• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2014 |OT2| We need to be more like Disney World

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
on the closing the tent talk

overperformers.0.png


Your chasing after an electorate that doesn't exist and wont for 20 or so odd years. Big tents win elections and form coalitions and are the only way to a house majority. They were what lead to the new deal and great society.

Running away from centrist dems is dooming the party and ceding so much of the country. That doesn't mean they need to be pushing centrist policy but having mark pryor in the senate didn't stop obamacare, dodd-frank. Nor did the matheson (the UT guy who retired) prevent cap and trade from passing the house.

You can't start moving the 'center' if your not even in the game
 
D

Diablos

Member
Aaron Strife said:
Eh, we're about the same as we were before the elections. Since the Republicans controlled the House there wasn't any meaningful legislation getting passed anyway. The major difference now is Obama can't get his judicial appointees through nearly as easily.

Also losing NC and CO (and probably AK) by a hair makes it harder for us to reclaim the Senate in the future so that sucks.
Click to expand...
Honestly... I was hoping Dems could hold at least ONE of those.
I don't know why Hillary wasted her time in the spotlight with Grimes. Should have been helping out Kay.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
NeoXChaos said:
You know someone close to obama circle?
Click to expand...
Lolno. I heard it on the radio, but also reading this politico piece

Obama and his aides had felt for months that he wasn’t being used enough in the closely contested Senate races that would determine control of the chamber and the shape of his last two years in office.
At the White House, officials have their own gripes. Senate Democrats blundered time and again by being too frightened to do anything, mishandling their relationship with Obama, aides say, while candidates foolishly ran from a president they were going to be tied to anyway.

“These candidates tried to walk a tightrope between getting some distance from the president and trying to turn out his base,” said one senior aide the day before the election.

Obama’s “general view is: we as a party are better when we’re making an argument,” the aide continued. “For an array of reasons — some of which he’d agree with, some of which he wouldn’t — he was prevented from making that argument.”

Flying back from Chicago on Air Force One after Obama’s reelection victory speech in Chicago two years ago, White House senior aides David Plouffe and Dan Pfeiffer were already comparing vote totals from the night before with the 2014 map. The only surprises from then to now, aides say, were Colorado and Iowa.

Those are also the two states where they’re confident that Obama could have been a boost, if Udall and Bruce Braley hadn’t been so determined to run away from them. And those weren’t the only ones — Obama, who was keeping up with local election news on his iPad late at night, was still asking about what he’d be able to do on the ground to help pump voter turnout in the final weeks.

Obama spent the last few weeks calling candidates, offering more help. Braley was on the list. He didn’t take Obama up on the offer, White House aides say.

Saturday night, Obama was triumphant in Detroit, pumping the crowd for Rep. Gary Peters, one of the party’s few bright spots in Michigan. He helped that night, along with radio ads and other targeted get-out-the-vote efforts, Peters and his staff felt.

But to the suggestion that Obama might have been able to show up more even there, the feeling among Peters staff was clear: Let’s not get carried away.

Standing in a corner of the Wayne State University gym before Obama arrived, Peters tried to be diplomatic.

“The president comes once,” he said, “that’s good.”
Click to expand...
Poor bammy. I feel sorry for him. Oh and Oblivion I want you to answer for this
CNN’s S.E. Cupp conducted mock interviews to help prepare them for the grilling they’d get from the media. Brett O’Donnell started with the debate prep he’d do for candidates throughout the cycle.

Every candidate had to watch all the other painful performances. NRSC-paid for opposition research was thrown at them. Then practice questions: Did you smoke pot in college? How much pot did you smoke? Were you ever arrested? To the moderate candidates: Sarah Palin just endorsed you — what do you have to say? To the conservatives: Sarah Palin just endorsed your opponent — what’s your response?

Mess up a question on abortion or on women, they were warned, and you won’t just sink yourself.

“We showed them all the footage, and then put a camera on them, and you’d be surprised how many people still blew it,” Collins said.
Click to expand...
 
W

Wall

Member
APKmetsfan said:
on the closing the tent talk

overperformers.0.png


Your chasing after an electorate that doesn't exist and wont for 20 or so odd years. Big tents win elections and form coalitions and are the only way to a house majority. They were what lead to the new deal and great society.

Running away from centrist dems is dooming the party and ceding so much of the country. That doesn't mean they need to be pushing centrist policy but having mark pryor in the senate didn't stop obamacare, dodd-frank. Nor did the matheson (the UT guy who retired) prevent cap and trade from passing the house.

You can't start moving the 'center' if your not even in the game
Click to expand...

But they don't win. "Centrism" basically refers to some mix of Simpson-Bowles style fiscal conservatism and running counter to the social views of your party: if you are a Republican governor in the North, maybe you are pro-choice or pro-gun control; if you are a Democrat in the south, you take the opposite stances. It has nothing to do with taking positions that prospective voters actually support.

To give an example, Mark Pryor ran unopposed in 2008 in a landslide year for Democrats when the Republican brand was still toxic. Absent special conditions like that, such candidates don't win because the majority of voters don't agree with them; they don't want Social Security or Medicare to be cut and they want representatives that agree with them on issues like gun control.

I don't think such Democrats should be kicked out the caucus or anything, but it is pointless to focus energy on them or the type of voter they are trying to target because they simply don't reliably win elections.

Edit: I should also add that the chart you posted compares two different and incompatible measures: approval rating and vote share; which makes the comparison fairly ludicrous actually.
 
D

Diablos

Member
So many Dems are spineless. You want the best example of distancing yourself from the President while still attempting to attract your base? Look no further than Grimes.

They had nothing else to risk by appearing with the President. Sure, they still might have lost -- but they did anyway. Even not taking into account this red wave election, they looked aloof with a go it alone approach. That doesn't project confidence.
 
W

Wall

Member
Avon Barksdale said:
Holy shit, West Virginia really fucking hates Obama.
Click to expand...

Well, I can think of one big reason for the low approval besides perceived centrism or radicalism. I might be inclined to attribute the low approval to the impact of Obama's environmental policies on coal, but I still remember the 2008 primary ...................
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
There are also populist stances that resonate with Southern voters. Linking yourself to those is key.

It's not that Dems need to run more liberal campaigns in the South. I don't think that will work. What they need to do is establish exactly what a Southern Democrat is in 2014. What are those values? What separates them from a Republican, besides maybe abortion? What mainstream, populist approaches can they carve out as their own when running for office?

The Dems cannot win the House without some of the South. They're also going to lose the Senate every 2 years if this continues. A big tent requires a lot of latitude in opinion, but also a sharing of core values. That's not something Democrats have been particularly good on since they tend to run away from their core values that are popular.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
Wall said:
To give an example, Mark Pryor ran unopposed in 2008 in a landslide year for Democrats when the Republican brand was still toxic. Absent special conditions like that, such candidates don't win because the majority of voters don't agree with them; they don't want Social Security or Medicare to be cut and they want representatives that agree with them on issues like gun control.
Click to expand...
Pryor defeated an (given unpopular) incumbent in 2002. There was no reason to think he was going to get obliterated like he did.

You think a more progressive candidate is going to do better in Arkansas? A state Obama lost by 24 points in 2012 and 20 points in 2008?

John Kerry only lost by ten points in the state!

Diablos said:
So many Dems are spineless. You want the best example of distancing yourself from the President while still attempting to attract your base? Look no further than Grimes.
Click to expand...
How do we know she didn't change her mind after being a DNC delegate and voted for Mitt Romney or stayed home because of Obama's refusal to be truthful about Benghazi?
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
To elaborate further what I was discussing a few pages ago, I truly don't understand why Obama and the Dems don't offer old people sweeter deals on SS and medicare. In both 2010 and 2014 (and to a lesser, but failed attempt in 2012), you had Republican candidates attacking Democrats from the left. They managed to trick a significant amount of seniors into thinking that the Republicans were some how the party of protecting SS/medicare. This helped quite a bit in 2010 and Romney and Ryan were able to peel off a good chunk of the senior vote from Obama once they started talking about his supposed "cuts" to these programs.

I know that Obama's more of the corporate stripe of Democrat, so he probably doesn't really care about expanding those programs, and his idiotic attempts to reach a "grand bargain" and "tax reform" are seemingly genuine. But for fuck's sake man! At least think of the fucking politics of the situation! I mean really, cutting SS/medicare is both stupid from a policy AND politics standpoint. I mean, it's not like you have to follow through on such a promise (hell, they couldn't even get a public option when they had full control of congress).

The Dems really suck as politicians.

RustyNails said:
Oh and Oblivion I want you to answer for this
Click to expand...

Love means accepting someone despite all their (massive, numerous) faults.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Oblivion said:
To elaborate further what I was discussing a few pages ago, I truly don't understand why Obama and the Dems don't offer old people sweeter deals on SS and medicare. In both 2010 and 2014 (and to a lesser, but failed attempt in 2012), you had Republican candidates attacking Democrats from the left. They managed to trick a significant amount of seniors into thinking that the Republicans were some how the party of protecting SS/medicare. This helped quite a bit in 2010 and Romney and Ryan were able to peel off a good chunk of the senior vote from Obama once they started talking about his supposed "cuts" to these programs.

I know that Obama's more of the corporate stripe of Democrat, so he probably doesn't really care about expanding those programs, and his idiotic attempts to reach a "grand bargain" and "tax reform" are seemingly genuine. But for fuck's sake man! At least think of the fucking politics of the situation! I mean really, cutting SS/medicare is both stupid from a policy AND politics standpoint. I mean, it's not like you have to follow through on such a promise (hell, they couldn't even get a public option when they had full control of congress).

The Dems really suck as politicians.

Love means accepting someone despite all their (massive, numerous) faults.
Click to expand...

This wasn't the meme in 2008.

Its DC, its divided government. compromise is the only way forward. Make no mistake I'm not supporting the specifics but this is hilarious that its now the standard meme that obama never was a real progressive.
 
I

IronicallyTwisted

Banned
Averon said:
Hearing Democrats continuing to blame Obama and using his poll numbers as an excuse for what happened Tuesday night is infuriating. Yeah, Obama poll numbers are what they are. But it wasn't a secret. It wasn't like Obama poll numbers crashed a month ago and left Democrats scrambling to respond. Obama's poll numbers has been hovering around 40% for well over a year. It should have been a well known factor congressional Dems worked into their political calculus well before the campaign season began.

Yes, Obama share some of the blame for not being forceful enough to highlight the good that has occurred during his term, but congressional Democrats did their damnedest to help the GOP paint as bad a picture about Obama as possible running up to the election. What did these Democrats think would happen when Dem voters and independents sees Obama's own party trash him?

It wasn't Obama's fault that congressional Democrats felt repeating the disastrous 2010 strategy (run away from Obama, play defense, not talk up popular Democratic proposals, etc...) was the way to go. It wasn't Obama's fault that congressional candidates didn't run on the minimum wage. It is not Obama's fault that congressional Democrats failed to talk up about how Obama insured millions of poor families. It is not Obama's fault that congressional Democrats absolutely suck at politics and campaigning.

Hearing this is extra disheartening because it makes me think that Dems still don't get that running as Republican-lite ALMOST NEVER WORKS and will repeat this strategy again.

We often make fun of Republicans doing the same thing over and over again only to get the same results (hoping every presidential election cycle Pennsylvania and/or Michigan will finally flip red, voting to repeal Obamacare, etc...). Well Dems certainly deserve ridicule this time around.
Click to expand...

This reminds me of Republicans saying they lost in 2008 because McCain wasn't a real conservative. The Democrats who lost still generally had a higher share of their electorates than the president's approval rating, so they outperformed the president in appealing to voters. Wage growth in the US is completely stagnant, the number of billionaires since 2009 has doubled and voters are going to punish the incumbent party for it.
 
W

Wall

Member
benjipwns said:
Pryor defeated an (given unpopular) incumbent in 2002. There was no reason to think he was going to get obliterated like he did.

You think a more progressive candidate is going to do better in Arkansas? A state Obama lost by 24 points in 2012 and 20 points in 2008?

John Kerry only lost by ten points in the state!
Click to expand...

I don't think they would do any worse. It's not a direct comparison, but Begich campaigned on expanding social security and he didn't get blown out like Pryor did. Of course there are other factors in play.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Wall said:
I don't think they would do any worse. It's not a direct comparison, but Begich campaigned on expanding social security and he didn't get blown out like Pryor did. Of course there are other factors in play.
Click to expand...

I love all the constantly changing issues that are the reason this election was lost. I wonder what the consensus will be in 2 or 3 years.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
APKmetsfan said:
This wasn't the meme in 2008.
Click to expand...

That was before we saw Obama actually in action.

Its DC, its divided government. compromise is the only way forward. Make no mistake I'm not supporting the specifics but this is hilarious that its now the standard meme that obama never was a real progressive.
Click to expand...

I should clarify. Obama is definitely a progressive for the most part, but he's not a progressive in the same way that Bernie Sanders is a progressive. Obama wants incremental reform, and not massive, sweeping changes like the kind FDR and LBJ did.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Oblivion said:
That was before we saw Obama actually in action.



I should clarify. Obama is definitely a progressive for the most part, but he's not a progressive in the same way that Bernie Sanders is a progressive. Obama wants incremental reform, and not massive, sweeping changes like the kind FDR and LBJ did.
Click to expand...

People should read more about LBJs reforms, they're much more like Obama's in that they were full of compromises and corporate hand outs than FDRs
 
W

Wall

Member
IronicallyTwisted said:
This reminds me of Republicans saying they lost in 2008 because McCain wasn't a real conservative. The Democrats who lost still generally had a higher share of their electorates than the president's approval rating, so they outperformed the president in appealing to voters. Wage growth in the US is completely stagnant, the number of billionaires since 2009 has doubled and voters are going to punish the incumbent party for it.
Click to expand...

No! You cannot draw this conclusion. Drawing conclusions based on based on flawed comparisons like this is a pet peeve of mine. To quickly give the biggest, but by no means only problem, looking at approval ratings collapses those who disapprove of the President because they do not share his political philosophy and so want to him enact policies that advance an opposing agenda and those that share his political philosophy and disapprove of him because they do not think he is going far enough.

The implications for extrapolating approval rating to voter behavior are obvious. The same mistake is made when people look at the low approval rating that the GOP congress gets and assume that translates to the GOP losing seats in congress.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
Wall said:
I don't think they would do any worse. It's not a direct comparison, but Begich campaigned on expanding social security and he didn't get blown out like Pryor did. Of course there are other factors in play.
Click to expand...
If this is a bold left/progressive stance, then I don't know what that even means anymore:
For six years, Mark Begich has stood against any proposals that would weaken the Trust Fund, like privatization, and has supported commonsense steps to strengthen it. Mark Begich will:
Continue to defend Social Security from any efforts to privatize or weaken it, like cutting benefits through chained CPI or means testing.
Click to expand...
This is basically a conservative position. Even raising the cap has support in Republican aligned groups.

The Republicans revolted against their own President's plan to tweak the system to only make changes for FUTURE beneficiaries.

"Comprehensive reform" of things like Social Security, Medicare, immigration, etc. tend to come out of bipartisan clusterfucks. Obama and the GOP are much more likely to pass an immigration bill in the next two years than the prior six years.
 
B

Bam Bam Baklava

Member
IronicallyTwisted said:
Wage growth in the US is completely stagnant, the number of billionaires since 2009 has doubled and voters are going to punish the incumbent party for it.
Click to expand...

Why didn't people punish Obama himself for it in 2012? The postmortems I've read on 2014 and the polling actually don't show one singular issue being identified but rather a large mix ranging from domestic to foreign.

If economy is king why didn't Al Gore simply cruise to victory and be rewarded as the incumbent party?
 
W

Wall

Member
APKmetsfan said:
I love all the constantly changing issues that are the reason this election was lost. I wonder what the consensus will be in 2 or 3 years.
Click to expand...

I think that it is rare that there is ever any one "thing" that decides an election. For example, 2008 had the financial crisis and a largely discredited Bush II presidency, but the Democrats were also riding a wave of momentum from 2006 and Obama was seen as a popular and inspiring candidate. Who knows what would have happened if, say, John Edwards had been the nominee......
 
B

Bam Bam Baklava

Member
Wall said:
I think that it is rare that there is ever any one "thing" that decides an election. For example, 2008 had the financial crisis and a largely discredited Bush II presidency, but the Democrats were also riding a wave of momentum from 2006 and Obama was seen as a popular and inspiring candidate. Who knows what would have happened if, say, John Edwards had been the nominee......
Click to expand...

2008 and 2010 were absolutely about the economy. 2002 was definitely about terrorism/foreign policy.

2014 is extremely murky compared to those years.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
benjipwns said:
If this is a bold left/progressive stance, then I don't know what that even means anymore:

This is basically a conservative position. Even raising the cap has support in Republican aligned groups.

The Republicans revolted against their own President's plan to tweak the system to only make changes for FUTURE beneficiaries.

"Comprehensive reform" of things like Social Security, Medicare, immigration, etc. tend to come out of bipartisan clusterfucks. Obama and the GOP are much more likely to pass an immigration bill in the next two years than the prior six years.
Click to expand...

he glory days of tip and Reagan.

btw we should have more congresspeople go on sitcoms (not just political themed shows like veep and parks and rec)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_96Wf-DZKHg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7MDa2omHT8
 
W

Wall

Member
benjipwns said:
If this is a bold left/progressive stance, then I don't know what that even means anymore:

This is basically a conservative position. Even raising the cap has support in Republican aligned groups.

The Republicans revolted against their own President's plan to tweak the system to only make changes for FUTURE beneficiaries.

"Comprehensive reform" of things like Social Security, Medicare, immigration, etc. tend to come out of bipartisan clusterfucks. Obama and the GOP are much more likely to pass an immigration bill in the next two years than the prior six years.
Click to expand...

The Simpson-Bowles plan contained changes to how benefits are indexed to inflation that would have amounted to cuts. Bush II's plan amounted to a partial privatization of the system. Whether either of those count as small "tweaks" or not, support for both can be used effectively in political campaigns as attacks.
 
W

Wall

Member
Bush II "reached across the aisle" on a number of issues that enraged tea-party types. No Child Left Behind and the Medicare expansion were two notable examples. Along with "running up the deficit", actions like those are a major way tea-party and Ron-Paul types rationalize the economic disasters under Bush II to themselves.
 
I

IronicallyTwisted

Banned
Wall said:
No! You cannot draw this conclusion. Drawing conclusions based on based on flawed comparisons like this is a pet peeve of mine. To quickly give the biggest, but by no means only problem, looking at approval ratings collapses those who disapprove of the President because they do not share his political philosophy and so want to him enact policies that advance an opposing agenda and those that share his political philosophy and disapprove of him because they do not think he is going far enough.

The implications for extrapolating approval rating to voter behavior are obvious. The same mistake is made when people look at the low approval rating that the GOP congress gets and assume that translates to the GOP losing seats in congress.
Click to expand...

I didn't suggest voters wanted to enact the opposite of the presidents agenda, I said voters punished the incumbent party because of wage stagnation which is one of the most important economic indicators for looking at politics.
 
W

Wall

Member
IronicallyTwisted said:
I didn't suggest voters wanted to enact the opposite of the presidents agenda, I said voters punished the incumbent party because of wage stagnation which is one of the most important economic indicators for looking at politics.
Click to expand...

I think there is some truth to that, although the demographic makeup of the electorate basically guaranteed a large share of Republican voters who were going to vote against Democrats regardless of economic conditions.

But yeah, Democrats aren't being rewarded for a good economy because the economy doesn't feel good for most people.

I just don't think the comparison Vox used is a valid one.
 
I

IronicallyTwisted

Banned
Bam Bam Baklava said:
Why didn't people punish Obama himself for it in 2012? The postmortems I've read on 2014 and the polling actually don't show one singular issue being identified but rather a large mix ranging from domestic to foreign.

If economy is king why didn't Al Gore simply cruise to victory and be rewarded as the incumbent party?
Click to expand...

I don't think the economy is all that matters, but its an important aspect. Al Gore lost because of Ralph Nader, and he barely lost at that. For 2012 for that reason Obama was vulnerable but the Romney couldn't capitalise and fell short.
 
I

IronicallyTwisted

Banned
Wall said:
I think there is some truth to that, although the demographic makeup of the electorate basically guaranteed a large share of Republican voters who were going to vote against Democrats regardless of economic conditions.

But yeah, Democrats aren't being rewarded for a good economy because the economy doesn't feel good for most people.

I just don't think the comparison Vox used is a valid one.
Click to expand...

Well the opposing party in an off year almost always picks up seats so thats kind of expected, the Democrats just suffered a brutal loss though, worse than most people expected I think.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
B

Bam Bam Baklava

Member
IronicallyTwisted said:
I don't think the economy is all that matters, but its an important aspect. Al Gore lost because of Ralph Nader, and he barely lost at that. For 2012 for that reason Obama was vulnerable but the Romney couldn't capitalise and fell short.
Click to expand...

I'm saying that given the economic conditions it shouldn't have been anywhere near close in 2000 by the very own reasoning offered by people like PD to explain wins and losses.

In reality it's way more complicated. The temperament and attention of people changes constantly and quickly so saying well if we can just do well on X or Y then we will win doesn't make sense.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
IronicallyTwisted said:
Al Gore lost because of Ralph Nader, and he barely lost at that.
Click to expand...
If he had won his home state or West Virginia (a state that had only voted Republican post-Eisenhower in the 1972 and 1984 landslides), Florida wouldn't have mattered.

Nader didn't affect the outcome in either state.
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
Could anyone explain why Reid would never run for president, besides age?
Curious why such an apparently forceful personality would be content with staying in the Senate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom