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

[The guy from the Vale]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

It's an interesting idea to think that what a leader needs to do is address everyone and tell them what's going on. Sanders' constant whining that he's not getting press coverage for his ideas kind of speaks to him not being the right leader for that job, but it's certainly possible. If anyone seems to have captured this movement during this political cycle it's Trump - consistent quick messages, tons of media and rallies, lots of grassroot support. 

It also means that Clinton might be a better leader for that job. Having a leader that can recognize when the wind turns and turn with it (as Obama did with gay marriage) is fairly important too. Especially one that will otherwise be fairly effective in their goals. Having an ineffective leader support your causes can taint the well fairly badly, as we saw with Carter. 

Luckily, Trump's grassroots support is not as solid as it once seemed to be. Not that Cruz or Rubio are great alternatives to me, but Trump's underwhelming result in Iowa is certainly a good sign overall.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

7 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

FDR did make great use of radio. Was there a Fox Radio with associated media apparatus that constituted the primary source of news (and, increasingly, view of reality) for roughly half the electorate that demonized FDR and convinced people that any cooperation with him was equivalent to dealing with the Devil?

Yes. The quote I just gave said:

"Roosevelt’s opponents had control of most newspapers in the 1930s and press reports were under their control and involved their editorial commentary. Historian Betty Houchin Winfield says, "He and his advisers worried that newspapers' biases would affect the news columns and rightly so.""

FDR was very controversial in his time.

 

Quote

What equivalent tool does Obama have that will capture a vastly more fragmented and distracted public? Reddit chats? I thought making speeches in front of a camera wasn't enough.

 

Look, I've said multiple times now that I would like to see the equivalent of modern electoral campaigns carried on after the elections.

You're not sold, got it. We disagree. I can only answer the question the same way so many times.

[DanteGabriel]

2 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

Yes. The quote I just gave said:

"Roosevelt’s opponents had control of most newspapers in the 1930s and press reports were under their control and involved their editorial commentary. Historian Betty Houchin Winfield says, "He and his advisers worried that newspapers' biases would affect the news columns and rightly so.""

FDR was very controversial in his time.

Having a 3/4 majority in Congress overcomes a lot of controversy and mean newspaper editorials I guess.

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

FDR did make great use of radio. Was there a Fox Radio with associated media apparatus that constituted the primary source of news (and, increasingly, view of reality) for roughly half the electorate that demonized FDR and convinced people that any cooperation with him was equivalent to dealing with the Devil?

What equivalent tool does Obama have that will capture a vastly more fragmented and distracted public? Reddit chats? I thought making speeches in front of a camera wasn't enough.

Obama has done a couple reddit chats. 

The New Deal is an interesting thing given that it was massively opposed in the second term by a coalition of various parts of congress, and he couldn't get the actual legislation through either congress or the courts for a good chunk of his time. Roosevelt almost pushed forward a law that would have had mandatory retirement of SC justices at 70 because of that. (imagine Obama proposing something like that) And the first new deal part was partially gained because of the promise of repealing prohibition. It'd be like offering a $15 wage in exchange for making abortions illegal. 

So yeah, FDR got some major stuff done because of the fireside chat work - but also because he had broad congress support for a while. Until, well, the economy collapsed again and everyone blamed the democrats for that, too. 

[OnionAhaiReborn]

11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It also means that Clinton might be a better leader for that job. Having a leader that can recognize when the wind turns and turn with it (as Obama did with gay marriage) is fairly important too. Especially one that will otherwise be fairly effective in their goals. Having an ineffective leader support your causes can taint the well fairly badly, as we saw with Carter. 

I don't believe Clinton will be effective at achieving any progressive goals. She's set up to be Obama term 3. Obama has been almost completely stymied since 2011.

She might strike a deal to cut entitlements in the name of "pragmatic" fiscal responsibility, though, and she'll probably escalate American involvement in a few wars.

2 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Having a 3/4 majority in Congress overcomes a lot of controversy and mean newspaper editorials I guess.

Southern Democrats were part of that majority and were frequently ideologically opposed to his 'big government' agenda. His own first Vice President, John Nance Garner, was a Southern Democratic opponent to the New Deal. He needed mass support behind his agenda, even with apparent majorities.

[Kalbear]

Quote

 

I don't believe Clinton will be effective at achieving any progressive goals. She's set up to be Obama term 3. Obama has been almost completely stymied since 2011.

She might strike a deal to cut entitlements in the name of "pragmatic" fiscal responsibility, though, and she'll probably escalate American involvement in a few wars.

 

Obama being stymied is accurate, but he's still managed to be fairly good in certain ways. ACA still exists, for instance. Gay marriage is now something that can occur everywhere. There's a lot more clean energy than before, and a lot more commercial impetus for it. There's much better diplomacy, particularly with Iran and Cuba. There's the environmental deals he's done. There are more wall street regulations. 

I don't think he's been as productive as he could be, but he certainly has been able to get things done. If Clinton is Obama term three that's probably still pretty good. 

She might cut some entitlements, though I suspect she would not. The hawkish thing is something that is more likely and more alarming - as it was with Obama too, for that matter - but I'm pretty well resigned to any president of the US being fairly hawkish, and that includes Sanders. If Sanders did not act at least somewhat pragmatically (say on the level of Obama, with countless drone strikes and collateral damage) he would essentially kill any chance of democrats holding any office. The vast majority of the US wants to fight just wars, and many of them want to fight unjust ones.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

31 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

FDR did make great use of radio. Was there a Fox Radio with associated media apparatus that constituted the primary source of news (and, increasingly, view of reality) for roughly half the electorate that demonized FDR and convinced people that any cooperation with him was equivalent to dealing with the Devil?

What equivalent tool does Obama have that will capture a vastly more fragmented and distracted public? Reddit chats? I thought making speeches in front of a camera wasn't enough.

There is no present day equivalent to Radio in the 30's methinks. Radio and newspapers were IT, as far as mass-communication goes. I think use of social media and teh intrawebs is certainly important, but I don't think it's as powerful as Radio was, back in its' day.

[Kalbear]

If a president bought a super bowl ad that'd be about as close as you could get. 

Or maybe got PSY to do a video sequel to Gangnam style and put in subliminal anti-gun messages.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

56 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

A more cynic view is that Obama won in 2008, he had no further interest in the grass roots he built.

Cynical or divorced from reality?

[alguien]

1 hour ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

A more cynic view is that Obama won in 2008, he had no further interest in the grass roots he built.

An even more cynical view is that bored college kids thought their participation was done after the election and left the president with nothing to work with. 

[Swordfish]

20 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Obama being stymied is accurate, but he's still managed to be fairly good in certain ways. ACA still exists, for instance. Gay marriage is now something that can occur everywhere. There's a lot more clean energy than before, and a lot more commercial impetus for it. There's much better diplomacy, particularly with Iran and Cuba. There's the environmental deals he's done. There are more wall street regulations. 

I don't think he's been as productive as he could be, but he certainly has been able to get things done. If Clinton is Obama term three that's probably still pretty good. 

She might cut some entitlements, though I suspect she would not. The hawkish thing is something that is more likely and more alarming - as it was with Obama too, for that matter - but I'm pretty well resigned to any president of the US being fairly hawkish, and that includes Sanders. If Sanders did not act at least somewhat pragmatically (say on the level of Obama, with countless drone strikes and collateral damage) he would essentially kill any chance of democrats holding any office. The vast majority of the US wants to fight just wars, and many of them want to fight unjust ones.

Obama gets credit for gay marriage?  Can you elaborate on that?

[OnionAhaiReborn]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

Obama being stymied is accurate, but he's still managed to be fairly good in certain ways. ACA still exists, for instance. Gay marriage is now something that can occur everywhere. There's a lot more clean energy than before, and a lot more commercial impetus for it. There's much better diplomacy, particularly with Iran and Cuba. There's the environmental deals he's done. There are more wall street regulations. 

I don't think he's been as productive as he could be, but he certainly has been able to get things done. If Clinton is Obama term three that's probably still pretty good. 

She might cut some entitlements, though I suspect she would not. The hawkish thing is something that is more likely and more alarming - as it was with Obama too, for that matter - but I'm pretty well resigned to any president of the US being fairly hawkish, and that includes Sanders. If Sanders did not act at least somewhat pragmatically (say on the level of Obama, with countless drone strikes and collateral damage) he would essentially kill any chance of democrats holding any office. The vast majority of the US wants to fight just wars, and many of them want to fight unjust ones.

I agree that Obama has been fairly good in certain ways (a lot of the ways you've mentioned, except I don't believe he deserves credit for gay marriage), and I expect Clinton will be similar, which is better than the alternative. My perception of their similarity is why I think Clinton would cut entitlements- Obama came very close with his "Grand Bargain." She's more hawkish than Obama, though- a no fly zone over Syria is a pretty significant departure from Obama, and it could lead to much more. 

[Kalbear]

Quote

Obama gets credit for gay marriage?  Can you elaborate on that?

It happened during his presidency, no? And he came out in favor of it before the SC ruling, killed DADT and DOMA, and made several speeches to it too. He came out in favor of it during his run with Romney, right? So 3 years from then it came about. 

He could likely have killed it if he really had wanted to, at various stages. Instead he supported it. And I think that support allowed for some success down the road - you know, that grassroots organization encouraged by leadership thing that is so successful in getting real change done. 

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, DanteGabriel said:

All it took was the Great Depression, the threat of violent economic rebellion, and total dominance of Congress!

As I said, it would certainly have been easier to do this in 2009, but I would still rather have somebody who at least tries than somebody who is most definitely a servant of the banks.

55 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

What equivalent tool does Obama have that will capture a vastly more fragmented and distracted public? Reddit chats? I thought making speeches in front of a camera wasn't enough.

First, FDR was simply a better speaker (or at least approved of the work of better speechwriters). Compare "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" to... whatever it was Obama said in his first inaugural address. Second, FDR's was not afraid to speak of specific problems, blame specific institutions and propose concrete solutions. Compare FDR's first inaugural address:

Quote

Yet our distress comes from no failure of substance. We are stricken by no plague of locusts. Compared with the perils which our forefathers conquered because they believed and were not afraid, we have still much to be thankful for. Nature still offers her bounty and human efforts have multiplied it. Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply. Primarily this is because the rulers of the exchange of mankind’s goods have failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.

to Obama's:

Quote

Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.

I read the whole thing (it's split into 4 pages on that side) and this is the closest he comes to actually blaming someone for the recession -- and even here he not only fails to mention Wall Street, but actually spreads the blame to everyone.

Third and most importantly by far, FDR followed through on his words. Everything he said in the above speech was attempted and most of it was accomplished. Obama also makes a variety of proposals, but the fraction which went anywhere meaningful is insignificant.

TLDR: If you say things that are important to people and follow through on your words, people will listen to you, even if they are fragmented and distracted. I don't know whether Sanders will do this, but I'm sure that Clinton will not.

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, DanteGabriel said:

All it took was the Great Depression, the threat of violent economic rebellion, and total dominance of Congress!

As I said, it would certainly have been easier to do this in 2009, but I would still rather have somebody who at least tries than somebody who is most definitely a servant of the banks.

55 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

What equivalent tool does Obama have that will capture a vastly more fragmented and distracted public? Reddit chats? I thought making speeches in front of a camera wasn't enough.

First, FDR was simply a better speaker (or at least approved of the work of better speechwriters). Compare "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" to... whatever it was Obama said in his first inaugural address. Second, FDR's was not afraid to speak of specific problems, blame specific institutions and propose concrete solutions. Compare FDR's first inaugural address:

Quote

Yet our distress comes from no failure of substance. We are stricken by no plague of locusts. Compared with the perils which our forefathers conquered because they believed and were not afraid, we have still much to be thankful for. Nature still offers her bounty and human efforts have multiplied it. Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply. Primarily this is because the rulers of the exchange of mankind’s goods have failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.

to Obama's:

Quote

Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.

I read the whole thing (it's split into 4 pages on that side) and this is the closest he comes to actually blaming someone for the recession -- and even here he not only fails to mention Wall Street, but actually spreads the blame to everyone.

Third and most importantly by far, FDR followed through on his words. Everything he said in the above speech was attempted and most of it was accomplished. Obama also makes a variety of proposals, but the fraction which went anywhere meaningful is insignificant.

TLDR: If you say things that are important to people and follow through on your words, people will listen to you, even if they are fragmented and distracted. I don't know whether Sanders will do this, but I'm sure that Clinton will not.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

30 minutes ago, alguien said:

An even more cynical view is that bored college kids thought their participation was done after the election and left the president with nothing to work with.

So much this!

Except I would include a lot more people, mainly those who were happy to help elect Obama in 2008 and 2012, but couldn't be bothered to go vote in 2010, giving several elections to Republican candidates and allowing them to gerrymander the hell out of the country, locking in a Republican House majority for a decade.

[Commodore]

28 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Compare "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" to... whatever it was Obama said in his first inaugural address.

This is such a dumb quote. There are many things we should be fearful of, for healthy and rational reasons. 

[Kalbear]

On Obama and FDR speeches - for starters, you're taking one of FDR's most famous speeches and comparing it to one of Obama's, somewhat arbitrarily. Obama has called people out from time to time - take for example his gun control speech. He didn't call out big banks nearly enough, I agree. That is, however, not the only thing he has done in his presidency. 

[Shryke]

1 hour ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

Luckily, Trump's grassroots support is not as solid as it once seemed to be. Not that Cruz or Rubio are great alternatives to me, but Trump's underwhelming result in Iowa is certainly a good sign overall.

I would wait for a few more states before thinking Trump's grassroots support is weak.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 Obama is a hell of a speaker, in my estimation. Different in style form FDR, for sure, but on par with the best we've had in the office for quite sometime.

 Agree with those who are disappointed with his handling of the financial crisis. I think the timing on that was unfortunate in that it occurred so close to the election.