In that, he’s in sync with public opinion:
I didn’t know the Republicans could just beat the Democrats by opposing them.
The accomplishments had nothing whatsoever to do with elective politics and would have occurred if this was John McCain’s second term.
Policy isn’t progress. Results are progress. Even good policies are often undermined by government incompetence.
There’s nothing in there about whether the flag should have been taken down from state buildings.
This is nonsensical and I have no idea what you’re saying.
I don’t believe you.
Obviously some results need good policy – so good policy can reasonably be called progress. If you want to quibble about definitions don’t waste both of our time.
Your statement didn’t make much sense either. I said that ACA was the proximate cause of the Democrats’ defeat in 2010. You said something about the Tea Party and Republicans, as if they can just decide to beat the Democrats whenever.
Then you overestimate the power of a President simply stating that he now favors the majority position on an issue.
YOu need good policy to get results, but results are not guaranteed by good policy alone. I’m not quibbling. This is important stuff and I’m continually surprised at how little Democratic voters prioritize government actually doing it’s job.
Is the Earth cooling? Are people healthier due to less pollutants than seven years ago? If not, then there has been no progress. This is not brain surgery.
I’m saying that the Democrats (who only halfway-lost in 2010, having kept the Senate) would have struggled in 2010 with or without the ACA, and I see no reason to believe that without the ACA they would have kept control of the House. I’m saying the Republicans and tea party would have gone after Obama just as strongly with or without the ACA, and they would have won the house either way.
I’m not saying Obama made it happen – just that while he partially followed public opinion, he also helped swing a lot of public opinion, and that I think it’s very possible that gay marriage would have been delayed without his support and the swing of public opinion. Some like to pretend that public opinion has nothing to do with SC decisions (and the lower court decisions that lead to a SC decision), but I don’t buy that.
Yes, it’s important stuff, and I continue to not be surprised at all by how utterly terrible you are at accurately analyzing what Democratic voters actually prioritize. You are a complete failure at determining what Democratic voters actually believe and what motivates them, and as I’ve advised many, many times before, you should not do that anymore.
If actions have been taken that may lead to less pollutants, then that’s progress. It doesn’t mean that it’s enough.
They didn’t “win” the Senate, as they lost seats, and that matters, because if they’d done a little better in 2010 then 2014 wouldn’t have seen the Senate change hands. It’s the cumulative losses that matter outside the Presidency. 2012 was a good year for Democrats but it wasn’t good enough to make up for 2010 and then in 2014 the 2012 gains were erased and then some.
As for how the Democrats would have done without ACA, there has to be SOME explanation for a 60-70 seat loss. Those things don’t just happen for no particular reason.
I agree with you there, and Obama did move some public opinion, but he didn’t lead, he followed. Opinion was going where it was regardless of what he thought
If you prioritized it, the concept wouldn’t have been so confusing to you. You just got through saying that policies were progress, despite the lack of results.
And if Democrats did prioritize results, then I wouldn’t get blank stares every time I bring up the importance of a President having a record of effective management.
I wish Republicans cared more about the issue than I do as well, but at least when I talk to most Republicans they understand where I’m coming from. It doesn’t even seem to compute with Democrats, or they assume that every Democrat whose ideology they like is automatically an effective manager.
BTW, remember how I said there would be more stories of government failure? Sure enough, the OPM hack. Sure enough, we find that the President appointed someone incompetent to the job. And sure enough, Democrats aren’t really all that concerned. In fact, they keep saying that Obama has had an awesome week! Hard to reconcile that with actually caring about whether or not government actually works or not.
Anyway, before we get even more off topic, this all started with me pointing out that progressives are in a really weak position and they think their position is strong. It’s an incredibly amusing delusion. The fact that the party would turn hard left in response to their losses(which they think are wins) is downright… Republican.
I don’t know that anyone would be competent enough to prevent the hacking if done by a hostile government with tons of money and vast technical resources. I’m sure that no matter who was president and no matter who was appointed where, the Chinese would have still broken through. Other than give professional whiners like John McCain something to piss and moan about, there’s not going to be any political fallout over this.
Of course it matters, but holding the Senate is still a lot better than not doing so. Thus 2010 was a partial loss for a midterm by the Democrats, and 2014 was a near-total loss for the Democrats.
Yes, 2014 was bad for the Democrats, and 2012 was good. So what?
I think the reason was a backlash, largely driven by personal feelings, against President Obama.
Your first sentence contradicts your second – if Obama “did move public opinion”, then it wasn’t “going where it was regardless of what he thought”.
It’s not confusing to me. Good-functioning government is a very high priority to me.
Why are you continuing to try and put words and thoughts in my mouth and in my head? Haven’t you gotten in trouble for that before?
Just stop.
Some pollutants have been reduced – that’s progress. Other policies are much more long-term in terms of expected results.
You don’t get “blank stares”. People might ignore you because of your abysmal track record on reading the minds of Democrats. Why do you continue to try?
Based on recent decades, Democrats have been much, much more effective managers than Republicans. The most popular Republican candidates for President are a joke in terms of “effective management” compared to Democratic leaders right now. If you want to disagree, that’s fine, but that’s just a difference of opinion – don’t put out that bullshit about Democratic voters not caring about management and effectiveness of government. I believe it’s very important (as do most Democratic voters I know), and we believe based on recent history that Democrats are much better at this than Republicans, in general.
As a government employee, I’m a potential victim of the OPM hack. Don’t give me this crap about not caring, and you’ll have to offer cites if you want me to believe this Hannity-esque ‘Obama is always to blame for everything that has gone wrong’ bullshit. But even with the OPM hack, Obama did have an awesome week (if you’re talking about the gay rights, ACA, and racist flag issue week).
Bullshit that progressives are in a “really weak position”. Maybe it’s not incredibly strong, but “really week” is pointless bullshit hyperbole. And bullshit that the party is turning “hard left”. That’s a joke, along the lines of “Obama is a hard-left Democrat”.
That’s like saying that Hurricane Katrina would have caused massive damage no matter what. Which is true, but doesn’t excuse the ignored warnings.
There won’t be any NEW political fallout, of course. THe fact that the government is incompetent and can’t be trusted is pretty much ingrained in the American psyche by now. Which will make it hard for progressive candidates to argue that it should take on more big things.
I see no reason to believe this is any more “ingrained in the American psyche” now than in the past. Not that I think Americans think government is very competent – I just haven’t seen anything that suggests that they believed it was more competent in '12, '08, or other past elections. In other words, I see no reason this belief would affect upcoming elections one way or the other as compared to past elections.
Polling doesn’t measure competence in government, but it does measure trust in government, and those polls consistently show trust in government to be historically low:
Seems pretty similar now to the mid 90s.
I suspect many people are for the idea if a female president; they just don’t particularly want Hillary for that job. But given that Donald Trump is on the lead for the Repubs, anyone who represents the Dems should be able to win. Trump can’t even manage his own hair, let alone a country.
43% have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the executive branch, which is occupied by a Democrat.
What do you suppose the number is for the Republican controlled Congress in that poll? 28%
So, why doesn’t trust in government spike upwards with the election of a Republican Congress? One can hardly doubt the competence of a political party that can make a shortfall in actual votes into a bonanza of representation, not to mention their forthright efforts in curbing voter fraud and unicorn stampedes.
Yeah. Gerrymandering.