hubris that they had a mandate to do whatever the fuck they wanted?

hubris that big government really is the answer?

11/3/2010 9:13:47 PM

Perhaps, it is an open ended question. Regardless of whether or not you agree with Obama, Reid, Pelosi et al, a strong case can be made that they utterly failed to explain their case to the American public.

11/3/2010 9:24:15 PM

Quote :

"a strong case can be made that they utterly failed to explain their case to the American public. "

I would agree with this.

But that's partially because the details of health reform and financial regulation are harder to explain than the message that muslims are terrorists or we need to turn to god that more than a few of the new republicans portrayed.

And partially because they are god-awful at cogently laying out their ideas.

[Edited on November 3, 2010 at 9:33 PM. Reason : ]

11/3/2010 9:27:50 PM

Quote :

"a strong case can be made that they utterly failed to explain their case to the American public"

I'm always conflicted on do they honestly believe what they are enacting and pushing is the right way for America and they simply don't understand economics or is it really nothing more than a sinister game that both parties play to get re-elected.

The cynic in me thinks it's the latter, the realist in me thinks it's a little of both, the idealist in me thinks it's the former.

11/3/2010 9:33:47 PM

Quote :

"I'm always conflicted on do they honestly believe what they are enacting and pushing is the right way for America and they simply don't understand economics or is it really nothing more than a sinister game that both parties play to get re-elected."

Irrelevant from a political standpoint. Politics proper is all about selling a message, it doesn't matter why you're selling it.

Quote :

"But that's partially because the details of health reform and financial regulation are harder to explain than the message that muslims are terrorists or we need to turn to god that more than a few of the new republicans portrayed."

To a point you're absolutely right. But it isn't as if the left is afraid of fearmongering (remember how old people would be eating dog-food and your kids would starve at school if the GOP won in 94?). Again, if you're going to run on something like healthcare, you need to sell it, and nobody sold it. The face of the Democratic Party for pretty much all of 2009 was Nancy Fucking Pelosi and Harry Reid. Who let that happen? Those are arguably two of the worst faces to put on Democratic politics.

Also, it isn't like the message that all Muslims are terrorists really resonates with swing voters. It might win you primaries, but the DP lost the middle somehow.

11/3/2010 9:57:47 PM

To be quite honest, I think a lot of it was due to Fox News and their disinformation and general rhetoric. Most Tea Partiers Republicans don't really know what they're voting for, only that they're voting against Obama. I'm sure it's not all of them, but a large number of them cite incorrect information when asked about specific policies and when they are asked where they get their information they overwhelmingly reply "Fox News."

I also saw a stat that said 23% of voters in this election were over the age of 65. A lot of older folk watch Fox News and as I'm sure anyone with grandparents can attest to, older people are generally more apt to be confused by the picture box.

^ I don't think the Democrats lost the middle so much as the Republicans were extremely fired up and a lot of the people that went out to vote for Obama in '08 sat this one out. Seems like the middle was as exasperated as the Democrats base was. Two more years of extremely weak conservative leadership and that middle will be locked up as the new left-wing base.

[Edited on November 3, 2010 at 10:02 PM. Reason : ]

11/3/2010 9:59:09 PM

http://www.thirdway.org/publications/348

worth a read if you have the time

11/3/2010 10:04:07 PM

Quote :

"I think a lot of it was due to Fox News and their disinformation and general rhetoric."

blah blah blah blah. Politics is disinformation and CBS, ABC, MSNBC and CNN have all traditionally been more favorable to the left than to the right. The Democratic Party can sit on its ass and blame Fox News all day long, but that doesn't change the fact that they failed to sell their message.

The truth is most voters don't know basic information about specific policies. This has been demonstrated on both sides over and over again.

Quote :

"older people are generally more apt to be confused by the picture box."

tout court, this is where the left went wrong. Holy fucking condescension Batman.

Quote :

"I also saw a stat that said 23% of voters in this election were over the age of 65"

What happened to the Democratic Base? I'll argue that DADT was one big issue in recent news, but what has the DP done to sell itself as delivering on its promises?

Quote :

"Two more years of extremely weak conservative leadership and that middle will be locked up as the new left-wing base."

The Barack Obama presidency has been the definition of weak leadership. The middle is always up for grabs precisely because they agree with a little bit from column A and a little bit from column B and just want us all to get along. Their non-partisanship is part of their personality and thus the fiber of their being. Two years of GOP tomfoolery in the House isn't going to change that when 8 years of GWB couldn't.

[Edited on November 3, 2010 at 10:07 PM. Reason : .]

11/3/2010 10:05:27 PM

Repugnicans are stoopid

Dumbocrats hate America.

blah blah blah.

11/3/2010 10:05:27 PM

Quote :

"Irrelevant from a political standpoint. Politics proper is all about selling a message, it doesn't matter why you're selling it. "

Well, I didn't realize you framed the argument that they were nothing more than politicians.

11/3/2010 10:08:49 PM

Quote :

"blah blah blah blah. Politics is disinformation and CBS, ABC, MSNBC and CNN have all traditionally been more favorable to the left than to the right. The Democratic Party can sit on its ass and blame Fox News all day long, but that doesn't change the fact that they failed to sell their message. The truth is most voters don't know basic information about specific policies. This has been demonstrated on both sides over and over again."

You would like to make light of this point, but I think it's extremely important. Maybe I didn't explain myself well enough. People who watch Fox News aren't necessarily less informed than people who watch CBS/CNN etc. But they have been fed disinformation. Why else do you think 25% of the country STILL thinks Obama is a foreign born Muslim? It's because Fox News harps on this point constantly. I've heard all kinds of nonsense come from Fox News viewers and when they're presented with facts that counter their beliefs, it only serves to reinforce their false information. You seem to be discounting the effect that they have. But remember that they are the single largest news network in the country and have the monopoly on conservative viewers.

As far as the old people content... I don't see anything wrong with that statement. Who exactly do you think it is that gets fooled into all those Nigerian internet scams? I'm pretty sure my own grandmother fell for one.

Quote :

"What happened to the Democratic Base? I'll argue that DADT was one big issue in recent news, but what has the DP done to sell itself as delivering on its promises?"

I see where you're going with your line of questioning. But I know you follow politics enough to know that there are cycles and there are lots of different things that affect an election. Democrats are in a down cycle. It happened in 1994, and in all honesty it would have happened in 2002 if it hadn't been for 9/11. In 2008, voters got fired up after having 8 years of Bush and wanted something as far away from him as possible. Hence the two main D candidates being a woman and a black man. I don't think that was a coincidence. That motivated a lot of people to get out and vote. A LOT of people, despite the fact that there wasn't really a coherent message other than the general, "Fuck Bush." As much as I hate to admit the simplicity of the voters, the simplest slogan is often the most effective. So... 2 years later, it's hard to turn out voters in the same way, especially when the other side is fired up. Call it a lack of message. Call it complacency. Call it whatever you want. In all honesty, what the Democrats accomplished couldn't be broken down into a 10-second sound bite and that seems to be the attention-span of the average American voter. The marginal voters that win elections in any case.

11/3/2010 10:20:51 PM

Quote :

"But I know you follow politics enough to know that there are cycles and there are lots of different things that affect an election. Democrats are in a down cycle."

They lost more seats in the house than at any point since FDR was President . . . it is an exceptionally down cycle.

Quote :

"But they have been fed disinformation. Why else do you think 25% of the country STILL thinks Obama is a foreign born Muslim? It's because Fox News harps on this point constantly."

On the Kenyan thing? Not really. All I had for news when I lived in Alabama was Fox and while, yes they're full of shit, they don't push the Kenyan thing. Now, compare that to the fact that in 2006, fully 1/3 of Americans thought September 11th was an inside job. Fox wasn't harping that (no major news outlet was pushing that) yet the meme spread nonetheless. Fox is full of douche-bags but a) blaming them is a cop-out and b) blaming them does nothing to address the fact that you have to get your message out. Fox didn't prevent 2008 from occurring but in '08 BHO had a compelling narrative and people were sick of the GOP. To have lost THIS MUCH momentum in 2 years (we all accept that some would be lost) is extraordinary.

11/3/2010 10:30:03 PM

Have you contemplated they sold the message as hard as they could and the people just stopped buying it?

I mean, there is only so much "were going deeper in debt, were going to tax the rich, and health care reform will create jobs (wtf?)" that the public can take before they call BS.

11/3/2010 10:38:45 PM

I'm not really that amazed by it. The House is fickle and that's how it was set up to be. I think it's a pretty accurate representation of America at the moment. The Senate is still in Democratic control and that's an accurate portrayal of the past 3 election cycles.

Personally, I think Republicans are better at winning election because just about every single one of them is willing to do and say anything to win (as opposed to Democrats who this only applies to like 75%).

People didn't listen to the message because it wasn't sexy politics. Go back and listen to Obama try to explain why people should vote for Democrats again. It takes him at least two minutes to do the abridged version. It's all boring policy details and things that effect people in their lives behind the scenes. It's a very far cry from the, "Yes We Can" of 2008. That was a damn good message and it worked. The best slogan I heard from the Dems this year was "Don't give them back the keys." Getthefuckouttahere. Are you kidding me? I saw a town hall deal with Obama trying to sell that message and even he wasn't buying it. It's fucking lame and obviously playing on the young voters they're trying to grab.

Whereas the Republicans were giving off the message of "Vote out the incumbents." Well, just so fucking happens that a majority of incumbents are Democrats this year. They used the Tea Party as a front to deflect any attacks that the Republicans were incumbents and with the exception of a few races, it worked. Were it not for Sarah Palin and her dumb meddling ass, they would possibly have taken the Senate. Republicans are excellent at winning elections.

[Edited on November 3, 2010 at 10:52 PM. Reason : ]

11/3/2010 10:44:31 PM

^^^ you're overestimating the average voter.

And it's not just the kenyan thing, it's the idea that he's a muslim, and the he also hates white people. And the idea Obama is a muslim has grown over time, not faded, like the belief in the 9/11 conspiracy. This coincides with the rise of the tea party.


It's easy to think other people believe things for the same reason that you do, but this is simply not the case. The average soap boxer is more informed and more intelligent than the average american (i'm probably even a little conservative with my estimate there). The average American doesn't ascribe deeper philosophies to their political opponents or the people they support like we do, they boil it down to simple phrases (that person wants a terrorist mosque at ground zero, that person wants to take our guns, that person loves Jesus, that person is secretly a kenyan born muslim that hates white people, etc.).

You and I might just think this is political pandering, but there are people out there, large amounts of people, who take this seriously.

Just think how dumb we are, and then imagine that the vast majority of people are dumber than us. It's scary, isn't it?

Overall, i'm actually content that the power is split between democrats/republicans. I think Rand Paul is less intelligent than his father, but he's far better than the average politician. What scares me is that people like Ellmers, Palin, Bachmann, Christine ODonnel, Paladino, and many others are gaining prominence and recognition in mainstream politics (worse yet, Palin is probably the most tolerable of that bunch).

[Edited on November 3, 2010 at 10:47 PM. Reason : ]

11/3/2010 10:47:03 PM

Quote :

"Personally, I think Republicans are better at winning election because just about every single one of them is willing to do and say anything to win (as opposed to Democrats who this only applies to like 75%)."

Dude, really? You need to hang around professional politicians, consultants and campaigners more.

Quote :

"People didn't listen to the message because it wasn't sexy politics."

Ok, so the Democrats failed to sell their message. You're basically saying "we're boring so the people didn't listen." I'm saying "the Democrats are boring so the people didn't listen." The question comes back to 1) what happened to the dynamic and compelling Senator Barack Obama and 2) who / how will the Democrats find a way to be sexy again. Nothing about how DC functions is sexy, so you figure out a way to package it.

Quote :

"you're overestimating the average voter."

Not really. I just happen to believe that stupidity is fairly equally distributed across the political spectrum.


Also, as far as Palin is concerned, I think the Tea Party may have already crested. The Economist had an interesting article (that I'm not looking up at 11pm when I have to be up at 5) about how the people she endorsed won less than 50% of the election. Yes there are Ellmers and Bachmanns out there, but they are actually exceptions. The majority of GOP gains nationwide definitely capitalized on the anger of voters, but they weren't explicitly Tea Party candidates and weren't necessarily Palin candidates. Hopefully the media will quit paying attention to her and she'll go away again. (Fox alone isn't powerful enough to sustain her, she has built an image about being this resilient victim. If the kids on the playground quit throwing rocks at her, they'll just be distracted by something else).

But you're right, she's a fucking moron.

11/3/2010 11:08:54 PM

you people

11/3/2010 11:17:50 PM

there's a difference between CNN and the other network news organizations being somewhat left of center and Fox being right.

even if we ignore that the CNN/network leftward bias is subtle and sometimes barely detectable while Fox's is blatant and in-your-face.

because Fox actively engages in purposeful disinformation. and multitudes of examples abound. it's really pathetic.

as for the left biased media, MSNBC is the worst offender and even they are not the maliciously deceptive shills that is Fox News.

11/4/2010 11:54:21 AM

11/4/2010 11:57:49 AM

Chris Cillizza of the WaPo is reporting a 36 point shift in the independent vote from (D) to (R) . . . that is rather substantial in only two years.

Quote :

"even if we ignore that the CNN/network leftward bias is subtle and sometimes barely detectable while Fox's is blatant and in-your-face."

Ok.

1) so which is worse? Subtle bias which may go unrecognized or overt bias which is easy to discern.

2) What are you going to do about Fox? The realities of politics mean you play on the electoral field that exists, not the one you want to play on. The left can bitch about Fox all they want, but that accomplishes nothing.

Also, looking only at where Fox rates amongst television news networks is asinine in the current media environment. I get literally none of my news from television media because frankly, they all suck. So you can bitch about how Fox dominates the TV airwaves, but that doesn't mean that they dominate the information environment. None of the comparisons I've seen include the Daily Show, HuffPo, Daily Kos, the Daily Caller, NRO or Twitter (and yes Twitter has the potential to be a fantastic news source if you chose your feeds properly) in their assessment of news impacts.

So bitch about Fox all you want, but a) they're not going anywhere and b) the Democratic Party is going to have to find a way to live with that.

11/4/2010 12:07:16 PM

Quote :

"But that's partially because the details of health reform and financial regulation are harder to explain than the message that muslims are terrorists or we need to turn to god that more than a few of the new republicans portrayed. "

Alternatively, when you're trying to pass bullshit into law, it's difficult to explain bullshit in a way that doesn't make it sound like bullshit. Both the HCR and bailout bills were steaming piles of shit, so awful that even the democrats couldn't get consistent support for it from their core.

Quote :

"The face of the Democratic Party for pretty much all of 2009 was Nancy Fucking Pelosi and Harry Reid. Who let that happen? Those are arguably two of the worst faces to put on Democratic politics. "

It's the same thing that lead to two bush terms. The DNC apparently still hasn't learned that Clinton succeeded because he was charismatic. He shoveled bullshit as well as any politician, but he didn't talk down to the electorate while doing it. As a result of Clinton's success, the DNC seems to have been convinced of their divine righteousness and has pushed to the forefront of their party anyone who speaks the cor DNC beliefs loudest, without regard to the tone or style of the message. And so the DNC produced Al Gore, who presented the DNC message like a reference book presents porn, they followed this up with Kerry, who pretty much continued the dry monotonous style of presentation, and failed. But they learned their lesson from the Howard Dean scream, they needed energy. They brought Obama, but apparently never distinguished between energetic and simply loud and brought along Nancy Pelosi too. Unfortunately in addition to the grating annoyance that is Pelosi, since the end of his campaign, Obama has been expressing the sorts of things you don't express to the public, even if you believe it, such as his recent characterization of his opposition as the enemy. "Unpatriotic" didn't work for bush to win over moderates, calling them "enemies" certainly won't for Obama.

Quote :

"As much as I hate to admit the simplicity of the voters, the simplest slogan is often the most effective. So... 2 years later, it's hard to turn out voters in the same way, especially when the other side is fired up. Call it a lack of message. Call it complacency. Call it whatever you want. In all honesty, what the Democrats accomplished couldn't be broken down into a 10-second sound bite and that seems to be the attention-span of the average American voter. The marginal voters that win elections in any case."

Oddly enough, despite this claim, if you see a car trundling down the highway loaded with bumper stickers (the epitome of the 10 second sound bite) 80% of the time, it will be a democrat.

Quote :

"Have you contemplated they sold the message as hard as they could and the people just stopped buying it? I mean, there is only so much "were going deeper in debt, were going to tax the rich, and health care reform will create jobs (wtf?)" that the public can take before they call BS."

This is another part of it. For whatever reason (probably again, overconfidence from the Clinton administration, and the popular support they had when railing against bush) the Democrats haven't figured out that not everyone is buying the shit they're selling. Instead of altering the message, or even (deity forbid) re-evaluating the policy, the DNC response to failure seems to be "It couldn't be the policy, the implementation is wrong. Do it again only louder and bigger. MORE COWBELL!"

11/4/2010 1:28:45 PM

Quote :

"Both the HCR and bailout bills were steaming piles of shit, so awful that even the democrats couldn't get consistent support for it from their core."

Like it or not, there is a lot of truth to this. WJC didn't even get HCR passed and lost big in 94. I've told the story before, but I was in a Maryland politician's office at the peak of the debate and on the desk of one of their staffers was a checklist of "calls For" and "calls Against" HCR. The Against sheet was literally covered in checkmarks, including the margins. The For had maybe a dozen. This is Maryland too, not South Carolina or even Virginia. Regardless, this particular politician voted for the bill.


The thing is, these protests started not with HCR or even BHO but with the bailouts. People who had never been politically active before called their representatives, wrote letters to the editor and took time out of their schedule to visit town halls or protest. They were met with a wall of indignation by congressmen for having the gall to question them.*

The knee-jerk reaction from an admittedly under-staffed establishment media which was enamored of the new President (remember Brian William's bow? Remember Evan Thomas referring to BHO as "sort of God-like"?) was this indignation that someone could have the gall to question Barack Obama. He was so perfet, so beautiful (glistening pecks and all) in their eyes that the only possible answer was, "this must be about racism and stupidity."

Fact of the matter is, neither the media or Democratic Politicians ever "got it". While racists, idiots and racist idiots were part of the Tea Party, they were never the majority and the majority of voters were better informed than Democrats still give them credit for. They never took the time to attemt to understand the fears of their voters, rational or irrational and they paid for it at the polls.

Bill Clinton felt their pain. Nancy Pelosi called them Nazis.

[Edited on November 4, 2010 at 3:21 PM. Reason : * Al Franken was a notable and noble exception.]

11/4/2010 3:19:13 PM