Funny thing about that. ISIL, al Qaida, and their ilk are still growing despite the drone strikes. Or rather, they’re growing because of the drone strikes.
It turns out that sending robots to blow up people half a world away, often in their homes with their family, is an excellent recruitment tactic for Islamic terrorists. Much better than any half-assed internet video the terrorists might post on YouTube. In the minds of many, many Middle Easterners, it pretty much proves that America really is the Evil Empire :smack:
Ok, since you specifically called out two groups that are “growing,” please provide a cite that ISIL has grown more powerful since August 2014 when the airstrikes on them began. And also please provide a cite that Al Qaeda has grown more powerful since 2009.
What I expect you to say is, “Err, well, uhm, I don’t have a cite for that, and it isn’t really those groups in that timeframe that are growing… but there are other new terrorist groups that are out there, and OMG DRONE STRIKES KILL BABIES SO WE’RE LOSING!!!”
This theory that “progressive” ballot initiatives won, but centrist Democratic candidates lost because progressives didn’t vote for them, doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. This is why: let’s say that Wavy Gravy and his 100 groovy buddies showed up to the polls in November to vote for the ballot initiative to build a giant statute commemorating the Wobblies or something. They all vote for that initiative, and lo and behold, it passes.
Who did Mr. Gravy and his friends vote for in the Senate race in his state, if not for the Democrat? There are really only four possibilities:
He voted for the Democratic candidate while holding his nose.
He voted for the Republican candidate, perhaps as some kind of protest.
He voted for a third party candidate more in line with his conscience.
He simply did not vote for a Senate candidate.
Each of these possibilities is very easily tested.
Let’s take Arkansas, for example. The minimum wage hike garnered 549,000 yes votes and 284,000 no votes. Call it 833,000 people voted on that initiative.
In the Senate race, centrist Mark Pryor got 334,000 votes, and Republican Tom Cotton got 479,000. A libertarian candidate and a green candidate each got 17,000 votes. That’s a total of about 847,000 votes. How does this match up against Mr. Gravy’s voting options? In reverse order:
Since there was more votes for Senate candidates than for the minimum wage increase, it seems likely that Wavy did not withhold his vote in protest.
The large margin of victory for the minimum wage increase and the very few votes for the Green candidate indicate that Mr. Gravy may have voted Green, but he didn’t supply the margin of victory for the referendum.
The theory that he voted for a Republican is pretty stupid, but it had to be mentioned.
It seems most likely that Mr. Gravy and his friends voted for the centrist Democrat and the ballot initiative, but that moderates swung heavily toward the Republican candidate.
Therefore, your theory that running further to the left would have won Senate seats on the basis that “progressive” ballot initiatives did well doesn’t seem plausible, at least in this example. It seems more likely that you have provided a talking point that is as delusional as the Tea Party mantra that Mitt Romney lost in 2012 because he wasn’t enough like Ted Cruz, or whatever.
There *was *a class war; the rich won it years ago. Or haven’t you noticed that the rich keep getting richer and more powerful, and the poor keep getting poorer and less represented?
Could you tell us exactly how long Democrats had a supermajority? Also, how many filibusters have we seen since Obama took office?
So what happened to that proposal? It was filibustered to death, with Democrats Joe Lieberman, Joe Manchin, Jim Webb, Ben Nelson, and progressive hero Russ Feingold voting against ending the filibuster. I’m sure you can find out for yourself why Russ Feingold voted against raising taxes on the wealthy.
Or his political skills have just been overrated, and there’s really no evidence that this plan will work any better for him than his previous plans that didn’t work for him.
Obama has been beating the “raise taxes on the rich” since his first campaign way back when. Ever the optimist, let’s try again! There is no “feint to the left” - he is where he has always been on this.
Now, does he think there is any likelihood he’ll get what he wants? Not in the least - he’s not a moron.
Here is what he will get:
[ol]
[li]Obama speaking to the American People on TV proposing a Tax Break for The Middle Class (and a Tax hike on The Rich).[/li][li]Republicans blocking and voting down the proposed tax break and the tax hike.[/li][li]Democrats campaigning in 2016 that Republicans voted down a Tax Break for the Middle Class.[/li][li]Democrats get more votes![/li][/ol]
That is really all there is to it. But, while #4 is likely to happen, they still won’t take over the House …
That’s his plan, anyway. It’ll probably work about as well for other Democrats as his other brilliant political maneuvers.
The guy’s been great at winning elections for himself, not so much for the Democratic Party as a whole. The party hasn’t been this weak in numbers since the 1920s.
I’m sure you can cherry pick numbers to put Obama in a bad light. He’s had 2 years of all-Democratic government, 4 years of Democratic WH + Senate, and (once he’s done) 2 years of just Democratic WH. That’s pretty decent – 3 out of 3 for 2 years, 2 out of 3 for 4, and 1 out of 3 for 2. His approval rating is looking up. There’s plenty of reason for Democrats to be optimistic about 2016, even if winning back the House will be very difficult.
If the Democrats win the WH and Senate in 2016 – certainly within the realm of possibility – your naysaying here will look as ridiculous as your optimism about Romney did a few years ago. Will you disappear for months after that election, I wonder?
As of today, Jan. 20, 2015, Obama went from dominant majorities and Democrats controlling most of the states to losing Congress and the Democrats having the lowest representation in the states since the 1920s. There’s no way to spin that as successful for anyone but Obama himself.
Sure it’s possible, but that depends on Obama’s performance more than any other single factor. His proposals are just that: proposals. Proposals alone have never gotten a President anywhere. It’s what he actually does that makes or breaks him. If Obama thinks that he’ll have a successful last two years by just “laying down markers” then the Democrats will have a very bad year in 2016. Any moron can just state what he believes should be done. But over the next two years, he’s accountable for foreign affairs, running the government, and signing or vetoing laws. That’s how he, and his wannabe successor, will be judged. SOTU proposals matter for like two news cycles.
So he supports cutting middle class taxes? Great. Republicans will send him a bill that cuts middle class taxes. He’ll veto it. Advantage on the issue: over.
Using Republican gerrymandering of congressional districts as evidence that the President is only looking our for his own electoral fortunes is pathetic.
Must I remind you that in 2012, Democratic House candidates received a million more votes nationally than their Republican competitors, and yet Dems ended up with just 201 seats? If the job of the guy at the top of the ticket is to get people to vote for the party, and he is successful, how is he then at fault for the districts being so manipulated to provide a result despite the collective intent of the voters?
Back in non-adaher reality land, Obama’s electoral record pretty much reflects the general rule of thumb for every president elected this century: pretty decent coattails during presidential election years, followed by losses in mid-term elections. Only you could try to make this consistent pattern look like evidence of Obama’s incompetence.
And how are Republicans going to pay for those middle class tax cuts? Increasing the debt? Cutting defense? Cutting Social Security? None of those options make Republicans look good.
This is just pathetic cherry picking. As of today, Obama put into place the biggest change to US healthcare policy in generations. As of today, we lowered the % of people without health care to the lowest value in decades (if not ever!). As of today, we turned around growth in health care costs fir the first time in decades. As of today, we have fewer combat deaths per month of US soldiers than any time in more than 10 years. There’s plenty of things “as of today” that show Obama in an incredibly successful light. That’s not the whole story, of course, and neither is your point.
His “feint” to the left has been far more demonstrated by the actual stuff he’s done in the last few months – the huge Cuba change, exec action on immigration, etc. I like these proposals about taxes fine, though I’m doubtful they’re likely to pass in Congress. And I sincerely doubt that Republicans could or would pass a simple middle class tax cut – but I’d be happy if they did. I seriously doubt Obama would veto a bill if all it did was lower middle-class tax rates (and nothing else).
I didn’t say he was only looking out for his own electoral interests, just that he’s very bad at helping his party as a whole, and this proposal won’t help him because believe it or not, there are still some conservative Democrats out there who will have to oppose his proposals and thus end up in an untenable position come election day 2016.
The Democrats can’t win the Senate if a dozen incumbents and challengers have to distance themselves from Obama as they did in 2014.
I’m cherry picking the present, and the situation for the next two years? That’s just a bizarre argument.
Some of his tax proposals are fine, if they are revenue neutral. We don’t need more revenue at this point and we certainly don’t need government internet. And community colleges are run by the states. Plus his plan for who is eligible is either poorly thought out or a scheme to deceive the public into supporting a relatively small program that will have to grow much larger once it’s in place and people are benefitting from it. His cost estimates assume policy that will not remain in place.
No, you’re cherry picking one particular thing that makes him look bad. There are plenty of things that make him look good over the same period. If the Democrats win big in 2016, the 2010 and 2014 losses will be remembered as blips during Obama’s vindicated administration.
