Obama's Mess
He's presided over a Democratic party disaster, writes Jeff Greenfield at Politico, leaving his party in the worst shape it's been in since The Great Depression:
As historians begin to assess Barack Obama's record as president, there's at least one legacy he'll leave that will indeed be historic--but not in the way he would have hoped. Even as Democrats look favorably ahead to the presidential landscape of 2016, the strength in the Electoral College belies huge losses across much of the country. In fact, no president in modern times has presided over so disastrous a stretch for his party, at almost every level of politics...When Barack Obama leaves office in January 2017 the Democratic Party will have ceded vast sections of the country to Republicans, and will be left with a weak bench of high-level elected officials. It is, in fact, so bleak a record that even if the Democrats hold the White House and retake the Senate in 2016, the party's wounds will remain deep and enduring, threatening the enactment of anything like a "progressive" agenda across much of the nation and eliminating nearly a decade's worth of rising stars who might help strengthen the party in elections ahead.
Many of the top dogs in the Dem wing are old fuckers:
When Obama came into the White House, it seemed like the Democrats had turned a corner generationally; at just 47, he was one of the youngest men to be elected as president. But the party has struggled to build a new generation of leaders around him. Eight years later, when he leaves office in 2017 at 55, he'll actually be one of the party's only leaders not eligible for Social Security. Even as the party has recently captured more young voters at the ballot box in presidential elections, its leaders are increasingly of an entirely different generation; most of the party's leaders will fade from the national scene in the years ahead. Its two leading presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are 67 and 73. The sitting vice president, Joe Biden, is 72. The Democratic House leader, Nancy Pelosi, is 75; House Whip Steny Hoyer is 76 and caucus Chair James Clyburn is 75, as is Harry Reid, the Senate Democratic leader, who will retire next year. It's a party that will be turning to a new generation of leaders in the coming years--and yet, there are precious few looking around the nation's state houses, U.S. House or Senate seats.
And there's more:
Barack Obama took office in 2009 with 60 Democrats in the Senate--counting two independents who caucused with the party--and 257 House members. Today, there are 46 members of the Senate Democratic caucus, the worst showing since the first year after the Reagan landslide. Across the Capitol, there are 188 Democrats in the House, giving Republicans their best showing since Herbert Hoover took the White House in 1929.This is, however, the tip of the iceberg. When you look at the states, the collapse of the party's fortunes are worse. Republicans now hold 31 governorships, nine more than they held when Obama was inaugurated.
Now turn to state legislatures--although if you're a loyal Democrat, you may want to avert your eyes. In 2009, Democrats were in full control of 27 state legislatures; Republicans held full power in 14. Now? The GOP is in full control of 30 state legislatures; Democrats hold full power in just 11. In 24 states, Republicans control the governorship and both houses of the legislature--giving them total control over the political process. That increased power at the state level has already led to serious consequences for Democrats, for their political future and for their goals.
"It's almost a crime," Democratic Party Vice Chair Donna Brazile says. "We have been absolutely decimated at the state and local level."
Any of you here Obama voters? What do you think of how he's done?
I will be happier about this when someone speaks about the prosperity of the country ahead of the fortunes of their political party.
Radwaste at August 22, 2015 4:05 AM
You need a sane opposition or a lot of crap gets passed. One party rule isn't good for the rest of us. Unfortunately the democrats haven't been sane for over a decade. The media have helped cover things up but eventually the lies get too threadbare to hide reality. Here's to hoping they can reform themselves.
Ben at August 22, 2015 5:17 AM
Well, the Republicans govern pretty much as Democrats, so not much has been "lost".
doombuggy at August 22, 2015 6:47 AM
"I will be happier about this when someone speaks about the prosperity of the country ahead of the fortunes of their political party."
So you're voting for Trump?
Joe at August 22, 2015 7:19 AM
Re doombuggy's comment, that's why I'm a Neither.
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2015/08/14/why_politically.html
Amy Alkon at August 22, 2015 7:31 AM
"Any of you here Obama voters? What do you think of how he's done?"
Now, I have a few friends and family members who were crowing about Obama his first election, voted for him the second time; but, strangely they have been very silent the last couple of years.
I don't push the issue, and I certainly don't say "I told ya so!" (as tempting as that is) because I figure their silence, especially after all their fawning over Obama, speaks volumes about how they feel now.
Their idol worship turned out to be a false god.
charles at August 22, 2015 7:40 AM
As for that age thing; yep, it is interesting that way back when Reagan first ran they tried to make a stink about his age (69 or 70, I'm to lazy to go look it up right now) and those listed are all older than he was!
Compare their ages to some of the Republican candidates; who may not win; but, might just be around for a while:
Ted Cruz - 44
Mike Huckabee - 59
Bobby Jindal - 44
Rand Paul - 52
Marco Rubio - 44
Scott Walker - 47
I have been a bit selective in leaving some out such as Pataki (70), Carson (63), Fiorina (60), Perry (65), Graham (60), and, of course, Trump (69); but, that's because I don't see them having much influence after this election.
But, even most of these folks are younger!
Obama has only been about Obama; he is too much of a narcissist to have cared about others to help build up his party for the future. Doing such would be of no benefit to himself.
charles at August 22, 2015 7:59 AM
Obama has only been about Obama; he is too much of a narcissist to have cared about others to help build up his party for the future. Doing such would be of no benefit to himself.
Posted by: charles at August 22, 2015 7:59 AM
Historically leaders that rely on a cult of personality for their political base, have not done well, unless they personally control the loyalty of the military.
Obama has been a pyrrhic President for a party that has burned most of its bridges catering to the far left.
And as I have said before, if your only participation in politics is as an unaffiliated voter, you aren't really participating. You are a bystander.
All the real decisions are made at the state party level for senators, congressmen, and electoral college delegates.
I fail to understand the smugness of those voters who envision themselves *above it all*.
Isab at August 22, 2015 9:01 AM
Amy,
You do realize that neither party is monolithic? Both the republican and democrat parties are coalition parties made up of numerous subgroups. In many nations people vote for a specific party (labor, green, business, ...) and once those politicians are elected they form a coalition to form a government. The US does it another way. First we form coalitions (republican, democrat, whig, liberty) and then we vote for the best coalition.
In the US there are (and likely will always be) only two parties for the simple reason you need ~50% of the votes to get into power. Any parties that split thing more than 50/50 are guaranteed losers. So those parties break up and a new coalition is formed. This also has the consequence that the two parties are not radically different. They are different, just not dramatically so.
Finally, if you don't vote you are accepting the will of the majority that did vote. I have no issue with that viewpoint and I did not vote for president when it was McCain v. Obama. I did vote for other offices that year. But don't claim some sort of moral superiority from not voting. Voting for neither is the same as voting for both. Similarly, if you aren't active in a political party you have decided to let others chose candidates for you. There are very few people actively involved in the parties. It takes very few people to change which candidates make it onto the ballot. Am I personally involved in my local politics, no. I don't have the time or energy for it just like most people. But that is nothing to feel superior about. If you want to make a change get involved and make a change.
Are you going to get everything you want out of politics, no! That's life, so buck up buttercup.
Ben at August 22, 2015 2:43 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2015/08/obamas-mess.html#comment-6159807">comment from BenBoth Democrats and Republicans are parties of Big Government. That's monolithic.
Amy Alkon
at August 22, 2015 5:38 PM
Both Democrats and Republicans are parties of Big Government. That's monolithic.
Posted by: Amy Alkon Author Profile Page at August 22, 2015 5:38 PM
What a big word. Please explain what that means, in the context of the way Ben correctly explained how government is formed and how elections work in the U.S.
You know how a politically party stops being the *party of big government*?
You elect sufficient numbers of people at the local and state level that believe in small government, and then you hold them accountable at the ballot box.
Isab at August 22, 2015 6:27 PM
So, you want a smaller federal government and you plan to accomplish this goal by not influencing government in any way shape or form? If I may be so bold there are more effective plans out there. Not all of them are legal I will admit. After all armed insurrections have such bad branding. But an army of busty redheaded insurrectionists in sequined gowns may be just the ticket to rehabilitate the brand.
Ben at August 22, 2015 7:30 PM
Obama even managed to destroy the Democrats' bench, which wasn't so bad when he took office.
This list of no-longer-viable presidential candidates who destroyed their political capital by serving in the Obama Administration include Katherine Sebilius (former governor of Kansas - disastrous term as Secretary of HHS) and Janet Napolitano (former governor of Arizona - lackluster term as Secretary of Homeland Security). Both had been mentioned as strong potential candidates in 2008, but declined to run since Hillary had the nomination sewn up.
Hillary Clinton did herself no favors as Secretary of State under a president who regarded his Cabinet officers not as advisers or administrators but as political window dressing. She thought it would give her foreign policy bona fides, but it ended up highlighting the hollowness of her resume.
Unlike the Reagan Administration in which most of the cabinet-level folks came out with strong political potential (Dick Cheney went on to be elected Vice President, George Bush went on to be elected President, Donald Rumsfeld went on to become Secretary of Defense, James Webb won a Senate seat, etc.), Obama's cabinet is coming out with relatively weak political potential.
He has no coattails.
Conan the Grammarian at August 24, 2015 9:17 AM
"Obama even managed to destroy the Democrats' bench, which wasn't so bad when he took office."
In 2008, the Democrats elected a lot of people who ran on a centrist platform. They did a good job of presenting themselves as the younger, fresher alternative to the Republicans, whom the Democrats' allies in the media had successfully tarred as warmongering and uncaring about the economy. And I think at least some of those Democrats were sincere about wanting to present a more moderate set of principles to the people.
Then... they all turned around and voted for Obamacare, which was exactly the sort of thing they had promised their constituents that they wouldn't do. The Democrat leadership twisted the moderates' arms; their plan was to buy off the voters in the swing states with things like the Cornhusker Kickback. That didn't work; those came out looking like the sleazy bribes that they were, and nobody was persuaded. Add to that Obama's subsequent actions on immigration and the result was: All of those bright young stars of the party got knocked out in the subsequent elections, leaving the hollow core consisting of the old guys with their safe seats, and the angry activists that make most voters recoil.
The Republicans swooped into the vacuum. However, they are now somewhat in the same position, having failed to follow through on their campaign promises regarding Obamacare and immigration. But it seems that the younger Republicans now have a chance to gain with voters by running against the leadership of their own party, which is a unique circumstance. As Amy points out, an increasing number of people see the leadership of both parties being a sort of cabal, disregarding the will of the people. So far Trump, and to a lesser extent Cruz and Fiornia, have made this work. On the other side, Sanders has made it work for him, even though he probably still has little chance against the Clinton machine. We'll see what happens.
Cousin Dave at August 24, 2015 9:54 AM
The real destroyers of the Democratic Party are Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. They squandered an overwhelming Congressional majority on an unpopular program (Obamacare), failed to do anything about things that worried most Americans, and spent $800+ billion on a stimulus bill that left the economy stagnant and failed to produce the promised jobs. Their Cash for Clunkers stimulus eviscerated the mid-range used car market without reducing automobile emissions as promised and left people who can't afford a new car few options on the lot.
As much as he wants to take credit for those programs, Obama was mostly just along for the ride when they were passed. Knowing they would get rubber stamps from the White House gave Pelosi and Reid a free hand to shift the Democratic Party radically to the left.
Conan the Grammarian at August 24, 2015 4:33 PM
Leave a comment