The Obama Boys

[madd0ct0r]

I said new wars, iraq and afghanisatn continued to rumble.

I can find shit tons of drone operations, and air support during the syria civil war, and a deployment of 500 troop to the Cameroon. What obvious thing have I forgotten?

I am not sure why air strikes, especially when the sorties number in the thousands and were near continuous over Syria over the Obama administration from 2014 on, does not count as a new war. But since he had a persistent on the ground troop pressence in combat operations since at least 2015, your exclusion of Syria is ridiculous.

Then there was that whole Libya thing...

Has there ever been confirmed numbers for libya?

I dobt want to clog up the thread so ill concede on syria. Lots of planes sent, lots of money exploded. Warfare state gots its paycheck.

[Vendetta]

I think Obama clearly thought he had a mandate to be bipartisan, because that was what his campaign was built upon, and this was what his entire political career was about. So if he was someone that thought the reason he won in the first place was because he could appeal to a wide base, then it becomes really difficult to abandon something he saw as being the primarily reason he was elected in the first place.

Yes, but bipartisanship only works if the other party is playing the same game. It relies on the fundamental assumption that the other party is also interested in the governance of the nation.

But a significant goal of the Republican party, since at least the rise of Grover Norquist and the hard-small-government anti-tax wing of the party, has been to dismantle national governance as a concept.

And to that end, 100% of their engagement with "bipartisanship" is saying no to everything. And that's wholly predictable. There is no bipartisan consensus when one party only believes in stopping you.

Then making sure that the public perception is that their opponents are the people who do that. You go high, we go low.

[ray245]

Yes, but bipartisanship only works if the other party is playing the same game. It relies on the fundamental assumption that the other party is also interested in the governance of the nation.

But a significant goal of the Republican party, since at least the rise of Grover Norquist and the hard-small-government anti-tax wing of the party, has been to dismantle national governance as a concept.

And to that end, 100% of their engagement with "bipartisanship" is saying no to everything. And that's wholly predictable. There is no bipartisan consensus when one party only believes in stopping you.

Then making sure that the public perception is that their opponents are the people who do that. You go high, we go low.

He probably believe he can make the other party be bipartisan. "Look, I've won the presidency by being bipartisan and capturing a large portion of your voters. If you want to stay in party, you need to be bipartisan as well".

Obama is a moderate. There are moderates that simply cannot understand why people will venture further into the extreme end of politics.

[Vendetta]

He probably believe he can make the other party be bipartisan. "Look, I've won the presidency by being bipartisan and capturing a large portion of your voters. If you want to stay in party, you need to be bipartisan as well".

Obama didn't capture any Republican voters though.

His success was in motivating Independents and Democrats who usually stay at home.

Remember that in US politics there's a baseline of about 40% who, on election day, will vote for the red/blue team no matter what they say or do. You can't sway those voters, you can't capture them, they will change political teams as readily as they change football teams. Which is never.

The most you can do to those voters is hope they don't like their guy enough to stay at home.


You can tell this from how popular specific Democratic policies are with the Republican base. 70% of American voters support Medicare for all, including 52% of Republican voters. But those 52% of Republican voters will not vote for a Democrat who offers the thing they want because he's on the wrong team.

[ray245]

Obama didn't capture any Republican voters though.

His success was in motivating Independents and Democrats who usually stay at home.

Remember that in US politics there's a baseline of about 40% who, on election day, will vote for the red/blue team no matter what they say or do. You can't sway those voters, you can't capture them, they will change political teams as readily as they change football teams. Which is never.

The most you can do to those voters is hope they don't like their guy enough to stay at home.

You can tell this from how popular specific Democratic policies are with the Republican base. 70% of American voters support Medicare for all, including 52% of Republican voters. But those 52% of Republican voters will not vote for a Democrat who offers the thing they want because he's on the wrong team.

The question is whether Obama think he did. If he really did think he captured the Republican voters, then his entire perception of his presidency will be based on that and his actions becomes even more understandable.

[Alkaloid]

The question is whether Obama think he did. If he really did think he captured the Republican voters, then his entire perception of his presidency will be based on that and his actions becomes even more understandable.

He knew he didn't. Enough research goes into voters to know exactly who voted for you and who did'nt. What he knew what that his rhetoric captured enough of the Democrat 40% who otherwise wouldn't vote. He might not have been particularly ruthless on the federal stage but he was charismatic enough to motivate voters.

Interestingly in the West Wing comparison, it was a very Jebediah Bartlett sort of way to operate. Attract votes with charisma, rhetoric and high minded ideals. It worked to get elected, just not to run the country.

[FireNexus]

That’s my thinking. The fully intransigent opposition of the Republican Party was entirely new.

I disagree. Newt Gingrich in the 90s gave us a good view of the totally hostile Republican Party. Gingrich self destructed and the Republicans acted ended up in control of the presidency under Bush so their was a time gap, but it wasn't a new phenomena.

That’s like saying “nuclear weapons weren’t new because somebody invented bombs in the last war.” Gingrich was a cunt, and in many ways the precursor to the tea party, but he didn’t go nearly as far and when he tried to go ham he failed spectacularly. They passed budgets and bipartisan legislation.

I’m not saying Gingrich wouldn’t have wanted to do what the tea party did later. He was probably trying to. But he didn’t have an entire congress full of cunts. The tactics that resulted from a congress full of cunts were very new, and surprisingly effective from a standpoint of 2008. To say nothing of the fully weaponized gerrymandering that resulted from the 2010 midterms.

[Gandalf]

Don't forget that Vinick was an absurd liberal wet dream of a Republican who distanced himself from the religious right and (in the past) approved a nuclear plant which had a catastrophe during the last few weeks of the election.

Yes, the events of the West Wing universe seemed to conspire to ensure Santos won.

And wholly exemplar of why it's a bad object lesson as a show. Of the two elections shown, one is seemingly won with a debate zinger against a GWB charicature, and the other is against a Republican candidate that wouldn't exist in the first place.

Seeing American liberals still fetishise the show is weird. I liked it back when too, but going back is... not always great.

[Darth Yan]

The issue is that even into the early 2000s there was some compromise (the McCain feingold act). The sheer degree of just how spiteful and petty the republicans are being is a new one and I can understand Obama being somewhat blindsided

Don't forget that Vinick was an absurd liberal wet dream of a Republican who distanced himself from the religious right and (in the past) approved a nuclear plant which had a catastrophe during the last few weeks of the election.

Yes, the events of the West Wing universe seemed to conspire to ensure Santos won.

And wholly exemplar of why it's a bad object lesson as a show. Of the two elections shown, one is seemingly won with a debate zinger against a GWB charicature, and the other is against a Republican candidate that wouldn't exist in the first place.

Seeing American liberals still fetishise the show is weird. I liked it back when too, but going back is... not always great.

I’d say no longer exists. Eisenhower was decent, even Nixon did some good and Reagan despite setting the stage for a lot of shit was civil with Democrats. McCain has some integrity in 2000; I think bush winning thanks to kael rove helped set a bad standard in a few ways