have the tables turned to the republicans?

and is it Obama's fault?

Edited November 1, 201015 yr by cipher510

The Republicans still haven't proposed a new idea in recent memory (maybe Reaganomics) and their old ideas are no less flawed now than any of the other times Democrats had to rebuild after their economic shenanigans and wars.

 

I do think though, if Obama had perfect pre-retrospect he could have done better, so we could blame him.

 

 

It's probably easier to blame a combination of Alzheimer's and that facts no longer need to be based on reality to be newsworthy.

I guess it is easier to conclude that those who are abandoning the policies of the present administration and congressional leadership are mental rather than face the possibility that they no longer care for the liberalism or worse that they recognize the policies are a failure.

The Republicans still haven't proposed a new idea in recent memory (maybe Reaganomics) and their old ideas are no less flawed now than any of the other times Democrats had to rebuild after their economic shenanigans and wars.

 

Which other Republican wars? I don’t recall significant economic hardship after the Gulf War. Perhaps you are referring to the Civil War? Even Obama believes the war in Afghanistan was/is necessary. In fact he has committed as many troops to Afghanistan as Bush. So that leaves the Iraq war. Perhaps your plural on war was a typo?

Which other Republican wars? I don’t recall significant economic hardship after the Gulf War. Perhaps you are referring to the Civil War? Even Obama believes the war in Afghanistan was/is necessary. In fact he has committed as many troops to Afghanistan as Bush. So that leaves the Iraq war. Perhaps your plural on war was a typo?

I'm pretty sure there were two errant adventures into Iraq, but we can stick to economic shenanigans if you like.

Republicans use populist tactics, and are winning because of it.

It's not about who is the best... that doesn't matter for either side. What really matters is that Obama has been responding to the outrageous claims of the republicans. He lost the initiative.

Republicans determine what's on the headlines. They are on the offensive. As retarded as it may seem after 8 devastating years of Bush... they are winning the popular vote. Republicans twist the truth, and even spread lies... but they get away with it, because they have the initiative.

 

Simply put: it takes more time to refute a lie than to create a one. It also takes more time to create a good plan than a bad one.

 

It's all about initiative. Obama actually has to govern a country. That means that whatever he will do, the republicans will criticize him. And the republicans get to choose on which topic, and which level of detail they will attack him.

I wrote a post about it in another thread. (Link).

I found this article interesting.

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d67ed90a-e505-11df-8e0d-00144feabdc0.html

 

It concludes with...

 

So credit please where it is due. The whining utopian left has a very full schedule of despising Republicans and the idiots and scoundrels (a little over half the country) who keep voting for them. Yet it can always find time to attack its own team, cry and complain, and demand to be patted on the head. The left’s role in Tuesday’s elections should not go unacknowledged.

 

But the election is not over. We will know more tomorrow.

Republicans use populist tactics, and are winning because of it.

It's not about who is the best... that doesn't matter for either side. What really matters is that Obama has been responding to the outrageous claims of the republicans. He lost the initiative.

Republicans determine what's on the headlines. They are on the offensive. As retarded as it may seem after 8 devastating years of Bush... they are winning the popular vote. Republicans twist the truth, and even spread lies... but they get away with it, because they have the initiative.

 

Simply put: it takes more time to refute a lie than to create a one. It also takes more time to create a good plan than a bad one.

 

It's all about initiative. Obama actually has to govern a country. That means that whatever he will do, the republicans will criticize him. And the republicans get to choose on which topic, and which level of detail they will attack him.

I wrote a post about it in another thread. (Link).

that is the thread that inspired me to start this one and this one

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/52579-the-obama-era/page__pid__570934#entry570934

 

I am an independent but it seems that america needs to stick with something long enough for it to work. and I think that for any plan to change anything they must have some kind of plain.

not some kind of blanket statements like "small businesses are good"

or "tariffs are bad" or "we need more jobs" or "no more outsourcing"

Republicans use populist tactics, and are winning because of it.

It's not about who is the best... that doesn't matter for either side. What really matters is that Obama has been responding to the outrageous claims of the republicans. He lost the initiative.

Republicans determine what's on the headlines. They are on the offensive. As retarded as it may seem after 8 devastating years of Bush... they are winning the popular vote. Republicans twist the truth, and even spread lies... but they get away with it, because they have the initiative.

 

Simply put: it takes more time to refute a lie than to create a one. It also takes more time to create a good plan than a bad one.

 

It's all about initiative. Obama actually has to govern a country. That means that whatever he will do, the republicans will criticize him. And the republicans get to choose on which topic, and which level of detail they will attack him.

I wrote a post about it in another thread. (Link).

 

Couldn't the same be said for the left's criticism of Bush during his presidency? He actually had to govern a country as well. The democrats picked the arguments and the arguments were on their terms. I like your logic; I agree, I just think it works both ways.

Couldn't the same be said for the left's criticism of Bush during his presidency? He actually had to govern a country as well. The democrats picked the arguments and the arguments were on their terms. I like your logic; I agree, I just think it works both ways.

except bush wasn't governing a nation he was on vacation and partying on boats

with mission accomplished banners

except bush wasn't governing a nation he was on vacation and partying on boats

with mission accomplished banners

 

Citicism of presidential leisure time, is usually paritsan at best:

 

politics.usnews.com

 

Your and my own opinions of Bush or Obama are irrelevant to the post I made above (though the mission accompliched banner was funny and very "Bushish"). I was highlighting and expanding on what Captain Panic said about the party in power not having as much time or manpower as the minority party to fight PR campaigns.

Citicism of presidential leisure time, is usually paritsan at best:

 

politics.usnews.com

 

Your and my own opinions of Bush or Obama are irrelevant to the post I made above (though the mission accompliched banner was funny and very "Bushish"). I was highlighting and expanding on what Captain Panic said about the party in power not having as much time or manpower as the minority party to fight PR campaigns.

and i was just pointing out that the party in power has all the time in the world if they're not doing their jobs!

Couldn't the same be said for the left's criticism of Bush during his presidency? He actually had to govern a country as well. The democrats picked the arguments and the arguments were on their terms. I like your logic; I agree, I just think it works both ways.

Of course it works both ways.

 

I just have the strong feeling that the right wing (in the USA, but also in other countries) are much (much!) better at exaggerating, playing on emotions, obscuring important facts. Basically, I believe that the right is better at manipulating... and therefore is more populist than the other.

 

But you have a good point.

I just have the strong feeling that the right wing (in the USA, but also in other countries) are much (much!) better at exaggerating, playing on emotions, obscuring important facts.

 

No, they both do it. Selling fear is a standard tactic in politics on both sides. what I find fascinating is that those on the left often don't recognise fear mongering by their side for what it is.

Of course it works both ways.

 

I just have the strong feeling that the right wing (in the USA, but also in other countries) are much (much!) better at exaggerating, playing on emotions, obscuring important facts. Basically, I believe that the right is better at manipulating... and therefore is more populist than the other.

 

But you have a good point.

 

I think the right here in the states is good at pushing their agenda/fear/camaigns , because their base is more of a homogeneous group. The left is a menagerie of environmentalists, welathy philanthropists, working class moderates, a well as being diverse with respect to race, ethnicity and country of origin. The right, from my observation (I have no stats for this, feel free to confirm or deny) tends to be white, middle, upper-middle, or upper class, mostly protestant christian, and American born for generations back. This is a much easier base to play to as they all seem to want lower taxes, legislated family values, less government, and the typical christian ammenities in the public sector.

Of course not all the right fits this mold, including myself (athiest, young, broke, chemistry student) but folks like me are ostersized from the mainstream right anyway.

All that to say that the left here in the states represents a wide cone of liberalism. For example, my grandfather is a hard nosed democrat; but no like Barack Obama or some of the younger "far-left" (*American far left, different from Euro-far left) leaners. He is an advocate for the unions, supports public sector job creation and the like. However, he is quite jaded with the current state of the Democratic party. On the other hand, many of my younger left-leaning friends at school, around the country, and abroad represent a totally different ideology than my grandfather.

Its much easier for a Republican candidate/politician/pundit to energize the mob because their are so many "hot-button" issues that cause immediate and powerful political activation of the party.

One could say there is a lower activation energy to organize conservatives than to organize liberals.

 

-I would like if some of our European posters would comment on whether or not there is an analogous situation across the pond.

No, they both do it. Selling fear is a standard tactic in politics on both sides. what I find fascinating is that those on the left often don't recognise fear mongering by their side for what it is.

at least you don't see as many lefts think that video clips of them hunting and fishing will make them more human and therefore make them more likely to win( i have never seen this from a left)

but right rally to anyone who can shoot Moose

and the right are far beater at it. and like to say things like "well i don't know how it works in your world but in my world and the voters world it works like...(insert rubbish here)

at least you don't see as many lefts think that video clips of them hunting and fishing will make them more human and therefore make them more likely to win( i have never seen this from a left)

but right rally to anyone who can shoot Moose

and the right are far beater at it. and like to say things like "well i don't know how it works in your world but in my world and the voters world it works like...(insert rubbish here)

 

 

Yes but does anyone shoot a moose, clean it, cook it, and look hot doing it. LOL

 

BTW, how about people who vote split ticket?

Edited November 3, 201015 yr by Moontanman

Yes but does anyone shoot a moose, clean it, cook it, and look hot doing it. LOL

 

BTW, how about people who vote split ticket?

I always agreed with split ticketing and just voting for the best candidate(ie. being an independent) , but now i find the idea of casting a vote that would make the president incapable of doing his job appalling.

have the tables turned to the republicans?

and is it Obama's fault?

 

If the tables have turned it's because the country is suffering from battered wife syndrome.

 

And all I can say about people who voted yes on "has Obama done to the democrats what Bush did to the republicans?" is what the fuck is wrong with you? Seriously. All these things conservatives whine about incessantly now like massive spending and high deficits were created by extremely bad decisions made by the Bush Administration and Republicans. Equating Obama to Bush is both myopic and wrong. Mark my words, Bush will go down as one of the worst presidents in American history. Obama I feel is doing a fairly good job so far and has the potential of 6 more years to change this country for the better.

Edited November 3, 201015 yr by bascule

and what about now?

The basic design of the United States is to be a profoundly capitalist country. Since the Republicans are the party which is always pushing for a more extreme form of capitalism, obviously their ideas will always seem more 'natural' and 'commonsensical' since they simply advance the capitalist order which people have to adjust to in their everyday lives.

 

The Democrats, however, since they seek to moderate capitalism's effects, have to defend a position which the public will find counter-intuitive in terms of the ultra-capitalist world it has to study, adjust to, and accept in its everyday life.

 

Since the Republicans' policy always amounts to making the richest 5% of the population richer at the expense of the other 95% of the population, they would lose every election by a landslide if the electorate were truly informed. That is why the Republicans are always struggling to ensure that the election campaigns will turn on the most idiotic issues possible, because only if the actual conflict between the parties is disguised will it be possible for them to win. Thus we have George Bush I kicking off his campaign by going to a flag factory and getting the Massachusetts police association to endorse him, or the Republicans trying to make campaigns all about which candidate is sleeping with the wrong person rather that what the economic impact of the policies beyind the platforms will be.

 

What allows the Republicans to get away with this is that the American public is really stupid. When I was 28 and emigrated from America to Europe, I was astonished at how sophisticated the newspaper editorials and political discussions were there compared to what I had gotten used to in America. That is probably also why America is so much more right-wing than Europe.