Keith Ellison blasts Obama for party losses
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:29:16 AM
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)
  Keith Ellison blasts Obama for party losses
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Keith Ellison blasts Obama for party losses  (Read 2459 times)
Shadows
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,956
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 23, 2017, 10:56:02 PM »

The Minnesota Democrat said that Obama “could have been a better party leader” at an event at the University of Minnesota on Wednesday.  “The fact that he wasn’t has put his legacy in jeopardy,” Ellison said. “But given we lost a lot of statehouse seats, governorships, secretary of states, his true legacy is in danger, and I think he can’t say that he wasn’t part of those losses. I mean, who else?”

“He should have been far more out there in 2010, which was a year when we were going to be doing redistricting. He should’ve been campaigning like he was on the ballot and should have been very visible,” Ellison said.“He’s great at getting himself elected but should’ve worked much more closely with Congress, and I think in 2014 we had record low voter turnout … and I think that too really was a time when he needed to be visible and present and very engaged … he needed to raise money for state legislative races.”

Source - http://www.cbsnews.com/news/dnc-deputy-chair-says-obama-partly-to-blame-for-trump-victory-democratic-losses/
Logged
Maxwell
mah519
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,459
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: April 23, 2017, 11:01:34 PM »

I mean probably not the right thing to say on the unity tour, but I'm coming around to the idea that Obama's Presidency really set a pathway for Donald Trump to rise.
Logged
Illiniwek
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,865
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: April 23, 2017, 11:07:18 PM »

Obama fell short on his end, but he can't be the Democrats scapegoat. The party is weak at every single level of government in every part of the country. The blame should rest evenly at all levels of leadership.
Logged
Chief Justice Keef
etr906
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,100
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: April 23, 2017, 11:10:27 PM »

I mean probably not the right thing to say on the unity tour, but I'm coming around to the idea that Obama's Presidency really set a pathway for Donald Trump to rise.

The unity tour has become more or less a lineup of Sanders rallies, so I don't think it matters.
Logged
Shadows
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,956
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: April 23, 2017, 11:18:13 PM »

I mean probably not the right thing to say on the unity tour, but I'm coming around to the idea that Obama's Presidency really set a pathway for Donald Trump to rise.

The unity tour has become more or less a lineup of Sanders rallies, so I don't think it matters.

Given that 6000 people came to Arizona or 2000 to Utah & so on & no1 in the Democratic party can draw sh*t, Kaine used to draw 10-20 people & Tom Perez probably even less ! So they need Sanders' to do rallies.

Obama has to take a fair share blame for the losses ! Kaine, DWS as party leaders? He was a lifelong & gave his list in 2015 & OFA was a bit drag on the DNC ?
Logged
Hindsight was 2020
Hindsight is 2020
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,198
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: April 23, 2017, 11:29:56 PM »

Of course it's pretty much a Bernie tour what average Joe gives a sh*t about some party chairman? The point is so Tom can get up there are spit fire too in order to fire up for 2018
Logged
Citizen (The) Doctor
ArchangelZero
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,391
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: April 23, 2017, 11:31:48 PM »

He's not wrong, but again, that's not who Obama was as a person. The Democrats should have nominated someone else if they wanted a more involved party leader.
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,174
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: April 23, 2017, 11:46:39 PM »

He's right.

Obama fell short on his end, but he can't be the Democrats scapegoat. The party is weak at every single level of government in every part of the country. The blame should rest evenly at all levels of leadership.

Did the party just decide to do something completely different after 2008 from years prior?  The more one thinks about how much the Democratic Party has lost since 2009, the more depressing it is, really.  Never thought I'd live to see the Democrats fall harder than the Republicans with Bush, honestly.  What an incredible flop on the part of party leadership.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,802


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: April 23, 2017, 11:51:02 PM »

To be fair, given the economic meltdown in 2008-10, a lot of that was baked in and had nothing to do with party leadership. Look at what happened in 1874, 1894, 1930, 1958, 1974, and 1982. It didn't matter that Cleveland blamed the Panic of '93 on the Republicans passing the Sherman Silver Purchase Act, or that the Democrats rejected the Bourbons in 1896.
Logged
Maxwell
mah519
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,459
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: April 23, 2017, 11:52:34 PM »

The problems of the Democratic Party go way beyond the last 8 years - The Democrats still haven't recovered from RONALD REAGAN winning in 1980, getting his policies through a Democrat congress, and then winning re-election in 1984. It's amazing to see a party this long in stagnation whether its electoral (2007 to 2011 is looking more and more like an anomaly everyday) or its ideological (Clinton largely ceded most of the political ground to the right, while Obama pushed for some things but after the public lashed back in 2010 largely stood backwards).

Logged
Sumner 1868
tara gilesbie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,053
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: April 23, 2017, 11:57:00 PM »

These losses are more a reflection on the way Obama governed the nation than anything involving the DNC. Good luck trying to get anyone in the DNC into admitting that for at least twenty more years.

The problems of the Democratic Party go way beyond the last 8 years - The Democrats still haven't recovered from RONALD REAGAN winning in 1980, getting his policies through a Democrat congress, and then winning re-election in 1984.

Well, the Democratic Party already had deep structural problems long before that even that were masked by the Dixiecrat strongholds.
Logged
Maxwell
mah519
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,459
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: April 23, 2017, 11:58:51 PM »

to the GOP's credit, they adapted very quickly as a party to the changing horizons.
Logged
Hindsight was 2020
Hindsight is 2020
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,198
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: April 24, 2017, 12:04:01 AM »

Though on the bright side for the dems at least they have the better long game cause once Milenials are the majority the reps cultural/structural stranglehold is likely done. I don't care what people say about becoming more RW with age their is no way the generation that has grown up under Bush an now Trump are going to like the Republican Party
Logged
Yank2133
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,387


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: April 24, 2017, 12:04:27 AM »
« Edited: April 24, 2017, 12:06:04 AM by Yank2133 »

This is revisionist history.

Democrats didn't want anything to do with Obama in 2010 and 2014 and ran away from his record and didn't want him to campaign for them. Obama should take hits for keeping DWS, but D's need to own up to their own ineptitude down the ballot.
Logged
Sumner 1868
tara gilesbie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,053
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: April 24, 2017, 12:07:39 AM »

Though on the bright side for the dems at least they have the better long game cause once Milenials are the majority the reps cultural/structural stranglehold is likely done. I don't care what people say about becoming more RW with age their is no way the generation that has grown up under Bush an now Trump are going to like the Republican Party

This is the same thing some McGovernites predicted in the 1970s because of the hippie generation.
Logged
Chinggis
Rookie
**
Posts: 178


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: April 24, 2017, 12:13:28 AM »

To be fair, given the economic meltdown in 2008-10, a lot of that was baked in and had nothing to do with party leadership. Look at what happened in 1874, 1894, 1930, 1958, 1974, and 1982. It didn't matter that Cleveland blamed the Panic of '93 on the Republicans passing the Sherman Silver Purchase Act, or that the Democrats rejected the Bourbons in 1896.

It had everything to do with Obama putting Goldman Sachs in charge of the nation's finances at a time when the public was screaming for the blood of the bankers (and most of us still are). Instead of punishing Wall Street greed, he rewarded it! It was a historic fumble at a moment when the American people were demanding actual change. Imagine if Franklin Delano Roosevelt had put Henry Ford in charge of the nation's economy. What a disaster.
Logged
Hindsight was 2020
Hindsight is 2020
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,198
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: April 24, 2017, 12:18:08 AM »

Though on the bright side for the dems at least they have the better long game cause once Milenials are the majority the reps cultural/structural stranglehold is likely done. I don't care what people say about becoming more RW with age their is no way the generation that has grown up under Bush an now Trump are going to like the Republican Party

This is the same thing some McGovernites predicted in the 1970s because of the hippie generation.
Major difference is "hippies" hated Nixon solely for cultural/social reasons but Milenials have economic reasons to hate Bush an likely Trump as well as that is a big difference cause the party that f**ks with your wallet you really hold a grudge aganist (see Jimmy Carter)
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: April 24, 2017, 12:18:26 AM »

Obama fell short on his end, but he can't be the Democrats scapegoat. The party is weak at every single level of government in every part of the country. The blame should rest evenly at all levels of leadership.

Tim Kaine and DWS didn't do much to help in the downticket races, which was a huge mistake since the Republicans were able to turn their huge gains circa 2010 into gerrymandered House seats.
Logged
Yank2133
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,387


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: April 24, 2017, 12:21:46 AM »

To be fair, given the economic meltdown in 2008-10, a lot of that was baked in and had nothing to do with party leadership. Look at what happened in 1874, 1894, 1930, 1958, 1974, and 1982. It didn't matter that Cleveland blamed the Panic of '93 on the Republicans passing the Sherman Silver Purchase Act, or that the Democrats rejected the Bourbons in 1896.

It had everything to do with Obama putting Goldman Sachs in charge of the nation's finances at a time when the public was screaming for the blood of the bankers (and most of us still are). Instead of punishing Wall Street greed, he rewarded it! It was a historic fumble at a moment when the American people were demanding actual change. Imagine if Franklin Delano Roosevelt had put Henry Ford in charge of the nation's economy. What a disaster.

This is bullsh**t lefty talk.

The issue in 2010 was the backlash to the ACA. In 2014, it was a combination of Obama fatigue (year six of his presidency) and issues like the "if you like your plan you can keep it", NSA leak, the ACA website problems, Syria etc.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: April 24, 2017, 12:24:26 AM »

To be fair, given the economic meltdown in 2008-10, a lot of that was baked in and had nothing to do with party leadership. Look at what happened in 1874, 1894, 1930, 1958, 1974, and 1982. It didn't matter that Cleveland blamed the Panic of '93 on the Republicans passing the Sherman Silver Purchase Act, or that the Democrats rejected the Bourbons in 1896.

It had everything to do with Obama putting Goldman Sachs in charge of the nation's finances at a time when the public was screaming for the blood of the bankers (and most of us still are). Instead of punishing Wall Street greed, he rewarded it! It was a historic fumble at a moment when the American people were demanding actual change. Imagine if Franklin Delano Roosevelt had put Henry Ford in charge of the nation's economy. What a disaster.

This is bullsh**t lefty talk.

The issue in 2010 was the backlash to the ACA. In 2014, it was a combination of Obama fatigue (year six of his presidency) and issues like the "if you like your plan you can keep it", NSA leak, the ACA website problems, Syria etc.

People are sick of Obama, who let those who crashed the world economy like former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin off the hook. And Cory Booker who said that Obama was too mean to Bain and Kamala Harris who let Trump's Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin off the hook are not the answer.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,348


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: April 24, 2017, 12:27:44 AM »

The problems of the Democratic Party go way beyond the last 8 years - The Democrats still haven't recovered from RONALD REAGAN winning in 1980, getting his policies through a Democrat congress, and then winning re-election in 1984. It's amazing to see a party this long in stagnation whether its electoral (2007 to 2011 is looking more and more like an anomaly everyday) or its ideological (Clinton largely ceded most of the political ground to the right, while Obama pushed for some things but after the public lashed back in 2010 largely stood backwards).




Yup before Reagan the Dems used to have 270 -280 seats in the house and by the end of the decade he reduced that to Dems being in the 250s.


That reduced their majority enough that another wave election would wipe the dems out and thats exactly what happened in 1994.
Logged
Yank2133
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,387


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: April 24, 2017, 12:36:10 AM »

To be fair, given the economic meltdown in 2008-10, a lot of that was baked in and had nothing to do with party leadership. Look at what happened in 1874, 1894, 1930, 1958, 1974, and 1982. It didn't matter that Cleveland blamed the Panic of '93 on the Republicans passing the Sherman Silver Purchase Act, or that the Democrats rejected the Bourbons in 1896.

It had everything to do with Obama putting Goldman Sachs in charge of the nation's finances at a time when the public was screaming for the blood of the bankers (and most of us still are). Instead of punishing Wall Street greed, he rewarded it! It was a historic fumble at a moment when the American people were demanding actual change. Imagine if Franklin Delano Roosevelt had put Henry Ford in charge of the nation's economy. What a disaster.

This is bullsh**t lefty talk.

The issue in 2010 was the backlash to the ACA. In 2014, it was a combination of Obama fatigue (year six of his presidency) and issues like the "if you like your plan you can keep it", NSA leak, the ACA website problems, Syria etc.

People are sick of Obama, who let those who crashed the world economy like former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin off the hook. And Cory Booker who said that Obama was too mean to Bain and Kamala Harris who let Trump's Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin off the hook are not the answer.

Obama left office with high approval ratings and favorability and would have won a third term fairly easily if he was eligible.

Seriously, some of you on the left need to realize that the general public does not give a sh**t about Wall-Street, Goldman Sachs, bankers etc. They never have and never will and you will go no where if you think it is some "winning" message.
Logged
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,072
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: April 24, 2017, 12:43:53 AM »

To be fair, given the economic meltdown in 2008-10, a lot of that was baked in and had nothing to do with party leadership. Look at what happened in 1874, 1894, 1930, 1958, 1974, and 1982. It didn't matter that Cleveland blamed the Panic of '93 on the Republicans passing the Sherman Silver Purchase Act, or that the Democrats rejected the Bourbons in 1896.

It had everything to do with Obama putting Goldman Sachs in charge of the nation's finances at a time when the public was screaming for the blood of the bankers (and most of us still are). Instead of punishing Wall Street greed, he rewarded it! It was a historic fumble at a moment when the American people were demanding actual change. Imagine if Franklin Delano Roosevelt had put Henry Ford in charge of the nation's economy. What a disaster.

This is bullsh**t lefty talk.

The issue in 2010 was the backlash to the ACA. In 2014, it was a combination of Obama fatigue (year six of his presidency) and issues like the "if you like your plan you can keep it", NSA leak, the ACA website problems, Syria etc.

People are sick of Obama, who let those who crashed the world economy like former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin off the hook. And Cory Booker who said that Obama was too mean to Bain and Kamala Harris who let Trump's Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin off the hook are not the answer.

Obama left office with high approval ratings and favorability and would have won a third term fairly easily if he was eligible.

Seriously, some of you on the left need to realize that the general public does not give a sh**t about Wall-Street, Goldman Sachs, bankers etc. They never have and never will and you will go no where if you think it is some "winning" message.

Being in the '50's isn't "high approval ratings", and most of that came from a receiving a break from coverage. He was blatantly in the 40's all the way from the Shutdown until the cycle began.

If he were going for Part III, he might very well have lost as well because of this, and by worse since the platform wouldn't be forced far enough left to satiate the base.
Logged
Shadows
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,956
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: April 24, 2017, 12:47:51 AM »

To be fair, given the economic meltdown in 2008-10, a lot of that was baked in and had nothing to do with party leadership. Look at what happened in 1874, 1894, 1930, 1958, 1974, and 1982. It didn't matter that Cleveland blamed the Panic of '93 on the Republicans passing the Sherman Silver Purchase Act, or that the Democrats rejected the Bourbons in 1896.

It had everything to do with Obama putting Goldman Sachs in charge of the nation's finances at a time when the public was screaming for the blood of the bankers (and most of us still are). Instead of punishing Wall Street greed, he rewarded it! It was a historic fumble at a moment when the American people were demanding actual change. Imagine if Franklin Delano Roosevelt had put Henry Ford in charge of the nation's economy. What a disaster.

This is bullsh**t lefty talk.

The issue in 2010 was the backlash to the ACA. In 2014, it was a combination of Obama fatigue (year six of his presidency) and issues like the "if you like your plan you can keep it", NSA leak, the ACA website problems, Syria etc.

People are sick of Obama, who let those who crashed the world economy like former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin off the hook. And Cory Booker who said that Obama was too mean to Bain and Kamala Harris who let Trump's Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin off the hook are not the answer.

Obama left office with high approval ratings and favorability and would have won a third term fairly easily if he was eligible.

Seriously, some of you on the left need to realize that the general public does not give a sh**t about Wall-Street, Goldman Sachs, bankers etc. They never have and never will and you will go no where if you think it is some "winning" message.

Pretty ridiculous post because Obama's ratings are at a historic mediocrity. http://www.gallup.com/poll/202742/obama-averages-job-approval-president.aspx

As a matter of fact he has the worst average approval ratings in the recent era. Freaking George Bush has better average approvals than him. Even Richard Nixon has, that is how horrible Obama's ratings are. Bill Clinton had much better ratings

You hold a fringe position & are totally out of touch. That is why Bernie Sanders is consistently the moved popular politician in USA !
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: April 24, 2017, 12:49:22 AM »
« Edited: April 24, 2017, 12:52:14 AM by Virginia »

Yup before Reagan the Dems used to have 270 -280 seats in the house and by the end of the decade he reduced that to Dems being in the 250s.

Democrats regularly held House majorities between 240 - 260 before Reagan. What you're probably referencing is those 6 years prior to Reagan where Democrats held inflated Watergate majorities. Look at the period between 1958 - 1974. The handful of times Democrats got above 270, it was due to large waves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses


What you are saying is true, but it was not a simple case of a crappy president. There are a lot of factors that contributed to this. Some of those he couldn't help.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
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 0.066 seconds with 12 queries.