PoliGAF Thread of PRESIDENT OBAMA Checkin' Off His List
- Thread starter PantherLotus
- Start date
- Status
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
Averon said:
That seems to be true of any group that is not in control. The people not in power need to rally the base to accomplish things and the leadership will promise anything to get it. If the Republicans take control of something, rest assured that the demands of those that put them there will go largely unfulfilled.
The Chosen One
Member
MightyKAC said:
True.
It seems Republicans are more ideological and absolutist. You either with us or against us. If you don't fall in line, you hate freedom. There's no shades of gray, just good and evil.
This mindset leads to archaic and dangerous policies. But it does seem to give them more conviction when they try to enact those policies. Democrats just don't seem to have the same kind of sense of purpose and conviction, so they tend to get pushed around more even when they're in power.
For example, what is the point of healthcare reform? To help the uninsured? To reduce premiums for the average american with insurance? To punish the evil insurance companies? To improve our economy? To improve the life expectancy of every american?
In truth, it's meant to do all the above but Obama and the Democrats have sent mixed signals. There's no clear message or purpose behind healthcare reform. With the Iraq war and the Patriot Act, it was simply about getting those who hit us on 9/11 and keeping americans safe. Simple message. Heck, Republicans already simply defined healthcare reform, "Government Takeover" and "Death panels". And most of them really believe it.
Democrats tend to be more nuanced which I like but they're slow to the trigger and they're beholden to lobbyist and special interest groups just like Republicans. I certainly won't be voting Republican for a very long time, but it really is the lesser of two evils.
Number 2 said:
It's not just when they're out of power but also when they're in power. If the GOP had HCR and they have WH and the numerical advantage Dems have in Congress, they would've passed a final bill months ago.
One reason I think this is the case is that there are more conservative Dems then there are liberal Reps. Which means Dems, more often than not, have to compromise within their own party whenever legislation that seems "liberal" to people is proposed. This cause conflict and lines drawn between the liberal and conservative factions within the Democratic party.
The GOP don't have this problem since there are less liberal conservatives and conservative leaning legislation doesn't have a stigmata to it that liberal leaning legislation have. This, I think, is a result of the successful campaign conservatives launched demonizing the word "liberal" and attaching it to "socialism", "communism" and all the other boogeyman "-isms" Americans are scared of.
I may be completely wrong in all this, but this is just my theory why the two parties work the way they do.
The Chosen One
Member
"Liberal" is a dirty word politically. There's a reason most liberals have rebranded themselves "progressives".
The Chosen One said:
Exactly. You will almost never see a Democrat in a conservative state proudly talk about their liberal leanings; it's political suicide unless you're a congressman in a safe "blue section" of a conservative leaning state. This is why Democratic senators like Bacus and Dorgan compromise with Republicans, often to the consternation of Democrats overall. And this compromise leads to in-fighting amongst Democrats.
Democrats need to do the same thing. Modify the rules so they are more like the GOP's. If heatlh care doesn't make them see this, especially should Scott Brown win on Tuesday, nothing will. Democratic leadership in Congress throughout Obama's first year has been atrocious.GhaleonEB said:
Also, it's bullshit that liberal has become a dirty word in the US. I have no problem proudly stating to my conservative co-workers that I'm a liberal. I'm not going to let anyone insult my political ideology. Fuck that.
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
Pretty weird about this race. The race is close-check. The issues are important-check. DEMs outnumber Republicans 3-1-check. The media is giving the race a lot of attention-check.
The only problem I see is that Coakley doesn't seem like a likeable candidate. That's also a pretty important factor when voting.
I really cannot see the DEMs in MA sitting this out unless they REALLY do not like Coakley.
The only problem I see is that Coakley doesn't seem like a likeable candidate. That's also a pretty important factor when voting.
I really cannot see the DEMs in MA sitting this out unless they REALLY do not like Coakley.
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
What about overall when it comes to likely voters? Who's winning between the two?
I still don't like that the Democrats completely dropped the ball in anticipating the race to turn out how it did.
The Republicans are rabid this year because they are hell bent on showing that they can win elections with ultra crazy and obstructionism so every race matters and the Democrats so far have tried to keep coasting on the Obama victory. Sloppy. The Republicans are looking to validate to themselves that going the wrong direction will ultimately bring them back around to victory and they are in campaign mode 24/7.
The Republicans are rabid this year because they are hell bent on showing that they can win elections with ultra crazy and obstructionism so every race matters and the Democrats so far have tried to keep coasting on the Obama victory. Sloppy. The Republicans are looking to validate to themselves that going the wrong direction will ultimately bring them back around to victory and they are in campaign mode 24/7.
A fun campaign flashback: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh9_QvJicy4&feature=player_embedded#
Arrowgigantic
Member
Ha, how did I forget about that one? Thanks.Y2Kev said:
The Librarian
Banned
watschuelma said:
Dax01 said:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/17/sources-obama-advisers-believe-coakley-will-lose/
Also Carville:
But, Carville had no illusions about the tough fight for Coakley in the final days of the race.
I talked to people on the ground in Massachusetts this morning. I talked to people in the White House this morning. And, yes, its a very serious situation. I think more people think were going to lose than win but theres some theres a slight bit of sense that maybe this thing could come together right at the end.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...n-in-ma-could-change-the-way-politics-tastes/
speculawyer
Member
empty vessel said:
I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.
-Will Rogers
Lazy vs Crazy
Member
We're getting up near double digit calls from the campaigns here in MA today. I finally had to yell at and hang up one one caller who began the conversation with blatant lies.
Coakley was a terrible pick and I'm still pissed at the party for letting it happen.
Coakley was a terrible pick and I'm still pissed at the party for letting it happen.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Lazy vs Crazy said:
What did they say?
speculawyer
Member
I'm on vacation and I couldn't sleep, so I listened to some hours of conservative talk radio. Second stringers but man . . . some of the callers are morons. Some are smart and call it and correct the host . . . he then looks up the answer on the internet during breaks . . . when the host is right he touts it. When he was wrong, he never brings it up again.
There is a lot of paranoia on the right. I didn't realize that Art Bell was a combo right-wing talker and UFO/conspiracy theory nut.
There is a lot of paranoia on the right. I didn't realize that Art Bell was a combo right-wing talker and UFO/conspiracy theory nut.
Lazy vs Crazy
Member
Something along the lines of "Martha Coakley has promised to put ten government bureaucrats between you and your doctor." Basically scare tactics. I got sick of hearing that line months ago.quadriplegicjon said:
empty vessel
Member
minus_273 said:
That would be a lie. The actual answer is that he is responding to pressure from the tea party movement--pressure that was not there when he supported this conservative legislation in Massachusetts the first time around. As are all Republicans (and many Democrats).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEsUPoNtWKIralexand said:
My personal favorite, vomit green screen and all.
High voter turnout expected in Mass senate race
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/po...h_voter_turnout_expected/srvc=home&position=3
Don't know who this helps. Could mean Dems got scared and will come out and vote in force. Could also mean independents are excited and are coming out to vote, which is bad news for Coakely.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/po...h_voter_turnout_expected/srvc=home&position=3
Don't know who this helps. Could mean Dems got scared and will come out and vote in force. Could also mean independents are excited and are coming out to vote, which is bad news for Coakely.
Suikoguy said:
Pretty much every poll says independents are breaking for Brown and
independent/unaffiliated voters outnumber registered Dems. Coakely can still win even if independents break largely for Brown, but that's only if there's high Democratic turnout and she can pick off enough independents. In that case she could win by a very slim margin.
cartoon_soldier
Member
Dram said:
Primary. It is important to note, she did not have the support of the Kennedy family during the Primaries.
Coakley was choosen over this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wTE4e4sSXU&feature=player_embedded
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
cartoon_soldier said:
Forgive my ignorance, but what does that have to do with Coakley?
Thagomizer
Member
So Obama came to my school to stump for Coakley today, over his Alma Mater and a bunch of other schools, and we repay him by nearly rioting in response to some protesters, almost resulting in him getting evacuated from the building by Secret Service.
Way to be.
Way to be.
- Status