Yes, which even if it doesn’t work in 2014, it sets things up a little better for 2016, because the argument has already been made. Instead, if the Democrats decide to defend OBama’s legacy in 2016 it will seem like a novel argument.
But I think the Democrats will stick to their message in 2016: Obama’s not going to be President anymore, we need to look ahead, not back, etc. It’s the path of least resistance to just go along with public perception than to change it.
As you know, I really, really, don’t like Obama, but when some of his accomplishments are brought up I find I don’t really have a way to refute some of them. So they are obviously real even to me, whereas when I try to think of Bush’s accomplishments I generally draw a blank. But voters are only really focused on what he’s done wrong. If you can get through to ME that Obama’s done some good things, you can get through to the average voter.
When I say be more like effective Republicans, I don’t mean adopt Republican policies. I mean they need to learn to play (and expect) hardball politics, and in some cases be content with real incremental gains rather than grand sweeping schemes expecting the public to go wild over it.
Classic example: Healthcare reform. I am all for it. However, with a starkly divided government (and electorate), a biting recession, 2 wars, and a lopsided judiciary packed with Bush appointees, was this really the best time to rush through a gigantic law that few understand much except that it has a whiff of socialism about it?
It now looks like there is a very real chance that ACA is facing an existential risk of being gutted. Meanwhile Obama may as well kiss goodbye his chances of appointing progressive-minded individuals to cricial vacant positions (including the judiciary). Although Republicans did a shameful amount of obstruction, I think it’s undeniable that Obama skipped over some important basic liberal governance opportunities in his reach for a signature achievement. And now we might end up with neither of them.
So in your opinion, do you think Clinton had the smarter approach with his incrementalism? It does seem like his Presidency involved hitting a lot of singles, whereas Obama seems to have hit one big home run and whiffed on everything else.
I don’t think Obama whiffed on everything else… he’s accomplished quite a bit, but that gets overshadowed by Obamacare and the debt drama.
This is one problem we have in America is the fetishization of the President as a god/superhero/Santa Claus who can make grand things happen. That’s never what the position was supposed to be about. Clinton understood this and made an effort to manage expectations.
As a committed centrist, I’ll give the Republicans credit for not handing the car keys to the crazies this time around. If this marks the end of the Sarah Palin / Joe the Plumber clones, we’re all better off.
Specially when Mitch McConnell himself is also on the same denier team:
(Starting at 1:27)
Unfortunately, as Bill Moyers reported, Inhofe is set to lead the hearings on the EPA and many other ones that will deal about what to do about CO2 emissions. We’ll see if we are better off, but as Bill Moyers said when pondering about the prospect of Republicans like Inhofe making policy when they do think that the scientists are making a hoax:
It’s tough to get younger voters to come out in the midterms. Being young, they’re far more mobile and don’t have the attachments to their area as older voters do. They move more often, and state level issues just don’t affect them as much. There has been a definite widening of the gap with older voters being far more Republican these days as the old New Deal type voters have died off. Younger voters trend more Democratic but it’s hard to get them to the polls in non Presidential years. They might not like Scott Walker or Rick Scott, but it isn’t an obsession unlike older voters who spend far more time following politics.
It also doesn’t help when you go out of your way to turn them off from voting. Democrats running against themselves kills any enthusiasm the base might have going into an election.
Gigo, you focus on the wrong things. Climate policy is not going to be made in the next two years, and even if Democrats had total control, they would not be making climate policy in such a way as to make an actual impact on emissions.
No one, and I mean no one, has credible ideas for dealing with climate change. The best activists have come up with is to recommend that we do what they’ve wanted us to do even before they knew about climate change and say, “It’s a first step!”
This ignores that more world meetings on the issue will take place and Obama will continue to use the EPA as there will be no legislation coming from congress. (Although I do think that getting the Keystone to a vote then can include also a vote or a rider to pass also stalled green energy legislation). As NPR reported the EPA regulations will continue and will be a big aid when negotiating with other countries to control the emissions. But the Republican actions and promises mean that we can not count on it, your say so here is also ignoring that Inhofe and his gang will make a lot of moves to limit what the EPA could do.
In essence what you claim here is totally wrong, the policy coming from congress will be of more obstructionism and denial to prevent changes that can make this issue to be less onerous or expensive to the future of the nation.
False as many nations in Europe demonstrate and you are falling for the lie of Mitch McConnell.
This only exudes ignorance, you are not even wrong, as the IPCC and many other reports made by top economists tell us that even with current technologies we can make changes that are fordable now. You and the Republicans are making the mistake of only looking at the activists and not looking a the experts.
The problem here is that among the Republicans in congress this issue is indeed managed by people that have not grown up.
And they got more like that now in congress.
And we should not forget that this came to focus because of you pointing at one of the great misleaders like George Will.
