Re: Next campaign as pragmatic and non-idealistic as the last one?
All he needs to do, however, is make a majority of voters in a district agree with him in order for the person representing that district to either risk losing their job by going against their wishes, go out and actively campaign against what the president says, or capitulate and vote as the people want.
What the fuck? How do you "make someone agree with you"? Seriously, how does that work? Please be specific.
Recall that 27% of Americans think that Obama was born outside the US. That's over 100 million people, which constitutes the combined populations of 40 of the 50 states. In other words, Obama persuading fully three-fourths of the American people might earn him as few as 20 Senate votes, total. But let's say that he's able to be so imaginably persuasive that he's able to persuade 99% of those Buzsaw-like holdouts as well, resulting in at most one state's worth of holdouts. That's a little under a million people, or the entire population of Montana. So, there's an entire state of people who can't be persuaded under any circumstances to support the President's views.
Well, ok, but it's Montana, you say. Er, but wait - Montana's Senator is Max Baucus, who chairs the Senate Finance Committee, making him the most important Senator in the country. You see, the Chair of the Finance Committee has control over the Finance Committee's agenda, which means he controls what the Finance Committee votes on, and since a bill cannot come up for a vote in the Senate until it's ratified by the Finance Committee, that means Max Baucus, a single Senator who represents less than 1% of the population of the United States, gets to veto Obama's health care bill. That's right - he has power exactly equivalent to the President's veto pen. And there's absolutely nothing Obama can do about it because Max Baucus works for the people of his constituency, not the people of the United States.
So, basically: fuck your bully pulpit. It's worthless. Even if Obama could somehow use speechifying to convince 99% of the American public to support his agenda, it has to be the exact right 99% or his agenda can be completely blocked by one of the Co-Presidents in the Senate. That's all before we get to the point where each individual Senator is able to use their own veto power to extract concessions. You know, maybe Ben Nelson can't live with the public option because he's from a state with a lot of health insurance companies. And, of course, what we know about American politics is that there's over a hundred million people who are exactly like Buzsaw and simply cannot be convinced by any use of the president's "bully pulpit."
There are definitely limits on what the President can do, however, Obama has not met those limits.
Bullshit. Complete bullshit. Obama has left nothing on the table since the stimulus - and maybe not even then, since I've never once seen anyone identify the 60 Senators who would have voted for an unprecedented-in-history two trillion dollar stimulus. It's really surprising that he got as much as he did.
He's a fighter. There's no way you can't say he's not fighting for things. His incredible record of achievement is the proof. But here's the problem - neither the "bully pulpit" nor "fighting" are ways for the President to enact legislation in the United States. There are statutory limitations to Presidential power that simply can't be overcome just because the President really, really wants it.
Re: Next campaign as pragmatic and non-idealistic as the last one?
It's called argument and debate.
Come on. You know as well as I do that "argument and debate" doesn't "make" anybody agree with me, it merely gives them the opportunity to and if they choose not to take it, there's nothing that I can do. And the fact that they chose not to doesn't always indicate a deficiency in myargument, but in their thought processes. You're blaming Obama for the actions of other people.
Yeah, but unless they all reside in one state, or one district, this matters how?
I told you how this matters. Go back and read it. They don't reside all in one state; in fact, they're the entire populations of 40 out of 50 US states, or could be. There's no way to take 101 million "unconvincables" and divy them up according to real demographics such that you can get a Senate supermajority.
A lot of people have no idea what he wants because he's not using the bully pulpit to get his ideas out to the nation.
When has the President not used his "bully pulpit" to get his ideas out to the nation? Be specific. Which ideas has he failed to get out there in front of the people?
But what about the undecideds, the fence-sitters, the ones who might be persuaded to agree with him?
What about them? Since undecided people can't vote in primary elections (since they don't affiliate with either party) why would any member of Congress care about what they believe? How could convincing them possibly exert any pressure whatsoever on the Senate?
Then, when he gets into office, he backs off, lets the grassroots organizations that were built to support his candidacy wither, and makes compromises.
When did he "let them whither"? You're aware, of course, that it's against the law for the President to simultaneously operate a grassroots political organization, since that's an enormous conflict of interest with his role as the entire country's President, right? So when you say he "let them whither", when exactly did that happen? Did it happen in 2009 as he implored the Democratic grassroots to come out in favor of health care reform? Doesn't the Democratic grassroots that overwhelmingly answered "lol, no, we're tired, you do it" to Obama's exhortations bear the blame?
I agree with you, but he doesn't then go and explain the compromises, he lets the news agencies explain them
Obama made over 400 appearances before the national media in the first year of his term alone, plus more than twenty town hall meetings, plus 42 news conferences, plus 150 interviews with newspapers, television reporters, and bloggers. In fact in the entire 365 days of his first term as president, Obama was outside of the public eye for only 21 days. Could you be more specific about the cases where you feel Obama has shirked from advocacy? Please identify the agenda items for which you believe Obama did not speak from the "bully pulpit" to the American people.
Perception, perception, perception.
I'm also talking about perception - specifically, your mistaken and faulty perception that Obama doesn't address the American people on the issues of the day.
Re: Next campaign as pragmatic and non-idealistic as the last one?
Yes, but if I don't even bother to make the argument, who is that going to convince?
So which arguments did Obama not make? Please be specific.
Last I checked, 27% is less than 40%.
The states don't have identical populations; two-thirds of Americans live in one of ten states. Each state is two Senators.
You can get to 51% of the US population and still be only talking about having the support of 8 Senators.
And you're talking straight population numbers, not likely voters.
Right, but again we run into one of the ways progressives are structurally disadvantaged in the United States - that 27% rump has a far, far higher voter turnout rate than anybody else, including committed progressives.
Could a Democratic Party that works as hard as the Republican Party to get its message out and fight for their ideas maybe get a bit more traction?
No, because the difference between progressives and fringe conservatives isn't messaging, and it isn't "perception", it's actually a heritable difference in personality type that you can't just overcome with TV commercials. Republicans enjoy these structural advantages because they're the right-wing, which means they benefit both from the preference intensity differential associated with authoritarian personality types and the enormous number of veto points in the Senate, which privileges inaction.
He should be on TV touting this move, letting the people know that he's sensitive to religious issues, but doesn't want to leave anyone unable to get contraception. Where is he?
He's on TV, stupid!
Who said anything about primaries? They could lose a general election, especially in a purple state.
It's a lot harder for an incumbent to lose in a general than in a primary; incumbents typically win re-election in the general 75-80% or more. There's an enormous incumbency advantage in the general, you can usually count on everybody in your party to vote for you, and there aren't enough independents, usually, to swing a Congressional election. Congresspeople are overwhelmingly focused on the primary if there's a primary because that's where the incumbency advantage is the lowest - there's less voters overall, and you can't count on the entire party voting for you because now your opponents have a realistic chance of peeling off your support.
These are just the electoral realities. You don't understand them, so it seems like a mistake to you that Obama doesn't "go after independents." But the truth is that independents exert almost no influence at all on Congressional politics; Congress is overwhelmingly a place of party politics.
The Democratic answer?
Obama's answer was over a hundred public appearances and more than twenty town hall meetings just on his health care bill, all of which you're claiming he did not do.
I hardly saw any of it.
Well, shit, dude, maybe you're not in a position then to judge whether Obama made enough appearances? I mean, isn't that on you? Obama can appear on TV as often as he likes, but there's only four nationwide broadcast networks. Obama has no power whatsoever to prevent you from flipping over to America's Next Top Windowasher or whatever.
I mean you have to take some responsibility for the fact that you just don't give a shit about our politics except when you don't get all the ponies you want. Don't you?
Obama makes speeches that are easy to turn off, and that I don't even hear about until the next day.
What the fuck is he supposed to do, Perdition? Pass a law saying you can't change the channel? Hey, I know, maybe he could make a law where you have to have a special screen in every room in your home which he controls, so that when the President deigns to speak, you have no choice but to hear. We can make it against the law to disable or tamper with these screens, and we can even make them two-way so that Big Brother From Another Mother (maybe I need to work on that name, something... shorter, maybe) can watch you to make sure you're paying rapt attention. I mean, what could go wrong?
Seriously, Perdition. You're being absolutely ridiculous. I'm sorry that American politics is so boring to you you'd rather change the channel, but you need to take responsibility for that, not blame the President for not being entertaining enough. Jesus Christ.
I don't exactly know what he needs to do...
Then you can't really fault him for not doing it, can you?
Re: Next campaign as pragmatic and non-idealistic as the last one?
How, pray tell, do I determine which arguments he didn't make?
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.
Then, 73% of each state would be at the very least open to being convinced.
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.
If you took that 51% and shuffled the people around
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.
That heritable difference in personality-type also includes the fact that progressives (liberals, take back the word, damnit!) are more open to nuanced, arguments.
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.
I know he's on TV, just not TV that anyone watches.
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.
I said what he did was not effective.
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.
It would reach a younger audience, those very people he needs to reach out to.
Why does he need to reach a "younger audience"? How would that help him?
Commercials work.
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.
Me: Obama is ineffective in his messaging.
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.
Re: Next campaign as pragmatic and non-idealistic as the last one?
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.
And how much of that perception is the result of a concerted campaign - by both conservatives and liberals - to foster that exact perception?
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.
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?
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.
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?
Perhaps they can include a popular band to open a speech and close a speech, making it more likely that younger people will watch.
And when that turns out to have no effect, I assume your criticism will be that they chose the wrong band.
Maybe they need to get younger, media aides to send out e-mails, update Facebook, or tweets.
quote:Obama White House creates social media rapid response office: Office would be first of its kind inside the West Wing
And 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?
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.
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.
Re: Next campaign as pragmatic and non-idealistic as the last one?
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.
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.
They're doing this for the campaign.
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?
Why weren't they using these during the rest of his administration to counter attacks on policy proposals?
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?
Progressives don't respond to authoritarian types. However, that doesn't mean they don't respond to anything.
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.
They connected with him during the campaign and came out in droves.
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.
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.
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.
I don't want to believe people are stupid.
Then it's up to you to provide some evidence that they're not.
Re: Next campaign as pragmatic and non-idealistic as the last one?
I thought the US president was supposed to be more than just a pointless figurehead.
Well, he's not strictly pointless, it's just that his domestic powers, as opposed to his foreign powers, are highly curtailed.
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?
Yes, the same as we can ignore the wish-lists of Romney and Santorum.
The signing of the order to close Guantanomo. Was that nothing more than a PR exercise/photo opportunity? What was the point of it?
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.
And was it really just stupid of people like me to think it meant something real?
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.
Our Marxist leaning presidential despot blatantly dictates in one legislating, confirming and signing fell swoop whatever works to destroy this republic.
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.
Nope, recession's over according to GDP (though we've got a lot of catching up to do to make it back to where we were supposed to be by now.) Employment?
No, Obama's reversed the trend and jobs are coming back. Industry capacity? If a recession is still on, it'll show up in the form of factories shuttered and other forms of unused manufacturing capacity:
Nope, wrong again. Capacity utilization is up and rising, implying that businesses are putting people back to work. How about personal consumption? If the recession is over, people will have more money in their pockets to spend:
Huh, would you look at that?
I realize you're graph-illiterate, Buz, so let me spell it out for you - that the recession is over isn't a media conspiracy, it's economic fact. Obama reversed it. The kid wins again.
Much of what has raised the stock market is not the value of the stock book values. It is the inflation of the US $$
Ah, right. Inflation. Your invisible inflation that Obama has purposefully created, somehow, yet can't be seen anywhere in the price of anything:
That's the semiannual averaged percent change in the CPA. As you can see it's never been over 2% since the Bush administration; most economists suggest that a 4% rate of inflation is about where we'd like to be. The inflation you're complaining about is a figment of your imagination, and always has been. I bet you can't supply even a single piece of evidence for it, but somehow that won't convince you of anything except how carefully the Kenyan Muslim has covered his tracks. Right?
In addition he mandates by his appointments of over a dozen czars who are not accountable to congress or the people, essentially circumventing the elected legislative branch.
Well, that's 100% wrong. Firstly, there's no such thing as a "czar", that's a media term for Executive branch advisors. Secondly, Bush had over 30 czars in his administration, far more than Obama ever has. And thirdly, as we saw in the case of Elizabeth Warren, Obama's nominated Consumer Protection "czar", approval of Congress is absolutely required and it's not pro forma - they can filibuster or outright deny the appointment as they see fit. As they did, with Elizabeth Warren, to the great misfortune of the American people.
For example, here in my county, the percentage of welfare, SS disability, grants, government union employees, early government school and law enforcement retirees (many who double dip) is so high that their vote overwhelms that of property owners, businesses and non government private citizens.
It continues to be a source of amazement that all of the conservatives, like yourself, who are in the former group always seem to think they're in the latter. You live on the dole, Buz. Don't think we forgot. And your continued disparagement of the public assistance you have no shame about extending your hand for is classless.
If these hucksters are wrong, where do I send your check?
Don't we have a ten-year bet? I'll let you know then, since I'll likely have moved twice by that time.
These are examples of the type of thinking that I read. Are they simply hucksters?
Yes. Do you notice:
quote:But, an increase of 2% a year over a period of 20 years will lead to a 50% increase in the price level. It will take 150 (2032) dollars to purchase the same basket of goods 100 (2012) dollars can buy today. What will be called the dollar in 2032 will be worth one-third less (100/150) than what we call a dollar today.
that there's no discussion here of the fact that the American population and productivity will grow during the same period of time? That matters, don't you think? Since the amount the dollar can buy is the amount of dollars (admittedly growing) divided by the amount of things to buy (also growing!)
You can always say that inflation is "just around the corner" but that's if current policy continues past the point where the economy has recovered from the recession. But why would you continue current policy at that point?
Imagine if your car drove off the side of the road, and your driver refuses to turn the wheel and bring the car back onto the road, because if he keeps going in that direction, he'll drive right off the other side of the road. But why would you keep going in that direction? Why wouldn't you get back on the road and then straighten the wheel?
quote:Obama plan would cut corporate taxes, end loopholes
President Obama will ask Congress to close dozens of corporate tax loopholes... Business groups have long complained about the high effective corporate tax rate, but many big businesses actually pay much lower after using loopholes and tax breaks.
In the meantime, Kuchinich is such a stand-up guy that he's doing nearly nothing to prevent his own district from being gerrymandered away, which is why he's Dronester's favorite politician - prone to completely ineffective grandstanding, because it's more important to die on the right hills than to win elections. Well, at this rate, Kuchinich will leave the House never having lost one - but he'll be gone, nonetheless.
The cooked book government stats, cited in your message, were concocted by the liar in chief's regime, deceiving the sheeple .
No, they're not "cooked" nor is there any Obama administration involvement in their collection.
And it's all very well for you to sweepingly dismiss all contrary evidence with a conspiracy theory but that only leaves us knowing nothing at all. Where's your evidence of inflation? Any evidence of inflation? That's what the post was about, as you'll recall.
For example the labor stats do not apply to all unemployed. They apply only to the unemployed actively seeking employment.
Well, sure. We don't typically consider it a crisis when two-year-olds and retirees aren't in full-time jobs. Well, Newt Gingrich does.
The ones on 99 month unemployment benefit bailout and those who enjoy the leisure life of the regime's taxpayer funded freebies have no interested in seeking employment.
Well, that's 100% wrong. People drawing on unemployment benefits are always classified as "unemployed, looking for work" because you have to demonstrate "looking for work" activity to draw benefits.
The employed consist significantly of government mandated union jobs.
No, in fact, they don't. The employed consist primarily of people employed by businesses smaller than 500 employees. And during the entire Obama administration, public-sector employment has decreased as states run into budget crunches and have to shed police officers and teachers to make ends meet.
™ Version 4.2
(1)