|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 06 2014 03:18 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2014 03:10 Rassy wrote:
So,
Does the outcome of this election mean that the next president will be a republican or is it all open and will a new democratic candidate (Hillary?) still have a chance? Midterm elections almost always turn against the incumbent party. I think there were only a couple midterms under FDR that saw incumbent gains. It doesn't generally predict anything for 2016. Presidential elections are significantly different. 2016 will really depend on how the Republicans develop their message without Obama, and tailor it to appeal to moderates. Which I don't think is likely, with the continued drift of the Republicans towards the "Tea Party" wing. At any rate, the Republicans will need to drop social issues (which are becoming an increasingly painful thorn for them) for 2016, if they want to stand a chance.
Agreed, social issues will need to be dropped and the base really needs to tone down the primaries to find a candidate who stands at a place center-right to stand a chance in the general election.
|
On November 06 2014 03:26 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2014 03:18 Lord Tolkien wrote:On November 06 2014 03:10 Rassy wrote:
So,
Does the outcome of this election mean that the next president will be a republican or is it all open and will a new democratic candidate (Hillary?) still have a chance? Midterm elections almost always turn against the incumbent party. I think there were only a couple midterms under FDR that saw incumbent gains. It doesn't generally predict anything for 2016. Presidential elections are significantly different. 2016 will really depend on how the Republicans develop their message without Obama, and tailor it to appeal to moderates. Which I don't think is likely, with the continued drift of the Republicans towards the "Tea Party" wing. At any rate, the Republicans will need to drop social issues (which are becoming an increasingly painful thorn for them) for 2016, if they want to stand a chance. Agreed, social issues will need to be dropped and the base really needs to tone down the primaries to find a candidate who stands at a place center-right to stand a chance in the general election.
Got me before I put in my edits, drats.
I'd say the Republicans are generally looking shaky going into 2016, since their wins, while strong this midterm, are not what they could've been. The president has an unpopular foreign policy (which I will also criticize, though for different reasons), and quite a significant number of people still haven't felt the effects of the economic recovery yet. The Republicans should've swept this election much more strongly than they did. Without Obama as a rallying cry in 2016, their message is also significantly weaker, since they were essentially running on an anti-Obama platform this midterm.
Social issues will need to be dropped, but whichever candidate they realistically bring out of the primaries will still be hammered hard on gay marriage, abortion, etc, regardless (don't see any way that they can't be, they'll have to be pro-life and anti-gay marriage if they want to win the Republican primaries with their current base). This leaves foreign policy on the table (don't think either the Republicans or Democrats will make many headway on this issue, since none of the likely candidates have any real experience in it outside of Hillary, and she'll be hit on Benghazi, rightly or wrongly), and domestic issues. The economy will be less favorable to a Republican candidate, and there are a host of issues like prison reform (ffs man, we've needed this since Reagan), Education (definitely think this'll be a hotbutton issue next election), electoral reform (hopefully, but probably not), infrastructure, tax reform, and budgeting. Also healthcare probably.
I have a pretty gloomy outlook for the Republicans in 2016 (depending on the candidates ofc).
|
On November 06 2014 03:26 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2014 03:18 Lord Tolkien wrote:On November 06 2014 03:10 Rassy wrote:
So,
Does the outcome of this election mean that the next president will be a republican or is it all open and will a new democratic candidate (Hillary?) still have a chance? Midterm elections almost always turn against the incumbent party. I think there were only a couple midterms under FDR that saw incumbent gains. It doesn't generally predict anything for 2016. Presidential elections are significantly different. 2016 will really depend on how the Republicans develop their message without Obama, and tailor it to appeal to moderates. Which I don't think is likely, with the continued drift of the Republicans towards the "Tea Party" wing. At any rate, the Republicans will need to drop social issues (which are becoming an increasingly painful thorn for them) for 2016, if they want to stand a chance. Agreed, social issues will need to be dropped and the base really needs to tone down the primaries to find a candidate who stands at a place center-right to stand a chance in the general election.
Sadly the Tea Party seems hell bent on their present course and I would expect conflict within the party to become even more clear now that they control both House and Senate.
|
On November 06 2014 03:42 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2014 03:26 Wolfstan wrote:On November 06 2014 03:18 Lord Tolkien wrote:On November 06 2014 03:10 Rassy wrote:
So,
Does the outcome of this election mean that the next president will be a republican or is it all open and will a new democratic candidate (Hillary?) still have a chance? Midterm elections almost always turn against the incumbent party. I think there were only a couple midterms under FDR that saw incumbent gains. It doesn't generally predict anything for 2016. Presidential elections are significantly different. 2016 will really depend on how the Republicans develop their message without Obama, and tailor it to appeal to moderates. Which I don't think is likely, with the continued drift of the Republicans towards the "Tea Party" wing. At any rate, the Republicans will need to drop social issues (which are becoming an increasingly painful thorn for them) for 2016, if they want to stand a chance. Agreed, social issues will need to be dropped and the base really needs to tone down the primaries to find a candidate who stands at a place center-right to stand a chance in the general election. Got me before I put in my edits, drats. I'd say the Republicans are generally looking shaky going into 2016, since their wins, while strong this midterm, are not what they could've been. The president has an unpopular foreign policy (which I will also criticize, though for different reasons), and quite a significant number of people still haven't felt the effects of the economic recovery yet. The Republicans should've swept this election much more strongly than they did. Without Obama as a rallying cry in 2016, their message is also significantly weaker, since they were essentially running on an anti-Obama platform this midterm. Social issues will need to be dropped, but whichever candidate they realistically bring out of the primaries will still be hammered hard on gay marriage, abortion, etc, regardless (don't see any way that they can't be, they'll have to be pro-life and anti-gay marriage if they want to win the Republican primaries with their current base). This leaves foreign policy on the table (don't think either the Republicans or Democrats will make many headway on this issue, since none of the likely candidates have any real experience in it outside of Hillary, and she'll be hit on Benghazi, rightly or wrongly), and domestic issues. The economy will be less favorable to a Republican candidate, and there are a host of issues like prison reform (ffs man, we've needed this since Reagan), Education (definitely think this'll be a hotbutton issue next election), electoral reform (hopefully, but probably not), infrastructure, tax reform, and budgeting. Also healthcare probably. I have a pretty gloomy outlook for the Republicans in 2016 (depending on the candidates ofc).
It is not true that Republicans need to drop social issues to be able to win. An example is abortion, while politicians and the press like to break the issue down into two sides, "Pro-Life" vs. "Pro-Choice", the electorate holds a more nuanced position on the issue. Half the country thinks abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances (so the middle ground) and the country breaks down as roughly 50/50 "Pro-Life" vs "Pro-Choice". Source This is part of the reason you don't see legislatures punished for passing reasonable restrictions on abortion (like banned after the first trimester with some exceptions like most of Europe is).
On same-sex marriage there's room for a candidate to play to the religious freedom end of the argument. I personally thing the gay rights community has been poorly served by activists using the courts to go after businesses that don't want to sell goods and services for same sex weddings instead of letting the market it sort it out. It has created some backlash as an overreach. Granted, the Republicans need to learn how to talk about this in a better way.
I'm not particularly culturally conservative, and have felt for years that as Gen X gets older and takes more power in the Republican party that we'd see the party shift to a more culturally tolerant/fiscally conservative position. It's slowly happening. There's room for a candidate to thread the needle in the primaries without getting creamed in the general on these issues. There's absolutely room for a "Pro-Life" and Anti Gay Marriage as the issues are not black and white.
To the original question, this election in no way says that a Republican takes the White House in 2016. I think Clinton still has to be considered the favorite currently, but she has not been a good candidate in the past and her recent book/speaking tour doesn't really make it look like that has changed. I think Hillary supporters need to hope that a moderately strong challenger emerges in the primaries to give her some push-back. If she's just anointed as the nominee it could be ugly.
Democrats also have an electoral problem. This is two mid-terms in a row that the Obama coalition has failed to materialize when he's not on the ticket. It's a rash assumption that because 2016 is a Presidential year that all the sudden the Democrats are going to take women and Hispanic voters at the same rate that they did in 2008 and 2012. The Democrats haven't figured out how to turn the Obama coalition into a Democratic coalition and if they have a candidate that's not as charismatic they could be in trouble. Hillary could offset that some by being a woman.
Republicans still have an issue in expanding their base. If they can continue avoiding candidates like Todd Aiken and Sharron Angle it'll be a good start. There's room for good Tea Party candidates alongside establishment candidates. It's the stupid they need to avoid. They need to also figure out how to talk about immigration without sounding like complete whack jobs.
All things being equal, I'd expect the electorate to be somewhere in between 2012 and 2014 and that points to a competitive race. Remember, we're still a roughly 33/33/33 country.
|
While i do agree it'll be a competitive election, the Republicans will be having a harder time of it, particularly with the internal problems the base has.
|
On November 06 2014 03:26 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2014 03:20 Wolfstan wrote:On November 06 2014 03:10 Rassy wrote:
So,
Does the outcome of this election mean that the next president will be a republican or is it all open and will a new democratic candidate (Hillary?) still have a chance? The 2016 general election will be more decided by the state of the economy than who won in 2014. As it's nearing the end of the business cycle, the candidate will have a harder time depending how deep the recession is. Question mark, question mark. Which candidate and what business cycle. The US economy by 2016 should continue to recover, there's no major shocks on the horizon that are likely to disrupt it. The economy will still be important, but I suspect it'll be more about wages, wealth distribution/social stratification, and social mobility, as opposed to unemployment.2016 will probably have a host of issues on the table, with the economy's importance minimizing as the economy continues to recover. Education will probably be a hot topic (it already has been in quite a few 2014 elections). Immigration reform will depend on how the next few years go. (sidenote, I find it very interesting that undocumented migration has been a hot topic this mid election, when net migration from Mexico has fallen below 0 since 2012, with the disruptive effects of NAFTA on the Mexican economy and its subsequent migratory increases finally shifting into an outflow of undocumented migrants) Sidenote: It's quite sad. Bush Jr. could've been a fantastic president without 9/11, if he had been allowed to focus on domestic issues like education, as he had planned, in conjunction with his energetic foreign assistance programs for developing countries. It's kind of like Carter, really.
Are you Nostradamus? Or do people routinely predict economic crises a year or two in advance?
|
Now, the Republicans will have to live up to the expectations — and see if they can get on the same page.
They didn’t just have a marginally good night on Tuesday — the GOP had a huge night, easily winning control of the Senate. They’re on track to expand their House majority to historic levels. And they’re winning governors’ mansions, too, with some of their most vulnerable incumbents hanging on against the odds.
Republicans already have claimed at least 52 seats in the Senate, and that’s without final results in Alaska and Louisiana, which could easily go to the GOP as well.
Mitch McConnell, who’s set to become the new Senate majority leader, declared at a press conference in Kentucky on Wednesday that he’ll only go so far in confronting President Barack Obama: “There will be no government shutdown, no default on the national debt.” And McConnell said he and Obama had already talked on the phone Wednesday about two issues where they might be able to work together: trade and tax reform.
But he also declared that the Senate won’t be shy about sending Obama bills he’s sure to veto: “We’re going to pass legislation, some of which he may not like, but we’re going to function.
Obama was scheduled to hold his own press conference at the White House Wednesday afternoon to lay out his plans for dealing with the newly unified Republican Congress in his final two years.
Top Republican leaders said Tuesday night and Wednesday morning that the party should use the opportunity to work with Obama to get some things done, while conservatives in the party are continuing to push the repeal of Obamacare and other nonstarters. Republican policy experts say the party will have to manage that balance by putting out its own governing agenda, working with Obama where they can, and then taking the bigger fights to the voters in 2016.
“They shouldn’t make it sound like they’re anxious to go to war with the president,” said Pete Wehner of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. “They just need to be patient. It’s still difficult to govern when the president is from the other party. But they are now the governing party in America … They have to show that they merit that vote of confidence.”
Source
|
Republicans will still have a hard time in 2016 because of demographic shifts and the electoral college. Nate Silver after the 2012 election showed that Obama would have won the electoral college not only if the popular vote was tied, instead of 51-47, but he could have *lost* the popular vote by up to two percentage points and still won. Sometimes, like in 2000, the electoral college favors the Republicans and they can win the presidency while losing the popular vote. In 2012 and 2016 it favors the Democrats.
|
On November 06 2014 03:26 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2014 03:20 Wolfstan wrote:On November 06 2014 03:10 Rassy wrote:
So,
Does the outcome of this election mean that the next president will be a republican or is it all open and will a new democratic candidate (Hillary?) still have a chance? The 2016 general election will be more decided by the state of the economy than who won in 2014. As it's nearing the end of the business cycle, the candidate will have a harder time depending how deep the recession is. Question mark, question mark. Which candidate and what business cycle.
I'm bearish on the general economy because
A) debt/equity assets are mispriced
B) the fed is taking the training wheels off the economy by discontinuing QE, I don't think there is much voltage left in the fed's defibrillator
C) supply/demand equilibrium of commodities(specifically oil) hasn't found a good price/production/cap-ex stability
D) personally believe a recession is necessary every 7 or so years to take the euphoria out of the decision making
The Democratic candidate will be unfairly blamed for something that will happen regardless of who form government.
|
On November 06 2014 01:20 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2014 00:50 johnbongham wrote:On November 06 2014 00:34 Velr wrote:On November 06 2014 00:24 johnbongham wrote:On November 06 2014 00:08 Velr wrote:In 20 years, assuming Obamacare is still going (which is more likely than not), it will not be seen as something bad. The bad things about it will be forgotten, what will be left is the improvement it brought. Seriously, Obamacare in the Long run, will most likely, be seen as a good thing. No matter how much you hate it now, no matter how big of a fiasco the Initial release was. Btw: What exactly are the Bushs legacies? Going into stupid wars and accumulating record debt? Your view on Obama, which I don't see as a good president myself, seems to be a bit narrow. There have been other presidents that were worse. The one right before him as an example was worse and wouldn't have gotten a second term if not for "lucky" 9/11 (or if you could count  ...) Obamacare will never be seen as a good thing. Actually, as soon as the majority of people realize that Obamacare is nothing more than a government mandated cash grab for big insurance companies its popularity is going to vaporize if it hasn't already. I am inclined to have a bet over this : Imho one of two Things will happen: 1: Either you will keep Obamacare beacuse you can't get anything else thru the houses, but also no one wants to go back to "pre Obamacare". (Obamacare = Better than what you had before) 2: You will Change obamacare over the years via reforms into something more "socialist". Which just wasn't possible with the republicans at the time of Obama (Obamacare = the start of something good). If universal healthcare sticks around in some form, Obamacare will be seen as the start of it. With time people, like in about any developed country in the world, will see universal healthcare as something "natural". I somehow feel like you'll eventually end up with a system like the Swiss one, I feel it would fit kinda nicely with american mentality/idea and allready has many similarities anyway. No there is nothing to bet. Universal healthcare is not obamacare. Obamacare is not the 'start' of universal healthcare. If universal healthcare does become a reality, it will be in spite of obamacare and a complete repudiation of it. Obamacare is NOT better than what we had before for a majority of people. It is more expensive, the plans are crap, and the healthcare people receive will remain compeltely the same if not get worse due to more high quality doctors not accepting low obamacare insurance payments for their services. Get a clue, dude. Everyone outside the US and a large portion inside the US would like to disagree with you. Oh and lets not forget that Obamacare was a compromise from the get-go in an attempt to get the Republicans on board, If the Democrats could have gotten a full Universal healthcare through congress they would have gladly done so.
Uh, he's coming at it from a viewpoint I disagree (and ad hominem to boot) but he's not wrong. Obamacare is not Universal Healthcare. Europeans are (generally) in favor of a true universal healthcare. If they think Obamacare is it that is just ignorance and oversimplification. Obamacare is a corporatist solution to the healthcare problem. A nationalized solution (universal healthcare) would represent a repudiation of that.
|
I think ot mostly depends on the economy and who can take credit for it if it goes well. When people have a job and are comfortable they're more likely to vote for the one they think is responsible for it.
|
I'm a little baffled by the fact how low Obama's popularity is. The economy looks like its in pretty good shape and the healthcare reform was at least an improvement I guess, why is he so unpopular?
|
On November 06 2014 06:28 Nyxisto wrote:
I'm a little baffled by the fact how low Obama's popularity is. The economy looks like its in pretty good shape and the healthcare reform was at least an improvement I guess, why is he so unpopular?
You need to pay more attention to me.
|
On November 06 2014 06:21 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2014 01:20 Gorsameth wrote:On November 06 2014 00:50 johnbongham wrote:On November 06 2014 00:34 Velr wrote:On November 06 2014 00:24 johnbongham wrote:On November 06 2014 00:08 Velr wrote:In 20 years, assuming Obamacare is still going (which is more likely than not), it will not be seen as something bad. The bad things about it will be forgotten, what will be left is the improvement it brought. Seriously, Obamacare in the Long run, will most likely, be seen as a good thing. No matter how much you hate it now, no matter how big of a fiasco the Initial release was. Btw: What exactly are the Bushs legacies? Going into stupid wars and accumulating record debt? Your view on Obama, which I don't see as a good president myself, seems to be a bit narrow. There have been other presidents that were worse. The one right before him as an example was worse and wouldn't have gotten a second term if not for "lucky" 9/11 (or if you could count ...) Obamacare will never be seen as a good thing. Actually, as soon as the majority of people realize that Obamacare is nothing more than a government mandated cash grab for big insurance companies its popularity is going to vaporize if it hasn't already. I am inclined to have a bet over this : Imho one of two Things will happen: 1: Either you will keep Obamacare beacuse you can't get anything else thru the houses, but also no one wants to go back to "pre Obamacare". (Obamacare = Better than what you had before) 2: You will Change obamacare over the years via reforms into something more "socialist". Which just wasn't possible with the republicans at the time of Obama (Obamacare = the start of something good). If universal healthcare sticks around in some form, Obamacare will be seen as the start of it. With time people, like in about any developed country in the world, will see universal healthcare as something "natural". I somehow feel like you'll eventually end up with a system like the Swiss one, I feel it would fit kinda nicely with american mentality/idea and allready has many similarities anyway. No there is nothing to bet. Universal healthcare is not obamacare. Obamacare is not the 'start' of universal healthcare. If universal healthcare does become a reality, it will be in spite of obamacare and a complete repudiation of it. Obamacare is NOT better than what we had before for a majority of people. It is more expensive, the plans are crap, and the healthcare people receive will remain compeltely the same if not get worse due to more high quality doctors not accepting low obamacare insurance payments for their services. Get a clue, dude. Everyone outside the US and a large portion inside the US would like to disagree with you. Oh and lets not forget that Obamacare was a compromise from the get-go in an attempt to get the Republicans on board, If the Democrats could have gotten a full Universal healthcare through congress they would have gladly done so. Uh, he's coming at it from a viewpoint I disagree (and ad hominem to boot) but he's not wrong. Obamacare is not Universal Healthcare. Europeans are (generally) in favor of a true universal healthcare. If they think Obamacare is it that is just ignorance and oversimplification. Obamacare is a corporatist solution to the healthcare problem. A nationalized solution (universal healthcare) would represent a repudiation of that.
Where did I say that Obamacare is Universal Healthcare? I said that they could not get real Universal healthcare through Congress so they made Obamacare which is by no means perfect but its a whole lot better then what the US had before (which wasn't much of anything)
|
On November 06 2014 06:28 Nyxisto wrote:
I'm a little baffled by the fact how low Obama's popularity is. The economy looks like its in pretty good shape and the healthcare reform was at least an improvement I guess, why is he so unpopular?
Because Americans are not Europeans, and a large part of the population (on both sides) never get the see the truth because of terrible media.
|
On November 06 2014 06:34 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2014 06:21 Yoav wrote:On November 06 2014 01:20 Gorsameth wrote:On November 06 2014 00:50 johnbongham wrote:On November 06 2014 00:34 Velr wrote:On November 06 2014 00:24 johnbongham wrote:On November 06 2014 00:08 Velr wrote:In 20 years, assuming Obamacare is still going (which is more likely than not), it will not be seen as something bad. The bad things about it will be forgotten, what will be left is the improvement it brought. Seriously, Obamacare in the Long run, will most likely, be seen as a good thing. No matter how much you hate it now, no matter how big of a fiasco the Initial release was. Btw: What exactly are the Bushs legacies? Going into stupid wars and accumulating record debt? Your view on Obama, which I don't see as a good president myself, seems to be a bit narrow. There have been other presidents that were worse. The one right before him as an example was worse and wouldn't have gotten a second term if not for "lucky" 9/11 (or if you could count ...) Obamacare will never be seen as a good thing. Actually, as soon as the majority of people realize that Obamacare is nothing more than a government mandated cash grab for big insurance companies its popularity is going to vaporize if it hasn't already. I am inclined to have a bet over this : Imho one of two Things will happen: 1: Either you will keep Obamacare beacuse you can't get anything else thru the houses, but also no one wants to go back to "pre Obamacare". (Obamacare = Better than what you had before) 2: You will Change obamacare over the years via reforms into something more "socialist". Which just wasn't possible with the republicans at the time of Obama (Obamacare = the start of something good). If universal healthcare sticks around in some form, Obamacare will be seen as the start of it. With time people, like in about any developed country in the world, will see universal healthcare as something "natural". I somehow feel like you'll eventually end up with a system like the Swiss one, I feel it would fit kinda nicely with american mentality/idea and allready has many similarities anyway. No there is nothing to bet. Universal healthcare is not obamacare. Obamacare is not the 'start' of universal healthcare. If universal healthcare does become a reality, it will be in spite of obamacare and a complete repudiation of it. Obamacare is NOT better than what we had before for a majority of people. It is more expensive, the plans are crap, and the healthcare people receive will remain compeltely the same if not get worse due to more high quality doctors not accepting low obamacare insurance payments for their services. Get a clue, dude. Everyone outside the US and a large portion inside the US would like to disagree with you. Oh and lets not forget that Obamacare was a compromise from the get-go in an attempt to get the Republicans on board, If the Democrats could have gotten a full Universal healthcare through congress they would have gladly done so. Uh, he's coming at it from a viewpoint I disagree (and ad hominem to boot) but he's not wrong. Obamacare is not Universal Healthcare. Europeans are (generally) in favor of a true universal healthcare. If they think Obamacare is it that is just ignorance and oversimplification. Obamacare is a corporatist solution to the healthcare problem. A nationalized solution (universal healthcare) would represent a repudiation of that. Where did I say that Obamacare is Universal Healthcare? I said that they could not get real Universal healthcare through Congress so they made Obamacare which is by no means perfect but its a whole lot better then what the US had before (which wasn't much of anything)
It really isn't. People who had coverage already now largely have worse or more expensive coverage. The new plans that are going to lower income people are so bad that they are effectively unusable. I was talking with a client yesterday who is working two jobs to make ends meet. She still needs further medical treatment for a bad broken ankle that she sustained. She's paying for an Obamacare plan that she says that she can't really afford but has to buy, and she still can't afford the treatment that she needs using her current plan. It's really fucked.
|
On November 06 2014 06:34 Gorsameth wrote:
Where did I say that Obamacare is Universal Healthcare? I said that they could not get real Universal healthcare through Congress so they made Obamacare which is by no means perfect but its a whole lot better then what the US had before (which wasn't much of anything)
Yep. Even as a single payer advocate, I'm just happy to have health coverage for the first time in over a decade. Hard to be mad about that I guess. I suppose I could fault him for being pragmatic?
|
On November 06 2014 06:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2014 06:28 Nyxisto wrote:
I'm a little baffled by the fact how low Obama's popularity is. The economy looks like its in pretty good shape and the healthcare reform was at least an improvement I guess, why is he so unpopular? You need to pay more attention to me.
I pay attention to what you write, but managing the economy reasonably should still count for something. How is Obama supposed to initiate a better healthcare reform if the other half of the political spectrum stops him/his party from really making substantial changes? Sure he hasn't lived up to the insane hype that was going on before his first election, but he's definitely more successful than a lot of other presidents before.
|
On November 06 2014 06:42 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2014 06:31 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2014 06:28 Nyxisto wrote:
I'm a little baffled by the fact how low Obama's popularity is. The economy looks like its in pretty good shape and the healthcare reform was at least an improvement I guess, why is he so unpopular? You need to pay more attention to me. I pay attention to what you write, but managing the economy reasonably should still count for something. How is Obama supposed to initiate a better healthcare reform if the other half of the political spectrum stops him/his party from really making substantial changes? Sure he hasn't lived up to the insane hype that was going on before his first election, but he's definitely more successful than a lot of other presidents before.
The issue is that the economy isn't really doing well for all of the reasons that our more socially conscious posters have been discussing around here for years: income/wealth inequality. The average Joe isn't feeling like things are going well. That, along with the Obama's long, well-documented history of general buffonery/incompetence is a recipe for bad approval ratings.
|
On November 06 2014 06:28 Nyxisto wrote:
I'm a little baffled by the fact how low Obama's popularity is. The economy looks like its in pretty good shape and the healthcare reform was at least an improvement I guess, why is he so unpopular?
Given the last year's worth of bad news and scandals, do you seriously think Obama has been a good president?
We could go everywhere from Obamacare's disastrous rollout to disclosures about NSA abuses to Secret Service scandals to the entire way things have played out with Syria and the fact that we're basically back at war in Iraq. Then you have unresolved questions about the VA, the IRS, and Putin. Then there were terrible blunders in handling the crises of flooding illegal immigrant children, ISIS, and Ebola. He's also picked the worst possible way to close Guantanamo Bay and end military tribunals, picked the most hypocritical way of dealing with the Bush legacy of the Patriot Act and the AUMFs, and he's been very opportunistic with regards to Super PACs.
Of course, it doesn't help that the prevailing narrative in the media is that Obama is already a lame duck and he and Democratic members are rejecting each other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
