Pointgod wrote:j4remi wrote:While true that Lieberman was the nail in the coffin for the Public Option; let's not pretend the make up of Congress was the only reason Obama's presidency was a disappointment for many people. He needed to be more aggressive point blank (the Republicans made it no secret that they intended to obstruct the whole way through), the latter half of his second term shoulda been his approach way sooner.
I also think the supermajority thing might be overblown, but as a reciprocal it's worth looking at just how bad down ballot Dems did and how much the DNC eroded while Obama was leading. Mostly because he was such a superstar that his inability to impact races where he was directly on the ballot is wild...and yes, I know that incumbent parties always lose seats but not at the rate Obama did.
People who say this display a very juvenile understanding of how politics works. A country can not function if the two parties in power are simply antagonistic against each other. You can’t be looking to pick a fight as soon as you get in, that’s idiotic. Not only did Obama have to contend win Republicans, he had to contend with members of his own party who were more moderate/conservative. Presidents just can ram laws through at their whims.
I'll let your insults slide, but knock it off. Plain and simple, I don't play that crap so keep it respectful. Obama didn't have to look to pick a fight to be more aggressive. He just had to press his advantage in numbers while he had it instead of offering olive branches and trying to play nice with a party whose leadership said this
"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president"
That was Mitch Mcconnell before Obama even got sworn in. Obama had two years to press his advantage and failed. Period. You can rationalize it all you want, but the Republicans laid their strategy out and it worked. The party lost seats under him the way a one term president typically loses seats, not a beloved successful leader. The party lost seats; the trademark legislation lost a key piece at the zero hour and then was further damaged by the Supreme Court period; and in the last two years of his term, when Obama acted aggressively it was too late to avoid the Trump Administration rolling back huge portions of the accomplishments.
If you think those were the best results that any leader could muster; then I disagree. Dangers of the big tent party is not being able to WHIP votes effectively; and that's why I typically suggest that courting Republican voters is a fool's errand. This time around, desperate times call for desperate measures, but I'd hope you keep the challenges from within the party in mind next time you sing the praises of strategies that center around appealing to voters who will flee their Congressmen if we try to pass the agenda that actual Democrats like.
Pointgod wrote:Case in point. What has Trump accomplished with a Republican Senate and Congress for 2 years? He didn’t repeal and replace Obamacare, he didn’t defeat ISIS, didn’t end Middle East wars, he didn’t build a wall or make Mexico pay for it, didn’t bring back manufacturing or pass any infrastructure bills, didn’t criminalize abortion or move on immigration reform. The only major legislation he passed was the God awful tax bill. And keep in mind the whole Republican Party agreed with him on policy or are Trump Acolytes. He wouldn’t have passed the USMC or the First Step Act if Democrats in the House acted exactly like Republicans did the past 10 years. There’s a coronavirus relief package that would benefit Republicans and Trump if passed, but it’s collecting dust on McConnell’s desk right now. One person is keeping people from not going broke, hungry and losing their homes. That’s the fundamental flaw in how the government is structured and the only remedy is to switch the party in power.
Christ, are we really using Donald Trump as a barometer for what an effective leader could accomplish with a Super Majority now!? How low are we setting the bar? Listen, the point isn't utopian here or expecting huge moves from Obama. He just needed to be more aggressive and get the ball rolling on ideas sooner. That might have made it so that the ACA wasn't the major focus of all voters at a time when it was unpopular and cost Democrats down ballot seats. Again, we have the benefit of hindsight now, let's use it and learn from the past. Trying to return to norms didn't help last time, it just made it easier for Trump to erode them even further when he got into office.
And the Trump example is equally poor thought out because when you ask what Trump accomplished; most of his goals that he did attain were done without legislative support. The Tax Cut sure...but he didn't need legislation to damage target immigrants; his Muslim ban was blocked initially but just needed to be reworded a bit to pass essentially the same concept; DeJoy's damage to the USPS, Sessions rolled back the Justice Department's attempts to address BLM concerns, Betsy Devos' attempts to roll back education reforms for college debt and then ignore court orders to stop...oh yeah and let's look back at those Judge Appointments;
Almost a quarter of all Federal Judges in this country are Trump appointees. A direct result of the Democrats following norms when the Republicans obviously didn't give a damn about them. Again, while the Judicial branch is such a big story, this seems significant but maybe it just doesn't count...but the impact could be felt for a generation without
aggressive reform.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/07/15/how-trump-compares-with-other-recent-presidents-in-appointing-federal-judges/Pointgod wrote:If people wanted Obama to pass more Progressive legislation then voters shouldn’t have sat on their ass in the midterms and showed up to vote in a more Progressive Congress. Remember 2010 was a redistricting year and so is 2020, so if people care about preventing voter suppression and gerrymandering then show up and vote for Democrats in record numbers. It’s that simple. They have strength in numbers, but choose to either remain disengaged or sit out in protest and give up their power.
It's kinda weird to both blame Democratic Representatives for being an additional impediment to Obama's attempts at progress and then turn around and blame the Democratic voters for not showing up to voter for those Democratic Representatives. It's like wanting to have your cake and eat it too.
"We'll get you change but you have to vote...well you see what had happened was, some of those guys we told you to vote for are blocking the bills you want...it's your fault we didn't get change because you stopped voting for the guys we tell you to vote for"
This is the cycle that has empowered anti-establishment voices across the board. Also one I feel like we're doomed to repeat if Biden's not much more aggressive than Obama was out the gate. I have hopes he will be though; as long as enough of the electorate actually shows the will to back him up. Joy Ann Reid talked court stacking today...I dig it.
