Look, I acknowledge that Dem messaging will almost always be far more challenging than Republican messaging, because in the real world, Dem positions are more complex than the simplistic messaging of Republicans. And no, I will never advocate for Bill Clinton-style messaging which was only successfully because he was an unrepentant neo-conservative.
Obama was decent at messaging during the election cycle, but while in power his adminstration was also horrendously incompetent at messaging.
Yep, I haven't quite figured out *why* yet. Complexity and nuance are a part of it, but I don't think that covers it. Besides, if that really was the major problem, there should be plenty of smart Dem operatives that can create simpleton messaging. This isn't rocket science.
Not sure I follow you on Slick Willy. Why would his move-to-the-center strategy mean you don't like/want his ability to connect with voters? Those are two independent things, no? I think he had a real talent there.
Sadly I think Obama contributed to the Trump appeal, based on his own executive actions, never mind his political incompetence. I'll cute some examples:
1) Obama watered down the ACA in hopes of getting some Republican support, when anyone with half a brain would have realized that the Republicans would never help him pass the ACA. Obama burned two years on a hopeless project (I think because he was fundamentallyba political coward).
2) This point gets oddly overlooked, which is shocking because it's so improper. Presidents are NOT supposed to instruct DOJ about their prosecutorial decisions.
Notwithstanding that, Obama explictly instructed Holder NOT to prosecute any bank for their role in the 2008 financial crisis, under the faux pretext that the government only had two choices: i) prosecute a bank which would potentially result in people working for the bank to get laid off, and, ii) do nothing at all.
This was a false dichotomy because the DOJ could have always just prosecuted the ACTUAL fuckers who caused the financial crisis. And the DOJ did prosecute low-level folks for that stuff, giving the people at the top a free pass.
Worse yet, Obama also openly instructed Holder not to prosecute any CIA officer for literally torturing prisoners, based on a transparently fucked up decision by the Office of Legal counsel, specifically Yoo, whose decision was formulated by the Bush Whitehouse, as is I disputable from the correspondence between Too and the Whitehouse. In doing so, Obama entrenched U.S. policy to the "I was just following orders excuse" that the Nuremberg trials expressly rejected, resulting in the execution of 24 Nazis.
I was heartbroken by Obama's weak moral character. My niece was born on the day he was elected and I wrote a letter to her that day to be given to her when she's 18, remarking on the fact she was born on the day of a transformative President.
She's 15 years old now, and I'm struggling at the idea of giving her that letter in 2.5 years.
Broadly speaking, I subscribe to the idea that Obama was better at campaigning than governing, to put a nice spin on it.
Re: #1, yeah, frankly suspect he was naive. "Post-partisan" politics...yeah, right.
Re: #2, I've dabbled a bit in what happened there, but don't consider myself an expert. That said, my sense is that Obama thought he was crafting some grand bargain, exchanging leniency for cooperation with bank execs (e.g. lending, etc.). They came away from it thinking "cool, business as usual!".
One of the interesting take-aways from Trump 1.0 was: don't be so timid. Maybe act a little more like a bully. Obama's whole "lead from behind" thing got old fast.
To be sure, I'm not advocating "be like Trump" or even approach his level of asshattery. Rather, someone over-cautious like Obama could use a little more attitude and push boundaries a little harder.
If there's a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, the Dems will find it.
Now, everyone, let's focus incessantly on Noem's dog. Because that's the key to this election!
So bloody depressing.
Look, I acknowledge that Dem messaging will almost always be far more challenging than Republican messaging, because in the real world, Dem positions are more complex than the simplistic messaging of Republicans. And no, I will never advocate for Bill Clinton-style messaging which was only successfully because he was an unrepentant neo-conservative.
Obama was decent at messaging during the election cycle, but while in power his adminstration was also horrendously incompetent at messaging.
Yep, I haven't quite figured out *why* yet. Complexity and nuance are a part of it, but I don't think that covers it. Besides, if that really was the major problem, there should be plenty of smart Dem operatives that can create simpleton messaging. This isn't rocket science.
Not sure I follow you on Slick Willy. Why would his move-to-the-center strategy mean you don't like/want his ability to connect with voters? Those are two independent things, no? I think he had a real talent there.
Sadly I think Obama contributed to the Trump appeal, based on his own executive actions, never mind his political incompetence. I'll cute some examples:
1) Obama watered down the ACA in hopes of getting some Republican support, when anyone with half a brain would have realized that the Republicans would never help him pass the ACA. Obama burned two years on a hopeless project (I think because he was fundamentallyba political coward).
2) This point gets oddly overlooked, which is shocking because it's so improper. Presidents are NOT supposed to instruct DOJ about their prosecutorial decisions.
Notwithstanding that, Obama explictly instructed Holder NOT to prosecute any bank for their role in the 2008 financial crisis, under the faux pretext that the government only had two choices: i) prosecute a bank which would potentially result in people working for the bank to get laid off, and, ii) do nothing at all.
This was a false dichotomy because the DOJ could have always just prosecuted the ACTUAL fuckers who caused the financial crisis. And the DOJ did prosecute low-level folks for that stuff, giving the people at the top a free pass.
Worse yet, Obama also openly instructed Holder not to prosecute any CIA officer for literally torturing prisoners, based on a transparently fucked up decision by the Office of Legal counsel, specifically Yoo, whose decision was formulated by the Bush Whitehouse, as is I disputable from the correspondence between Too and the Whitehouse. In doing so, Obama entrenched U.S. policy to the "I was just following orders excuse" that the Nuremberg trials expressly rejected, resulting in the execution of 24 Nazis.
I was heartbroken by Obama's weak moral character. My niece was born on the day he was elected and I wrote a letter to her that day to be given to her when she's 18, remarking on the fact she was born on the day of a transformative President.
She's 15 years old now, and I'm struggling at the idea of giving her that letter in 2.5 years.
Broadly speaking, I subscribe to the idea that Obama was better at campaigning than governing, to put a nice spin on it.
Re: #1, yeah, frankly suspect he was naive. "Post-partisan" politics...yeah, right.
Re: #2, I've dabbled a bit in what happened there, but don't consider myself an expert. That said, my sense is that Obama thought he was crafting some grand bargain, exchanging leniency for cooperation with bank execs (e.g. lending, etc.). They came away from it thinking "cool, business as usual!".
One of the interesting take-aways from Trump 1.0 was: don't be so timid. Maybe act a little more like a bully. Obama's whole "lead from behind" thing got old fast.
To be sure, I'm not advocating "be like Trump" or even approach his level of asshattery. Rather, someone over-cautious like Obama could use a little more attitude and push boundaries a little harder.