Harry Reid: The DNC was worthless under Debbie Wasserman Schultz (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 15, 2024, 09:56:02 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Harry Reid: The DNC was worthless under Debbie Wasserman Schultz (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Harry Reid: The DNC was worthless under Debbie Wasserman Schultz  (Read 1517 times)
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,272


« on: December 26, 2016, 11:31:10 AM »

As Obama himself pointed out this morning on CNN's "The Axe Files", the Democratic Party had a fundamental failing in 2008. They were able to reach the Presidency and govern through the White House but failed to have the political support from the heartland for their agenda. Ergo losing Congress.

This sums up the Obama years

This also applies to Trump and his inability to reach coastal areas and major urban areas (which, yes, Virginia, he does need just as much as Obama needed the heartland) to gain popular support for his agenda.

Viewed in this context, Obama's presidency looks like a mixed success - he got a ton through, despite having very little political support. But because of that lack of heartland political support, a lot will be undone. Same for Trump with the next Democratic president.

The country is going to keep going through presidents left and right until someone wins that can unite the coastal areas and the heartland behind a common agenda and power a Congressional majority on that agenda and majoritarian support.

This is the problem when you win by just 51-52% and in concentrated areas of the country.
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,272


« Reply #1 on: December 26, 2016, 01:58:02 PM »

obama has had "heartland" support in 2008....and then got countered by unknown levels of resistance on all possible levels.

imho republicans should have made deals with obama .....now everyone is pissed as hell.

no president should ever again meet this level of obstructionism....i am somehow relieved that democrats are too weak right now to be a good scapegoat for trump.

the people are going to feel his agenda hard and good.

A lot of the Congressional Democratic majority were built on Blue Dogs. In hindsight, not the best foundation for passing a substantive Democratic majority. I imagine that won't be a problem next time but still.
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,272


« Reply #2 on: December 26, 2016, 03:02:23 PM »

obama has had "heartland" support in 2008....and then got countered by unknown levels of resistance on all possible levels.

imho republicans should have made deals with obama .....now everyone is pissed as hell.

no president should ever again meet this level of obstructionism....i am somehow relieved that democrats are too weak right now to be a good scapegoat for trump.

the people are going to feel his agenda hard and good.

A lot of the Congressional Democratic majority were built on Blue Dogs. In hindsight, not the best foundation for passing a substantive Democratic majority. I imagine that won't be a problem next time but still.

Well, the biggest problem was the Senate.  Dems had 60 votes there for about 8 months in 2009 and early 2010.  Obama and Reid should have threatened to throw Lieberman out of the caucus and set up a recall election in Connecticut if he didn't support the healthcare bill with the public option. 

Wouldn't have cleared the Democratic House. The Democratic Party was trying to pass an agenda in which they assumed realignment had happened, not a temporary check to fix the country's problems. Lieberman wasn't the only problem. If you think I'm exaggerating, Daily Kos ran an article in late 2008 when they called Obama a realigning President and the Reagan era over.

ObamaCare passed like by 220-212 or something in the House. A public option would've been tough on top of everything else (I can hear the screams in the 2010 town halls: "you MADE a government corporation to offer healthcare?!")

It's a testament to Obama's legacy that he got what he did through despite the political restrictions he faced. That's why the GOP was so scared of Obama and fought him as hard they did. They figured that if he succeeded, they were out of power in a generation. Obama was understood to be a very important figure. I particularly hated Obama as a Republican, because I understood his relevance to the future as a figure that would presage a new majority.
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,272


« Reply #3 on: December 26, 2016, 03:19:44 PM »

Then I'm wrong and honestly, then I don't know why Lieberman wasn't coerced into supporting it. The law would be much stronger today. Maybe Lieberman was the sign the Democratic Party wasn't ready to endorse radical reform *shrugs*

Mea culpa. Sorry about that. (I still contend the blue dogs in the House blocked major healthcare reform on the scale of what was needed for a successful overhaul).
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.027 seconds with 10 queries.