9 ms·

Obama's lost army

51 points by gukov 10y ago

rdtsc 10y ago
> The grassroots discontent that Obama had harnessed so skillfully in 2008 would soon belong to the right. It could have belonged to the left as well. Has anyone seen Sanders' rallies, the enthusiasm and energy there? A relatively unknown, old, white male somehow got college kids, minorities and many other groups to follow him. People like to say that the primaries weren't rigged and he lost fair and square. Ok, maybe. The problem is how close he was to winning. He got so close despite a media blackout, despite the DNC being against him, despite POTUS rooting for Hillary, despite Saudi Arabian and Wall Street money. DNC should have really stopped and paid attention to what had happened. At the very least, Hillary should have quickly moved to embrace those supporters. Maybe make Sanders Vice-President, issue apologies for all the back-dealing and talking against him, adopt his policies and so on. (Well and not go and setup private email servers years before, but that's another story).
- jordanb 10y ago
  Amy Goodman pointed out that the cable news channels broadcast more minutes of empty podium before Trump's speeches than they showed of Bernie's speeches total. Bernie started out with virtually no name recognition, no money, no organization, no establishment support, a nearly complete media blackout on his campaign and went on to win 22 states and receive more votes than Trump received in the primary, against the most well-funded presidential campaign in history. It should be blindingly obvious to everyone that something real was happening there and the Democrats just threw it all away because it was "Hillary's turn" and besides, the election's in the bag, innit it?
  - khc 10y ago
    That's ignoring the wishes of millions of people who wanted Hillary to win because they think she's more qualified.
  - yongjik 10y ago
    I dunno. If things turned out the other way, I think there's a non-negligible chance we'd have Trump anyway, and Democrats might be wondering how naive they could have been to think America would elect a self-proclaimed socialist as their president.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > It should be blindingly obvious to everyone that something real was happening there and the Democrats just threw it all away because it was "Hillary's turn" and besides, the election's in the bag, innit it? Look, I am a Bernie supporter, but, no, Democratic primary voters, for the most part, chose Clinton because of a combination of preference for her policy positions and trust for her to execute and, frankly, expectation that she'd end up being the stronger general election candidate (yes, polls showed Sanders polling better against Trump so that he had a better starting position, but it's not like one couldn't honestly believe that his negatives would gonip faster on a general election campaign), not because it was "her turn".
keeptrying 10y ago
I naievly assumed that Clinton would use this because it had been so effective For Obama. Anyhoo ...
verst 10y ago
A lot of us former (and some current) federal government employees working in various technology aspects under POTUS 44 (Obama) are continuing to work in various ways to bring meaningful change to the people (across private and public sectors). We call ourselves Digital44. Disclaimer: I'm not speaking on behalf of the group or its agenda.
- tubehouse 10y ago
  I'm curious, what is the agenda of this group? Bringing meaningful change is rather vague
  - verst 10y ago
    Honestly, I can't represent it well. Let's just say that we are all good human beings committed to making things better for all of us. Very politically active individuals with deep government experience and connections.
    - memset 10y ago
      Hello! I (as a non-politically-connected technologist) have been bouncing around ideas for how to become more active. Would you be amenable to my sending a note asking for advice?
    - jgord 10y ago
      How the hell do we get the money out of politics and the democracy back in ? The DNC also seems almost in a stalemate due to this cancer - under the survival pressure they evolved into a fundraising outfit beholden to big money, and they have not rallied at all post election defeat. They don't seem to understand they can represent Dems and get funded in $27 increments... and win over large swathes of young supporters if they just change their mindset. I think at this point the only hope to replace the old-timers with less-infected newcomers but that will take us to 2018, when we need a strong and vibrant and well organised opposition, urgently.
      - 10y ago
nickgrosvenor 10y ago
Funny how much people over think a lot of this stuff. Most of it fails the test of Occam's razor. Which is that it's almost impossible to elect a same-party candidate after an 8 year presidential term.
- lend000 10y ago
  > Which is that it's almost impossible to elect a same-party candidate after an 8 year presidential term. Evidence? That's a bold claim, and not true at all if you look at the length of time political parties have continuously held the White house. There's plenty of examples to the contrary, and nothing statistically significant about the number of 8 year terms followed by a different party that would indicate "impossibility": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_power_in_the_United_States_over_time#Full_Congress_and_White_House_Control_by_Party_Past_100_Years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_power_in_the_United_... However, a plausible explanation for why there is a bit lower chance (roughly 1/3) of re-electing your party after 8 years is that roughly 2/3rds of our two term presidents have failed to deliver on promises (or failed in other ways) to the American people, and Obama happens to fit that explanation very well.
  - Aloha 10y ago
    I think the only fair comparison however is from Theodore Roosevelt on (the modern era).. in which that kind of change over is very very rare.
  - aaron-lebo 10y ago
    It's not that controversial. Since the 1920s we've had one president (HW Bush) who fits the bill under normal circumstances. The following were all oddities: * Nixon -> Ford * JFK -> Johnson * FDR -> Truman It doesn't have to be statistically significant to be a pattern. In fact, one of the few presidents to have a proper "successor" was Roosevelt with Taft and that didn't turn out so well...
    - Aloha 10y ago
      I don't understand why this is being downvoted - its all true. Reagan to GW Bush was the anomaly really. Even with Obamas popularity its not surprising there was a party changeover - unfortunately the candidate from the other side was trump.
Jerry2 10y ago
Obama's "Hope and Change" slogan was all smoke and mirrors and was pretty much meaningless because he never fully explained what those meant to him. In an absence of a concrete definition, people just assumed that 'change' was whatever their pet cause was and Obama's team never corrected anyone. It was truly a stroke of genius. Unfortunately, he had no chance of making any meaningful change when Wall Street picked his whole cabinet for him [0]. It was just impossible to make changes that the society wanted because he was owned by the people who didn't want any change. [0] https://newrepublic.com/article/137798/important-wikileaks-revelation-isnt-hillary-clinton https://newrepublic.com/article/137798/important-wikileaks-r...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- Aloha 10y ago
  Arguably just like "Make America Great Again" Slogans without specifics are just that, slogans.
- jordanb 10y ago
  Obama had a lot of specifics during his campaign in 2008 and I think he really believed in some of them. And he accomplished some of them. For instance, he did pass a heavily watered down healthcare law, and a heavily watered down financial regulation law. He also implemented a way-too-small stimulus. He did promise to renegotiate NAFTA though, walked it back almost immediately and then gave us the TPP instead. During his first overseas trip to London he was asked if the Washington Consensus was dead. He dodged the question. I think he was fundamentally a reactionary in the areas that really matter, and in the areas where people really want hope and change. He appointed Timothy Geithner and Eric Holder and they made sure nobody on Wall Street was ever held accountable. At one point he told Wall Street executives that he was the only thing between them and the pitchforks. Well he's gone now, planning to follow Bill Clinton onto the lecture circuit no doubt. And the pitchforks have gotten sharper than ever because fundamentally, where it really counts, nothing has gotten better since 2008.
  - rtpg 10y ago
angry-hacker 10y ago
For hackers and technology minded people, he has to be the worst president of all times. Of course technology as we know is still young so I'm sure there will be worse, but how much worse can it get if you think it's ok to wiretap the whole world? If there was even half of outcry and protest compared to Trump.
altern8tif 10y ago
What's stopping this from happening again? Why can't a non-partisan Movement 2.0 (or 3.0) be started now that can spur greater grassroot involvement in the political process? Sure, we're seeing elements of it in the Women's March and other recent protests being organised on Facebook, but it would be better if the people could debate about issues and organise themselves locally to effect change that they want to see. Top-down politics has got us to where we are now. As Obama said, politics needs to move in the direction of being more bottom-up.
portpecos 10y ago
>Only those who aren't paying attention can seriously claim nothing has gotten better wrt Wall Street regulation. And yet somehow these improved regulations did nothing when 95% of income gained fell right back into the hands of the top 1% of earners. Under Obama's watch.
- knowaveragejoe 10y ago
  I don't think that is the point of Wall Street regulation.

51 points by gukov 10y ago

rdtsc 10y ago

> The grassroots discontent that Obama had harnessed so skillfully in 2008 would soon belong to the right. It could have belonged to the left as well. Has anyone seen Sanders' rallies, the enthusiasm and energy there? A relatively unknown, old, white male somehow got college kids, minorities and many other groups to follow him. People like to say that the primaries weren't rigged and he lost fair and square. Ok, maybe. The problem is how close he was to winning. He got so close despite a media blackout, despite the DNC being against him, despite POTUS rooting for Hillary, despite Saudi Arabian and Wall Street money. DNC should have really stopped and paid attention to what had happened. At the very least, Hillary should have quickly moved to embrace those supporters. Maybe make Sanders Vice-President, issue apologies for all the back-dealing and talking against him, adopt his policies and so on. (Well and not go and setup private email servers years before, but that's another story).

jordanb 10y ago
Amy Goodman pointed out that the cable news channels broadcast more minutes of empty podium before Trump's speeches than they showed of Bernie's speeches total. Bernie started out with virtually no name recognition, no money, no organization, no establishment support, a nearly complete media blackout on his campaign and went on to win 22 states and receive more votes than Trump received in the primary, against the most well-funded presidential campaign in history. It should be blindingly obvious to everyone that something real was happening there and the Democrats just threw it all away because it was "Hillary's turn" and besides, the election's in the bag, innit it?
- khc 10y ago
  That's ignoring the wishes of millions of people who wanted Hillary to win because they think she's more qualified.
- yongjik 10y ago
  I dunno. If things turned out the other way, I think there's a non-negligible chance we'd have Trump anyway, and Democrats might be wondering how naive they could have been to think America would elect a self-proclaimed socialist as their president.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > It should be blindingly obvious to everyone that something real was happening there and the Democrats just threw it all away because it was "Hillary's turn" and besides, the election's in the bag, innit it? Look, I am a Bernie supporter, but, no, Democratic primary voters, for the most part, chose Clinton because of a combination of preference for her policy positions and trust for her to execute and, frankly, expectation that she'd end up being the stronger general election candidate (yes, polls showed Sanders polling better against Trump so that he had a better starting position, but it's not like one couldn't honestly believe that his negatives would gonip faster on a general election campaign), not because it was "her turn".

keeptrying 10y ago

I naievly assumed that Clinton would use this because it had been so effective For Obama. Anyhoo ...

verst 10y ago

A lot of us former (and some current) federal government employees working in various technology aspects under POTUS 44 (Obama) are continuing to work in various ways to bring meaningful change to the people (across private and public sectors). We call ourselves Digital44. Disclaimer: I'm not speaking on behalf of the group or its agenda.

tubehouse 10y ago
I'm curious, what is the agenda of this group? Bringing meaningful change is rather vague
- verst 10y ago
  Honestly, I can't represent it well. Let's just say that we are all good human beings committed to making things better for all of us. Very politically active individuals with deep government experience and connections.
  - memset 10y ago
    Hello! I (as a non-politically-connected technologist) have been bouncing around ideas for how to become more active. Would you be amenable to my sending a note asking for advice?
  - jgord 10y ago
    How the hell do we get the money out of politics and the democracy back in ? The DNC also seems almost in a stalemate due to this cancer - under the survival pressure they evolved into a fundraising outfit beholden to big money, and they have not rallied at all post election defeat. They don't seem to understand they can represent Dems and get funded in $27 increments... and win over large swathes of young supporters if they just change their mindset. I think at this point the only hope to replace the old-timers with less-infected newcomers but that will take us to 2018, when we need a strong and vibrant and well organised opposition, urgently.
    - 10y ago

nickgrosvenor 10y ago

Funny how much people over think a lot of this stuff. Most of it fails the test of Occam's razor. Which is that it's almost impossible to elect a same-party candidate after an 8 year presidential term.

lend000 10y ago
> Which is that it's almost impossible to elect a same-party candidate after an 8 year presidential term. Evidence? That's a bold claim, and not true at all if you look at the length of time political parties have continuously held the White house. There's plenty of examples to the contrary, and nothing statistically significant about the number of 8 year terms followed by a different party that would indicate "impossibility": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_power_in_the_United_States_over_time#Full_Congress_and_White_House_Control_by_Party_Past_100_Years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_power_in_the_United_... However, a plausible explanation for why there is a bit lower chance (roughly 1/3) of re-electing your party after 8 years is that roughly 2/3rds of our two term presidents have failed to deliver on promises (or failed in other ways) to the American people, and Obama happens to fit that explanation very well.
- Aloha 10y ago
  I think the only fair comparison however is from Theodore Roosevelt on (the modern era).. in which that kind of change over is very very rare.
- aaron-lebo 10y ago
  It's not that controversial. Since the 1920s we've had one president (HW Bush) who fits the bill under normal circumstances. The following were all oddities: * Nixon -> Ford * JFK -> Johnson * FDR -> Truman It doesn't have to be statistically significant to be a pattern. In fact, one of the few presidents to have a proper "successor" was Roosevelt with Taft and that didn't turn out so well...
  - Aloha 10y ago
    I don't understand why this is being downvoted - its all true. Reagan to GW Bush was the anomaly really. Even with Obamas popularity its not surprising there was a party changeover - unfortunately the candidate from the other side was trump.

Jerry2 10y ago

Obama's "Hope and Change" slogan was all smoke and mirrors and was pretty much meaningless because he never fully explained what those meant to him. In an absence of a concrete definition, people just assumed that 'change' was whatever their pet cause was and Obama's team never corrected anyone. It was truly a stroke of genius. Unfortunately, he had no chance of making any meaningful change when Wall Street picked his whole cabinet for him [0]. It was just impossible to make changes that the society wanted because he was owned by the people who didn't want any change. [0] https://newrepublic.com/article/137798/important-wikileaks-revelation-isnt-hillary-clinton https://newrepublic.com/article/137798/important-wikileaks-r...

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Aloha 10y ago
Arguably just like "Make America Great Again" Slogans without specifics are just that, slogans.
jordanb 10y ago
Obama had a lot of specifics during his campaign in 2008 and I think he really believed in some of them. And he accomplished some of them. For instance, he did pass a heavily watered down healthcare law, and a heavily watered down financial regulation law. He also implemented a way-too-small stimulus. He did promise to renegotiate NAFTA though, walked it back almost immediately and then gave us the TPP instead. During his first overseas trip to London he was asked if the Washington Consensus was dead. He dodged the question. I think he was fundamentally a reactionary in the areas that really matter, and in the areas where people really want hope and change. He appointed Timothy Geithner and Eric Holder and they made sure nobody on Wall Street was ever held accountable. At one point he told Wall Street executives that he was the only thing between them and the pitchforks. Well he's gone now, planning to follow Bill Clinton onto the lecture circuit no doubt. And the pitchforks have gotten sharper than ever because fundamentally, where it really counts, nothing has gotten better since 2008.
- rtpg 10y ago

angry-hacker 10y ago

For hackers and technology minded people, he has to be the worst president of all times. Of course technology as we know is still young so I'm sure there will be worse, but how much worse can it get if you think it's ok to wiretap the whole world? If there was even half of outcry and protest compared to Trump.

altern8tif 10y ago

What's stopping this from happening again? Why can't a non-partisan Movement 2.0 (or 3.0) be started now that can spur greater grassroot involvement in the political process? Sure, we're seeing elements of it in the Women's March and other recent protests being organised on Facebook, but it would be better if the people could debate about issues and organise themselves locally to effect change that they want to see. Top-down politics has got us to where we are now. As Obama said, politics needs to move in the direction of being more bottom-up.

portpecos 10y ago

>Only those who aren't paying attention can seriously claim nothing has gotten better wrt Wall Street regulation. And yet somehow these improved regulations did nothing when 95% of income gained fell right back into the hands of the top 1% of earners. Under Obama's watch.

knowaveragejoe 10y ago
I don't think that is the point of Wall Street regulation.