The DNC pursued a policy of progressive policy to counter Bush.
Obama won and the party immediately began shifting right. Eight years of pulling away from progressive policy.
And then Trump won, at which point you saw a leftist presence being entertained again by his midterms.
So to answer your final question: The record shows victories appear to cause the Democratic Party to move right. Often argued as a result or consequence of any implemented leftist policy. Backlash, if you will, but still.
Obama won and the party immediately began shifting right. Eight years of pulling away from progressive policy.
Guess how many years Obama had a Dem House of Representatives and Dem Senate? 2 years. Not 8. Only 2. That’s when we got the ACA though.
Contrary to how many people talk the president is not a King. The president does not pass laws, Congress does. And Dems need control of all 3 (presidency, house of reps, and Senate) to pass much of anything. So when the lose control, like they lost control for 6 years of Obama’s presidency, they have to reach across the aisle. Do you remember what happened? The GOP shut down the government under Obama.
Obama had 1 victory and then 3 losses. 1 victory for 2 years and then 3 losses for 6 of his years.
You want them to not reach across the aisle? Then give Dems victories in all 3 of house of reps, Senate, and presidency.
(Btw guess how much the Dems have had all 3. They have had it for 4 years out of the last 24 years. That’s right. They basically never have it. Want to include Bill Clinton? Then it’s 6 years of the last 32 years. What to go back further? Then it’s 6 years of the last 44 years. Read that again: 6 years out of the last 44 fucking years. And if you want filibuster proof majority, them it’s 4 MONTHS of the last 44 years. Not 4 years, 4 MONTHS of the last 44 years. You need to readjust what you think are victories.)
I think you read way more into what I wrote. Obama won. Party moved right. Both statements of fact. The ‘backlash’ I mentioned.
But alright.
Progressivism has strong resistance, as demonstrated. It takes a leader like FDR to withstand that resistance and marshal their party towards a political goal. The president is the executive branch but they are also the effective leader of their party’s and their political goals.
Leaders who buckle under pressure or demand their followers or voters lead the way for them are incredibly weak. Lame ducks. A failure.
I didn’t “read into it”, I explained how government works. You missed the entire reason why Obama had to reach across the aisle. Which he had to do for 6 of the 8 years of his presidency. I’m tempted to write why but it was all written out above.
If you think “Obama won” and “[be a] leader” is how it works, then you desperately need to learn how it actually works.
I don’t really know why you’re working on such a condescending manner over something I am in no disagreement about? That’s what I meant by reading into it? FDR absolutely acted as a leader for his Party and marshaled forward progressive legislation and policies. And yes, you have clearly and dismissively explained that Obama absolutely did not. There should be no disagreement here.
The DNC from 05-09 operated on a progressive platform to reach out everywhere in all 50 states. That strategy ended in 09 right after Obama took office. Here’s an article from 2009 talking about the division that already existed in before those 6 remaining years. I am sorry for any paywall, its a nyt thing but its to show that there was a clear rightward movement from the start.
Obama absolutely did not. There should be no disagreement here.
Big disagreement. You seem to think “acted as a leader” is all that matters and all that’s necessary. I’m saying that’s dead wrong. Congress is what matters. The house of resentatives is what matters. The Senate is what matters. That’s how it works. The president can’t do much without the House of Representatives and the Senate.
President can’t do jack shit with all the leadership in the world if he does not have congress, if he does not have the house of representatives, if he does not have the senate.
So you want to talk the first two years of Obama? He likely reached out for two reasons. One: he wanted to mend the divisions after Bush’s disastrous wars. Get the country unified and back on track and all that jazz. Two: any intelligent candidate knows it’s unlikely they’re going to have control of Congress for all eight years, so he wanted to come off as reasonable and could be worked with, so that he could still accomplish things later in his presidency. I barely blame him for that. Who knew that the GOP was going to explode and become obstructionist to that degree because a half black man got elected. (Btw that’s why allusions to FDR don’t cut anything today. Completely different time.) (Also btw Biden learned from that and said nuts to it, he’s doing what needs to be done.)
Now back to the main point about Obama and how leadership is not the be all of everything. If anything Obama proves this. Obama had leadership (if you want to say that). But Obama only had Congress the first two out of his eight years. The remaining six years he did not have congress. The GOP had Congress. All the leadership in the world did not matter because he did not have Congress for six of his eight years. All the leadership in the world for six of his eight years did not matter. And this was proven when not when the GOP shut down the government under Obama. Congress. has. control. Leadership does not matter (in that way). Control of Congress is what matters.
I didn’t say leadership was the end all be all. I said it was a feature of FDR: the topic of the post, and by extension: being a poor or weak leader is a disaster for a party. I used the term ‘lame-duck’ which is a common term for a weakened president whose party doesn’t have control of legislative branch.
I don’t see how stating the features of an effective or ineffective presidency so quickly translates to some total lack of understanding how American governance or legislation works. Nor do I see how it demonstrates an extremely narrow position I don’t hold or have argued for. Your need to explain is condescending, arrogant, and entirely unnecessary.
There is a term called “bully pulpit”. It is a very common and well known concept in politics. FDR used it well. Obama did not. FDR was a very successful president. Obama was not, at least not for progressives or leftists.
Obama had leadership (if you want to say that).
For the level of argumentative browbeating you’re engaging ing and then you… FFS.
Honestly the most I can get from your previous replies is that leadership does it, accomplishes it, etc And I’m explaining to you that it’s control of Congress.
The context in which you used lame duck was in the context of lack of leadership. Not a lack of party control of Congress.
FDR: the topic of the post,
You replied to my comment which was about recent history. I’m explaining why you/the post can’t just say “but FDR did it and was popular, so why can’t anyone else”.
president. Obama was not, at least not for progressives or leftist
Because he did not have congress. That’s what matters. Because the GOP became incredibly obstructionist.
Honestly I have no idea what your position is anymore. You seem to briefly admit it’s Congress, then (from what I can gather) you’re right back to leadership with the bully pulpit. I think I’ve explained well enough that leadership does not matter (in that way). It’s Congress. If you the voter want progress, then you vote in Dem congresses, because a Dem president with all the leadership in the world is not enough.
Btw I’m not responding your repeated attacks on me. I may be a bit exasperated and to the point, but that’s because there’s way bad information out there and honestly that’s pretty much what I see from you with this stuff about leadership, and why Obama had to reach across the aisle later in his presidency.
Obama had leadership (if yousomeone wants to say that).
Ok I’ll clarify that to someone, didn’t mean you specifically, someone in the general population.
The DNC pursued a policy of progressive policy to counter Bush.
Obama won and the party immediately began shifting right. Eight years of pulling away from progressive policy.
And then Trump won, at which point you saw a leftist presence being entertained again by his midterms.
So to answer your final question: The record shows victories appear to cause the Democratic Party to move right. Often argued as a result or consequence of any implemented leftist policy. Backlash, if you will, but still.
Guess how many years Obama had a Dem House of Representatives and Dem Senate? 2 years. Not 8. Only 2. That’s when we got the ACA though.
Contrary to how many people talk the president is not a King. The president does not pass laws, Congress does. And Dems need control of all 3 (presidency, house of reps, and Senate) to pass much of anything. So when the lose control, like they lost control for 6 years of Obama’s presidency, they have to reach across the aisle. Do you remember what happened? The GOP shut down the government under Obama.
Obama had 1 victory and then 3 losses. 1 victory for 2 years and then 3 losses for 6 of his years.
You want them to not reach across the aisle? Then give Dems victories in all 3 of house of reps, Senate, and presidency.
(Btw guess how much the Dems have had all 3. They have had it for 4 years out of the last 24 years. That’s right. They basically never have it. Want to include Bill Clinton? Then it’s 6 years of the last 32 years. What to go back further? Then it’s 6 years of the last 44 years. Read that again: 6 years out of the last 44 fucking years. And if you want filibuster proof majority, them it’s 4 MONTHS of the last 44 years. Not 4 years, 4 MONTHS of the last 44 years. You need to readjust what you think are victories.)
I think you read way more into what I wrote. Obama won. Party moved right. Both statements of fact. The ‘backlash’ I mentioned.
But alright.
Progressivism has strong resistance, as demonstrated. It takes a leader like FDR to withstand that resistance and marshal their party towards a political goal. The president is the executive branch but they are also the effective leader of their party’s and their political goals.
Leaders who buckle under pressure or demand their followers or voters lead the way for them are incredibly weak. Lame ducks. A failure.
I didn’t “read into it”, I explained how government works. You missed the entire reason why Obama had to reach across the aisle. Which he had to do for 6 of the 8 years of his presidency. I’m tempted to write why but it was all written out above.
If you think “Obama won” and “[be a] leader” is how it works, then you desperately need to learn how it actually works.
I don’t really know why you’re working on such a condescending manner over something I am in no disagreement about? That’s what I meant by reading into it? FDR absolutely acted as a leader for his Party and marshaled forward progressive legislation and policies. And yes, you have clearly and dismissively explained that Obama absolutely did not. There should be no disagreement here.
The DNC from 05-09 operated on a progressive platform to reach out everywhere in all 50 states. That strategy ended in 09 right after Obama took office. Here’s an article from 2009 talking about the division that already existed in before those 6 remaining years. I am sorry for any paywall, its a nyt thing but its to show that there was a clear rightward movement from the start.
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/26/health/policy/26dems.html
As a result: Obama spent his presidency reaching out to republicans and mostly being humiliated. I don’t disagree with you. It is what happened.
Sigh. I’m explaining how things work.
Big disagreement. You seem to think “acted as a leader” is all that matters and all that’s necessary. I’m saying that’s dead wrong. Congress is what matters. The house of resentatives is what matters. The Senate is what matters. That’s how it works. The president can’t do much without the House of Representatives and the Senate.
President can’t do jack shit with all the leadership in the world if he does not have congress, if he does not have the house of representatives, if he does not have the senate.
So you want to talk the first two years of Obama? He likely reached out for two reasons. One: he wanted to mend the divisions after Bush’s disastrous wars. Get the country unified and back on track and all that jazz. Two: any intelligent candidate knows it’s unlikely they’re going to have control of Congress for all eight years, so he wanted to come off as reasonable and could be worked with, so that he could still accomplish things later in his presidency. I barely blame him for that. Who knew that the GOP was going to explode and become obstructionist to that degree because a half black man got elected. (Btw that’s why allusions to FDR don’t cut anything today. Completely different time.) (Also btw Biden learned from that and said nuts to it, he’s doing what needs to be done.)
Now back to the main point about Obama and how leadership is not the be all of everything. If anything Obama proves this. Obama had leadership (if you want to say that). But Obama only had Congress the first two out of his eight years. The remaining six years he did not have congress. The GOP had Congress. All the leadership in the world did not matter because he did not have Congress for six of his eight years. All the leadership in the world for six of his eight years did not matter. And this was proven when not when the GOP shut down the government under Obama. Congress. has. control. Leadership does not matter (in that way). Control of Congress is what matters.
I didn’t say leadership was the end all be all. I said it was a feature of FDR: the topic of the post, and by extension: being a poor or weak leader is a disaster for a party. I used the term ‘lame-duck’ which is a common term for a weakened president whose party doesn’t have control of legislative branch.
I don’t see how stating the features of an effective or ineffective presidency so quickly translates to some total lack of understanding how American governance or legislation works. Nor do I see how it demonstrates an extremely narrow position I don’t hold or have argued for. Your need to explain is condescending, arrogant, and entirely unnecessary.
There is a term called “bully pulpit”. It is a very common and well known concept in politics. FDR used it well. Obama did not. FDR was a very successful president. Obama was not, at least not for progressives or leftists.
For the level of argumentative browbeating you’re engaging ing and then you… FFS.
Honestly the most I can get from your previous replies is that leadership does it, accomplishes it, etc And I’m explaining to you that it’s control of Congress.
The context in which you used lame duck was in the context of lack of leadership. Not a lack of party control of Congress.
You replied to my comment which was about recent history. I’m explaining why you/the post can’t just say “but FDR did it and was popular, so why can’t anyone else”.
Because he did not have congress. That’s what matters. Because the GOP became incredibly obstructionist.
Honestly I have no idea what your position is anymore. You seem to briefly admit it’s Congress, then (from what I can gather) you’re right back to leadership with the bully pulpit. I think I’ve explained well enough that leadership does not matter (in that way). It’s Congress. If you the voter want progress, then you vote in Dem congresses, because a Dem president with all the leadership in the world is not enough.
Btw I’m not responding your repeated attacks on me. I may be a bit exasperated and to the point, but that’s because there’s way bad information out there and honestly that’s pretty much what I see from you with this stuff about leadership, and why Obama had to reach across the aisle later in his presidency.
Ok I’ll clarify that to someone, didn’t mean you specifically, someone in the general population.