SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Obama's Public Opinion Dilemma

JONATHAN CHAIT AUGUST 26, 2011

Obama's Public Opinion Dilemma

BY JONATHAN CHAIT

Pew's monster public opinion survey really captures the complexity of the political dilemma facing President Obama. You have a public extremely unhappy with everything, blaming Republicans more than Democrats, but with President Obama finding his popularity sucked down along with everybody else. He remains relatively quite popular, both compared to others and adjusted for circumstances, but absolutely pretty unpopular.

In particular, the impression that has taken shape is of a reasonable, well-intentioned man with the country's best interests at heart but not necessarily able to enact change. Here's the positive side of that:

Majorities say he stands up for what he believes in (71%), cares about people like them (63%), and most view him as a good communicator (75%), well-informed (63%) and trustworthy (59%). Public assessments of these traits are relatively unchanged in recent months.

And here's the negative side:

But evaluations of Obama’s leadership have dropped off in recent months. Today, the public is divided over whether Obama is a strong leader (49% strong leader, 47% not a strong leader), and more now say he is not able to get things done than say he is (50% not able, 44% able).

It's not as easy as you might think to shore up the liability side of that ledger without losing the asset side. Obama is viewed as well-informed, trustworthy and caring in large part because he takes such care to be reasonable. He could gain more strength, but possibly at the risk of those other attributes.

That said, he needs to make some version of this trade. The public has shifted toward the view that Obama must do more to confront Republicans. This is the most interesting finding:

People always want leaders to compromise. It's amazing that a plurality wants Obama to confront the GOP more strongly. Want to see something even more amazing? You're seeing non-trivial numbers of Republicans say that Obama should stand up to the Republicans:

The question hanging over Obama's political strategy has always been the endgame. His obsession with seeming reasonable makes sense if he uses it as an asset to spend down at the end. You do everything to show your willingness to compromise, and when the opposition refuses and refuses, finally you assail them for their fanaticism. It's harrowing to watch, because we don't know until the last minute whether we're witnessing a rope-a-dope strategy, or just a boxer being beaten to a pulp.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 113 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

113 comments

Reasonable, caring, intelligent, well-informed, trustworthy--- all attributes of Hoover and Chamberlain. Excellent traits-- but not the trait or two that was most needed in the crises of their times.

- drofnats1

August 26, 2011 at 1:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That last paragraph perfectly sums up my feeling on Obama. His best political strategy is to act obsessively bipartisan and then stage some kind of "This far, no further! The line must be drawn here!" moment as the election nears. And such a strategy is consistent with how Obama has done things in the past. But until that moment arrives, there's no way to know whether this is in fact his strategy, or he's just being obsessively bipartisan.

- Dausuul

August 26, 2011 at 1:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree, dr. For our current crisis, we could use a bit of FDR. Two quotes from Conrad Black's book: "This [his inaugural address] was the beginning of Roosevelt's consistent and inspired policy as president of channeling all the anger and frustration of these terrible times against unnamed forces, described only in broad moralistic caricatures. In this way he dispersed the country's rage harmlessly and conserved the moral integrality of America for eventual mobilization against real (external) enemies." "In all circumstances Roosevelt would remember where the majority of the voters were and how to produce as little division as possible in a nation as a whole. It was a providential talent in these tumultuous times, and would distinguished the United States from all the other major powers, which either embraced dictatorship or were riven by severe fissures between left and right."

- aboufade

August 26, 2011 at 1:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Drofnats, you forgot James Buchanan, Louis XVI, Charles I, Caliph Al-Mutasim of Baghdad and President Merkin Muffley in your catalogue of reasonable, caring, etc. people. Am I forgetting anyone else relevant?

- wildboy

August 26, 2011 at 3:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, knock me over with a feather! Even the Republicans think so. So, Chait, do you now want to give us another dose of how criticism of Obama from the left is nothing more than "magical thinking?" Or would you like at this time graciously to admit your error and acknowledge that the criticism from the left was prescient and correctly gauged the public temperament?

- roidubouloi

August 26, 2011 at 3:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

wildboy. Interesting to see such names in your lists of similars, if not mine. Sounds like most anyone will do for you. In that case if BHO loses to Perry, i gather you don't see the difference--- or between BHO and a Progressive. Ignorance is indeed blissful. I will also note that Perry has gone from nowhere to front-runner in two weeks. Just as I predicted over 6 months ago. I'd make another prediction.. If there a more obvios economic crisis in 3 months, and someone like Schweitzer of Montana comes out in a full-throated roar supporting Progressive economic policies and critiquing BHO, that challenger would be within 10% of BHO with respect to Democratic and Independent voter support (and have more support among Repubs than BHO) within a month. Pray for a crisis sooner than later.

- drofnats1

August 26, 2011 at 3:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Drofnats, I see plenty of differences between Obama and a "Progressive" of the kind you constantly pine for -- although, if you were honest, you would admit that you long for someone along the lines of Bernie Sanders than a moderate, pro-business if somewhat rhetorically pugnacious Democrat like Brian Schweitzer (though you are foregiven for not paying attention to what really goes on with politics in Montana -- methinks you of the age that still thinks that the Great Plains and Mountain West are full of pro-labor, anti-war Democratic tribunes like George McGovern, Frank Church and Moe Udall. When they are not). I also know from studying both recent electoral history and current attitudes as reflected by public opinion polls (rather than what one reads on the Huffington Post), that challenging a sitting President in a primary is more likely to result in fatally weakening than bolstering that President in the general election. Happened to HW Bush, happened to Carter, happened to Ford, would have probably happened to LBJ if he didn't just drop out after New Hampshire -- and it helped to split his party and fatally weaken his VP in the general election against Nixon. If you want to see President Perry, go ahead and support a quixotic primary challenge against Obama. In addition to splitting the party, it will guarantee the alienation of African-American voters from the Democratic Party in the general election, which would cost the Democrats who knows how many states and votes in the Midwest and Upper South. You might as well write off Ohio, Florida, North Carolina and Virginia for starters. Oh, and as for your constant references to Chamberlain: Just. Stop. It. I bow to no one in appreciating the baleful effect of modern Republican politics on this country, especially as practiced by President Perry. Just so, I am fairly convinced that the election of President Perry or President Bachmann will not result in stripping me and my family of all civil rights, followed by our eventual deportation and murder. Call me naive.

- wildboy

August 26, 2011 at 4:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roi: "So, Chait, do you now want to give us another dose of how criticism of Obama from the left is nothing more than "magical thinking?" Or would you like at this time graciously to admit your error and acknowledge that the criticism from the left was prescient and correctly gauged the public temperament?" Roi, even you ought to be able to recognize that public opinion wasn't always where it is now. It shifted over time based on... (drumroll) ...Obama's compromising approach. I stated this a while that the point of Obama's compromising was to show the public what Republicans were really about. Had the President done what you had advocated - the magical thinking of being ultra-partisan from the get go - we'd be looking at a very different set of public opinion polls. You get no credit for being prescient, not unlike a broken clock claiming credit for being right at least twice a day.

- wkwami

August 26, 2011 at 4:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I see the shift in the cited polls as a shift in the Republicans. President Obama sits center right while the Republicans have been pulled to the far right by the passionate core of their party. Sitting center right makes Obama unpopular with the right and the left, but it blocks people like Perry from accessing votes to Obama's left. Under these circumstances, Obama's win might not depend on the economy, but on his get out the vote efforts. Bush won in 2004 not on his record but by demonizing Kerry and through the Anti Gay Marriage effort to get out the conservative vote.

- Nusholtz

August 26, 2011 at 4:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have to agree with wkwami. It is a very interesting set of poll results but it IS not a result that we would be seeing if Obama had gone into battle with all guns blazing the way folks around here have been demanding over the past year or more. It is imo a promising situation that has come about precisely because people are beginning to understand that this Republican Party can't be approached as a rhetorically confrontational but ultimately reasonable political opponent. The truth is starting to dawn.

- ironyroad

August 26, 2011 at 5:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi ABSOLUTELY! I was preparing to post exactly the same thing, but you beat me to it.

- thuffman

August 26, 2011 at 5:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

wk. Roi and I choose to predict and mold/lead public opinion, rather than follow. Somebody has to. wi. You read me wrong Schweitzer is by far my first pick--- and I know his policies and personalities rather well. As for the rest of your assumptions on my preferences, perhaps the best reply is one in kind: How would a wildboy Reaganaut know, much less understand? Are you against BHO because he was an anti- [Iraq]war Dem?? I happen not to be antiwar... I'm against dumb wars that we can't win. Sound familiar?? For example, Afghanistan, which I presume you strongly support our remaining engaged for a decade like you support our remaing in a recession for a decade. With such citizenry, let us hope that M. Twain was right: God especially looks after drunks, fools, and the United States of America. As for Chamberlain, he too appreciated the probable baleful results of a loss. I agree that Rick is not an Adolph, more a Benito, Francisco, or Augusto (Pinochet), if he can weild the power that BHO won't. Neville appreciated the baleful effects of the former two as well-- and did little to counter.

- drofnats1

August 26, 2011 at 5:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dro, arrogant much? If anyone molded public opinion on this issue, it was Obama.

- GSpinks

August 26, 2011 at 7:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Of course, wkwami, you cannot imagine any form of advocacy for something other than "guns blazing." With that in mind, I might characterize your view as being that the best course is to advocate for nothing, just appear more reasonable than the opposition while doing it. Would that be apt? The whole point of the poll is that the public is not buying Obama's reasonable, I'm the only adult in the room act. Entirely predictable. He has been failing at maintaining public support, and now you know just why. But, as ever, you declare failure to be a singular success. Whatever happens or doesn't happen, no matter how spectacular the failure, no matter the outcome, you will always maintain, as you always do, that "everything is for the best in this the best of all possible worlds." Anything that goes wrong was unavoidable by anything Obama could have done -- or certainly too speculative to bear mention. Anything that goes right is the result of Obama's deep, deep strategy that none of us was smart enough to understand. If people think Obama is not providing the leadership we need, to you that merely proves how successful he is at providing the leadership we need. More of the usual nonsense.

- roidubouloi

August 26, 2011 at 7:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

GS. Arrogant, probably. Wrong in this case, No. BHO has hardly molded public opinion to support Keynesian economic solutions. At best, he's incoherent on the topic.. And if you don't understand what I mean, you make my point. Roi. You correctly characterize one type of BHO supporters-- Panglossian:no matter what the outcome, it is the best possible.There's another type. BHO has not been a stong advocate of Keynesian economics, but next time he will. The Einstein-insanity type. [ Einstein defined insanity as: constantly repeating the same experiment, expecting to get a different result next time.]

- drofnats1

August 26, 2011 at 9:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, drof, I would say this: I don't any longer buy the notion that Obama is sort of forced into right-wing civil liberties policies or economic policies or visions of unrestrained presidential authority because of the current state of American politics. I think these are the policies he believes in. He believes that the deficit is a bigger problem for the country than unemployment. Jobs are what he pays lip service to. Deficit reduction and continuing tax cuts for the wealthy are what he does. His "Grand Bargain" wasn't a gambit; it was what he wanted to achieve, but he thinks it clever to make it appear that it is the Republicans who are forcing him to do it. In that way, he hopes to achieve his preferred policy outcome without alienating Democrats who do not believe as he does. His ploy with the debt ceiling was to try to maneuver the Republicans in just this way. I think he naïvely believed that since he was offering radically to compromise the Democratic party the Republicans would meet him if not halfway then part way. Fortunately for us, they didn't.

- roidubouloi

August 26, 2011 at 10:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here is my hope. I guess... Obama is quiet now, so Perry can win nomination. Then Obama or at least his subordinates will cut into the cranky old white base of the GOP by reading his book aloud for his attacks on Medicare and Social Security and win with a good margin. If they are not doing this and Obama, gets up and says that Perry's book offers a serious plan and he respects it but just differs with it (Like he did with fraud boy Paul Ryan's fraudulant plan originally.) Then the Democrats should impeach him for political malpractice!

- MikeB.

August 27, 2011 at 10:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We can hope, MikeB, but, based on past performance, there is no reason for confidence.

- roidubouloi

August 27, 2011 at 11:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"If they are not doing this and Obama, gets up and says that Perry's book offers a serious plan and he respects it but just differs with it (Like he did with fraud boy Paul Ryan's fraudulent plan originally.) Then the Democrats should impeach him for political malpractice!" Would you be more likely to see movies that were panned by reviewers? I wouldn't. Dismissing Ryan's plan would have had the same effect - it would not have be taken as seriously as was had it been dismissed out of hand. Giving Ryan's plan due respect put the plan squarely in the eye of the political storm, where it got dissected and debated and duly kicked to the curb based on the merits. This has permanently damaged Paul Ryan's credibility with a significant and reliable voting block, something that may not be apparent to some of you at this point in time. Obama is simply politically savvier than some of you give him credit for.

- wkwami

August 27, 2011 at 12:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I meant to say... "it would not have been taken as seriously as it was, and given the scrutiny it deserved had it been dismissed out of hand."

- wkwami

August 27, 2011 at 12:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That's pure speculation, wkwami. You have no way of knowing whether Obama's initial gesture toward Ryan's plan helped, hurt, or indeed had any material effect when he then went out and publicly trashed Ryan's plan. It is fine to speculate, but you should not present your speculations as if they are facts. What seems inarguable is that the president publicly trashing Ryan's plan, actually coming out and openlly, unambiguously criticizing Republican proposals, had the salutory effect of leaving them completely discredited. Those here who see the necessity of actually fighting the rhetorical battle are simply politically savvier than you can understand.

- roidubouloi

August 27, 2011 at 1:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

wk and MikeB are certifiably Einstein-insane. There's a lot of it going around. Hard to tell if it's the inherited or acquired version. That's distinguisable when the economic crisis worsens. The inherited type continues to give the same response. For many suffering from the acquired version, there's hope of change and seeking a cure.

- drofnats1

August 27, 2011 at 1:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Whether Obama will stand up to the Republicans at the last minute before the election is a mystery. Is he rope-a-doping like Chait suggests he may be? He certainly is a brilliant politician--a black man with 4 years in the Senate and, whoosh!, he's in the Oval Office. We'll know if he's suckering the Republicans to come after him on the ropes when and if he refers to the obstructionists as "Republicans in Congress" instead of simply "Congress." But that may not happen till a year from now. Remember, Ali played with Foreman a long time before he smacked back--after Foreman had flailed himself into exhaustion. Let's hope the constantly-attacking, accomplishing-nothing strategy of our Republican friends earns them a stint on the George Foreman Grill.

- magboy47.

August 27, 2011 at 2:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"You have no way of knowing whether Obama's initial gesture toward Ryan's plan helped, hurt, or indeed had any material effect when he then went out and publicly trashed Ryan's plan." Of course I do. We know for a fact that Obama said Ryan's plan was serious and he respected that. It catapulted the plan, and by consequence, Paul Ryan himself into the political limelight. It became the "it" plan du jour, the MSN called it brave, serious, etc. This was not the first time Republicans had taken a stab at gutting Medicare, but what was different this time around was the fact that it was the first time a Democratic President had elevated their plan by giving it his recognition and respect, instead of dismissing it outright. Having then got Paul Ryan where he wanted, Obama proceeds to whip Paulie Paul into irrelevance. Had Obama dismissed Ryan's plan from the get go as you advocated, he'd have zero credibility making the case to the American people that the plan poses a threat to their safety net programs. Don't let facts get in the way of your narrative of Obama. You may question his political strategy, but you can't deny the guy is simply brilliant.

- wkwami

August 27, 2011 at 2:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama's public opinion dilemma just got dinged because I happened to be available for the Rasmussen Poll when they called here in deep blue western Massachusetts at 1:30 pm. Oh my, what to do with a self-described moderate Democrat over 40 who wants ACA/Obamacare repealed and does not identify with the TEA party. It was a very curious poll in that it started as right/wrong direction and Obama job approval ranking, but they also wanted my opinion about Sean Donovan (HUD) and Eric Shinseki (VA), and a generic US Senate contest, and did not ask my about education level or religion. My first official Rasmussen poll!

- K2K

August 27, 2011 at 2:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Don't we have a not too distant example of a Democrat allowing nonsensical attacks drag him down, like the Pledge, ACLU, etc. without him responding? Didn't Dukakis wait and wait, and let Karl Rove and Lee Atwater set the narrative about him? By the time he started to punch back it was too late.

- MikeB.

August 27, 2011 at 2:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"BHO has hardly molded public opinion to support Keynesian economic solutions." FDR was also unable to mold public opinion in support of Keynesian economic solutions either. What tipped the scales in FDR's favor was the fact that he had the necessary Congressional majorities to push through what he wanted (polling at the time showed the public was against the stimulus. By the way, not unlike Obama, FDR also proposed deficit reduction). Likewise Obama was able to pass healthcare albeit with a much slimmer Congressional majority compared to FDR's. Of course the hapless lefties could not be counted on to consolidate these policy achievements in the 2010 elections because they didn't get the public option or single payer. The lefty traitors handed the Congress to the Republican Tea Party on a silver platter, and now they have the audacity to whine about Obama.

- wkwami

August 27, 2011 at 2:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

MikeB, Obama ain't no Dukakis or Kerry. Remember he IS the President; people occasionally need to be reminded of the fact that:

Obama is SMARTER Than Us http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/2011/08/more-politics-101-obama-is-smarter-than-us.html Let’s start this rant by reminding you that the man occupying the White House currently got to where he is in spite of the fact that: He is a black man; He had a father who was a Kenyan Muslim; He has an unusual name; He didn’t have a ton of political experience when he ran and; He had to beat one of the most established legacies in Democratic politics in the primary, and a respected war hero politician in the general election. Barack Obama could very well be the most brilliant politician of our day. He knows what’s up far better than we do. To NOT defer to his judgment except in extreme circumstances is much like hiring a mechanic to repair your car and then telling him how (s)he should rebuild your carburetor. Put simply, if you think you can do it better, then do it. Otherwise, shut the hell up, because you sound stupid when you criticize an expert.

- wkwami

August 27, 2011 at 2:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ah yes, the lefty traitors who did not feel obliged to vote for Democrats regardless of what they did or did not do. They are the problem, not the sellout shills like wkwami. Not Obama who cravenly declined to sell his own policies and left Congressional Demcrats, whom he trashes along with Congressional Republicans, to take a bullet for him. It was beneath him to get out of his chair to try and see Democrats elected. Who are they but more of the partisan children he publicly disdains? Let me ask you something wkwami about the sellout president you so adore. If Obama, the head of the Democratic party, trashes Democrats in Congress and displays the identical disdain for them and for the Republicans who are doing everything possible to undermine him and his post-partisan narcissism, why should the public then think it worthwhile to come out and vote for Democrats for Congress? Can you think of any other instance of a sitting president trashing members of his own party this way? And then you wonder what happened to Democratic majorities?

- roidubouloi

August 27, 2011 at 2:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, it stands to reason that when the likes of wkwami can no longer mount a reasoned defense to criticism of Obama that he will fall back on, "Shut the hell up, because you sound stupid when you criticize an expert." Why not just admit you are a failure wkwami and go away courteously? And the facts? This supposed expert came into office following eight years of Republican disasters and through public disgust with Republicans accompanied by large majorities in both house of Congress. He managed in a mere two years to squander it. Blew the Democrats out of the House and whittled down the Senate majority to where it may well not survive the next Obama election. Some expert. Real genius there. But, our own Dr. Pangloss will never cease declaring that failure is not failure but brilliant success too deep for us to understand. I recall the same morons saying the same thing about trusting "the experts" in Vietnam and Iraq. Then there is Summers and Rubin, prime authors of the financial deregulation. Experts. God save us from experts who say "trust us" and are so incompetent that they cannot even respond intelligently to the criticisms of non-experts. The moment that all they can do is sputter and declare themselves above criticism is the very moment you can be sure they don't know what they hell they are doing.

- roidubouloi

August 27, 2011 at 3:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is a curiosity that wkwami and Chait both like to insist that left critics of Obama are guilty of magical thinking because the attribute to the office of president far more power than it has. Yet, at the same time, they are completely disdainful of the role that a sitting president has to play in securing congressional majorities for his own party. If wkwami and Chait are right about the limits of presidential power, then the single most urgent task of a president should be to lead his party to congressional victory. Politics is a team sport. It is not lone rangers and post-partisan shining knights who produce success, but the collective effort of political party members inspired and well led. By the lights of wkwami and Chait, the party has failed Obama, who gives it only his back. I say that Obama has failed the party. What has Obama done for the Democratic party lately? Nothing. Nothing at all since he got elected.

- roidubouloi

August 27, 2011 at 3:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sad Roi, just sad. Now you're making a case against deferring to expertise just because experts also do make mistakes? This is the kind of anti-intellectualism, anti-empiricism that the Tea Party indulges in. And yes, people do sound stupid when they criticize an expert without any real basis, especially an expert who has demonstrated results. You can criticize Obama, just don't ask me to substitute your speculations for fact though. And the facts? Yes, let's talk about the facts... What congressional majorities did Obama squander? To say that shows a serious lack of understanding of our political system. It is not enough to merely have a (D) or an (R) next to a politicians name, one also has to take into consideration the actual politics of said politician. Here are the sobering facts:

Barack Obama and the myth of the progressive ‘majorities’ http://blog.reidreport.com/2011/07/myth-of-progressive-majority/#more-25751
Nevertheless, Obama was able to chalk up liberal policy accomplishments on a level not seen since LBJ. You may call him a failure, I call it unprecedented success borne out of brilliant political strategic agility - he essentially made lemon meringue pie from lemons.
How Barack Obama Left John Boehner Holding the Teabag, Again. http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/08/paul-krugman-is-political-rookie-or-how.html Obama Administration’s Achievements (Thus Far) http://obamaachievements.org/list Rachel Maddow On President Obama’s Accomplishments (Updated) http://kaystreet.wordpress.com/2011/05/11/rachel-maddow-on-president-obamas-accomplishments-updated/
Now, let's assume all these accomplishments are not far reaching enough for progressives like yourself, the question then becomes would a President McCain, Romney, or Perry have done a better job? Would a President Bernie Sanders or Kucinich have been more successful? If you think so then your Peter Pan fantasies are even more delusional than I thought. President Obama is president of all Americans, not just the president of the "Democratic wing" of the Democratic Party (how did that work out for Howard Dean? How come Dennis Kucinich's presidential candidacy never caught fire with progressives like yourself?). As for piling on Tim Geithner, Summers, and Rubin, it is a cheap shot given that your liberal darling, Paul Krugman, hasn't done anything concrete to actualize implementation of any of his ideas on how to fix the economy except preach from the comfort of his ivory tower and the NYT op-ed page. It is easy to judge people by their record if they have one. Krugman is smart enough not to compile any real world record. He must have learned from his short stint with the Reagan administration, and with Enron, both colossal failures. Yet he has managed to position himself as the expert on the economy, and the leading liberal critic of Obama. Talk about Peter Pan(gloss). Sure, criticize Rubin, Summers, and Geithner, but I'll take those others three over Krugman any day. Get back to me when Krugman actually puts his convictions where his mouth is, as the left's counterweight to Grover Norquist who doesn't just spout his beliefs, but took steps to ensure that those beliefs translated into policy achievements. Likewise if Krugman believed that a $2 trillion stimulus was the right size, why didn't he take a page from Norquist's book and advocated for it? Democrats talk, Republicans do, that's the difference. In 2010 the Tea Party voted, the left wing folded. Roi now tells us the left wing needed Obama to call them to action. What a silly thing to say when the template for action was being provided by the Tea Party? Where were the counter demonstrations in favor of the ACA at those townhalls? Nevertheless, I'll defend Obama, Geithner, and Summers best by submitting this Fareed Zakaria article:
The Pragmatic President http://www.fareedzakaria.com/home/Articles/Entries/2011/8/12_The_Debt_Deals_Failure_2.html Obama passed a large stimulus package within weeks of taking office. Perhaps it should have been bigger, but despite a Democratic House and Senate, it passed by just one vote. He signed into law an unprecedented expansion of regulations in the financial-services industry, though one that did not break up the large banks. He enacted universal health care, through a complex program modeled after Mitt Romney’s plan in Massachusetts. And he has advocated a balanced approach to deficit reduction that combines tax increases with spending cuts. Maybe he believes in all these things. Maybe he understands that with a budget deficit of 10% of GDP, the second highest in the industrialized world, and a debt that will rise to almost 100% of GDP in a few years, we cannot cavalierly spend another few trillion dollars hoping that will jump-start the economy. Perhaps he believes that while banks need better regulations, America also needs a vibrant banking system, and that in a globalized economy, constraining American banks will only ensure that the world’s largest global financial institutions will be British, German, Swiss and Chinese. He might understand that Larry Summers and Tim Geithner are smart people who, in long careers in public service, got some things wrong but also got many things right. Perhaps he understands that getting entitlement costs under control is in fact a crucial part of stabilizing our fiscal situation, and that you do need both tax increases and spending cuts—cuts that are smaller than they appear because they all start with the 2010 budget, which was boosted by the stimulus. Is all this dangerous weakness, incoherence and appeasement, or is it common sense? My bet is that the American people will see it as the latter... http://www.fareedzakaria.com/home/Articles/Entries/2011/8/12_The_Debt_Deals_Failure_2.html
Simply put, Obama maybe one of the best political talents in recent memory. Unfortunately, the economy keeps dragging him down, something that is global in nature, rather than purely an American problem. As always, Obama will put Roi to shame by winning re-election, with a Democratic Congress to boot. Call me Dr. Pangloss, it is the fitting counterweight to your Peter Pan.

- wkwami

August 27, 2011 at 4:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama as Chess Master: 'Think of Him as Bobby Fischer' http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/obama-as-chess-master-think-of-him-as-bobby-fischer/243139/#.Tj1ecfhvUwA.twitter I've published a series of harsh assessments of the savvy and game plan that the Obama Administration brought to the debt-ceiling fight. For a change of tone, here is a reader's argument today that such judgments are both hasty and unfair. In fact, by this view, we're watching a master vision unfold... [Even if politically he's toast because of playing the long-game economically to the detriment of the short-game, his policies will not die overnight. The republican party may take back the White House, and even gain full control of the Congress - but there is no chance they take a super-majority in the Senate. And then, what can they do? Cut NASA, or kill the private space industry? Further ruin our nation's infrastructure? (It's already collapsing, literally). Good luck repealing Obamacare. Good luck re-instating DADT. Good luck sending troops back to Afghanistan and Iraq. They could ruin the repaired relationships with our allies. Even the Tea Party isn't dumb enough to sabotage our free-trade agreements.] http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/obama-as-chess-master-think-of-him-as-bobby-fischer/243139/#.Tj1ecfhvUwA.twitter

- wkwami

August 27, 2011 at 4:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

wkwami, I have to restrain myself from devoting too much time to responding to your rubbish. Life is short, and I have better things to do. At the same time, I can't let this latest horseshit fusillade of yours go completely unanswered. For YOU to accuse roidubouloi of anti-intellectualism in the very same thread that you assert that we should shut up criticizing the president because he is "smarter" than us shows one thing at least: you've got more chutzpah than your hero, Obama. The essence of intellectualism is criticism, and the only anti-intellectualism on display in this thread is your own reflexive appeal to authority. For you, a person's credentials are everything. You expect us to behave as if once he attained the office of president Obama somehow placed himself so far above every other mortal that he is beyond ordinary human understanding and critique. Listen to yourself, wkwami, this is no longer politics, it's religion. What's so hilarious is that it is EXACTLY the kind of worshipful attitude that Obama's opponents in both the Clinton and the McCain campaigns attempted to lampoon by referring to O as "The One." At the time, when I was a strong Obama supporter, I thought it was all tactical bullshit, but if you have accomplished one thing, wkwami, it's to make me reconsider whether such attacks on Obama have substance. But you know what? Maybe you're right about Obama. Maybe every decision he makes is a priori the best decision that could be made. So why don't you call up OFA with your idea for a slogan, "Shut Up, He's Smarter than You", and see how many votes that pulls for the Democrats?

- AaronW

August 27, 2011 at 6:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Obama as Chess Master: 'Think of Him as Bobby Fischer'" Unintentionally hilarious. Bobby Fischer ended life as schizoid, anti-Semitic (despite being Jewish), anti-American recluse who applauded al Qaeda's attack on the WTC.

- AaronW

August 27, 2011 at 6:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roi. It's not only seattle that are tables one must learn not to talk to. Some tables are named wkwami. I have no illusions that a primary challenge to BHO is risky, that if not successful it would probably hurt his chances in 2012. [There is some small chance that a challenge from the left--- make that from the center--- might pull BHO back from the right and help his chances]. However, like a now- majority of Americans, I recognize that the policies that BHO has proposed have not come close to ending the Great Recession—and will not in the future of this or his next possible presidency. Hence, we definitely need take a chance on a Progressive challenger who advocates and will propose Keynesian policies.. If the challenger beats BHO-or BHO withdraws- the challenger might well do better than BHO, not having to defend BHO’s policies. In unsettling times, voters look for the reassurance of a strong leader—right or wrong. President Obama can't and won’t provide it. Hence, voters will look elsewhere, not out of choice, but out of desperation. They need to have the opportunity to vote for a Progressive strong leader to counter a strong leader that the Repubs will choose, unless Mittens wins. In that case, it’s the right-leaning wimp versus the right-endorsing wuss. I bet Perry is the Repub nominee-- placed that bet 8 months ago. I wondered recently if Perry may well be a better choice than BHO because, in fact, he is really a big-business crony type that is more likely to see the benefits (to cronyism) of a Keynesian stimulus and get it passed than BHO. [I've been in Texas for over 40 years-- Perry is a conservative Dem in a red elephant suit.] If the economy is really the overriding issue, in these times, Boss Tweed is better than Hoover.

- drofnats1

August 27, 2011 at 6:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sad, really sad, wkwami. Pathetic really. Now you are so deep in your delusion that you cannot even see the difference between mindless deference to claimed genius and expecting that even genius, or especially genius, is capable of explaining itself in terms mere mortals can understand. Here we have a political leader, in a democracy, whom you claim is so brilliant, so wonderful, so deep and skillful in his political strategy, that if the public won't follow him, gosh darn it, it is the public's fault. That, wkwami, is an oxymoronic understanding of political leadership. Once again, you respond to Obama's political failure by telling us about his policy achievements, how long they will last, how he will be remembered once he is gone, which looks like it may be sooner rather than later. But, according to you, it is no loss. "Everything is for the best in this the best of all possible worlds." But for the political genius of Obama, everything, both politically and in terms of policy, would be far, far worse than it is today. And everything that has happened, however great the losses suffered and still to be suffered, is the best outcome that could possibly have been achieved under the circumstances. Sad indeed for us that we cannot all see the magnificence of Obama and his political genius at work. What did he squander? You tell me that the majorities with which he came into office were not so progressive to begin with. But I didn't say he squandered progressive majorities. He squandered Democratic majorities, because he is politically lazy and does not think he needs or owes anything to the Democratic party. Let us make this so simple that perhaps even you, awash in the beatific light of Obama can understand: The Democrats were creamed in the last election and Obama bears the lion's share of the responsibility for that. The election was a referendum on him, his policies, as perceived by the public, and his political persona. The genius came into office with a large Democratic majority in the House and a public fed up with Republicans based on eight years of one disaster after another. In two years, it was gone. THAT IS A SPECTACULAR POLITICAL FAILURE! There is no other way to describe it. The Democrats suffer a rout and you declare that, but for the brilliant political leadership of Obama, it would have been, oh, I don't know, political Armageddon so don't worry, be happy and sit in awe at the feet of the master. Now, you can "speculate," as you so like to say, that everything would have been even worse but for Obama. Go right ahead. Here on earth he has crashed the Democrats into the ground. We stand an excellent chance of losing control of every branch of government in the next election. And, no, his policy achievements will not endure an entirely Republican government. That is a pipe dream, because the Republicans do know how to play rough and, even without a super-majority in the Senate, will squeeze the Democrats and their agenda so hard that the Democrats will give in to almost anything. You have gone from mindless cheerleader to a complete fantasist, wkwami. Sad, very sad. And you coulda been a contender.

- roidubouloi

August 27, 2011 at 6:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I would take even Perry over Obama, drof, if we could have both houses of Congress. I do understand your point, but I see political and policy carnage ahead. As I have said, I am hugely disappointed with Obama, far moreso for his political failures than anything else. I don't need to see my policy dreams enacted overnight. I know that successfully building a long-term majority is a matter of building political capital, one brick at a time, rather than blowing it on grandstanding. But I am afraid of what, in the era of the Tea party, an entirely Republican government is going to do to us. It's like Churchill's remark that, if Hitler invaded hell, he would find some kind words to say about the devil. ___________________ If you want a really good laugh, Aaron and drof, go to the article wkwami links about how Obama is to be likened to Bobby Fischer in his deep, deep genius. The article is written by a guy who is identified as having been Jimmy Carter's chief speechwriter! That is simply to bizarre. This is the guy to whom we are supposed to listen on the subject of Obama's deep political strategy. I guess Hoover's speechwriter was unavailable.

- roidubouloi

August 27, 2011 at 6:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"For YOU to accuse roidubouloi of anti-intellectualism in the very same thread that you assert that we should shut up criticizing the president because he is "smarter" than us shows one thing at least: you've got more chutzpah than your hero, Obama." You're prevaricating as usual. I accused Roi of displaying the same anti-intellectualism and anti-empiricism of the Tea Party when he argues against deferring to expertise just because experts also make mistakes. What Roi did is akin to saying an expert pilot such as Captain Sully should be discounted because his aircraft ended up in the Hudson river. Roi is essentially arguing that a Captain Sully failed in his assigned task, which was to get his passengers from point A to B, and that makes him a failure. Not considered is the fact that it is precisely because of Captain Sully's expertise that a greater calamity was avoided. Roi further makes the mistake of assuming that all experts are equal, just to score debate points. That should be beneath Roi, given his immense intellectual capabilities. "What's so hilarious is that it is EXACTLY the kind of worshipful attitude that Obama's opponents in both the Clinton and the McCain campaigns attempted to lampoon by referring to O as "The One." At the time, when I was a strong Obama supporter, I thought it was all tactical bullshit, but if you have accomplished one thing, wkwami, it's to make me reconsider whether such attacks on Obama have substance." You haven't disputed a single fact I have put on the table, the accomplishments, the strategic agility, the outcomes of negotiations, etc. Instead, you once again attempt to obfuscate with such canards as above. I implore you to debate the issues on the merits. If you have to reach back to McCain/Palin to ascertain your own beliefs, then no wonder you were so fickle in support of Obama anyway. "Maybe you're right about Obama. Maybe every decision he makes is a priori the best decision that could be made. So why don't you call up OFA with your idea for a slogan, "Shut Up, He's Smarter than You", and see how many votes that pulls for the Democrats?" Once again, you choose not to debate the issues on the merit. No one is saying you cannot criticize Obama. It is the baseless nature of the criticisms that some of us object to. In the course of criticizing Obama, some of you throw out the facts and just spin nonsensical stories such as Obama got rolled in the debt ceiling debate. I have provided information that shows he practically got a clean debt ceiling, while putting defense cuts on the table, without endangering Medicare benefits. Unless you dispute these details, your criticism that the President is a bad negotiator is baseless. Why make up such lies about one of your own, and to what possible benefit? Valid criticism has its place, but this kind of lies designed to emasculate the President only helps the other side. Once again, I call on you to counter the facts I've presented. Call me whatever you want, but please challenge me on the merits of the facts I've presented.

- wkwami

August 27, 2011 at 6:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"If you want a really good laugh, Aaron and drof, go to the article wkwami links about how Obama is to be likened to Bobby Fischer in his deep, deep genius. The article is written by a guy who is identified as having been Jimmy Carter's chief speechwriter!" Ah, if we're to follow your logic, then we ought to discount anything that Paul Krugman says since he served in the Reagan administration and also later served on Enron's advisory board! See, Roi, you always resort to dismissing the messenger rather than the message as opposed to debating the merit of what is being said. I recall a criminal case in which the prosecutor said the defense witness was an illegal alien hence his testimony should be stricken. It just so happened that the very same illegal alien had been a prosecution witness in a different case just a few months prior. When you can't argue a case on the merits, you hang your hat on technicalities.

- wkwami

August 27, 2011 at 7:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Gene McCarthy challenged LBJ in 1968 and Richard Nixon became president. Doesn't anyone have a memory longer than a decade any more?

- ironyroad

August 27, 2011 at 7:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roi. I went linking and laughing. I too see political carnage ahead. But my concern is that the carnage for Keynesian Dems and policiies are greater if BHO is re-elected. Hear me out. If BHO IS re-elected it will be because the economy has not yet fully collapsed AND the Repubs nominated what appears to be a true nut. [I assure you, in appearances Perry is not that nut-- Bachmann or Palin are.] BHO will NOT pull in a Dem House-- and probably not keep a Dem Senate [Too many vulnerable Dems and BHO's coattails are zilch]. That guarantees more of the same-- no stimulus for four years-- and the blame will be on BHO and his Keynesian policies. [It doesn't matter that it's not true; Did Jews and Socialists really lose WWI for Germany?] The worst of all possible worlds, maybe even for wkwami, seattle, et al -- albeit they may never recognize it And for that, we don't take a chance on trying for a game-changer?? A political hail -Mary? I'm a tail-end Charlie of the can-do generation. My assessment is playing is safe is slow and guaranteed political death for a generation.. and I don't think losing the gamble is going to hurt that much. It's less like Washington at Trenton or Princeton than Nimitz at Midway. A loss at Midway prolongs the war, but doesn't end it. Go for it-- the potential gain is much greater than the potential loss.

- drofnats1

August 27, 2011 at 7:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Democrats were crushed less than a year ago in an election that was a referendum on Obama, his policies as perceived by the public, and his political persona. That is what occurred. You have two answers for what, objectively, is a spectacular political failure (unless of course you don't consider losing a failure, which may just be the case): 1. "Shut up all of you. You are too far beneath Obama to understand his political genius and the extraordinary success he has achieved by losing the House and threatening to lose the Senate and the presidency." 2. "Because you are so far beneath Obama, you cannot understand that what appears to be spectacular political failure is actually a tremendous political success. But for Obama's genius, everything would have been much, much worse and any argument to the contrary is speculation." Your assertion that we are incapable of understanding and must, in our poverty of intellect, defer to an expert whose most recent political achievements are: 1. getting battered in the most recent election, 2. giving in to the extension of tax cuts that are ostensibly the opposite of the policy he wanted when he had only to do nothing thereby exacerbating the deficit that became the basis for, 3. agreeing to spending cuts when we need increases, and 4. then agreeing to more spending cuts in exchange for a debt ceiling increase that never would have been on the table had the expert not ingeniously failed to include it in the bargain for his previoua policy collapse, is sort of contemptible actually. You defend Obama on the basis of "information" only in your imagination, wkwami. Because the moment you are pushed, you trot out the unanswerable "Everything is for the best . . . and all else is speculation," and "Defer to the genius." If you had any fact to argue, we would not be confronted with such blithering idiocy. We cannot emasculate this president with our criticism. He is taking care of that all on his own.

- roidubouloi

August 27, 2011 at 7:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

irony road. RFK would have beaten RMN-- and would have been the nominee had he not been shot. And so would HH if he had separated himself from LBJ's war policies a month sooner. I was there. Were you? Remember RMN's secret plan to end the war?? And I like LBJ. His was a tragedy of truly Shespearean dimensions .. more like Othello. If BHO's tragedy is of Shakespearean dimensions, its more like Hamlet.

- drofnats1

August 27, 2011 at 7:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So, after all is said & done (& it would appear that pretty much all has been said, if not done, on this matter), I'm still not sure if BHO is a masterful ropa-doper, or just a hopelessly naive lamb being led to the slaughter. (But then again, I'm not sure if Neville Chamberlain wasn't ropa-dopin' Adolph Hitler in 1938 either, just buying time - at Czedhoslovakia's expense, to be sure - to get Britain's armed forces built up enough to be able to put up a fight.) For those of you who may sometimes watch Lawrence O'Donnell, in the build-up to the debt ceiling vote, he was essentially making the arguement that Obama was cleverly maneuvering the Republicans into an untenable position, playing the ropa-dope game. Not sure if he's still making that argument now, though. Polls seem to show that the Republicans in congress have suffered more in the public's esteem than has Obama, however.

- Haole45

August 27, 2011 at 7:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Once again, you respond to Obama's political failure by telling us about his policy achievements, how long they will last, how he will be remembered once he is gone, which looks like it may be sooner rather than later." Once again, you chose to be selective of what I said, completely ignoring the context of policy achievements in my argument. You claim Obama is a political failure, which I happen to disagree with, and I pointed to his policy accomplishments to buttress my point. That doesn't mean I am ignoring the political aspect. If anything, I am suggesting his political strategy is responsible for his incredible policy accomplishments. I should point out that you do not dispute any of these policy accomplishments, rather you merely argue that he has failed politically. How so? These policy accomplishments did not occur in a vacuum. They are a result of political savvy. You may disagree with Obama's style, but you can't claim he has failed when he is clearly getting stuff done. The politics of LBJ and FDR doesn't put food on any table nor clothe anyone. It is their policy accomplishments that gave us the enduring safety net we so cherish today. As far as I'm concerned, the success of one's politics should be reflected in their policy accomplishments. Clinton an awesome political talent, but not so great on policy - he gave us DOMA, DADT, repeal of Glass-Steagall, and let bin Laden off the hook. etc., etc. Obama reversed every single one of those, and added a whole lot more. His shortcomings not withstanding, Obama is just brilliant!

- wkwami

August 27, 2011 at 7:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Drof, if there were any prospect that a Democratic challenger for whom I had some respect as a politician could actually succeed in wresting the nomination from Obama, I might agree with you. Bu there isn't. So there is not going to be a game changer. We are stuck with this guy. I don't know whether President Perry and and an all Republican Congress would be worse than Obama and the Congress we have today. Certainly nothing good is going to be accomplished either way. We could be certain that the Democrats would lose in 2016 even if Obama is miraculously re-elected. But perhaps by then we can regain control of at least one chamber if the public is in the mood to throw the bums out. I cannot see the public electing Perry and not also giving the Republicans full control of the Congress. ______________________ Geez, wkwami, the guy was the chief speechwriter for the worst Democratic politician of the 20th century, still edging out Obama who hasn't lost his re-election bid yet. That guy is a political moron. His observations are laughable, not least because, like you, he insists on touting Obama's policy achievements while failing to observe, let alone comment upon, the political disaster unfolding under this guy's political leadership. Stands to reason. He is sort of a walking 20th century how-to-do political disaster himself. As for your Krugman analogy, did Krugman serve discreditably either under Reagan or on the board of Enron? Is there any failure we can lay at the feet of Paul Krugman based upon which we ought to question his judgment, or is it merely guilt by association? By your lights, Krugman's cardinal failure is that, despite his insightful and prescient analyses, he has not himself simply taken up the job of President of the United States and shown Obama how it is done. Does that not struck even you as rather insane as the standard to which a critic is to be held? You are among other things, a hypocrite, wkwami. I am not surprised. We are supposed to defer to Obama's political genius (this despite the fact that by any objective account he is in the midst of producing colossal political failure), but we are not supposed to take note that the writer you cite with such glowing approval was the head speechwriter for certainly the most inept politician of my lifetime. He didn't merely "serve under Carter," wkwami. He was his chief speechwriter for god's sake, perhaps more responsible for Carter's failures than Carter himself.

- roidubouloi

August 27, 2011 at 7:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hoale. Thre's a whole right-wing literature on how Neville had it all right and England's error was replacing him with Winnie (I suspect wkwami is a charter member of that club.) nIf you are conflicted on who was right, you definitely are part of the problem. Albeit for truth in posting: I have a Lab Retrieiver named Whinnie that is a yellow dog Dem.

- drofnats1

August 27, 2011 at 7:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Haole45: "Polls seem to show that the Republicans in congress have suffered more in the public's esteem than has Obama, however." Not only that, but Obama essentially got a clean debt ceiling raise without cuts in Medicare benefits, while putting defense on the table to be cut one way or the other. The public is even on his side on taking a balanced approach to fixing our finances. One can assume this is all just pure luck, or one can acknowledge that maybe the President knows what he is doing.

- wkwami

August 27, 2011 at 7:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"rather you merely argue that he has failed politically. How so? " Oh gee, how has he failed politically? THE DEMOCRATS UNDER HIS LEADERSHIP WERE CREAMED IN THE LAST ELECTION AND BID FAIR TO LOSE THE SENATE AND THE PRESIDENCY EVEN THOUGH OBAMA CAME INTO OFFICE WITH LARGE DEMOCRATIC MAJORITIES IN BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS ON THE STRENGTH OF A PUBLIC DISGUSTED WITH REPUBLICAN GOVERNANCE. Is that clear enough, wkwami? As for his policy brilliance, we are still in Iraq and still in Afghanistan. Not so much his failure as not particularly a success. His stimulus was grossly inadequate, and we have the results to show for it, although he stupidly predicted otherwise at the time. He has not reimposed Glass-Steagall contrary to your claim and blew the opportunity to re-regulate the financial industry when he had the chance because he did not do the one single thing of any importance, control leverage. He also failed to hold any single person in the financial industry to account for a colossal fraud, compromising his political standing in the bargain. We will pay for that long after Obama is gone. His ACA is a Rube-Goldberg contraption that he deserves no credit for passing as he did none of the political work to get it passed. He left it to Pelosi and Reid, advocated publicly for nothing, and they pulled it out for him, with Pelosi selflessly falling on her sword in the process. With hindsight it is clear that he left it to them because he had no idea what to do. His civil liberties policies in the war on terror remain the execrable policies of Bush. He gets full credit for saving the auto industry and getting rid of DADT. The most important issue facing the country is unemployment. Instead of making that his relentless focus, he has repeatedly validated the false Republican narrative that the deficit is a more immediate problem and completely neutered his own ability to do anything whatsoever about the most critical issue facing our country. We are mired in high unemployment and falling per capita GDP. That is on balance a mediocre policy record, at best, with whatever style it was achieved. Brilliant? That's crap. Your argument in the past has been that this was the best achievable outcome. Perhaps, but it is not a record to boast of, and even he doesn't bother boasting of it. He would be laughed at. While achieving this mediocre policy record, for which he might be forgiven given the ferocity of the opposition, what he has indubitably accomplished is to lose the confidence of the electorate, the first result of which was the disastrous election last November. That is unforgivable. Do you think that the Democrats would have been turned out if Obama had not lost the confidence of the electorate? That's more than enough in the way of facts, wkwami. Your notion of facts is mindless adulation and boosterism. When that fails, you give us your Pangloss and "defer to the expert" arguments.

- roidubouloi

August 27, 2011 at 7:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Defense is no more on the table to be cut one way or another than is Medicare. But for Obama's hubris in thinking that he could use the debt ceiling to force budget changes that he himself wanted but hoped would appear to be the work of Republicans, it never would have been on the table. He could have had it for nothing as part of his cave-in on the Bush tax cuts, the single thing that Republicans wanted more than anything else. He sold himself way cheap on that one. This notion that the public is on his side is whistling past the graveyard. The only on your side that counts is election results or the ability to use public opinion to achieve policy gains. Obama has neither. He lost the last election, has no political power with which to achieve any policy gains, and bids fair to lose in the next election the parts of government still in Democratic hands. One can assume this is all just bad luck, or draw the obvious conclusion that Obama doesn't know what he is doing or, more likely in my opinion, is so narcissistically infatuated with himself as a post-partisan that he cannot bring himself to engage in the partisan politics that are the only way things get done in this democracy of ours. Americans love winners. Not wimps.

- roidubouloi

August 27, 2011 at 8:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"RFK would have beaten RMN-- and would have been the nominee had he not been shot. And so would HH if he had separated himself from LBJ's war policies a month sooner. I was there. Were you?" Let's assume in December 2007, Hillary had passed away, folks like you would have been just as sure today that Hillary would have prevailed over Obama in the Democratic primaries. Not considered of course is all that ACTUALLY happened, culminating in Obama becoming President. And, your being there, or someone else not being there is totally irrelevant to the outcome of events, nor to how things might eventuality have turned out. Take this from me... that we as humans beings are limited in our grasp of the entire range of possible probabilities in any given circumstance, is understandable. It is however tragic when we confuse those limitations as divine insight or fact. This is at the heart of the alternate strategy theories we see here all the time - the idea that if only Obama had done this or that, instead of what he actually did, it would have resulted in a more desirable outcome. Not considered is the possibility that a worse outcome is equally probable. In Drof's example above, who's to say what would have happened had RFK not been assassinated? Who's to say what would have happened to HH's candidacy had he detached himself from LBJ's war policies a month sooner?

- wkwami

August 27, 2011 at 8:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"One can assume this is all just bad luck, or draw the obvious conclusion that Obama doesn't know what he is doing..." I guess that explains his vast policy accomplishments... If they are a result of not knowing what he's doing, or bad luck, then I guess I want more bad luck for a know nothing President, given what we've had since LBJ.

- wkwami

August 27, 2011 at 8:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

hello roi. I do not know how you are going to react to my noting that I agree with most of what you (and drofnats) have written in this thread. I assign some blame to Pelosi for losing the House - the way the stimulus was structured, the sausage-making of ACA, not realizing the Dem majority requires those pesky Blue Dogs, and maintaining some commitment to the Clintonion legacy of fiscal success. whatever. I do think that 2012 will be anti-incumbent, and depending on who Steve Israel can recruit, some of the most intransigent GOP freshmen can be flipped back to private life. You might want to revisit the 2008 special election for Hastert's IL House seat. I am too tired from Irene-prep, but I remember the Blue Dog physicist turned business owner's platform started with REFORMING Medicare Part D. It was so odd to watch Pelosi turn into the Hammer. Disclosure - I wanted Steny Hoyer to be Speaker despite the historic accession of Mrs. Pelosi. And, it is very troubling to have watched the Senate lose almost all the moderates, from both parties. I do not know what will happen in 2012 with so many Dem seats open, but it will greatly depend on the candidate. I think Patty Murray was the only Senator willing to take on the task of DSCC, and I do not see her as either a smooth recruiter or fabulous fundraiser. Senate Dems are a weak bench these days. Face it, Bill Clinton has remained the leader of the Democratic Party, without portfolio. The really interesting part is, if the GOP is Perry, which I think is very possible without clear understanding of the land mines of the GOP nominating process - am waiting for their debates - is that I do NOT think Perry will have long coattails. Maybe I am a bit delusional, but I really think the House and Senate contests will be very candidate driven. Like Chris Shays in Connecticut. I was always an Evan Bayh fan, but seem to be the only Democrat who admires not just his experience, but his brain. I am positive Hillary was going to pick Bayh for her VP. It would appear Indiana produces very capable people who are immediately labelled boring when the presidency is under discussion. You must realize that Geithner had to be held hostage as SecTreas until the end of Obama's term because no one else would take the job at this point, let alone get confirmed. I wish the Dems would tackle serious reforming ACA, and somehow force mortgage holders to lower interest rates for all of us who are current, NOT underwater, but could really use an extra $200 per month to spend on our homes. without it being a full refi requiring income verification (Making Homes Affordable was not a full refi). Is not six years of always paying ahead of time enough proof? Everyone stay dry and watch out for flying glass and small dogs...

- K2K

August 27, 2011 at 8:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Not so surprised, K2K. ___________________ To accept your claim, wkwami, one must first accept that Obama has "vast policy accomplishments." I don't think so at all. What he has accomplished was for the most part mediocre due to his compromising on essential matters. Let us not forget that in exchange for all of his compromises in the ACA, Obama did not bargain for or receive a single Republican vote in either house. On jobs, very little. But if we are to credit Obama with everything achieved on his watch, whatever one's opinion about it, then we must also credit him with all the political losses on his watch. In that case, I would say he doesn't understand his job, which is first to be politician-in-chief and maintain the support of public opinion, spending that support wisely and working always to maintain it so as not to render himself powerless, as he now appears definitely to be. As he has neglected politics for policy, then he is a failure, whatever the policy accomplishments. Remember Lincoln as quoted to you by the learned AFdiplomat: "With public sentiment, nothing can fail. Without it, nothing can succeed." Now, of course Lincoln had nowhere near the political expertise of Obama so perhaps we should discount what he said.

- roidubouloi

August 27, 2011 at 9:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

One wonders, wkwami, given all the uncertainties how you manage to be so certain that this is the best of all possible worlds and Obama has achieved the best of all possible outcomes. You do realize, don't you, that your argument that we cannot know with certainty, or in many cases even assign a meaningful probability, as to whether an alternative would have had a better or worse outcome is, if taken seriously, sufficient to negate the possibility of ever considering alternatives? Very problematic a priori when one is faced with alternatives and must decide how to act. What does one do? Wise people inform themselves of what practicably can be known and then use their informed judgment, if indeed they have any judgment. It is very curious that we are barred by your philosophy, Horatio, from applying our judgment in hindsight. Usually the claim is that this is unfair because, with hindsight, we have knowledge the decisionmaker did not have. Hence, we can make better judgments. By your lights, we cannot make any better judgments, or indeed any judgments, because we cannot know the outcome and the decisionmaker has, by definition, already made the best possible decision in this the best of all possible worlds. You claim to want arguments from facts, but any argument about what might have been necessarily proceeds from that which you refuse to recognize as factual as it did not occur. Quite the little sophist you are. Sensible people ignore such arguments as rendering consideration of anything impossible and hence proving the arguments themselves completely useless. If the arguments lead us to an absurd conclusion, as yours do, we can safely say that the arguments are wrong.

- roidubouloi

August 27, 2011 at 9:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Drofnats: Yeah, I heard this idea, which surprised me at the time, about Chamberlain outfoxing Hitler at Munich, from some Brits while over there some years ago. I'd never looked at it that way before, and had never before heard the historical event portrayed in those terms - had only heard the standard issue description: essentially a surrender & act of betrayal, based on misplaced trust in the good intentions of an evil-doer & an overly eager desire to avoid conflict at any cost. I don't know if Chamberlain himself ever made the case that what he was up to was something more stategically wise & benign. In any event, I don't doubt that Winnie was the necessary, and fortunate, man to replace him. Funny thing, but our family has just adopted a yellow lab from a local animal shelter. But we live in Blue Dog country (central valley of California). Barbara Boxer (not the dog, the senator) paid us a visit a day or so ago. First time she's travelled out here to ag land in many a moon. As for Obama's grand strategy...all I'm willing to say is that I want to believe he's working the situation in the best way for long-term progress, in a terrible political environment, where he cannot catch a break. But I really don't know if that's what's happening, or if instead he's just "being beaten to a pulp". I enjoy the arguments you & various others present in this space, though. Keep me reading 'til my eyeballs fall out!

- Haole45

August 27, 2011 at 9:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Drofnats: Yeah, I heard this idea, which surprised me at the time, about Chamberlain outfoxing Hitler at Munich, from some Brits while over there some years ago. I'd never looked at it that way before, and had never before heard the historical event portrayed in those terms - had only heard the standard issue description: essentially a surrender & act of betrayal, based on misplaced trust in the good intentions of an evil-doer & an overly eager desire to avoid conflict at any cost. I don't know if Chamberlain himself ever made the case that what he was up to was something more stategically wise & benign. In any event, I don't doubt that Winnie was the necessary, and fortunate, man to replace him. Funny thing, but our family has just adopted a yellow lab from a local animal shelter. But we live in Blue Dog country (central valley of California). Barbara Boxer (not the dog, the senator) paid us a visit a day or so ago. First time she's travelled out here to ag land in many a moon. As for Obama's grand strategy...all I'm willing to say is that I want to believe he's working the situation in the best way for long-term progress, in a terrible political environment, where he cannot catch a break. But I really don't know if that's what's happening, or if instead he's just "being beaten to a pulp". I enjoy the arguments you & various others present in this space, though. Keep me reading 'til my eyeballs fall out!

- Haole45

August 27, 2011 at 9:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roi. It will take an economic crisis sooner than later to bring forward a challenger. Almost no one had heard of McCarthy in 1967. It took Tet and its aftermath. After the tragedy of RFK, HH still had a better chance than LBJ would have. While he's not my first choice (albeit not a bad choice), Biden after an economic crisis could well have a better chance than BHO.

- drofnats1

August 27, 2011 at 9:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Remember Lincoln as quoted to you by the learned AFdiplomat: "With public sentiment, nothing can fail. Without it, nothing can succeed." Roi, I couldn't agree with you more. I think that statement will always hold true. However, the issue is how to sway public sentiment rather than whether it should be swayed. It is my contention that convincing the public one way or the other is not just a matter of rhetoric alone. The subject of this thread is what started this debate; you suggest Obama should have been partisan all along, while I think Obama had it just right; his compromising is what led to change the in public sentiment, where a majority now thinks he ought to challenge the GOP more. Let's not forget that said public sentiment during the healthcare debate, and leading to the 2010 elections was massively against Obama and Democrats for being too partisan.

- wkwami

August 27, 2011 at 9:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

. [Haole. Neville never made the claim-- and was the PM who declared war on the Axis after Poland was invaded. [Doesn't exactly fit the right wing rope-a-dope brilliant strategy meme.] The overwhelming evidence-- like for BHO-- is that neither had/have the policies or personality to effectively confront intractrable opposition whose main goal is your destrction.

- drofnats1

August 27, 2011 at 10:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

wkwami. I think you read the health care result back-ass-backward. As well as his other "victories". The slightly-modiefied quote describing BHO's victories would be " A few more such victories and we are completely undone"

- drofnats1

August 27, 2011 at 10:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ah yes, wkwami. Obama has brilliantly maneuvered the public into thinking he is too weak, so now he can be stronger. His compromising led to the public belief that he is too compromising, so now that he has no power to do anything at all he can stop compromising. Such a subtle game indeed. Meanwhile, the Republicans, with their rabid partisanship, have fought policy to a standstill and trounced the Democrats in the last election. Rather than that provoking a backlash that boosts Democrats' chances, Obama's poll lead over Republican contenders has vanished. "Just right" indeed. I will say this for you, wkwami. You don't know the meaning of the word failure. It is all a success to you, so long as Obama does it. Conversely, the Republicans who have sytmied the Democrats, taken away their majority in the House, and bid fair to unseat Obama after only one term are, according to you, failing. Subtle. Deep. Genius at work.

- roidubouloi

August 27, 2011 at 10:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"One wonders, wkwami, given all the uncertainties how you manage to be so certain that this is the best of all possible worlds and Obama has achieved the best of all possible outcomes." I think this is a question that you ought to answer since you're the one offering alternative strategies which you claim with such certainty would result in better outcomes. "You do realize, don't you, that your argument that we cannot know with certainty, or in many cases even assign a meaningful probability, as to whether an alternative would have had a better or worse outcome is, if taken seriously, sufficient to negate the possibility of ever considering alternatives?" Not at all. Of course you can assign meaningful probabilities to any proposed alternative, but that is not what our disagreement is about. Our disagreement is about presenting speculation as fact, and then making sweeping generalizations from that. For example, if you say Obama could have achieved X+Y, instead of just X had he done P instead of Q, that would be a reasonable assertion. On the other hand, when you say Obama is a failure because he didn't do P, which would have accomplish both X+Y, rather than just X, then you've gone beyond assigning meaningful probability to your alternative, as you're certain of a better outcome. Hence it is within reason for any reader to challenge you to explain why you're so certain of such better outcome, especially in situations where there is evidence to suggest a worse outcome actually has a higher probability of occurring.

- wkwami

August 27, 2011 at 10:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"THE DEMOCRATS UNDER HIS LEADERSHIP WERE CREAMED IN THE LAST ELECTION AND BID FAIR TO LOSE THE SENATE AND THE PRESIDENCY EVEN THOUGH OBAMA CAME INTO OFFICE WITH LARGE DEMOCRATIC MAJORITIES IN BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS ON THE STRENGTH OF A PUBLIC DISGUSTED WITH REPUBLICAN GOVERNANCE. Is that clear enough, wkwami?" I'm not sure exactly how the above statement is supposed to show Obama is a failure. That democratic voters chose not to vote in 2010 is Obama's failure of leadership? Here's a clue as to what really happened, and it's got very little to do with Obama, and a lot to do with Democratic voter apathy: Some Bad News About Alan Grayson If you're a Democrat, there is a lot to like about Alan Grayson. I have never heard anyone complain that Congressman Grayson was "centrist," or that he was an "appeaser" of Republicans, or that he practiced any of that "triangulation" stuff. Alan Grayson was an unapologetic liberal Democrat, who fought for his beliefs and principles. Alan Grayson can fairly be called a poster boy for the kind of progressive leadership many Kossacks hoped Obama would display. Which brings me to the bad news about Alan Grayson. Alan Grayson lost. Did his unabashed liberal priniciples inspire respect among voters who may not have agreed with everything he said? No. Did his clear embodiment of progressive leadership cause Democrats in his district to turn out and vote? No. Mind you, Alan Grayson's 8th Congressional District is a swing district. Barack Obama won that district with 52% of the vote, exactly the same as his national percentage. No one in this middle-of-the-road, middle class suburban district could possibly have failed to know who Alan Grayson was. Nor could they have failed to know about the progressive policies he stood for. If any district in the country was a test case for what a strong progressive could do in a swing district, it was Alan Grayson's district. Make no mistake. Democrats in Orlando had a true Democrat. They had a Democrat from the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." They had a proud Democrat. Alan Grayson's opponent was a tea bagger from the insane wing of the Republican Party. [I know. The "insane wing" part has become redundant.] Democrats in Orlando stayed home... just like they did everywhere else. Let me tell you somebody who knows this. Apparently, many here don't know this. Many here have failed to look around for that test case of what proud unambiguous progressive positions get you at the voting booth. Alan Grayson proved they don't win in a tough year. If you didn't know that, Barack Obama does. So does every member of his political team. Barack Obama has done something very few of you have done. Alan Grayson did it in 2008. Barack Obama and Alan Grayson have both won elections. In fact, Barack Obama has won five of them. Let me tell you something to write down and not forget. The people who make policy are the people who win elections, not the people who lose them. Alan Grayson was there to fight for healthcare reform, because he won in 2008. Alan Grayson was not there to do diddly squat in the debt ceiling fight, because he got beat. He did not get beat because nobody knew what a stand-up progressive Democrat he was. He got beat because the voters of his District didn't care what a stand-up progressive Democrat he was. His voters stayed home, and I can't imagine what else he might have done to make them show up... http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/05/1003553/-Some-Bad-News-About-Alan-Grayson?via=siderec

- wkwami

August 27, 2011 at 11:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, precisely wkwami. When the president's party gets creamed in congressional elections, that is HIS political failure, a failure of HIS political leadership. Because his most important job is to see that he has the support of the public and that the public gives him the legislators with which to make policy. When the public denies him that after only two years in office, that is a huge vote of no confidence. If this were a parliamentary system, Obama would already be gone. When you lose in electoral politics, you are a failure at what you are supposed to do. Just that simple, because, as you yourself just pointed out, it is the people who win elections who make policy. In the first election about his leadership, Obama lost and can no longer make policy. Public opinion of him is so bad that he stands an excellent chance of losing his bid for re-election. That is failure. No amount of absurd argument from you, or posting of articles that make precisely this point, can turn failure into something other than failure. Why are Democratic voters apathetic as the article you post claims? Because they suddenly don't care what happens to the country or because they don't believe Obama is fighting for what they believe in? If you are a political leader and no one will follow you, your own party members won't support you, you are by definition a political failure. Obama thought he was above party politics, a post-partisan politician, and gave his back to the Democratic party. Pure political narcissism. And so the rank and file Democrats gave their backs to him. That is political failure. I have pointed this out in every possible way I know how. I have called attention to the necessity of political rhetoric as the only tool available with which to mobilize supporters and sap the support of opponents. You cannot move them to the polls with pitchforks. Obama does not do that job, hence he is, so far, a failure. Can he rouse himself to the task and turn his losing game around? Who knows? But the first step is to recognize that your are losing. If Obama thinks like you, he is doomed, because you don't even understand the difference between political success and political failure. ________________ As for your syllogism, wkwami, you have outdone yourself in the nonsense category. I cannot even imagine how you think up such stupid stuff. You express absolute, unwavering certainty that everything Obama has done has been the best possible alternative and achieved the best possible outcome under the circumstances. You have no empirical or factual basis for these claims whatsoever. None, as there can be none. It is not possible to substantiate such a claim any more than it is possible to substantiate the opposite. There does not exist any means, by demonstration or by logic, of establishing either the course of alternative history, or even assigning it a probability, or the inevitability of what did occur. It can only be a matter of opinion based on judgment. You merely assert as self-evident that this is the best of all possible worlds and insist that anyone who thinks otherwise has the burden of proving otherwise. No, we don't. Our opinions that things would have been better or different have exactly as much validity as your opinion that this is the best of all possible worlds and are exactly as incapable of being proven as your opinion that that this is the best of all possible worlds. The opinion that this is the best of all possible worlds is no more nor less speculative than the opinion that it isn't. Here in the world that exists, however, Obama has in fact failed thus far at his most important task. He has lost resoundingly the first election in which the public had the chance to express its opinion of his leadership. Thus, by the only metric that ultimately matters, the public opinion of his leadership is that it stinks. He is also well along the way to being booted out of office. If that's the best he can do, we don't need him. He's a loser. Is this still the best of all possible worlds? We will never know one way or the other. If we are somehow bound to provide proof for against this proposition, proof that is of necessity always and forever impossible to provide, as a condition to criticizing, then perforce criticism is forbidden. And that is really the only point you have to make, wkwami, that all criticism of Obama is forbidden because, in principle, none of it can ever be proven. You may not say that criticism is illegitimate, but you somehow hand down from your position atop Olympus rules for when criticism is legitimate that are impossible to satisfy. From your self-apponted godlike status, you thus declare criticism illegitimate. Too bad. You are not a god. Your rules bind no one. Your weird syllogisms impress no one. The criticism is only going to mount, and is mounting, until Obama manages to make his case to the public. Thus far, he has not bothered to try. I for one have no idea what he stands for. None. Other than my very strong suspicion at this point that he in fact supports the Republican agenda of cutting spending and the unemployed can go to hell. For that, we have by now plenty of evidence in his behavior.

- roidubouloi

August 28, 2011 at 12:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This thread has provided a good example of the argumentum ad chamberlaindum. At some point in a discussion, you know that things have gone severely off the rails when someone starts drawing a comparison with Neville Chamberlain at Munich. Whatever about events afterward, one can make a reasonable case -- not a watertight or overwhelming case, but a reasonable one -- that at least one aspect of that history should not be forgotten: that Britain in 1938 was a lot less ready to wage war than in 1939 and even then it was, as Churchill later admitted, a "damn close-run thing." The Spitfire fighter and the Merlin engine weren't fully developed; radar technology was still in a very early stage; civil defense systems on the ground likewise. One understands why Chamberlain had to go and why Churchill's accusations were so powerful. But it's not absolutely without value that he got Britain that extra twelve months.

- ironyroad

August 28, 2011 at 12:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This thread has provided a good example of the argumentum ad chamberlaindum. At some point in a discussion, you know that things have gone severely off the rails when someone starts drawing a comparison with Neville Chamberlain at Munich. Whatever about events afterward, one can make a reasonable case -- not a watertight or overwhelming case, but a reasonable one -- that at least one aspect of that history should not be forgotten: that Britain in 1938 was a lot less ready to wage war than in 1939 and even then it was, as Churchill later admitted, a "damn close-run thing." The Spitfire fighter and the Merlin engine weren't fully developed; radar technology was still in a very early stage; civil defense systems on the ground likewise. One understands why Chamberlain had to go and why Churchill's accusations were so powerful. But it's not absolutely without value that he got Britain that extra twelve months.

- ironyroad

August 28, 2011 at 12:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And why then is Chamberlain reviled? Because it was not a tactical maneuver on his part to buy needed time to prepare for war. Chamberlain had completely misunderstood the situation of Britain. By all accounts, he believed that he had bought "peace in our time" with his concessions. As well, Germany was also less prepared for war in 1938 than a year later. The comparisons with Chamberlain are apt if indeed Obama, like Chamberlain, completely misunderstood the nature of his opposition and believed that his concessions to them could win him some measure of cooperation. The evidence to date suggests that Obama has suffered from exactly that delusion. Of course, we might be wrong. It may be that, as wkwami claims, Obama has been cleverly and intentionally maneuvering the public to believe that he compromises too much and lacks conviction so that, now that he has no longer any power to do anything, he can compromise less. Fab! Successfully losing the first referendum on his presidency along the way is what then? Evidence of effective leadership?

- roidubouloi

August 28, 2011 at 1:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"It may be that, as wkwami claims, Obama has been cleverly and intentionally maneuvering the public to believe that he compromises too much and lacks conviction so that, now that he has no longer any power to do anything, he can compromise less. Fab! Successfully losing the first referendum on his presidency along the way is what then? Evidence of effective leadership?" Roi, can you provide the relevant quote where wkwami made such a claim?

- wkwami

August 28, 2011 at 1:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"[Obama's] compromising is what led to change the in public sentiment, where a majority now thinks he ought to challenge the GOP more." Within allowable bounds of interpretive license there's your claim right there, wkwami.

- AaronW

August 28, 2011 at 1:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...within allowable bounds of interpretive license? LOL. You can't be serious. :)

- wkwami

August 28, 2011 at 1:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As a relatively objective observer of this conversation, wkwami, I say yes, Aaron can be serious. Dhurtado

- NR143296

August 28, 2011 at 2:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh, I can be serious and I am. Your claim, clearly stated in the above quoted line, is that Obama has compromised and compromised to the point that the public no longer likes it and now that the public doesn't like it, he can compromise less. Roidubouloi's only additions were his characterization of such compromise as weak, which as should be clear to everyone is part roi's critique of your position and not part of your position itself, and his suggestion that Obama is now in a position wherein he can achieve nothing in the way of policy. It is true that you didn't say that Obama is on such a position but it is also true that he, Obama, cannot amy longer achieve anything in the way of policy, so I'll give that one to roi. But all of this makes me very tired. I am going to stop responding to anything you say, wkwami, and I would encourage roidubouloi to do the same. Neither your positions nor the emptiness of your arguments in support of them ever change. There is little point in engaging you further. I will say just this in parting and then will give you the last word: to the degree that your thinking represents the kind of vacuous, circular, self-serving nonsense that is prevalent inside Obamaland--and I have a hunch that it does--the Democratic Party is fucked and deservedly so.

- AaronW

August 28, 2011 at 2:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ugh, that first paragraph of mine got pretty garbled. That's what comes with typing/editing on the phone. Well, you get the gist of it. Sayonara, wkwami. If you don't work for OFA, maybe you should fill out an application. I'm sure you'd fit right in.

- AaronW

August 28, 2011 at 2:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Kwami, an interesting article in the NYRB that should dispel some of the pessimism around here--as well as the assumption that Obama lost us the mid-term.

- MOLLYSIMON

August 28, 2011 at 4:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Which article, Molly? Do you have a link?

- AaronW

August 28, 2011 at 6:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thank you, Aaron. That it explains my point both well and clearly. I wouldn't give up if I were you. Persuading wkwami of anything is not going to happen but is hardly the point. There are plenty of other people reading along here who are worth talking to. Poking holes, and pointing out the enormous gaps, in wkwami's claims and arguments is useful. He thinks he is doing the same to the critique of Obama's political leadership. That should not go uncontested. That indeed goes to the very heart of my criticism of Obama, that he does not contest his opponents' narrative and, by ceding the field, has ceded them his political power. (Although, as I have said, I have recently come to believe that Obama actually believes his opponents' narrative and that this may best explain his reticence.)

- roidubouloi

August 28, 2011 at 8:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Maybe so, roi, but I'm finding these discussions with wkwami increasingly tedious for me personally. Also, the more one responds to him the more he blathers on. I'm happy to give him/her the last word if it means we don't have to wade through another fifteen posts of her/his rainbows and unicorns. In any event, I don't intend to stop posting on TNR; I just can't be bothered any longer to play Amazing Randi to wkwami's Uri Geller. Molly, I'm guessing the NYRB essay you're referring to is Andrew Hacker's "The Next Election: The Surprising Reality." I read it a week or two ago but wanted to go back and remind myself exactly what it said. I'm not so sure it goes as far as you suggest in absolving Obama of responsibility for the mid-term losses. While nobody--including roidubouloi, I suspect--would in seriousness saddle Obama with ALL the blame for the debacle, Hacker's essay/review makes the case that what was at play in 2010 was an enthusiasm gap, that on average the Republican-leaning part of the electorate was more fired up than the Democratic-leaning part of the electorate. If this is, in fact, the case, doesn't Obama bear a share of the blame for such lack of enthusiasm on the Democratic side, a large share perhaps? Now, following Larry Sabato, whose book is under review, Hacker makes the case that a big chunk of the swing between 2008 and 2010 can be explained by the fact that in '08 Obama relied heavily upon typically unreliable voters--first timers, young people and people of color--all of whom are disproportionately likely to stay home for midterm elections, especially when contrasted to the Republican base of older whites who vote every time, and true there is only so much the president could do in the face of such predictable voting dynamics. But there ARE things he could have done. For starters he could have acknowledged that the people who put him over the top into the White House were young idealists, blacks and Latinos and rather than bend over backwards to appeal exclusively to white, middle-aged registered independents in Lincoln, Nebraska he could have thrown his core supporters a bone or two. The unemployment rate among people aged 20-24 is 15.5% and for those 25-29 it's 10.9%, both well above the population average and several points higher than the rate for people aged 45 and older. Do you think it might have helped Democrats had Obama been able to acknowledge these facts? What might it have been worth had Obama made a speech addressing people in their twenties saying something like, "You know what? You folks who are in your twenties today have it a lot harder than I did when I was your age. Many of you graduate from high school or college and you find that there is no work for you. Others of you go deep into debt to go to graduate or professional school in hopes of bettering your prospects only to finish school and find out that even if you're lucky enough to find a job, it isn't the job that you trained for and it doesn't pay enough to let you pay down your student loans. Still other members of your generation have chosen to serve America in the military, and it is you and your friends, brothers and sisters in their twenties who have born the overwhelming brunt of our combat casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yes, you folks in your twenties have a lot to feel angry about. You could be forgiven for feeling that you've been cheated. But you know what else? Through your support of me in 2008 and your support of our message of optimism and hope, you showed the world that you would not let anger get the better of you, that you would not cast about for someone to blame for your troubles, and for that you, all of you should be commended. But more than that, you should get something concrete for your faith in our shared future. That's why I'm rolling out X jobs program and Y debt relief program directed specifically to Americans under thirty. You had my back in 2008, and I've got your backs now."

- AaronW

August 28, 2011 at 10:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Just a disclaimer, I'm in my forties, not my twenties, and I'm gainfully employed in one of the classical professions. But twenty years ago I spread my graduate wings in the bitter wind of the Bush I recession clothed with nothing warmer than a BA in philosophy, and I know the frustration of underemployment and the mixed pleasures of keeping yourself warm with your own farts inside your sleeping bag after still another meal of rice and pinto beans. The biggest problem for a man in his early twenties who has run out of cash +/- having moved back in with his parents is how fiendishly difficult it is for him to get laid.

- AaronW

August 28, 2011 at 10:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Indeed, Aaron. No one can control all events, and demographics is powerful. But visible effort can make a difference. That's sort of why politicians engage in political and rhetorical behavior. If demographics were everything, no one would bother. I don't think for one second that the the relentless attacks and messaging by the Republicans did not have an important impact on the "enthusiasm" of Republican voters. And the tepid behavior of Obama has been enervating for Democrats. If your base of voters consists of young, less reliable voters, then you had better keep working on ways to inspire and mobilize those voters, the people who vote for you. This notion that the way to win an election is to appeal to the other guy's voters is drop-dead wrong. If you are lucky, you can dampen their enthusiasm by encouraging a sense of futility. Hello, the Republicans have succeeded at just that. Now, it may be, as wkwami says, that, although even people with political experience cannot see Obama doing his job as leader of the Democratic party, even though he speaks with equal, or at least undifferentiated, disdain for both Democrats and Republicans in Congress, he is actually engaged in a deep strategy of invisible leadership that we cannot understand and that will produce in 2012 a remarkable outcome that we non-Olympian types are unable to envision. I doubt that.

- roidubouloi

August 28, 2011 at 10:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Between a philosophy degree and a professional degree, I now understand, Aaron, why you think and write so clearly. Much appreciated over here.

- roidubouloi

August 28, 2011 at 10:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As previusly suggested, am personally ambivalent &/or confused about what Obama is accomplishing at present - in tune with the concluding phrase of the article which set off this thread, namely, "....we don't know until the last minute whether we're witnesing a rope-a-dope strategy, or just a boxer being beaten to a pulp." Frankly, I feel a bit about BHO like I do when somebody asks me about my belief in God. In such matters I dwell somewhere along the agnostic-atheist continuum, exactly where at any moment depending on such things as what sort of day I've had, who I'm talking to, & how hard I think they're pushing their agenda. For instance, I will typically stiffen into a hard atheist stance when a bible-thumper starts railing at me about how I'm doomed without Jesus. I'll be more likely to mumble something sort of vaguely transcendentalistic-sounding in a discussion about the wonders of creation with a religious person who is not being Deistically overbearing. And if some right wing whack job job starts bad-mouthing Obama for being a "socialist", or a Muslim, or whatever, I'll pretty dependably defend the man. But when I get an appeal from the Obama 2012 campaign, as I did the other day via email, I'm likely to respond, as I did here: "I'll get my bumper sticker when I see BHO giving the Repubs hell, pushing for a real jobs plan, and not letting them set the terms of the debate. Saw a bit of that on the recent midwest bus tour - just need to see more of it. Until then...I'm feeling sort of apathetic. " Maybe this sort of response is becoming more common from Dems, & maybe someone there on campaign staff is paying attention. A day after my snarky little response I received an email from the White House, trumpeting the president's progressive agenda and accomplishments. Maybe not as aggressive as I'd like, but then again it is a delicate balancing act, as Mr. Chait suggests, is it not? But the fact that I received such a response might signal that the political operatives in the WH might be waking up to the fact that they have been taking their potential supporters too much for granted. Come, bretheren, & sisteren, let us gather together, and raise our voices in a mighty chorus, and implore our president to find his inner Truman, if not FDR.

- Haole45

August 28, 2011 at 11:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

One thing we should clear up. When identified voters don't got to the polls, that IS voting. They are party-identified, so they are not going to vote for the other side except in extremis, if then. Very few people will bother to go to the polls to cast a protest write-in vote. And no one goes to the polls just to be marked present (well, almost no one -- I have actually seen empty paper ballots). So, if identified voters don't show up, they are voting "no" for the candidate of their party. Ascribing this to "lack of enthusiasm" is trying to make a bad outcome seem more palatable, and it is a disservice. We should not think the bad outcome is palatable or excusable or justifiable due to "factors beyond our control." We should be appalled and consider that we have failed. Those who don't take failure seriously are going to be enduring a lot of it.

- roidubouloi

August 28, 2011 at 11:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

glad to catch up, but the village dam is about to break even tho the village lowered the lake in preparation, and I figure power is about to go next. and the high winds that inevitably topple the sugar maples and birch trees do not come for at least another three hours. random thoughts: Leadership fuels confidence. Obama will always be self-constrained by fear of "angry black man" stereotype. Surprised no one has noticed how high the African-American unemployment rate is under Obama. Talk about ignoring a core constituency. ACA started the GOP surge in 2010. A bold move would be to challenge the GOP with a serious ACA reform plan, instead of this endless dribble of exemptions from HHS. Perhaps Obama's fundraising in 3Q will be the turning point. I just do not see him getting the OFA small donors fired up like 2008, and Warren Buffet can not bundle enough money to offset that. It would appear that the trial lawyers are Obama's last core constituency. lights flickering. bye-bye.

- K2K

August 28, 2011 at 12:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

AaronW: "Also, the more one responds to him the more he blathers on. I'm happy to give him/her the last word if it means we don't have to wade through another fifteen posts of her/his rainbows and unicorns. In any event, I don't intend to stop posting on TNR; I just can't be bothered any longer to play Amazing Randi to wkwami's Uri Geller." So let me get this straight... you've bothered to respond to me just to tell me you won't be bothered to respond to me? Oh boy, I guess I have committed the mortal sin of supporting the President on TNR! Do some of you even hear yourselves? It's like you're in a echo chamber reflecting the same views over and over. Your attempt to attack my credibility instead of debating me on the merits always fails because my argument is backed by facts, with the added credibility of the likes of Chait and others who have made similar observations, providing a more balanced view of Obama. It is harder for you to label them as deluded Obama worshipers or OfA operatives. You may attack me, but the message still endures...

On Drew Westen and the Strategic Failure of the Left’s Persistent Attacks on President Obama http://www.winningprogressive.org/on-drew-westen-and-the-strategic-failure-of-the-lefts-persistent-attacks-on-president-obama [For most of the past two-and-a-half years, and especially in the last few months, it has become fashionable among a vocal subset of progressives to attack President Obama as a failure who does not share our progressive values. While Winning Progressive disagrees with our President on some issues (such as education policy and civil liberties) and has been disappointed with compromises reached on others, the purist progressive critique is highly overwrought. Even more importantly, the approach of focusing progressive anger about the current political situation at President Obama is, as we will discuss below, extremely bad political strategy that will eviscerate the Democratic voter enthusiasm that is critical to winning in 2012.] Drew Westen Takes on No Drama Obama http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/08/drew-westen-takes-no-drama-obama [This is a familiar lament, but to Westen's credit, it really is the core left-vs.-left argument about Obama: Would he have done better and accomplished more if he had laced into his enemies from the start? If he'd made it crystal clear, over and over and over, who the villains were: Republicans, bankers, corporate fat cats, and the rich? Would this have inspired the public into supporting the full-throated left-wing agenda that Westen obviously yearns for? Maybe my vision is as limited as Obama's, but I just don't see it. As my 2008 piece makes clear, I think Obama's rhetorical style really is too diffuse and too vague to move public opinion significantly. And I also think he had plenty of leeway to take on Wall Street and the banking community much more forcibly than he did—though that's a policy disagreement at heart, not a rhetorical one.1 More broadly, though, there's precious little evidence that turning into a fiery partisan warrior would have impressed the public much at all. What it would have done is unite the Republican Party even more unanimously against him. Most likely that means no stimulus, no financial reform, no DADT repeal, no nothing. He might still have gotten healthcare reform thanks to the filibuster-proof majority Democrats had in the Senate for a few weeks at the end of 2009, but that's it. Your mileage may vary, but I think that's a much worse outcome for Obama's first two years in office.]

- wkwami

August 28, 2011 at 1:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You really flatter yourself, wkwami. You don't argue from facts, not today, not ever. Suddenly the opinions of Drew Westen are facts? Your arid arguments that all criticism is speculative accompanied by the absurd claim, with absolute certainty that everything Obama has done has been for the best? Those are now facts? The actual facts are damning. The Democrats under Obama went from large majorities in both houses of Congress and enthusiastic public support to losing the House, with both Obama and the Senate hanging on by their fingernails. When confronted by the reality of electoral disaster in 2010 and dimming prospects in 2012, you immediately change the subject to what, in your opinion not fact, are Obama's brilliant policy achievements. Or you tell everyone to shut up because Obama, who is going down the drain, is a political "expert" to whom we should defer without question or comment. What does anything you have ever had to say have to do with facts, let alone rational argument? You have neither, so you engage in absurd verbal game playing and lame attempts at bullying everyone into submission, either with your deference argument or your claim that it is we, not the leader of the party, who are at fault for his political failures. All nonsense, wkwami, with a heavy does of self-congratulation and self-importance.

- roidubouloi

August 28, 2011 at 1:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here is a paragraph from the article in WinningProgressive linked by wkwami: "If we progressives fight back against that message by highlighting both the progress made under President Obama and the pathological intransigence that the GOP has engaged in to try to undermine the Obama Administration, then we have a good chance that the 2012 electorate will re-elect President Obama and a Democratic Congress so that we can continue the progress. If, however, we progressives spend the vast majority of our time erroneously portraying the President as ineffective and little better than the GOP, then the voters will not realize why they should vote for the Democrats and, instead, we will end up with President Perry, Speaker Boehner, and Senate Majority Leader McConnell. Unfortunately, the approach taken by Drew Westen and his ilk threaten to lead to exactly that result, rather than to a political atmosphere in which we can be once again advancing the progressive agenda." Typical shoot the messenger crap. _____________________________ How about this re-written version: "If President Obama, and under his leadership the Democratic party, fight back against that message by highlighting both the progress made under President Obama, the opportunities missed due to Republican opposition, and the pathological intransigence that the GOP has engaged in to try to undermine the Obama Administration, then we have at least a fighting chance that the 2012 electorate will re-elect President Obama and a Democratic Congress so that we can continue the progress. If, however, President Obama spends his time erroneously portraying congressional Democrats as little different from Republicans and his own agenda as little different from or better than that of the GOP, then the voters will not realize why they should vote for the Democrats and, instead, we will end up with President Perry, Speaker Boehner, and Senate Majority Leader McConnell. Unfortunately, the approach taken by complacent critics of Drew Westen and other apologists for the political mistakes made so far threaten to lead to exactly that result, rather than to a political atmosphere in which we can be once again advancing the progressive agenda." _____________________ Now, ask yourself, which version seems more plausible? That "progressives" have an audience and can move public opinion or that the President of the United States together with the organized Democratic party (if, that is, he remembers that he is the leader of that party) can move public opinion? Whenever leadership is screwing up and critics emerge from the same side of the political spectrum to urge a different direction, the invariable response of the establishment is to justify itself as guilty of only minor (and always theoretical) error and blame the critics. "Progressives" did not keep Democrats from the polls in 2010. Lack of faith in their elected leaders did. Lack of belief that the Democratic leadership is fighting for them did, because the Democrats have shown no fight, not since the day Obama took over. They have allowed themselves to be verbally mauled by the Republicans, although on the very rare occasion, his speech about Ryancare, when Obama did fight back, the response was overwhelmingly positive. Even Chait, who sits on the same side of this argument as wkwami, characterizing left critics of Obama as "magical thinkers" put it in these terms: "It's harrowing to watch, because we don't know until the last minute whether we're witnessing a rope-a-dope strategy, or just a boxer being beaten to a pulp." I don't give a damn which it is, because, in politics, and usually in boxing as well, rope-a-dope is a losing strategy that at the beginning, the middle, and the end turns out to be indistinguishable from being beaten to a pulp. If the loser manages to get up once the match is over, I suppose he can then claim that he wasn't really being beaten to a pulp but following a rope-a-dope strategy that just didn't pan out.

- roidubouloi

August 28, 2011 at 1:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"All nonsense, wkwami, with a heavy does of self-congratulation and self-importance." Wow, your reaction to my comments is quite telling!

- wkwami

August 28, 2011 at 2:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid, my comment was also somewhat directed toward the ludicrous lack of proportionality in the Obama-Chamberlain parallel, for reasons too obvious to list here (the same lack of proportionality that was evident a few years ago in identical Republican attacks on any Democrat who suggested that the Iraq war wasn't going well). But on a somewhat more complex level, as we've mentioned that history, I think Chamberlin is "reviled" simply because, in the bigger picture, Churchill was right and he was wrong. But the bigger picture is also an assemby of smaller pictures (or smaller reactions and decisions) and all I am saying is that an honest assessment would conclude the distinct possibility that a lurch into war in 1938 -- a clear potential consequence of facing down Hitler at Munich -- would have involved a less-prepared Britain than a year later.

- ironyroad

August 28, 2011 at 5:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sorry, "would INclude the distinct possibility . . ."

- ironyroad

August 28, 2011 at 5:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

wkwami. or maybe you, BHO AND the majority of voters don't know what he is doing or much about Macro- Economics 101--- which, I assure you, is MUCH simpler than physics 101, but nevertheless beyond the ken of all mentioned above.

- drofnats1

August 28, 2011 at 7:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Chait writes: "In particular, the impression that has taken shape is of a reasonable, well-intentioned man with the country's best interests at heart but not necessarily able to enact change" a proverb comes to mind.... the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Obamanation -- Inept, ineffective, incompetent. Reality sets in.

- mr_rationale

August 28, 2011 at 7:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh well, Rat and Roi... I couldn't have scripted this any better. I rest my case!

- wkwami

August 28, 2011 at 8:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Lame.

- roidubouloi

August 28, 2011 at 9:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Especially from one who turns to libref for affirmation.

- roidubouloi

August 28, 2011 at 9:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Of course the hapless lefties could not be counted on to consolidate these policy achievements in the 2010 elections because they didn't get the public option or single payer. The lefty traitors handed the Congress to the Republican Tea Party on a silver platter, and now they have the audacity to whine about Obama." Really? Why go on and on arguing, people. All you need to do is look back at this garbage dump of a statement and realize that wkwami has no clue what he or she is talking about.

- khellaf

August 29, 2011 at 1:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Does it help the Dems to run a candidate for the House (NY9th special election is Sept 13, 2011) who does not live in the district, and does not know how many trillions doth exist in the National Debt (not that the GOP candidate is wart-free, but, really...) The NY Daily News editorial board "Dance of the Duds": http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2011/08/28/2011-08-28_dance_of_the_duds.html "The two candidates seeking to fill the Brooklyn-Queens congressional seat vacated by Anthony Weiner sat for interviews with the Daily News Editorial Board last week. "Horribly dispiriting" is the capsule review of the sessions. Democrat David Weprin (top photo), an assemblyman and former city councilman, said he is running because it is a "very exciting time fiscally, with the nation's debt situation, with the debt ceiling, with the deficit." He touted "a unique background and something to contribute, having a 20-year private-sector career in public finance as well as being the City Council chairman of the Finance Committee for eight years." Soon after, the following exchange took place: Daily News: "Right now, how big is the debt?" Weprin: (Pause) "Trillions." News: "But how many?" Weprin: (Deer in headlights look.) "I got caught up on this once before," referring to his inability while running unsuccessfully for city controller in 2009 to state that office's budget. News: "This is central to what is going on in Washington." Weprin: "About 4 trillion." News: "Four trillion is the debt?" Weprin: "Right." Well, he was off only by a $10 trillion order of magnitude. As has been reported far, wide and ad nauseam, the U.S. is burdened by a debt of roughly $14 trillion. And this man is telling voters he is ideally suited to participate in finding solutions to America's yawning annual deficits and crushing debtload? ..."

- K2K

August 29, 2011 at 2:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roi: "When the president's party gets creamed in congressional elections, that is HIS political failure, a failure of HIS political leadership. Because his most important job is to see that he has the support of the public and that the public gives him the legislators with which to make policy. When the public denies him that after only two years in office, that is a huge vote of no confidence." While I respect roi's views, I think these assertions imply that the public is actually voting on policy. I know roi has decried Chait's economic determinism in the past, but that doesn't mean it's untrue: as one deft politician said fairly recently, it's the economy, stupid--or at least mostly so. Yes, it's hard to play the counterfactual, but given the economic conditions of the time it's hard for me to see how Democrats could have avoided huge congressional losses in 2010 regardless of what rhetorical stances Obama took. Perhaps a greater sense of political leadership might have mitigated those losses to some extent, but enough to prevent losing the House by a substantial margin? I doubt it. By contrast, do we think that Democrats have lost the House if unemployment had been at 7% on election day? Six percent? I don't think election was a referendum on policy nearly as much as on the economy. Most people outside of the political junkies such as ourselves aren't paying attention to, understand, or vote on policy. They vote on how they think we're doing, which means the economy, and the economy sucked on election day. Coming out of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, no policy was going to change that, especially since recoveries from financial crises are typically slow, grinding processes. People were angry, they wanted change, and they didn't particularly care about the specifics about what the alternative side was actually offering, nor do I think pointing out what they were actually offering would have mattered much, just as whatever Democrats were offering in 2008 (weren't they awfully short on specifics?) didn't matter much. I believe Barney Frank said something along the lines that you can't really run on "Things may be bad, but they would have been even worse otherwise." Most voters don't bother making those inferences. That's not to say that leadership doesn't count. It may have an effect, but it's not all-encompassing. Some elections are decided at the margins, and having a strong, common theme can help. I too want Obama to start fingering congressional Republicans, not just Congress, as the problem. Perhaps he will as the election draws nearer (I think it's an error to think that most people are paying attention right now). I would like to see more coordinated messaging. I want facts and policy to matter more. But I can't look at the results of the past several elections and think that they do. Perhaps the Obama administration realizes this and has concluded that more confrontational stances will not be a panacea. And perhaps they overread this conclusion to convince themselves that such stances, even if coordinated with congressional party leaders, would be ineffective, and that it's therefore better politically to appear to be above the fray. I don't know what their plan is, and I don't see how we can know until they're in full campaign mode. But I do think that the claim that the 2010 election results were a referendum on policy rather than the economy and therefore can be directly attributed to what Obama did or didn't do is a tenuous one.

- dsimon

August 29, 2011 at 9:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, I think Roi has something about messaging the last election. It is interesting the one's that are hurting the most didn't turn against Obama and the Democrats. The superior and downright sociopathic messaging of the GOP was to stir up a kind of generational warfare to get their voters to the polls. Remember the big swing in 2010 was white senior citizens who enjoy single-payer health care through Medicare. How to get them ginned up to vote? Tell them that the health care law is going to put them in ovens as death panels kill them. It was brilliant in its scope. Never mind it made no sense in a global sense. Run on it. It worked. I really saw no punch back on this to at least min. the heavy loss among white seniors from the White House.

- MikeB.

August 29, 2011 at 9:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Messaging the last - and next - election: I produced the screed below in flyer form just before the 2010 election. The flyer features a row of American flags across the top, to rouse the recipient's patriotic juices, if in an ironical way. I distributed this to the Democratic table workers and various random students at the local community college and UC campuses. The kids seemed to get a kick out of it. (As you know, California bucked the Republican trend this last go-round. Of course some of the credit for this...no, no, I'm much to modest to claim such...) Attention Students and Other Young People! Whatever you do on Tuesday, November 2nd, by all means... DON'T VOTE!!! Why not? Contrary to what some people may have told you, as a younger person, are simply not intellectually, or by experience, qualified to vote. You really don't understand the issues, as they are far too complicated for you to grasp. And even if you did understand them, what gives a younger person such as you the right to cancel out the vote of an older, wealthier, and more embittered, person- who, due to having a greater net worth - should be more entitled to the franchise? So when it comes to having your say in the political realm – fergetaboutit! At least for the next election cycle or two. (Which should give us enough time to derail all those “hopey-changey” things those starry-eyed liberal commie socialist progressives are trying to foist on us.) There's really nothing on the ballot this time that matters anyway – take our word for it. No candidates or ballot initiatives which will affect your future in any way – not the environment and land-use decisions, not access to healthcare, not educational opportunity for you and your children, not economic opportunity, not tax fairness, not redistricting for state or federal representatives. Rational drug policy? Nope. None of that. Nothing you should be concerned with at all. So when election day rolls around, remember: Just Say No! No, to stupid, pointless voting! Instead, turn on the TV, do some social networking, do some text-messaging (as long as its non-political). Drink or beer or two. Heck, even read a book, if you must. Whatever. Just remember to stay away from the polls, and leave things in the hands of your wiser, more capable elders. Thank you for your brief attention and continuing apathy. (This message brought to you by an alliance of Suppress the Vote 2010 and the Coalition of Older, Richer Citizens Against Change.)

- Haole45

August 29, 2011 at 10:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

shift - shift - shift obama failed, and he and his team have failed us. a change for better is needed. better governing may be originated from Howard Dean. FINALLY.

- sf4200

August 29, 2011 at 3:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dsimon says: "While I respect roi's views, I think these assertions imply that the public is actually voting on policy. I know roi has decried Chait's economic determinism in the past, but that doesn't mean it's untrue: as one deft politician said fairly recently, it's the economy, stupid--or at least mostly so." Absolutely not. I have repeatedly tried to debunk the wonky Democratic idea that Democrats will be ever be rewarded for good policies. They won't be. My view is that the public votes on whether it thinks you are "on my side or the other side." Forget about whether that makes any sense at all or the fact that everyone has his own definition of what the sides are. The craft of getting people to believe that you are on their side, that you are fighting for what they believe in, is called politics. It has only the loosest relationship to policy and policy outcomes. "It's the economy, stupid," correctly understood, means only that was what they public cared most deeply about at the time. It did not mean anything one way or another about policy. Politics is the music, policy the lyrics. Crummy tunes with good lyrics do not become popular. Great tunes with idiotic or nonsense lyrics become popular all the time. Politically, the only purpose of the lyrics is to help you sing the tune.

- roidubouloi

August 29, 2011 at 6:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roi: "'It's the economy, stupid,' correctly understood, means only that was what they public cared most deeply about at the time. It did not mean anything one way or another about policy." But I think most people confuse the two. If I'm not doing better, or I feel I'm not doing better, or I'm scared that I may not do better, then whatever is in place must not be working and I'm going to try something else. I don't think most people go beyond that terribly faulty reasoning, and so it may not matter that much what the politics are in that situation. As I believe Barney Frank said recently, you can't run on "hey, things would have been worse otherwise." My main point was that anything Obama did or didn't do was unlikely to avert the 2010 debacle except at the margins, and so it's erroneous to blame him for the outcome. Again, does anyone think would the results have been nearly as terrible if unemployment had been at 7%? 6%? I doubt that any amount of "politics," no matter how deft, would have been able to assuage a public that was so skeptical and insecure, though it's impossible to run the counterfactual.

- dsimon

August 29, 2011 at 10:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"better governing may be originated from Howard Dean. FINALLY." Is Howard Dean planning to run?

- AaronW

August 30, 2011 at 12:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't think the relationship is nearly that linear nor the outcome pre-destined, dsimon. Reagan had unemployment over 10% at the end of 1982. He lost 26 seats in the House and not a single seat in the Senate. Unemployment was about 6% in 1994 following strong gains that year. Clinton lost 54 seats in the House and 8 in the Senate for the first all-Republican Congress since 1947. Obama lost 63 in the House and 6 in the Senate. Those changes do not bespeak anything as simple as disenchantment with the unemployment rate. Plus, this explanation is inconsistent with the narrative that the 2010 result was due to an enthusiasm gap, with Democratic voters staying home. Did they stay home because of high unemployment, or because they had lost confidence that Obama was on at least on their side and fighting for them? Did Obama do anything at all to make it toxic for Republicans to oppose strong measures to boost the economy? Not that I can see. Do you?

- roidubouloi

August 30, 2011 at 9:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Those changes do not bespeak anything as simple as disenchantment with the unemployment rate." Perhaps not, but it may bespeak disenchantment with something--if not the economy, then something else. People vote on very idiosyncratic matters. I'd like to think that the Democratic sweep in 2006 was based on policy, or even politics, but I don't recall Democrats offering much of either. Even though the economy was muddling along, people were unhappy with the Iraq war, high gas prices, the (non-) response to Katarina, and the Abramoff scandal. Democrats did phenomenally well, not only winning many seats but also not losing a single incumbent House or Senate seat. But was it because they were all singing the same political song that made the environment toxic for Republicans? Not that I recall. It seems to me that they succeeded in spite of themselves, not because of themselves. (And aren't Republicans supposed to be great at this stuff? Why did they fail so badly?) That's not an excuse for Democrats not to at least try to engage in effective politics, but I just question how effective it can be. I think we agree that most people don't pay attention to policy. I just wonder how many people really pay attention to politics as well. If the answer is "not very many," then it may be erroneous to blame ineffective politics or a lack of leadership for the bulk of the 2010 results. I'm not endorsing complete situational determinism but suggesting that major factors that set the ground conditions for elections are outside the influence of both parties. Yes, sometimes elections are decided on the margins, and it's worth fighting for those margins because government control can turn on those margins, but we shouldn't pretend that our actions have more influence than they do. How much influence they have, I just don't know. But I don't see how 2010 could have been anything but a debacle regardless of how effective Democrats were. Perhaps they could have saved some House seats and made things a little easier going into this cycle, but I don't see anything they could have done that would have held the chamber. Things were bad, they were not getting better, and I doubt it mattered to most people whether they thought Obama was fighting for them because they perceived whatever was being done as not working. Do many people go any further than that when they vote?

- dsimon

August 30, 2011 at 10:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

as I remember it, a big GOP pledge in 2010 was to repeal&reform ACA/Obamacare, and the GOP voters were more enthusiastic about repeal than Dem voters were about keeping it intact, especially in "swing" districts held by Blue Dog Dems like 10-term Gene Taylor in Mississippi. Turnout was high in NY19th where John Hall lost to Dr. Nan - I heard one of her radio adverts whilst driving through, and she sounded very compelling and rational. Dave Weprin still recovering from his mistake on the Federal budget deficit, using the excuse of post-Irene-logistics problems to cancel his debate appearance. NY9th is going to be very interesting special election on Sept 13. Especially the turnout level.

- K2K

August 30, 2011 at 12:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think it is of the utmost importance that people see the president as fighting for them. If Obama had not oversold his stimulus and instead pushed for twice that and blamed Republicans for forcing a minimal effort, he could have called for more and kept on blaming them both for blocking more and refusing to allow more. Yes, sometimes the state of the world overwhelms and there is only one possible outcome. So what? If you don't fight, you cannot win. And if you fight now, you can lay to basis for victory later even if the current battle is hopeless. There is abundant evidence that voters do not simply say, "World good, vote incumbent. World bad, vote challenger." Way too simple.

- roidubouloi

August 30, 2011 at 1:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K: "as I remember it, a big GOP pledge in 2010 was to repeal&reform ACA/Obamacare, and the GOP voters were more enthusiastic about repeal than Dem voters were about keeping it intact" Perhaps, but did those things matter? Would turnout have been the same anyway? Correlation is not cause. Again, I'm not denying that these things may matter at the margins, and that margins can sometimes be important. But to say that the election turned on such things? Possible, but speculative. (And could you please stop with the NY-09 special election? It has nothing to do with this thread.) roi: "There is abundant evidence that voters do not simply say, 'World good, vote incumbent. World bad, vote challenger.' Way too simple." Again, my question is how many voters pay attention to politics to begin with and how much "fighting" influences the outcome. I'm not saying don't fight, or that fighting can't be helpful; I'm just questioning the extent to which it can be helpful. One can argue that Obama has been deficient in this regard, and I would probably agree, but I think to say he's deficient because Democrats lost the House in 2010 goes too far. Nothing was going to stop that train. We'll see what approach they take now that both legislative chambers are in play, since margins may matter in both. One could also argue that fighting for something means greater ownership of the results. If the outlook was for a pretty crappy economy no matter what--and recoveries from financial disasters made that pretty likely--then the perceived failure of a small program looks better than the perceived failure of a big program. Not that I endorse such an approach, just speculating as to motives.

- dsimon

August 30, 2011 at 3:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dsimon: if you do not think that a Dem loss of Chuck Schumer's House seat NY9 (handed off to Anthony Weiner) will not be spinned as a referendum on Obama (the frame already in play), you are missing the point about Obama's public opinion dilemma.

- K2K

August 31, 2011 at 1:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

By the time of the election, nothing was going to stop that train because the Democrats were unpopular and their base was demoralized. Was that inevitable? I don't think so at all. But if you want to win at politics, you have to play at politics. You cannot consider it beneath you and expect to maintain let alone build public support. If the state of the economy is not determinative by itself, then what is if not the rhetoric and symbolism of politics?

- roidubouloi

August 31, 2011 at 11:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

NY9th has been Democratic since 1922, and it is now a dead heat. Apparently the most Jewish CD (29% of voters) in the USA. Manhattan Dems and Obama organizers are now descending into NY9th. From the NY Daily News political blog, on the video "The Uniter": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDJbogqz7XA&feature=player_embedded "We wanted to give credit to Turner, Weprin, Ed Koch, and everyone who has done the right thing by standing up to Obama's awful treatment of Israel. It takes a special kind of President to unify Republicans and Democrats against him. Obama has seemingly done the impossible," [Emergency Committee for Israel] spox Noah Pollak said. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDJbogqz7XA&feature=player_embedded (Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin are currently on extended vacation in Europe)

- K2K

September 2, 2011 at 9:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close