Hey, if the Republicans run Carson we could see the Democratic nominee run up a score close to the 1984 election. That dude is really, really wacky.
This idea that being black helped Obama is one of the most ridiculous things i’ve ever heard.
It’s another recurring ridiculous idea from the right. As if any reasonably competent, reasonably intelligent black candidate could easily get elected just by showing up and not making any major campaign screw ups.
That’s the media meme now, and I happen to think it’s quite accurate, especially since I was making the exact same critique about a year before the media picked it up.
He’s an absentee leader. He’s just not interested. Even his supporters have noticed he’s a shitty manager, they just try to put a nice spin on it, like “Oh, he’s professorial, always takes his time to make the right decision”, or they blame the problems in the government on his lack of passion. Problem is, that makes it even worse, because it says that he’s struggling for precisely the reasons liberals loved him so much. Better for him to just be incompetent, then you can continue to support academic, aloof candidates like Liz Warren.
But the larger point is that he’s done a ton of damage to the Democratic brand. Clinton expended a lot of effort restoring the Democratic brand on issues like government not being a failure at everything it tries. Liberals took to saying, “Republicans say that government doesn’t work, and then they get in power and prove it.” Well, now someone who loves activist government is at the helm, and it’s been headline after headline of failure. And the excuses make it even worse. If he can’t be expected to manage the government, if government is not accountable to elected officials and thus not accountable to the people, then Republicans couldn’t have written a better attack line against the very idea of activist government.
This will have consequences in the same way that liberal governance failures in the Great Society era led to the rise of Ronald Reagan and the anti-government right.
It doesn’t matter what your race or religion is, if you see government failing regularly, you aren’t likely to want to support its expansion or give it more of your tax dollars. And that’s why Democrats can’t count on dominance simply due to changing demographics.
Shorter adaher: “long-winded blabber that says ‘I’m wrong again, but won’t ever admit it’.”
Quit your whining. You really hate bad news, don’t you?
Actually I think that Obama has agreed to let the Republicans take the Senate to guarantee a Democratic victory in 2016 because they (the Republicans) will (as they always have) misinterpret the result and overplay their hand (as they always do), thereby reminding people of why they don’t like them.
Hey, it’s late but anybody else think I’m on to something?
You could very well be right about Republicans taking the Senate making it easier for Democrats to win in 2016. You’re probably wrong about Obama doing it on purpose though. I’ve never gotten the impression that he cares even a little bit about the fortunes of the party. He cares about #1.
However, the good thing for Republicans heading into 2016 is that they have more control over their own destiny than if they just control the House. Sure, they can use that control to shoot themselves in the foot. It’s also possible that they could drive the agenda in a positive way, or at least positive enough that Obama feels the need to triangulate so as to establish a legacy for himself.
Now of course this doesn’t mean African-Americans are turning Republican. But it’s hard to see them turning out at those approval rates.
Although, Republicans rightly see an opening and are moving to exploit it:
Your impressions about Obama are inevitably wrong. You’re incapable of being objective about him. Further, this analysis is just ridiculous – even on purely selfish concerns about his legacy, he would be heavily invested in the future of his party; chiefly to protect the ACA.
This approval rate is not for the party as a whole – it’s just for Congressional Democrats. So it’s not terribly surprising, and doesn’t tell us much beyond Congress is very unpopular right now.
Every statement in this long post is false. I’m not going to go through and refute them one-by-one, since the errors (and complete inability to judge Obama with the slightest shred of objectivity) are obvious.
Actually, the Democratic Party has been in major decline, now at a 30-year low in approval:
A big part of the drop has been African-Americans and women. Still more popular than the Republicans, but Democrats need a big gap to win anything due to the lack of motivation of their voters.
In a related note, Hilary has now done her best to explain her ground breaking ideas on where jobs come from. She apparently thinks they come, not from businesses hiring, but from the Job Fairy.
And yes, this is just like Obama and his ridiculous “if you have a business, you didn’t build that”, and yes, it is just as stupid and just as much a demonstration of thick-headed tone deafness.
Regards,
Shodan
So, a perfectly reasonable statement whose truth is completely obvious to anyone with a functioning brain but which has been distorted into something completely different by the right-wing media?
I know you’re aware of this, but you’re being extremely disingenuous about this quote. As has been pointed out, it’s been taken out of context.
Here’s the full quote:
Bolding mine.
We’re all well aware of your disdain for Obama. But at least make the effort to hate him correctly.
It sure would be nice to see a link to see what she actually said. Further, “businesses hiring” is hardly more useful than the “Job Fairy” – businesses hire when they have more demand for their products than they can keep up with with their current staffing.
If that’s how you interpret what Obama said, then I definitely agree that you’re demonstrating some thick-headed tone deafness.
Again you’re changing the subject when what you originally said was demonstrated to be off the mark. Sure, this single poll isn’t great news for the Democrats. I certainly don’t buy your proposed explanation for this.
The “you didn’t build that”, even in context, is just an excuse by progressives to justify turning us into a collective. Conservatives have never had a problem with collective action. We just believe there’s a place for it and also places where it is inappropriate. Liberals intentionally try to blur those lines.