “chicken and egg” deal. You think progressive dems left Obama high and dry and I happen to think Obama left progressives high and dry right after election day. I guess we’ll have to wait for the judgement of history.
In the meantime, if the fact that there is no left-wing teabag type movement here in Delaware is proof that I’m a lazy a-hole, then I’m guilty as charged.
Although I can’t shake the feeling that Obama might be partly responsible for the impotence of the left.
Although I can’t shake the feeling that Obama might be partly responsible for the impotence of the left.
Bullshit. He is not responsible for the fact that you can’t leave your keyboard. He is not responsible for the fact that your disappointment is located in the fact that you never were as important as you imagined. Because if progressives were that vital and that important, you’d be able to flex those muscles. And flexing muscles is how politics gets played, how politics gets done. Which you know.
You see on a day by day basis the teajadi crew — most of which have no where near your smarts, your privileges, your money — who are somehow able to send repubs quivering and here you are claiming that one man has utterly emasculated you?
Guess I have the answer to *What progressive movement?*
And this is not quite what I think:
You think progressive dems left Obama high and dry
I think that progressive dems have left *themselves* high and dry.
what have the local progressives done?
I and others have spoken up to Senator Carper and his staffers on both health care and financial reform. He is an incumbent, and unseating him is unlikely in reach. Maintaining good ties with those who could run (and win) for this seat when Carper retires is attainable. Confronting/embarrassing him periodically can help move him away from the Republicans on some issues. If you know of a better, achievable, approach, let us know.
Engagement with Rep Carney, in this his first term, is worthwhile. As he has to run every two years, he needs to regularly make the decision of whether to stand with or against progressives, and accept the consequences. Note that while he is not a progressive standard-bearer, Carney is better than Castle (who would have strengthened the Republicans hold in the House) and incredibly better than Urqhart.
Senator Chris Coons is indeed an improvement, from a progressive perspective, over Senator Biden. Coons engaged the DE progressives during his campaign, and it appears that he wishes to maintain this.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on whether or not Obama cut the legs out from under progressives. I’m as convinced that he did, as you are convinced that he didn’t. We were both eyewitnesses to history, and yet we have very different takes on the past few years. I guess that’s why eyewitness testimony is so unreliable.
“You see on a day by day basis the teajadi crew — most of which have no where near your smarts, your privileges, your money…”
All true, but what do they have that I don’t? An interlocking system of media, think tanks, foundations, organizational support from the top tier of the conservative movement… etc. Or do you want to pretend that the teabagers are really a grassroots movement?
They aren’t a grassroots movement. But they are an effective force in moving *their* needle. Even though they have a massive amount of infrastructure support, they still show up when they need to.
And you can’t have this story both ways — that somehow Obama needs progressives in some life or death way AND that progressives have no where near the effective support that teajadis do. Because now you are arguing against your own position.
I and others have spoken up to Senator Carper and his staffers on both health care and financial reform. He is an incumbent, and unseating him is unlikely in reach. Maintaining good ties with those who could run (and win) for this seat when Carper retires is attainable. Confronting/embarrassing him periodically can help move him away from the Republicans on some issues. If you know of a better, achievable, approach, let us know.
I’ve written/spoke to Carper too. But I’m arguing for a better set of incentives to be used to get your position taken up by people like Carper. You are noting that progressives have largely decided to accommodate him. This is a perfectly rational position, really, when you don’t have a better set of incentives to deploy. But this speaks directly to what I’m saying about progressives on a nationwide basis. While there are places where progressives can move the needle, they aren’t in much of a position to do so in most places.
Stamping your feet at Obama doesn’t change the position of the pieces on the board.
“Because now you are arguing against your own position.”
No I’m not. I argued that Obama can win with his 50% +1 electoral college strategy. I just don’t think that it is an optimal strategy for the winning down ticket races, or for effective governing after the election.
Obama has made it abundantly clear that he does not need progressives. I am thick, but I get that much.
Obama (and Plouffe, etc) did a nice job in 2008 of inviting all to their tent, and appealing to everyone, depending on whom they were speaking to at the time. they could talk the progressive talk, the latino talk, the centrist talk, etc.
that is, and always has been, the mark of a successful candidate, appealing to the broadest range of voters. typically candidates appeal to their partisan backers in the primary and then move center during the general election. Obama (and Plouffe, etc) likely figure that they have the 2012 primary sewn up, and so they can start early with appealing to the center. this likely has been their plan for the re-election from the day after the 2008 election.
while local election candidates can reasonably ‘go pure’ and win elections from a fairly far left (or right) position, this very rarely works state-wide or certainly country-wide. This is a reality, isn’t it? It doesn’t mean that we should sit idly by and do nothing, but that we should instead work on moving our state-wide and national elected officials gradually left-ward, and we should work to get good progressive elected in local elections.
i also think that we (progressives) need to continue to grow our role within the state party structure, joining the RD committees, and speaking up when party officials are selected, when party positions are made, etc. this will help progressives to have a larger say in such matters as what Democratic candidate runs for the US senate seat when Senator Carper retires.
This — again — is the position you are arguing against:
And you can’t have this story both ways — that somehow Obama needs progressives in some life or death way AND that progressives have no where near the effective support that teajadis do. Because now you are arguing against your own position.
I haven’t said a thing about arguing against a 50+1 strategy.
I guess I read something into your comment that wasn’t there. I never meant to suggest that Obama NEEDS progressives. Clearly – he does not.
Obama (and Plouffe, etc) did a nice job in 2008 of inviting all to their tent, and appealing to everyone, depending on whom they were speaking to at the time. they could talk the progressive talk, the latino talk, the centrist talk, etc.
Yes they did. And they also did a nice job in 2008 and in the 2009 inaugural speech of asking people to stay engaged.
We are the ones we’ve been waiting for was meant to *mean* something, you know?
candidates appeal to their partisan backers in the primary and then move center during the general election.
Of course. Except that we know that the “center” has been a moving target and a target moving to the right. All I keep pointing out is that progressives engaged in deploying a better set of incentives (and better discipline) than just bitching about the President would have at least made that movement rightward into a genuine tug-of-war.
I never meant to suggest that Obama NEEDS progressives. Clearly – he does not.
He needed progressives to cave on HCR, and they did.
And here is why blaming progressives is a straw man. Obama had to fight the Democratic Caucus, not just progressives, to extend the tax cuts for the rich. December 9:
And of course, Obama chose to ally with Republicans instead to bypass the will of his own party.
Again with the tax cuts where were people who opposed them? Were they writing, calling, showing up at their representatives offices? Because that’s what teabaggers were doing. Plus they were flexing their muscle in the form of recruiting candidates and giving money. This is what we are talking about in terms of engagement. Engaging from the local level all the way up. The progressive grassroots movement right now seems to be 1) have an idea 2) yell at Obama for nt supporting it. There quite a few steps in between.
Yes, I do feel that progressives abandoned the president and quite fast. One of the things that bothers me is when people say Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing because that’s just not true. He knows exactly what he’s doing, he’s just not doing it the way you want it to be done. His style is not the hotheaded ideologue style that a lot of people seem to want.
I see a lot of people saying they want Obama to fight. I’m already tired of fight, I want to do not just fight. It appears to me that lots of people want Obama to validate their positions or something, or are personally offended when he doesn’t agree with them. This is the wrong way to go about it. If you want something to happen you need to work hard to influence a majority of legislators to do that and the power will move with you. That’s what LGBT activists have done re same sex marriage. That’s what we need to do regarding our economic agenda as well.
Again with the “pony” theory – as if US prosperity was some special interest belonging only to a small band of squirrelly progressives, to be balanced against all the other issues, or traded away if it seems expedient.
There has never been an activist movement to demand tax increases. You are attempting to set a bar so high that no tax increases will ever be enacted again. Grover Norquist loves your theory of how to increase taxes.
Tax cuts are ice cream and ponies. But tax increases are a leadership issue, and always require a fight.
Clinton’s 1992 tax increases passed by Al Gore’s vote. It happened because of Clinton’s leadership and willingness to fight, and resulted in a decade of prosperity. I don’t recall Clinton being backed up by any real activist movement. Hell, he was elected by a plurality. It was pure Profiles in Courage on the part of Clinton and key Congressional Democrats. That’s what’s missing now.
There are clear similarities between LGBT activism and teabagger activism. I’ve already made the point that the teabag/progessives Dem analogy does not hold up. The biggest difference is that the Republicans understand the long-term strategic value of supporting the base, while Democrats think that they get more milage out of diminishing and marginalizing the base.
But like I said to Cassandra, we’ll simply have to agree to disagree about who sandbagged who. I can’t ignore Obama’s track record (on the wars, terror, taxation, SS, and jobs) and say conclude that he was let down by the left – and you can’t ignore HCR and conclude that Obama has not been an effective Democratic President.
We are at an impasse. But I do appreciate your comments because I didn’t post this because I was done thinking about it. I posted it because I wanted to think some more about it.
Excellent comment puck.
He needed progressives to cave on HCR, and they did.
So why do you continue to complain? If progressives were complicit in making sure that the HCR had no public option (because that was really all on the table to be complicit in — and I haven’t forgotten that single payer was never on offer here), then why are you stewing on this?
Implicit in this claim is that progressives had some power here that they willingly gave up. Which is utterly revisionist. Because if progressives had the kind of sway that the teajadis do you wouldn’t be at your keyboards complaining so much.
And here we have more fetishization of Clinton. If Obama fought his own caucus for tax cuts, that *was* a demonstration of leadership. Of course no one wanted the tax cuts, but he got a deal he thought he could live with here. And he did get more out of that deal besides tax cuts, while we’re correcting the record. Again.
The biggest difference is that the Republicans understand the long-term strategic value of supporting the base, while Democrats think that they get more milage out of diminishing and marginalizing the base.
Republicans support their base because their base beats the crap out of them if they don’t get what they want. You saw that article that UI posted on the debt increase, right?
You show me where progressives beat the crap out of Democrats for something and *still* didn’t get what they wanted, then you have your argument. “Progressives” don’t do this kind of work, don’t do this kind of accountability. If they did, there would be a primary for Tom Carper, say.
It’s interesting how much revisionism there is of Clinton. Clinton signed DADT, DOMA, welfare “reform” and the repeal of Glass-Steagall.
Chicken & egg again. Supporting the base carries some risks and the GOP might be contending with some of those risks now. Nevertheless it would be foolishness to argue that the GOP hasn’t gotten a hell of a lot out of supporting its base over the past 20 years.
They go into every election with a registration disadvantage and largely unpopular messages, and yet they’ve equalled and bested the Democrats in election after election.
The evidence is clear that supporting the base is sound strategy.
I think the problem is that a lot of progressives falsely believe they are the base, when they really aren’t.
Implicit in this claim is that progressives had some power here that they willingly gave up.
Which is exactly the case for HCR. House Progressives were the powerbrokers in the HCR deal. They had the power to join Republicans in voting down HCR. They even pledged to do so if it didn’t have a public option. But they broke their pledge when Obama asked them to – which is probably what gave Obama the idea they were weak, and rightly so. Now with a GOP House they have lost the power to even get into that powerbroker position.
On the December tax cut, Pelosi had the power not to bring the Senate bill for a vote, theoretically at least.
But by that time Obama had made it clear he would be more than happy to replace progressive votes with Republican votes. A hell of a way to repay progressives for their HCR cave-in at his request.
Really good article on the differences between the Republicans and the Democrats.. Republicans are much more ideologically rigid. This works for them right now but is a long-term losing proposition. This difference in the base is why I and Cassandra say you need to work with D coalition to get things done. Unlike Republicans what we want doesn’t zing straight to the top with leadership (or flow down from leadership). If we want things done we need to convince our coalition it’s the right thing or replace those in the coalition that are holding things up.
I think the problem is that a lot of progressives falsely believe they are the base, when they really aren’t.
That’s easy to say when you aren’t in a Democratic primary.
Cool. Primary Tom Carper then.
Supporting the base carries some risks and the GOP might be contending with some of those risks now.
It carries some risks ONLY when the base is willing to impose some risks for not paying attention.
There’s no chicken & egg here. Much like there is no “both sides do it”. All there is is looking for someone else to do the genuinely hard work here.
But by that time Obama had made it clear he would be more than happy to replace progressive votes with Republican votes
This is more revisionist history. You can tell by the bit about replacing progressive votes with repubs. On HCR no less. Sheesh. How hard are you really going to work at this narrative that progressives are some all powerful group that no one is paying attention to?
I think the problem is that a lot of progressives falsely believe they are the base, when they really aren’t.
UI is dead right on this point. And I would add that progressives aren’t doing much to actually expand their own base, so that maybe they might be stronger.
The Republicans understand that the mechanics of our Democracy are based on the courtroom system of argument and counter-argument with the voters being the jury. Democrats CLEARLY do not get it.
This is a brilliant summary of the perennial loser party’s position:
“…a lot of progressives falsely believe they are the base, when they really aren’t.”
We have joined the prosecution and look scornfully over at the empty table where the defense should be sitting. Jaysus Christ on a popsicle stick, No fucking wonder we keep losing.
UI, thank you so much for that comment. I really see everything clearly know.
Except when progressives stay home, Democrats lose.
Democrats can pass center-right legislation by allying with Republicans, but they can’t win an election that way.
Something to think about as we contemplate enlarging the enthusiasm gap to Grand Canyon proportions.
Actually I’m pretty wasn’t the progressives that stayed home in November. Democrats have a much more fickle coalition. That’s the way it is when you’re a bigger tent. I think the activist left needs to think harder about who is in this coalition and work hard to get them on board with progressive priorities. This is hard work and long-term.
I feel like I am seeing a change on how people think about taxes. Taxing the rich is very popular and more and more people are talking about how extending the Bush tax cuts have not helped employment at all and may have even hurt.
“I feel like I am seeing a change on how people think about taxes.”
Without leadership, it is going nowhere.
progressives aren’t doing much to actually expand their own base
No Democrat is.
This honestly has been a epiphany for me. If Progressives aren’t the base..? If they don’t hold some core democratic values…? Who is the base? What’s the main selling points for the “base expansion?”
I’ve long thought that the leadership didn’t mind the muddled Democratic message, but I didn’t think that the murky sense of what it means to be a Democrat had won the day so completely that we can’t identify the Dem base.
Todays progressives do hold the core Democratic values. Progressives didn’t leave the party; the party left them.
Republicans have been completely successful imprinting trickle-down into the mainstream Democratic party, in elected officials as well as the rank and file. The only thing that can knock it out again is a 25% unemployment rate.
If we keep shoving free money at “job creators” we should be there in year two of President Bachmann’s administration.
Democrat had won the day so completely that we can’t identify the Dem base.
Really? C’mon now, you live in Delaware which is decidedly a Blue place and just as decidedly not progressive. Just look at the leadership at the state level, at city level, even our Federal delegation and you can count on one hand the progressives. All of the other Democrats running the show count as the base. And lots of Democrats vote for these people who simply do not care about *progressiveness*.
Repeat that across blue states everywhere.
Van Jones has been working on reminding the progressive grassroots of the work still to be done for awhile now. Last year, I posted up his session at Netroots Nation, a really vital discussion that I think I saw and UI saw in person. This even starts with a taped intro by Howard Dean talking for about 4 minutes of the work that needs to be done and Howard knows from grassroots.
I still rewatch this on occasion, because this really is the prescription. You don’t have to watch it all — but if you watch Howard’s 4 minutes and about the first 15 mins or so of Jones speaking you’ll get the gist.
I love the way cassandra_m gets all haughty and acts as if no one does any work besides blog or post comments. Well, you’re freakin’ wrong. Many of us (including me) supported Obama with our heard-earned dollars and GOTV efforts because we believed his lies in 2008.
So why don’t you climb off your high pony and start looking at reality? Obama has been little better than Bush in more areas than not and worse than Bush in others, yet all you do try to blame, shame, and scorn everybody who disagrees with Obama.
Now, with 2012 coming, this is the hope and change we have to look forward to:
“This is still a very tough economy. For a lot of people, it’s going to feel very hard — harder than anything they’ve experienced in a lifetime now — for some time to come.”
Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, 7/10/11
And if you want to blame the repubs, fine, but you should also be blaming the utterly failed political leadership of Obama for losing the Democratic House Majority in 2010.
But in cassandra_m’s world, the blame falls on everyone and anyone but Obama. If you want to defend Obama, fine, but stop acting like the people who think he is awful work any less hard for the progressive movement than Obamabots like you.
Oh, and I don’t see you out running against Carper, either. Sheesh.
By the way, this argument that progressives “aren’t the base” is a false one. The fact is that progressive positions on the big issues of the day – health care, social security, ending the wars, creating jobs – always have overwhelming majority support in the polls.
If we had a President who represented what the majority of the American people want, then we would have a progressive President. Instead we have a corporatist President.
And if you think he is not a corporatists, just look at who he hired for his economic team and the results:
Corporations = Fast recovery with record profits and bonuses
American People = No recovery with stagnant wages and 9.2% unemployment and growing
High unemployment = lower wages: who benefits? Corporations, of course.
I guess I just don’t accept the mindset that the tax battle is a pie fight between progressives and Obama, at which serious and pragmatic Democrats can and should be disinterested spectators.
That sounds suspiciously like a rationalization, to avoid having to admit the time and effort you invested in Obama was, if not a waste, a disappointment.
In the end the question for Obama and the pragmatists is: Do you believe in voodoo economics, or not? Are you reality based?
Promoting trickle-down is just as inexcusable as advocating for creationism in the classroom, denying climate change, or relying on abstinence-only sex ed. It’s not reality based, and it doesn’t work. And pretty much the same is true for the austerity agenda.
Progressives aren’t going to march on Washington to demand taxes on the rich. Not even the New Deal was accomplished that way. FDR found his political ammunition in piteous letters from broken and hungry non-progressive citizens begging for help for their families. Do you really want to wait for that this time around?
The way it gets done is you elect a hard-assed President who gets the job done, and if that doesn’t work elect another one.
I love how anonone comes back in here and just runs right past a lot of points in a possibly useful conversation to make sure that everyone gets his ill-informed outrage. While I haven’t missed this bit of self-centered cluelessness one bit, I guess some certainty in this quarter helps my argument a great deal.
I guess I just don’t accept the mindset that the tax battle is a pie fight between progressives and Obama, at which serious and pragmatic Democrats can and should be disinterested spectators.
And you will have to go back to the place where this is a serious argument to make whatever case you are making here. Because that certainly isn’t the topic here.
Not even the New Deal was accomplished that way. FDR found his political ammunition in piteous letters from broken and hungry non-progressive citizens begging for help for their families.
And this is quite revisionist too.
FDR found his political ammunition in 25% unemployment, massive farm failures, massive bank failures and nonstop news of the plight of men out of work. Even though conservatives fought him, he was able to get most of the New Deal with votes from *both* parties. There were some at the time who thought that the New Deal was too little -and lets not forget that Roosevelt was pushed into his own budget austerity — which didn’t help the economy, but needed WWII to basically rescue.
Obama is not FDR and his political playing field is quite different. Not the least of which is an entire political party whose sole goal in life is the wealth protection of those who paid for them to govern.
It really is astonishing how far so-called progressives will go in convincing themselves that the only one who has any role to play here is the President of the United States. This has just never been true throughout our history — politicians of all stripes respond to incentives and the fact is that the last time progressives came anywhere near flexing the kind of muscle needed was in trying to take out Joe Lieberman.
Face it, cassandra_m. You got nothing. Your idea of a “useful conversation” is where you get to blame, shame, and scorn anybody who disagrees with your Obama worship. My outrage is hardly ill-informed, and you know that. Your outrage is based on haughty self-delusion, and anybody can see that.
But I am glad that you love that I am back here. (:
Ah yes, more of the same old shtick. It hardly matters that you still need to make shit up to argue against, but then again, that is how we know that the person here with *nothing* is you.
And you are bound and determined to hold on to all of that nothing, too.
Of course, I didn’t make anything up, but you love to say stuff like that because that’s all you got. The facts aren’t on your side. The president isn’t even on your side.
Obama’s “path to victory” has to go through 9.2% and rising unemployment, so 9.2% unemployment must be some “shit” that anonone just made up. Same with the Tim Geithner quote, anonone must have just made that up, too.
Actually, Obama will probably win because money buys elections in America, and corporate America is getting their money’s worth from Obama, that’s for sure. Hardly anybody else is though.
2008 = Hope and change
2012 = “it’s going to feel very hard”
Yeah, that’s a winner, for sure.
but you love to say stuff like that because that’s all you got
How many times have you said that?
Right.
Just keep arguing with the strawmen you keep building there.
We’ll watch. Pointing and laughing, but we’ll watch.
We’ll watch. Pointing and laughing, but we’ll watch.
9.2% unemployment is pretty funny, isn’t it?
How about close to 25% of American children living below the poverty line ($22,000 per year for a family of 4)? Let them eat cake, ha ha!
The Treasury Secretary predicting economic conditions “harder than anything [the American people] experienced in a lifetime now.” Big yucks, right?
More killing and wasted $billions in Afghanistan and Iraq – LOL!
Keep laughing, cassandra_m, there is much more comedy to come.
well honestly, if the most of the spending is in defense and/or military I don;t think one can blame Obama for that
I mean, he never said Iraq had WMDs, it wasnt HIS choice to enter Afganistan and Iraq.
Rome wasnt built in a day, nor was it destroyed in a day either, it was a process.
A process started by GWB and our entrance into the War zone
Can someone tell me the difference between Hube and Cassandra?
a1,
you keep forgetting Obama let those tax cuts expire earlier this year.
I wish you could get your facts straight
Keep laughing, cassandra_m, there is much more comedy to come.
See what I mean about strawmen?
The pointing and laughing is at *you*. You don’t much care about any of those things that you list out — they are just today’s rationalization for the culture of ill-informed complaint.
Consider this post a point and laugh one. And at your little dog, too.
woof
I’m going to try and predict where you are going to apologize for Obama next. My guess it will have something to do with Medicare or Social Security.
Q the post up now Cassandra you are going to need a few days to really think of a creative way to spin how Obama raises the debt ceiling.
You keep on apologizing thought you will have plenty more reasons to do it. But, each time you do, why don’t you stand over the toilet and ceremoniously flush away what little credibility you think you have as a fair and balanced contributor.
This thread was nice while it lasted. Time of death: July 10, 7:29 pm.
time of death was the minute you hit Publish.
Did you really type that last paragraph in your post and believe it could happen?
He will get reelected easily. He has run so fast to the middle I can’t see through the dust he left from his helicopter. I thought clinton was bad. I thought Reagan was bad…
This guy has made everyone forget he is black for sure.
This guy has made everyone forget he is black for sure.
Could you please explain this statement?
Wait, stewardess. I speak DonViti. He means that until Obama, he hadn’t been screwed this badly by anyone but a white guy.
A1 has some pretty sucky people skills and an inability to choose the right battles.
That said, that doesn’t make him wrong.
Geezer drops the “Airplane!” reference for the win!
A1 is Puck’s surely brunette twin sister.
I’m the pretty one.
Dad always liked me better, though.
it means that Obama has done a great job at eliminating the race factor. He has fully been able to overcome any race issues and now people just see him as a corporate sellout. They don’t see black or white. They just see a guy that has bowed to the rich and is completely powerless when it comes to doing what is right. Black, white, yellow, Obama has transcended race and managed to prove that color doesn’t matter in this country when it comes to screwing over the little guy to benefit the rich.
Rev Wright who?
DV, didn’t I just say that but shorter?
I was answering my mommy. She wanted to get upset at something that may have been offensive to people with their racist-o-meters on high alert.
I did like the Airplane reference though you got it wrong when you said “I” I’m not being screwed to be honest. I’m upper middle class with a pretty good income. I’m going back to working at a bank for more money than I’m making now and I’m working closer to home with more vacation.
Obama’s screwing over the middle and lower class and while he does it, people don’t see a black president. They just see a shill for Goldman and GE. They may see a dude with big ears though….
In regards to re-booting the 2008 campaign for 2012, I am sure that they are polling and working on what lies they want to roll out this time, just like they lied last time. The “hope and change” that Obama promised included specific promises to work toward progressive policy goals that consistently polled well with the public.
Unfortunately, he promptly abandoned those promises on January 21, 2009, and hired corporate insiders to develop the economic policy that has lead to the disastrous unemployment and growing poverty crisis that we have today. His justice department has been corporatized so that the same laws don’t apply to the rich and powerful as they do to everybody else. His record on civil liberties has been as bad or worse than George W. Bush’s, and he has run one of the most secretive and closed administrations in recent history.
If Obama is re-elected, it will only be because he is awash with corporate money and the republican candidate is truly looney-tunes. If a credible third-party candidate enters the race, such as Bloomberg, all bets for Obama’s re-election are off.
To be fair, his ears only look big because he’s got a tiny head.
I’m watching him on MSNBC right now…the dude’s got big ears
a1,
You mean like that Daley guy? Summers? You just make shit up
Obama just said he’s in favor of renewing the bush tax cuts for next year.
oh dear oh my
Whatever their size, they don’t seem to hear anything progressives say.
lmao! i feel like we just had a moment there