Obama vs. Activists

[lpetrich]

Lisa Lerer on Twitter: "Obama wades into the 2020 race, warning of the dangers of listening to “certain left-leaning twitter feeds” or “the activist wing of our party.”
“Even as we push the envelope and we are bold in our vision we also have to be rooted in reality," he said. https://t.co/OioCWy4pbv" / Twitter
noting
Obama Says Average American Doesn’t Want to ‘Tear Down System’ - The New York Times

with responses
Krystal Ball on Twitter: "Come for the crushing of hopes, stay for the doing so in front of a room of rich donors. https://t.co/ZxM7M9V0ro" / Twitter
and
Walker Bragman on Twitter: "Barack Obama 2008 (net worth $1m-$5m): Hope & Change
Barack Obama 2019 (net worth $40m): Activism is actually bad https://t.co/5C1npuA9y7" / Twitter

From the NYT article:

“Even as we push the envelope and we are bold in our vision we also have to be rooted in reality,” Mr. Obama said. “The average American doesn’t think we have to completely tear down the system and remake it.”

...
His remarks offered an implicit critique of Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who have urged voters to embrace “political revolution” and “big, structural change,” as well as proposals once widely considered to be left to the liberal fringes of the party, including court packing and decriminalizing illegal border crossings.

About his slamming “the activist wing of our party,” that sort of running away from the party's base only helps the Republicans. The Republican Party doesn't run away from its base.

As to “certain left-leaning twitter feeds” ...

 

[Harry Bosch]

Lisa Lerer on Twitter: "Obama wades into the 2020 race, warning of the dangers of listening to “certain left-leaning twitter feeds” or “the activist wing of our party.”
“Even as we push the envelope and we are bold in our vision we also have to be rooted in reality," he said. https://t.co/OioCWy4pbv" / Twitter
noting
Obama Says Average American Doesn’t Want to ‘Tear Down System’ - The New York Times

with responses
Krystal Ball on Twitter: "Come for the crushing of hopes, stay for the doing so in front of a room of rich donors. https://t.co/ZxM7M9V0ro" / Twitter
and
Walker Bragman on Twitter: "Barack Obama 2008 (net worth $1m-$5m): Hope & Change
Barack Obama 2019 (net worth $40m): Activism is actually bad https://t.co/5C1npuA9y7" / Twitter

From the NYT article:

“Even as we push the envelope and we are bold in our vision we also have to be rooted in reality,” Mr. Obama said. “The average American doesn’t think we have to completely tear down the system and remake it.”

...
His remarks offered an implicit critique of Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who have urged voters to embrace “political revolution” and “big, structural change,” as well as proposals once widely considered to be left to the liberal fringes of the party, including court packing and decriminalizing illegal border crossings.

About his slamming “the activist wing of our party,” that sort of running away from the party's base only helps the Republicans. The Republican Party doesn't run away from its base.

As to “certain left-leaning twitter feeds” ...

Yea, that's because the republican base votes and has incredible power. The left side doesn't to the same degree. Secondly, due to the EC, suppression, voting patterns (older people vote more than younger) democrats need far more voters than republicans. Therefore, dems must have a larger tent and more rely more on moderates.

 

[Politesse]

He was a good president, but I never did agree with his politics and still don't. Making concessions to Republicans will only ever mean losing ground to them; they give nothing in return, and won't even give you credit for the concession itself. Just look at the ACA and its ongoing legacy: the Republican plan that the Republicans have based an entire political machine on opposing anyway. There really is a "center" among the actual population of the country, to be sure. But no such center exists on Capitol Hill.

 

[lpetrich]

He was a good president, but I never did agree with his politics and still don't. Making concessions to Republicans will only ever mean losing ground to them; they give nothing in return, and won't even give you credit for the concession itself. Just look at the ACA and its ongoing legacy: the Republican plan that the Republicans have based an entire political machine on opposing anyway. There really is a "center" among the actual population of the country, to be sure. But no such center exists on Capitol Hill.

The Moderate Middle Is A Myth | FiveThirtyEight

These tropes conjure up a particular image: a pivotal bloc of reasonable “independent” voters sick of the two major parties, just waiting for a centrist candidate to embrace a “moderate” policy vision. And there’s a reason this perception exits: You see just that if you look only at topline polling numbers, which show 40-plus percent of voters refusing to identify with a party, or close to 40 percent of voters calling themselves moderates.1 But topline polling numbers mask an underlying diversity of political thought that is far more complicated.

The article discussed self-described moderates, independents, and undecideds.

• (inclusive) M: 32.8%, I: 14.9%, U: 11.2%
• (one) M: 22.2%, I: 5.2%, U: 3.9%
• (two) MI: 5.3%, MU: 2.9%, IU: 1.9%
• (three) MIU: 2.4%

The voters were assessed on two axes: economic (egalitarian vs. market-oriented) and social (pro-immigration vs. anti-immigration)

Independent voters were nearly evenly scattered over the square of possibilities, with an empty spot at pro-immigration and market-oriented, and a small one at anti-immigration and egalitarian.

Moderate ones were similar, but with more concentration at pro-immigration and egalitarian.

Undecided ones were scattered all over, but somewhat concentrated in the center, with less concentration at pro-immigration and market-oriented.

The voters who were all three were scattered all over, but somewhat concentrated in egalitarian and a little bit concentrated in pro-immigration.

 

[Derec]

The voters were assessed on two axes: economic (egalitarian vs. market-oriented) and social (pro-immigration vs. anti-immigration)

Why was immigration the only social variable considered? I am liberal on many issues (legalization of pot and sex work, gay marriage etc.) but am against the what passes for liberal position on immigration.

Also, it's not the question about pro- vs. anti-immigration. I am by no means anti-immigration but am against mass immigration, especially illegally. I think a sound immigration policy will be limited by number to what out needs are, will be selective as to what immigrants to take in (to include screening for extremist tendencies, esp. Islamism) and will have effective means of deporting illegal aliens and those who came legally but committed serious crimes or got radicalized (again, esp. Islamism). How would that model score this position?

 

[laughing dog]

About his slamming “the activist wing of our party,” that sort of running away from the party's base only helps the Republicans. The Republican Party doesn't run away from its base.

And look where that has led it and the USA. Mr Obama was elected POTUS twice. It is quite possible he actually knows what he is talking about here.

 

[Politesse]

About his slamming “the activist wing of our party,” that sort of running away from the party's base only helps the Republicans. The Republican Party doesn't run away from its base.

And look where that has led it and the USA. Mr Obama was elected POTUS twice. It is quite possible he actually knows what he is talking about here.

That may well be. The rural population of this country abandoned god and all decency in favor of ugly racism three centuries ago, and they have never changed. Loving people doesn't get you a throne, spurning cruelty does not make you rich, caring for the powerless does not create power. We will always elect leaders who are acceptable to the wealthiest Americans. But if the Democrats put another stooge for the oligarchy on the throne, that's four more years of real Americans seeing what kind of "help" they really get from so-called liberals with corporate sponsorships. This branch will eventually break, for demographic reasons if nothing else. Fewer Americans by proportion are angry white Evangelical men with every passing year, and even fewer of those are sober enough to reach a polling station.

 

[lpetrich]

So there isn't the big cluster of centrists that some people like to imagine that there is.

What Howard Schultz never understood about America - The Washington Post

He was cautiously centrist on economics, with a tilt toward the market, and cautiously center-left on social issues, without the stridency of the progressive left. The elite media set and D.C. backrooms are swamped with people who hold those views.

These people, like any closed social set, too often think that the rest of the world looks just like them. They are dissatisfied with both major parties, whom they find too extreme. They would like someone who stands up for “reason” and “balance” and use their dominance of thought leadership to push their views and hold candidates for office up to their standards. And they are regularly disappointed when so many of them don’t measure up — and do well at the ballot box anyway.

The fact is, the share of people who hold their views are either vanishingly small or largely satisfied with what the Democratic Party has to offer. ... The same data show that people who are economically centrist and socially liberal are largely partisan Democrats as loyal to their party as those on the progressive far left.

About | Democracy Fund Voter Study Group
2018 Survey Full Data Set | Democracy Fund Voter Study Group
Political Divisions in 2016 and… | Democracy Fund Voter Study Group

Has a graph of Clinton vs. Trump voters. Clinton ones were economically and socially liberal, though with a lot of scatter, and Trump ones economically a little bit conservative and socially conservative, also with a lot of scatter. Clinton and Trump voters had a lot of overlap in these measures.

In both parties, this donor class is both more conservative on economic issues and more liberal on social issues, as compared to the rest of the party. However, there is a slight but notable asymmetry between the two parties on identity issues. Among Democrats, the donor class is notably to the left of the working class on these issues. Among Republicans, the donor class is also to the left of the working class on identity issues, but only slightly.

 

[lpetrich]

About his slamming “the activist wing of our party,” that sort of running away from the party's base only helps the Republicans. The Republican Party doesn't run away from its base.

And look where that has led it and the USA. Mr Obama was elected POTUS twice. It is quite possible he actually knows what he is talking about here.

Yes, but he lost the House, the Senate, several state governors, and a LOT of state legislators - some 1000 elected positions to the Republicans. The Democrats got the House back last year, but not the Senate, and the most that the Democrats can reasonably expect for the Senate in 2020 is a simple majority, not a filibuster-proof supermajority.

Let us also not forget that his would-be successor, Hillary Clinton, lost to Donald Trump in 2016.

When I see “certain left-leaning twitter feeds” I think ... who might Obama be talking about?

 

[Derec]

Yes, but he lost the House, the Senate, several state governors, and a LOT of state legislators - some 1000 elected positions to the Republicans. The Democrats got the House back last year, but not the Senate, and the most that the Democrats can reasonably expect for the Senate in 2020 is a simple majority, not a filibuster-proof supermajority.

Let us also not forget that his would-be successor, Hillary Clinton, lost to Donald Trump in 2016.

So anything but a perpetual Democratic hold onto power is a failure? And besides, Hillary snatched defeat out of jaws of victory. You definitely can't blame Obama for her ineptitude. Nor for the failure of the Democratic Party to nominate a better candidate.

When I see “certain left-leaning twitter feeds” I think ... who might Obama be talking about?

Your girlfriend?

 

[ZiprHead]

When I see “certain left-leaning twitter feeds” I think ... who might Obama be talking about?

Your girlfriend?

What would you know about girlfriends?

 

[laughing dog]

About his slamming “the activist wing of our party,” that sort of running away from the party's base only helps the Republicans. The Republican Party doesn't run away from its base.

And look where that has led it and the USA. Mr Obama was elected POTUS twice. It is quite possible he actually knows what he is talking about here.

That may well be. The rural population of this country abandoned god and all decency in favor of ugly racism three centuries ago, and they have never changed. Loving people doesn't get you a throne, spurning cruelty does not make you rich, caring for the powerless does not create power. We will always elect leaders who are acceptable to the wealthiest Americans. But if the Democrats put another stooge for the oligarchy on the throne, that's four more years of real Americans seeing what kind of "help" they really get from so-called liberals with corporate sponsorships. This branch will eventually break, for demographic reasons if nothing else. Fewer Americans by proportion are angry white Evangelical men with every passing year, and even fewer of those are sober enough to reach a polling station.

You think Trump is not a stooge for the oligarchy?

 

[Politesse]

That may well be. The rural population of this country abandoned god and all decency in favor of ugly racism three centuries ago, and they have never changed. Loving people doesn't get you a throne, spurning cruelty does not make you rich, caring for the powerless does not create power. We will always elect leaders who are acceptable to the wealthiest Americans. But if the Democrats put another stooge for the oligarchy on the throne, that's four more years of real Americans seeing what kind of "help" they really get from so-called liberals with corporate sponsorships. This branch will eventually break, for demographic reasons if nothing else. Fewer Americans by proportion are angry white Evangelical men with every passing year, and even fewer of those are sober enough to reach a polling station.

You think Trump is not a stooge for the oligarchy?

I have no idea how you managed to get that out of my post. He is the very definition of a stooge for the oligarchy, one of the most successful stooges in White House history, whose clowning about for the media has entirely succeeded in distracting both media and the public from the nearly complete destruction of government accountability or even staffing, at nearly every level.

But that's exactly who "centrist" candidates are demanding that we all "compromise" with in the name of a "unity" that is supposed to be universally desirable despite obviously excluding the welfare of poor and non-white Americans from the calculus. How long do you think it will be before the new American majority realizes that none of these people are actually on their side? That the DNC has no serious intention of even reversing all of this Congress' damage, let alone crafting anything new or progressive?

I don't think electoral politics will get us out of this, at least not if history is any guide. The reality will be something much more violent and unpleasant. But necessary. No one ever got liberated by politely sitting and waiting for noblesse oblige to swing their way.

 

[lpetrich]

Mehdi Hasan on Twitter: "Perhaps the most important/relevant line in this NYT story about Obama's latest remarks, implicitly attacking Sanders and Warren, is this one:
"Speaking before a room of wealthy liberal donors..." https://t.co/ImSeCXmlHS" / Twitter

Changes in state legislative seats during the Obama presidency - Ballotpedia
[TABLE="class: grid"]
[TR]
[TD]Barack Obama[/TD]
[TD]-968[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]George Bush II[/TD]
[TD]-324[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Bill Clinton[/TD]
[TD]-524[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Ronald Reagan / George Bush I[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Richard Nixon / Gerald Ford[/TD]
[TD]-800[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]John Kennedy / Lyndon Johnson[/TD]
[TD]-437[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Dwight Eisenhower[/TD]
[TD]-843[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Franklin Roosevelt / Harry Truman[/TD]
[TD]-191[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Total number of state-legislature seats: 7383 + possible vacancies

From  List of United States governors and its article-history pages, I find:

• 2009: D: 28, R: 22
• 2011: D: 20, R: 29, I: 1
• 2013: D: 19, R: 30, I: 1
• 2015: D: 18, R: 31, I: 1
• 2017: D: 16, R: 33, I: 1
• 2019: D: 23, R: 27

The Democrats lost 12 governor seats over Obama's presidency

For the US House,

• 2009: D: 256, R: 178
• 2011: D: 193, R: 242
• 2013: D: 200, R: 233
• 2015: D: 188, R: 247
• 2017: D: 194, R: 241
• 2019: D: 235, R: 199

The Democrats lost 62 House seats over Obama's presidency

For the US Senate,

• 2009: D: 55, R: 41, I(D): 2
• 2011: D: 51, R: 47, I(D): 2
• 2013: D: 53, R: 45, I(D): 2
• 2015: D: 44, R: 54, I(D): 2
• 2017: D: 46, R: 52, I(D): 2
• 2019: D: 45, R: 52, I(D): 2

The Democrats lost 9 Senate seats over Obama's presidency

While Obama got re-elected, his fellow Democrats lost rather badly.

 

[PyramidHead]

"For when we have faced down impossible odds, when we've been told we're not ready or that we shouldn't try or that we can't, generations of Americans have responded with a simple creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes, we can. Yes, we can. Yes, we can."

 

[laughing dog]

That may well be. The rural population of this country abandoned god and all decency in favor of ugly racism three centuries ago, and they have never changed. Loving people doesn't get you a throne, spurning cruelty does not make you rich, caring for the powerless does not create power. We will always elect leaders who are acceptable to the wealthiest Americans. But if the Democrats put another stooge for the oligarchy on the throne, that's four more years of real Americans seeing what kind of "help" they really get from so-called liberals with corporate sponsorships. This branch will eventually break, for demographic reasons if nothing else. Fewer Americans by proportion are angry white Evangelical men with every passing year, and even fewer of those are sober enough to reach a polling station.

You think Trump is not a stooge for the oligarchy?

I have no idea how you managed to get that out of my post...

The message is that "stooges" get elected. As long as there a significant portion of the electorate who are not kneejerk partisans, centrists win. The real question is whether Trump's election is an aberration or the new normal.

 

[laughing dog]

Mehdi Hasan on Twitter: "Perhaps the most important/relevant line in this NYT story about Obama's latest remarks, implicitly attacking Sanders and Warren, is this one:
"Speaking before a room of wealthy liberal donors..." https://t.co/ImSeCXmlHS" / Twitter

Changes in state legislative seats during the Obama presidency - Ballotpedia
[TABLE="class: grid"]
[TR]
[TD]Barack Obama[/TD]
[TD]-968[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]George Bush II[/TD]
[TD]-324[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Bill Clinton[/TD]
[TD]-524[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Ronald Reagan / George Bush I[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Richard Nixon / Gerald Ford[/TD]
[TD]-800[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]John Kennedy / Lyndon Johnson[/TD]
[TD]-437[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Dwight Eisenhower[/TD]
[TD]-843[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Franklin Roosevelt / Harry Truman[/TD]
[TD]-191[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Total number of state-legislature seats: 7383 + possible vacancies

From  List of United States governors and its article-history pages, I find:

• 2009: D: 28, R: 22
• 2011: D: 20, R: 29, I: 1
• 2013: D: 19, R: 30, I: 1
• 2015: D: 18, R: 31, I: 1
• 2017: D: 16, R: 33, I: 1
• 2019: D: 23, R: 27

The Democrats lost 12 governor seats over Obama's presidency

For the US House,

• 2009: D: 256, R: 178
• 2011: D: 193, R: 242
• 2013: D: 200, R: 233
• 2015: D: 188, R: 247
• 2017: D: 194, R: 241
• 2019: D: 235, R: 199

The Democrats lost 62 House seats over Obama's presidency

For the US Senate,

• 2009: D: 55, R: 41, I(D): 2
• 2011: D: 51, R: 47, I(D): 2
• 2013: D: 53, R: 45, I(D): 2
• 2015: D: 44, R: 54, I(D): 2
• 2017: D: 46, R: 52, I(D): 2
• 2019: D: 45, R: 52, I(D): 2

The Democrats lost 9 Senate seats over Obama's presidency

While Obama got re-elected, his fellow Democrats lost rather badly.

And why did these fellow Democrats fail to get re-elected?

 

[lpetrich]

Judd Legum on Twitter: "How come no one talks about how Trump needs to moderate his views to appeal to swing voters?
Why is that something only Democrats need to worry about?" / Twitter

 

[Derec]

When I see “certain left-leaning twitter feeds” I think ... who might Obama be talking about?

Your girlfriend?

What would you know about girlfriends?

In general or the woman lpetrich obsesses about?

 

[Politesse]

I have no idea how you managed to get that out of my post...

The message is that "stooges" get elected. As long as there a significant portion of the electorate who are not kneejerk partisans, centrists win. The real question is whether Trump's election is an aberration or the new normal.

New? He's like the second coming of Jackson, Americans love race-pandering "Washington outsiders" and always have.