US Election Thread - Is this heaven? No, it's Iowa

[Shryke]

1 minute ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

Obama ran on a conflicting "hope and change" message- on the one hand he was the candidate of post-partisanship, on the other hand he ran on a robust progressive platform, and, after his election, promised to use his organization to continue mobilizing grassroots support for that progressive agenda.

He continually tried and still tries the "let's all get along" post-partisanship message. What he did not do was attempt to leverage grassroots support to get his agenda through Congress. At the outset of his Presidency he allowed Republicans to change the rules of the game such that nearly everything required a supermajority vote in the Senate. He could have publicly challenged Republicans to allow simple majority votes on the agenda he had been elected on months before, instead he scrambled for a handful of Republicans, and cut deals with Democrats to reach 60 votes. This strategy deprived us of cap-and-trade, EFCA, the public option, the DREAM Act, all of which could almost certainly have cleared majority votes. He didn't ever try what Reich is suggesting.

Uh, no. He didn't allow them to change the rules. Because 1) the rules didn't change at all, those rules had been there since the 70s and 2) Obama can't actually stop them cause he's not King of the Senate and can't actually make them do anything and thus can't actually allow something to happen.

He could have tried more to engage public support but it wouldn't work for the same reason it hasn't worked any time between then and now. Because the public doesn't understand how Congress works and doesn't care about the minutia of political bureaucracy and because the Senate is an intransigent body that will not go letting the executive fuck with their power.

Your entire characterization here is a really fundamental misunderstanding of how the US government works.

[Shryke]

Just now, TrackerNeil said:

After the Newtown shooting, Obama went on the road to use "the power of the pulpit" to shame Congress into enacting gun control legislation. The bill never even got past a Senate filibuster, much less a House vote. What does that say for the power of grassroots support?

Ha, yeah, this is actually the best example of the limits of the "power of the pulpit". There's a reason he's using executive action now. He's given up and admitted that it's the only way he can get anything done.

And the next President ain't gonna change the truth of that.

[mormont]

I'm not an American and my constitutional knowledge is not strong, but my impression was that the US system was designed specifically to prevent one individual instituting radical change by winning the Presidency?

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Just now, OnionAhaiReborn said:

Obama ran on a conflicting "hope and change" message- on the one hand he was the candidate of post-partisanship, on the other hand he ran on a robust progressive platform, and, after his election, promised to use his organization to continue mobilizing grassroots support for that progressive agenda.

He continually tried and still tries the "let's all get along" post-partisanship message. What he did not do was attempt to leverage grassroots support to get his agenda through Congress. At the outset of his Presidency he allowed Republicans to change the rules of the game such that nearly everything required a supermajority vote in the Senate. He could have publicly challenged Republicans to allow simple majority votes on the agenda he had been elected on months before, instead he scrambled for a handful of Republicans, and cut deals with Democrats to reach 60 votes. This strategy deprived us of cap-and-trade, EFCA, the public option, the DREAM Act, all of which could almost certainly have cleared majority votes. He didn't ever try what Reich is suggesting.

This is a kind of magical thinking. The idea of "leveraging the grassroots" is nice, but what does it actually mean in reality? The truth is that since Obama came into the White House, the Democratic party as a political party has gotten absolutely murdered. They lost the House in 2010. They lost the Senate in 2014. They've lost 12 governorships and something like 900 state legislature seats. The President is one guy - and, on a national scale, a not terribly popular one guy at that. What is Obama and his magical "grassroots machine" supposed to have accomplished when the entire Democratic party is getting killed at the ballot box? 

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Just now, TrackerNeil said:

After the Newtown shooting, Obama went on the road to use "the power of the pulpit" to shame Congress into enacting gun control legislation. The bill never even got past a Senate filibuster, much less a House vote. What does that say for the power of grassroots support?

He did? I missed that. I saw him give a couple of speeches.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Just now, OnionAhaiReborn said:

He did? I missed that. I saw him give a couple of speeches.

What exactly do you  think a pulpit is? 

[TrackerNeil]

3 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

He did? I missed that. I saw him give a couple of speeches.

Look again. He criss-crossed the nation and shouted himself hoarse in an effort to get both parties on board with gun control. He failed. That's not exactly say much for the notion of a grassroots revolution. Maybe you have an example I don't know about, though, and I say that without sarcasm. I would like to see the power of the grassroots in action in the way Sanders seems to envision.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

4 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

This is a kind of magical thinking. The idea of "leveraging the grassroots" is nice, but what does it actually mean in reality? The truth is that since Obama came into the White House, the Democratic party as a political party has gotten absolutely murdered. They lost the House in 2010. They lost the Senate in 2014. They've lost 12 governorships and something like 900 state legislature seats. The President is one guy - and, on a national scale, a not terribly popular one guy at that. What is Obama and his magical "grassroots machine" supposed to have accomplished when the entire Democratic party is getting killed at the ballot box? 

It means you ask people to call their Congressman. It means you hold rallies. It means you have surrogates make your case in the media. The latter two are, you know, standard features of campaigns, and are proven effective.

 

2 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

What exactly do you  think a pulpit is? 

I never used the word "pulpit" and TN asked me, "What does that say for the power of grassroots support? "

Pedantry fail.

[Kalbear]

After the Newtown shooting, Obama went on the road to use "the power of the pulpit" to shame Congress into enacting gun control legislation. The bill never even got past a Senate filibuster, much less a House vote. What does that say for the power of grassroots support?

He did? I missed that. I saw him give a couple of speeches.

But he did that.

Sanders isn't even doing that right now. He's not specifically targeting left leaning congressmen to support other than warren. He's not encouraging others right now at all.

And his campaign isn't either.

Where precisely is this grassroots campaign going to start? With the tea partiers, it didn't start with the president position - it started as an astroturf campaign around congress. And the reason it did that is because politically the executive vote and campaign are absurdly different to Congress campaigns.

And even then, the tea party movement largely resulted in more Republican losses at the general election, because those people with a major ideology have deep but narrow support against people with much broader appeal to centrists. Why will it work this time - especially when the author of it is doing fuck all to make it happen?

[Commodore]

8 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

This is a kind of magical thinking. The idea of "leveraging the grassroots" is nice, but what does it actually mean in reality? The truth is that since Obama came into the White House, the Democratic party as a political party has gotten absolutely murdered. They lost the House in 2010. They lost the Senate in 2014. They've lost 12 governorships and something like 900 state legislature seats. The President is one guy - and, on a national scale, a not terribly popular one guy at that. What is Obama and his magical "grassroots machine" supposed to have accomplished when the entire Democratic party is getting killed at the ballot box? 

I think Dems are relatively content as long as they control POTUS, courts, and the big cities.

And rightly so, as that's where political power has (unfortunately) migrated.

That's why there isn't mass despair over historic midterm losses. 

[OnionAhaiReborn]

3 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

Look again. He criss-crossed the nation and shouted himself hoarse in an effort to get both parties on board with gun control. That's not exactly say much for the notion of a grassroots revolution. Maybe you have an example I don't know about, though, and I say that without sarcasm. I would like to see the power of the grassroots in action in the way Sanders seems to envision.

I simply do not remember that happening as you're saying. He is now promising not to campaign for candidates who are not serious about gun control, and I think that's a very good idea and the kind of thing I have in mind.

[TheKitttenGuard]

4 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

This is a kind of magical thinking. The idea of "leveraging the grassroots" is nice, but what does it actually mean in reality? The truth is that since Obama came into the White House, the Democratic party as a political party has gotten absolutely murdered. They lost the House in 2010. They lost the Senate in 2014. They've lost 12 governorships and something like 900 state legislature seats. The President is one guy - and, on a national scale, a not terribly popular one guy at that. What is Obama and his magical "grassroots machine" supposed to have accomplished when the entire Democratic party is getting killed at the ballot box? 

Not shutting it down after '08 would of been a good place to start.

The Democrats got murder as a result of a very systematic disillusionment.  Single payer and Public Opinion were immediatly off the tables, and that was due to some very conservative Democratic Senators.   So, yes wide pressure could of had a stronger effect if those Senators if they seriously thought they would of faced a strong Primary challenge.  Instead you had W.H oh so carefully try to protect their re-election.  So you got an incredible disillusionment.

That this occured in a Cenus/redistricting election made it all the worse.

[TrackerNeil]

Just now, OnionAhaiReborn said:

I simply do not remember that happening as you're saying. He is now promising not to campaign for candidates who are not serious about gun control, and I think that's a very good idea and the kind of thing I have in mind.

I understand you do not remember, but this happened. Can you respond to it?

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Just now, TrackerNeil said:

I understand you do not remember, but this happened. Can you respond to it?

I'm responding to it by rejecting the premise.

[Shryke]

6 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

What truly begs the question here is why you're operating on the assumption that Clinton is this kind of politician, while Sanders is not. Sanders has been in national politics since 1991 and as far as I can tell during that time has never let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Sanders will be the first one to tell you (hell, he mentions it in every speech he makes) that none of his agenda will be accomplished unless people follow through on the revolution that he's talking about, which goes far beyond one election. 

And if nothing else, he's shown that a politician doesn't need to be beholden to big money interests in order to run a competitive race, when we've been told for years now that a politician needs super PACs and billionaire donors to win. That in itself is a mini-revolution.

Asked and answered

Sanders' idea of revolution in the 2016 election is a pipedream and if his agenda depends on it his agenda is gonna fail.

[Shryke]

4 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

Not shutting it down after '08 would of been a good place to start.

The Democrats got murder as a result of a very systematic disillusionment.  Single payer and Public Opinion were immediatly off the tables, and that was due to some very conservative Democratic Senators.   So, yes wide pressure could of had a stronger effect if those Senators if they seriously thought they would of faced a strong Primary challenge.  Instead you had W.H oh so carefully try to protect their re-election.  So you got an incredible disillusionment.

That this occured in a Cenus/redistricting election made it all the worse.

Democrats didn't show up at midterms is what happened. And the Democratic Party is shit at running in local races.

I don't even know what you are talking about with the WH "carefully try to protect their re-election". The president isn't up on the block in midterms.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

1 minute ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

Not shutting it down after '08 would of been a good place to start.

The Democrats got murder as a result of a very systematic disillusionment.  Single payer and Public Opinion were immediatly off the tables, and that was due to some very conservative Democratic Senators.   So, yes wide pressure could of had a stronger effect if those Senators if they seriously thought they would of faced a strong Primary challenge.  Instead you had W.H oh so carefully try to protect their re-election.  So you got an incredible disillusionment.

That this occured in a Cenus/redistricting election made it all the worse.

If you really think that the Democrats lost the House, the Senate and 900 seats in state legislatures because registered Democratic voters were disappointed that the Affordable Care Act wasn't progressive enough, you are delusional. This is exactly the magical thinking I was talking about up above, where very, very liberal Democrats have adopted the belief that the key to Democratic electoral success everywhere and anywhere is to be very, very liberal. This is narcissism masquerading as political theory. 

[TheKitttenGuard]

Just now, Shryke said:

Democrats didn't show up at midterms is what happened. And the Democratic Party is shit at running in local races.

I don't even know what you are talking about with the WH "carefully try to protect their re-election". The president isn't up on the block in midterms.

The W.H was trying to protect those more Conservative Dems re-election in their general election within their state.

Yes Democrats did not show up because they got disillusioned on the Health Care legislation. 

Yes, the Democratic have an issue with more local politics but what occured with Health Care did not matter.

Also, having more engagement during the off years can carry through, like the TEA Party.  They did not get started in 2010, they started in '09 and it carried over.  

[TrackerNeil]

15 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

I'm responding to it by rejecting the premise.

Here goes:

http://time.com/4168680/barack-obama-gun-control-tears/

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/05/politics/obama-gun-control-evolution-executive-order/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/10/02/11-mass-shootings-11-speeches-how-obama-has-responded/73177526/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9746910/US-school-shooting-President-Obama-cries-as-he-expresses-condolences-to-victims.html

Obama has spoken so many times on gun control that Fox News mocks him over it.

Now, I am generalizing a bit here from Newtown to mass shootings in general, but surely you can see the pattern. Someone uses a firearm to kill many people, Obama talks and talks about it, Congress ignores him, lather, rinse, repeat. 

Now, do you still reject the premise that Obama has tried to rouse public support for gun control measures?

[Shryke]

Also, this happened in Iowa on the GOP side:

Quote

One day after winning the Iowa caucuses, Cruz issued an apology to Carson after his staff falsely told Iowa caucusgoers that Carson planned to quit the race, calling it a "mistake."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/02/politics/ted-cruz-ben-carson-apology/index.html

I'd heard about this monday night and yes, it appears that it was true. Cruz's people told people Carson had dropped out and endorsed Cruz or something to that effect.