# 2014 US General Election Results **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [November 4, 2014, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-us-general-election-results/703684 "2014-11-04T23:38:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 345
**Author:** ![JesterX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/439d5e/32.png) [@JesterX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JesterX)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2014, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-us-general-election-results/703684/345 "2014-11-05T18:02:58Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > 1. attacking his negotiating partners while negotiations were ongoing. Yeah, yeah, I know it’s whining, but personal relationships do matter. It’s why Ed Kennedy was able to get so much done with Republicans during his Senate career. Many of them genuinely liked him personally. Obama has failed to establish any relationships, and he didn’t even get started during his Senate tenure. Biden has had to do all that work, because Biden actually is liked by his colleagues. According to Bob Woodward, whenever Obama would insult Republicans publicly while still dealing with them privately, Biden would be the guy who would have to go to Ryan and Boehner and try to put out the fire. As if the pubs don’t attack Obama twenty-four hours a day. And you’re wrong. Obama, particularly on immigration, was very patient with the house pubs after the senate passed their immig reform bill. When Boehner said he wanted to do it piece-meal instead of wholesale Obama agreed. It was only when it became clear they had no interest in moving on it at all, did he start attacking them. > [@You're sitting on the floor. Why?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-sitting-on-the-floor-why/703734/30): > > 1. Attacking his negotiating partners AFTER making a deal. Imagine if after the test ban treaty, JFK decided to attack the Soviets for forcing him to make a deal he found less than ideal. Deals involve compromise and a good compromise is one in which everyone doesn’t like a good part of it. Most of the time you appear in public and say, “Thank you for making this deal possible, we’ve shown we can get things done.” Instead, he’d make the deal and then bitch about how much he hated it and damn the Republicans for forcing him to make a deal through their irresponsible brinksmanship. You have a cite for this? And if you’re gonna say after the shutdown, remember that was republican folly in the first place so ANYONE would’ve criticized them afterwards. They had it coming. > [@You're sitting on the floor. Why?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-sitting-on-the-floor-why/703734/30): > > 1. Deciding what a compromise is without consulting actual Republicans. Obama does this all. the. time. He’ll propose something that he came up with without consulting a single GOP officeholder, and he’ll claim it’s a compromise because it includes things Republicans have supported in the past. So what? The details of a compromise depend on what priorities the parties place on the issues at stake. One side can’t just dictate what those priorities are. What makes this tactic of his particularly stupid is that Democrats see him as negotiating with himself and preemptively compromising. Without the benefit of actually making Republican want to deal with him, because he tends to present his “compromise” bills as take it or leave it affairs. He did this with the stimulus, with the health care law, with cap and trade, and with the JOBS Act. He sorta did it with the Grand Compromise, but at least there he actually held talks on it. You might have a little point here except with both the stimulus and the healthcare law, there were republican provisions in BOTH of those bills that he took directly from republicans. They voted against them purely for partisan gain. The republican strategy ever since Obama was elected has pretty much been to refuse to work with him on anything and then blame HIM for it. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-us-general-election-results/703684)._