The Awesome Obama Thread II

How the fuck should I know? It's not my job to flesh out your critique of Obama's messaging, it's yours. If you have no idea what Obama actually did or didn't do, maybe that should have been something you factored in before you began making a sweeping criticism of the President's messaging strategy.Here's a hint - maybe the things Obama couldn't do? Maybe the reason he couldn't do them has nothing to do with "messaging." Maybe, in fact, our political systems were designed such that doing them would have been impossible. Even if you could expect Obama to convince 100% of the "convincibles", which is impossible, due to demographic factors - the fact that progressives and moderates tend to cluster into a small number of cities while the conservative unconvincibles live rurally - that would still translate to a Republican majority in the Senate. But the people aren't shuffled around. That's important and you can't just ignore it. We don't elect 100 Senators for the United States, we elect 2 Senators per state. That's a lot different, and because of the association of conservativism with rural living, conservatives get a lot more Senators than progressives and moderates do. So what? That doesn't mean that they're as motivated by nuanced arguments as conservative authoritarians are by simplistic bromides. And the simple fact is, they're not.And frequently they have less time to get out and vote. Conservatives tend to be retirees and business owners, people on the government dole, that sort of thing. They either have no jobs, or they have jobs where they can take a day off to go and vote. Democratic voters tend to be people in service jobs or in other benefit-less positions where employment schedules frequently make it harder to take the time off to vote. Or they may just be college students who can't be arsed to vote. All of that, of course, assumes that you don't live in one of the many areas of the country where Republicans have now made it illegal for some Democrats to vote.It's just not possible to get Democrats to turn out the vote with the same preference intensity, because, as you ignored, the majority of that preference intensity difference comes from inherent, heritable differences in personality. Jesus Christ, Perdition, that was PBS. The exact same press conference ran on all four nationwide broadcast networks, CNN, MSNBC, and I think Fox. Combined that's over a hundred million viewers.I honestly don't know what else he can do. Use a laser to engrave it on the Moon? At some point you have to take responsibility for the fact that you just can't be arsed to pay attention. Right, because it's impossible for them to have been effective. Our political systems don't operate like that. The Senators most reachable by Obama's bully pulpit are precisely the ones he least needs to reach. Remember, I told you who the most important Senator in the Senate was? Max Baucus, chair of the Senate Finance Committee. Remember, he held veto power over the Affordable Care Act?Here's the problem - Max Baucus is a red state Democrat, which means he has quite a bit to fear from appearing to work too closely with Obama, since his own voters will tend to punish him for it. He needs Republicans in his state to basically stay home if he wants to keep his seat, which means that he needed to not do anything to piss them off so much that they came to the polls. Montana also has open primaries, which means that Republican voters can come in and disrupt the Democratic primary and force the nomination of someone truly unelectable.Max Baucus might have let a public-option health care bill to curry favor with New York's and California's liberals, but why should he give a shit about that? They don't vote in his election. Why does he need to reach a "younger audience"? How would that help him? And who's going to pay for them, Perdition? You know it's illegal to pay for them out of the White House media budget, right? Congress would have to approve the expenditure, and here again is a situation where a single Senator can block that provision.So, no. The President can't "do commercials" like that, Perdition. That wasn't your claim, Perdition. Your claim was

quote:

---

When Obama campaigned, I was blown away by his speaking ability, but after he was elected, he seemed to decide to retreat.

---

I've shown he did nothing of the kind. Now your new claim is that Obama was out there in the media just as much as he was before - you know, he has to run the country, too, you might ask Republicans whether they'd like it if their president spent all his time campaigning instead of running the country like he's supposed to - but that it didn't succeed in radically reshaping the contours of the American electorate.Well, no shit, but when the fuck did a Presidential speech ever do that? Ask a political scientist - there's zero evidence that Presidential campaigning can substantially alter public opinion on an issue. That's just not how people make up their minds. By the standard by which you judge Obama a failure, no President in the history of the United States has ever been successful.Your critique of Obama can't be that he didn't achieve the impossible. That's not a reasonable standard by which to judge.

quote:

---

I hardly ever see him, except on the State of the Union...and again, I'm actually interested in politics. I see Republicans far more prominently than I see Democrats.

---

You'd rather he's out there campaigning than doing his job?

Ok, this is what I mean to say.Obama has done a lot, in fact, he has done more than I expected, considering the current climate of hyperpartisanship in Washington.Unfortunately, the common perception of Obama is thathe has done enxt to nothing, that he doesn't fight for his ideals, that he is quick to compromise away his ideals in order to appear bi-partisan.This perception is wrong, but the fact that it persist is proof that he, and his advisors, and the Democrats, have not been effective in getting his successes before the people. They need to do more to fix that.Most people don't watch political speeches. So making more political speeches doesn't do much good. Creating blog posts and podcasts on the White House website are not effective, the only epople watching/reading are already in Obama's camp or are hard-core politicos.He needs to find a way to reach the common person and make his case, rather than letting the Republicans do it. They have Talk Radio, they have the elderly who are more likely to watch news. The Democratic base is likely to be younger, more technically savvy, and more likely to get their news and media from other sources.So, what do I suggest the Obama administration do? Advocay commercials that run on cable (and I don't mean campaign commercials, necessarily.) Perhaps they can include a popular band to open a speech and close a speech, making it more likely that younger people will watch. Maybe they need to get younger, media aides to send out e-mails, update Facebook, or tweets.Maybe they should look to the science of liberalism versus conservatism and realize that tactics that work for one group won't work for the other group. Liberals are more likely to respond to a positive message than a negative one, conservatives are the opposite.In any case, the media landscape is much more fragmented than it was even in the 90s, and the Democrats are slow to respond to that fragmentation. The Republicans, by and large, do not need to respond because their base is more likely to still be using the old-fashioned media. This isn't fair, but it's true.Obama has been an amazing president, and the fact that this isn't recognized is, partially, his, and his party's, fault.

A large part of his job is driving the national agenda and the having a conversation about what is needed to make this country the best we can. So, no, I don't want him campaigning for re-election, but I would like to see him campaigning for his policy ideas.But it doesn't necessarily need to be just him, he has advisors, aides, and a political party, all of whom could be out advocating for him more effectively than they are. His message isn't resonating, so something needs to change.

And how much of that perception is the result of a concerted campaign - by both conservatives and liberals - to foster that exact perception? How is it proof of anything of the kind? What if the President's "perception team" has been every bit as persuasive as it's possible to be, but it's just the case - as we know from sociology and political science - that the President just isn't able to exert mind control over the American people or members of Congress, who are fully possessed of individual human agency and therefore responsible for their own conclusions? So it's pointless to use television, newspapers, and the internet; your critique of the Obama Administration is that they've failed to invent an entirely new form of mass media by which to communicate with the American people? And when that turns out to have no effect, I assume your criticism will be that they chose the wrong band.

quote:

---

Obama White House creates social media rapid response office: Office would be first of its kind inside the West Wing

---

http://ohmygov.com/...ocial-media-rapid-response-office.aspxAnd when that turns out to have no effect, I assume your critique will be that they sent out too many tweets, or spent too much time on Facebook ("progressives aren't as responsive to peer pressure!"), or sent out the wrong kinds of emails.Perdition - what kind of evidence would you need to see to prove that Presidents can't drive attitudes and perceptions in the way you expect Obama to? Was Bush ever able to do this? I can't think of a single instance. Bush, as a Republican and a conservative, benefited from a base composed of authoritarian personality types, who were prepared to take to the streets (and to the internet) to defend their guy, even when Bush adopted the opposite position from what they were defending yesterday.Progressives just aren't like that. There's no such thing as a "left-wing authoritarian personality type." It's a psychological effect that exists only on the right, so how on Earth can Obama be expected to take advantage of it? Really? Where is that in the Constitution?Driving the national agenda - which Obama has manifestly done - is a lot different than the kind of mind control you've been talking about. Obama has zero power to compel people to perceive him in a certain way or to agree with his solutions to problems or even to admit that the problems exist. Sorry, but that's just not realistic. And it can't be a reasonable critique of the Obama Administration that they turned out to be unable to do the impossible.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

No. It's pointless to use them as they are and have been used because that tatctic no longer works. More and more people watch cable rather than the "Big 3 (or 4) Networks," so in order to reach those people, you need to go where they are. It would be a definite possibility. It may turn out that having a band would do nothing, but I would rather see it tried, than to just assume it won't work.From your link:

quote:

---

No White House in history better knows the awesome ability of social media and blogs to affect the national narrative than the current one, an administration swept into power thanks in large part to those very platforms. To keep this momentum heading into the 2012 election cycle, the Obama administration is now making moves to integrate an online rapid response team inside the White House communications office.

---

They're doing this for the campaign. As I said, Obama is an awesome campaigner. Why weren't they using these during the rest of his administration to counter attacks on policy proposals?If it's illegal to do so, then I'll accept that answer, but I'll feel that perhaps those rules should be looked at in light of the 21st century and our technological society. Progressives don't respond to authoritarian types. However, that doesn't mean they don't respond to anything. They're not all apathetic layabouts. They connected with him during the campaign and came out in droves. I realize that keeping that high level of passion going is probably impossible, but a low simmer would be achievable, I would think. You claim it's impossible. I don't mean mind control. I understand there are people who will disagree with him. But, there are people who would agree with him, if they knew what he was doing and why. He hasn't reached those people. Again, it may be impossible to reach those people because they don't want to be reached. I'm just not willing to write them off yet, because if we do, it will lead to more Republicans in office and more bat-shit crazy legislation.I'm very encouraged by the fact that people seem to be moving to his side now that his campaign team has started ramping up and the economy has continued to improve. I understand that the economy is a better predictor of Presidential approval than anything else. I also know that the President has almost no effect on the economy.Maybe I'm just frustrated at the human condition and taking it out on Obama undeservedly, but it's either believe people in general are stupid, or that there's something he could be doing better to reach them. I don't want to believe people are stupid.

Are they? And are these people likely to have an influence on Congresspeople? Are they likely to write letters or make phone calls? It's time for you to show some evidence for your assertions. No, they've always had a social media guy. Don't you remember when Kumar left House to join the President's social media team? They were. You simply assume, however, that social media and cable TV commercials are some kind of magic sauce that will allow Obama to mind-control Americans into supporting his proposals. But it's time for you to present some evidence for your assertions. What if the Administration has actually done everything you've suggested and it just doesn't work? Why did you think it would? But that's exactly what I'm saying - progressives are less responsive. We're just plain less likely both to accept leadership from the authorities and to communicate our views to authorities, because we're not authoritarians. The other guys are.That matters, and it means that there's a preference intensity gap that you simply can't close with "positive messaging" and social media and an appearance by The Decemberists. You disagree? Time to start providing evidence for your assertions, since they fly in the face of long-standing findings in political science. Droves? He won with 52% of the popular vote. Imagine that - the most electrifying, historic progressive campaign in history, opposed by a candidate Republicans overwhelmingly hated and it was still the case that Republicans had better turnout as a percentage of their registered base. Republicans believed they had their marching orders. Many progressives simply didn't even bother to vote. Progressives don't take marching orders no matter how loud the band plays. It's time for you to provide some evidence in support of your assertions, and your own ignorance and apathy about the White House's media efforts aren't "evidence." You need to provide some evidence that it's actually possible to mobilize progressives, because the vast evidence of American history is that it's just not possible. Then it's up to you to provide some evidence that they're not.

As I am sure you are aware the British queen is nothing more than a rather pointless figurehead with a selection of over-priced hats.I thought the US president was supposed to be more than just a pointless figurehead. I've seen Obama on TV recently talking about his plans for domestic tax policy and suchlike.Can we just ignore these speeches as rather pointless wish-lists that aren't going to happen because congress almost certainly won't have any of it? Let's take a specific and internationally high profile example of Obama's presidency. The signing of the order to close Guantanomo. Was that nothing more than a PR exercise/photo opportunity? What was the point of it?And was it really just stupid of people like me to think it meant something real?

Well, he's not strictly pointless, it's just that his domestic powers, as opposed to his foreign powers, are highly curtailed. Yes, the same as we can ignore the wish-lists of Romney and Santorum. Well, the point of it was, Obama is the executive of the CIA, so if he orders them to leave a base, they have to. Obama signed an order directing the CIA, who holds the prisoners there, to do just that. That order is still in effect, as is another Presidential order requiring that the prisoners held there be transferred to Thompson Correctional Center in Illinois.The problem is that Republicans and Democrats, in a rare moment of bipartisanship, came together to pass a law making it illegal for prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay to be transferred to anywhere in the mainland United States. Obama wasn't able to veto the order, since it was attached to all the money needed by the military and therefore standing on that principle would have cost the lives of thousands of US troops.And that's it. Congress makes domestic policy in the US because they're the legislative branch. Obama has the power to order the base closed, but he doesn't have the power to close it without the assent of Congress. It was stupid of Americans not to elect more people to Congress who wanted to close Guantanamo Bay. They've always been the ones in charge of that, and it was somewhat of a surprise that as many Democrats as did would follow the Republican line and oppose the closure of the base.

So basically anyone who believes anything any presidential candidate says about US domestic policy is just being naive or ignorant?And we should all have known this when Obama was publicly and eloquently making his wish-lists last time around?Can you not see why people might have expected more?

No, but anybody who doesn't take it in the context of the party's US domestic policy, is.I mean it's no secret that we have a Congress who legislates, not a President. I don't see why this is such a rude awakening. Of course I see it. Because they wanted ponies, and didn't get them:(Did I already post this? Don't remember.)

It depends on what the specifics are in each case.There are things related to US policy, both domestic and international, that are in control of a US President, other things that are totally outside US Presidential control, and areas where a US President might have some influence.It's up to the US voter to knows those limits and conditions.

My understanding is that the intent of the founders was for Congress to legislate/write bills, the Senate to confirm or reject them and the president to either sign or veto them.Our Marxist leaning presidential despot blatantly dictates in one legislating, confirming and signing fell swoop whatever works to destroy this republic.He warned the sheeple, vowing in his campaign, to change America. This is one of the few promises he has kept. Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

When has this ever happened?Seriously, Buz, your notion of the events of the past 3 years is just bizarre.Show me even one law signed by the President that wasn't approved by both houses of Congress.

Crashfrog, what amazes me is that you're still talking to buzsaw. I'd go insane if I keep talking to buzsaw like this.