Obama: Don't go too far left in 2020

[Green Line]

This is coming from the man who had a Senate supermajority and squandered it by letting Republicans decide what proposals he'd take, all in the name of that mythical bipartisanship. Nothing he says on "going too far left" is valid.

He had a super majority for, like, 8 months.

[Kingpoleon]

Advice from the man that threw away thousands of legislative seats, 15 Senate seats, managed to lose his share of the vote for re-election and ultimately couldn't get his horse across the finish line for a third term....curious...very curious.

What was he supposed to do? In 2010 and 2014, Democrats ran away from him.

[Hammy]

This is coming from the man who had a Senate supermajority and squandered it by letting Republicans decide what proposals he'd take, all in the name of that mythical bipartisanship. Nothing he says on "going too far left" is valid.

He had a super majority for, like, 8 months.

I can't even begin to wrap my brain around how almost a quarter of a term isn't enough to come up with a better plan than what was pushed through, considering it's not like he sat on his hands and passed nothing during that time--he actively went out of his way to pass legislation that appeased Republicans when it was wholly unnecessary.

[Grassroots]

Or more likely, Patrick.

Stop

[Mr. Smith]

Advice from the man that threw away thousands of legislative seats, 15 Senate seats, managed to lose his share of the vote for re-election and ultimately couldn't get his horse across the finish line for a third term....curious...very curious.

What was he supposed to do? In 2010 and 2014, Democrats ran away from him.

He could've made clear the negative consequences for such actions from the start [and who knows, perhaps that would've impressed upon Mitch/Boehner/Cantor not to try any funny business], and he could've stumped like nobody's business in the blue states...I mean besides Braley and Anthony Brown, whom else did he really go after?

[here2view]

He's 100% right.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

How crazy has the world gotten when Barack Obama, who was on the far left wing of the Democratic Party when he ran in 2008, is somehow the voice of reason in his party?

[Hammy]

How crazy has the world gotten when Barack Obama, who was on the far left wing of the Democratic Party when he ran in 2008, is somehow the voice of reason in his party?

All that shows is that his campaign was a fraud because he didn't govern like a leftist.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Advice from the man that threw away thousands of legislative seats, 15 Senate seats, managed to lose his share of the vote for re-election and ultimately couldn't get his horse across the finish line for a third term....curious...very curious.

What was he supposed to do? In 2010 and 2014, Democrats ran away from him.

The legislative seats Obama lost were due to 2000 and 2010 being Republican years in statehouses.  They were also part of the realignment of the Southern and Border States at the state and local levels.  Some of this was due to the cultural disconnect between the Obama Administration and these states, many of which are coal and oil producing.

Obama may have been a catalyst for this realignment, but it was already happening, and was going to keep on happening.  The Democrats managed to control both Houses of Congress (except for the 80th and 83rd Congresses) from 1930 until 1980, and control of the House through 1994, in addition to regaining the Senate in 1986.  What happened was (A) the Democrats ended the seniority system and demanded more conformity to the wishes of the majority of the Democratic Caucuses in the House and Senate in the selection of committee and subcommittee chairs, and (B) the increased media coverage of Congress enabled Americans to see that they were voting for either Republicans or Democrats that said they were moderates or conservatives, yet every year, liberal legislation kept passing through Congress.  1994 was a watershed about that; voters became acutely aware that conservative Democrats would, as needed, vote for liberal legislation to pass when needed, and they also began to learn that many conservative Democrats would vote to advance liberal legislation through committee, but vote against it on the floor vote once passage was secure.  1994 was a time when people began to understand that even conservative Democrats would vote to pass liberal legislation though committee, and this caused conservative voters to recognize that party labels really did matter.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

How crazy has the world gotten when Barack Obama, who was on the far left wing of the Democratic Party when he ran in 2008, is somehow the voice of reason in his party?

Obama was clearly not that far left in 2008, despite people like me making the mistake of voting for him in the primary anyways.

[junior chįmp]

Blah blah blah blah

The Moderate Middle Is A Myth

Blah blah blah blah

Ideology Isn't About Issues

Blah blah blah blah

Democrats Can Abandon the Center — Because the Center Doesn’t Exist

[Mr. Smith]

How crazy has the world gotten when Barack Obama, who was on the far left wing of the Democratic Party when he ran in 2008, is somehow the voice of reason in his party?

He wasn't. Not even close. He never occupied the space of Mike Gravel or Dennis Kucinich...or even John Edwards.

And actual record, even Hillary was further left.

[junior chįmp]

How crazy has the world gotten when Barack Obama, who was on the far left wing of the Democratic Party when he ran in 2008, is somehow the voice of reason in his party?

He wasn't. Not even close. He never occupied the space of Mike Gravel or Dennis Kucinich...or even John Edwards.

And actual record, even Hillary was further left.

No....Obama was the most leftist Democrat in history. The Conservative media complex said it repeatedly so therefore it must be true. And of course they said it not to make money and sell more books/grift rubes but because it was true. Actually, it was confirmed by a study from the Rush Limbaugh Institute for a drug free America that Obama was more leftist than Karl Marx

[GP270watch]

 Nobody really cares what Obama has to say at this point. I know the youth don't. This race in 2020 is not about him.

[Pericles]

Blah blah blah blah

The Moderate Middle Is A Myth

Blah blah blah blah

Ideology Isn't About Issues

Blah blah blah blah

Democrats Can Abandon the Center — Because the Center Doesn’t Exist

Thanks for the link. One point stuck out to me from the last article;

The strength of the populists’ case lies in a simple fact: Democrats have everything to gain by polarizing the electorate around issues of economics. In Drutman’s analysis, 73.5 percent of 2016 voters espoused broadly liberal views on economic policy. If people voted solely on the basis of their intuitions about how government should intervene in the economy (when interrogated about such matters by pollsters), Democrats would dominate all levels of government.

The pundits after all said Clinton lost due to lacking a strong 'economic message', so even they grasp this point slightly, but then arguing Warren and Bernie are 'too far to the left' and other nonsense on economics.

[junior chįmp]

Blah blah blah blah

The Moderate Middle Is A Myth

Blah blah blah blah

Ideology Isn't About Issues

Blah blah blah blah

Democrats Can Abandon the Center — Because the Center Doesn’t Exist

Thanks for the link. One point stuck out to me from the last article;

The strength of the populists’ case lies in a simple fact: Democrats have everything to gain by polarizing the electorate around issues of economics. In Drutman’s analysis, 73.5 percent of 2016 voters espoused broadly liberal views on economic policy. If people voted solely on the basis of their intuitions about how government should intervene in the economy (when interrogated about such matters by pollsters), Democrats would dominate all levels of government.

The pundits after all said Clinton lost due to lacking a strong 'economic message', so even they grasp this point slightly, but then arguing Warren and Bernie are 'too far to the left' and other nonsense on economics.

Americans have always been to the left policy wise. The problem is they dont vote like it because identity determines partisanship and your partisanship determines your facts/reality. A hick in Kentucky might thing single payer is a good idea but he's still not gonna vote Dem because he's a hick from Kentucky.

[Pericles]

Blah blah blah blah

The Moderate Middle Is A Myth

Blah blah blah blah

Ideology Isn't About Issues

Blah blah blah blah

Democrats Can Abandon the Center — Because the Center Doesn’t Exist

Thanks for the link. One point stuck out to me from the last article;

The strength of the populists’ case lies in a simple fact: Democrats have everything to gain by polarizing the electorate around issues of economics. In Drutman’s analysis, 73.5 percent of 2016 voters espoused broadly liberal views on economic policy. If people voted solely on the basis of their intuitions about how government should intervene in the economy (when interrogated about such matters by pollsters), Democrats would dominate all levels of government.

The pundits after all said Clinton lost due to lacking a strong 'economic message', so even they grasp this point slightly, but then arguing Warren and Bernie are 'too far to the left' and other nonsense on economics.

Americans have always been to the left policy wise. The problem is they dont vote like it because identity determines partisanship and your partisanship determines your facts/reality. A hick in Kentucky might thing single payer is a good idea but he's still not gonna vote Dem because he's a hick from Kentucky.

Yeah, the best way to minimize that effect is campaigning hard on economics and not so much on Trump's scandals (though of course still attack Trump on ethics but Hilary went too far and ironically focused a historically low amount on policy).

[Blue3]

How crazy has the world gotten when Barack Obama, who was on the far left wing of the Democratic Party when he ran in 2008, is somehow the voice of reason in his party?

He wasn't. Hillary was further to the left than him in 2008. He was all about being post-partisan and post-racial, who would unite the country.

[Landslide Lyndon]

He wasn't. Not even close. He never occupied the space of Mike Gravel or Dennis Kucinich...or even John Edwards.

Ah yes, Dennis Kucinich. The left wing hero who became a Fox News Democrat, conspiracy crackpot, and Trump apologist.
And was of course endorsed by Saint Bernie's PAC.

[GoTfan]

As judged by the posts in this thread, Obama's comments were very divisive indeed. Good luck Democrats!

If by divisive you mean they triggered the 1% of Democrats who think Obama is a failed president (and other assorted Jill Stein voters), indeed they were.

 . . . He ran on universal heapthcare then lurched to implementing a healthcare plan that Newt Gingrich and Chuck Grassley proposed as its counter.

[gottsu]

If you can't beat them, join them. All the infighting between centrists/moderates vs. progressives is pointless in a long term and in a big picture.

I understand the intent of Obama's words, I am also not overly happy with the state of Dem primary, but I realized that there is no sense of trading jabs within Democrats. When you look at the trends, forecasts, analysis and history you will see that this is pointless.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

This is coming from the man who had a Senate supermajority and squandered it by letting Republicans decide what proposals he'd take, all in the name of that mythical bipartisanship. Nothing he says on "going too far left" is valid.

He had a super majority for, like, 8 months.

I can't even begin to wrap my brain around how almost a quarter of a term isn't enough to come up with a better plan than what was pushed through, considering it's not like he sat on his hands and passed nothing during that time--he actively went out of his way to pass legislation that appeased Republicans when it was wholly unnecessary.

It wasn't even a quarter of a term with a supermajority.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress#Party_summary

The caucus had 60 voting members for a month and a half. Franken wasn't sworn in until July. Kennedy died in August. 59 Senators were elected in the caucus (including Franken) in 2008; they didn't reach a 60th pledged member until Specter changed parties in April. The only thing the supermajority had any power, scope or time to address was appropriating supplemental money for federal programs like Cash for Clunkers.

Not really sure what you wanted the man to do (your post is, notably, lacking any specificity whatsoever). The most consequential legislation during this time (the Stimulus Package) he courted Republicans but very little of what they wanted appeared in the final bill (they were outraged at the lack of tax cuts and only three out of hundreds of GOP members voted for it). There are tactical complaints you can make about Obama during this time (and Boehner and Cantor have since laid out a strategy Obama could have taken that actually would have won over Republican House members in earnest) but I don't really see you approaching any of them.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Pelosi and Obama and Hillary, when they say, dont go too far left, is sending out a signal to Buttigieg,  LGBT, Warren and Sanders, that the Dems are unified behind Biden now. Which was always the goal. Harris was the only alternative,  who wasnt a socialist to Biden. She cratered, March is gonna start GE, eventhough, primary candidates are gonna stay in. Biden will have enough delegates

[Sir Mohamed]

Reading this thread makes you think a majority of Dems can't stand Obama. He has a fair point when you consider which constituents we need to oust Mr. Trump and how Dems have won races in the Trump era. Most of them were won with standard Dems who were not too far left. Obama also knows how difficult governing is and that a Dem prez tries to implement a leftist agenda, that's not even supported by a majority, will ultimately fail. Executive actions are not as far reaching as laws and can be be made undone very quickly by the next GOPer.

I would disagree, though, that only presumed "safe picks" can win an election. To a high degree, it's about excitement and with it turnout. Buttigieg and Warren, who are from different party wings, both create excitement and can beat Trump. Sure, Biden can beat him too, but he lacks enthusiasm.  Trump was considered unelectable but won because he created enthusiasm among GOPers.

[T'Chenka]

Pelosi and Obama and Hillary, when they say, dont go too far left, is sending out a signal to Buttigieg,  LGBT, Warren and Sanders, that the Dems are unified behind Biden now. Which was always the goal. Harris was the only alternative,  who wasnt a socialist to Biden. She cratered, March is gonna start GE, eventhough, primary candidates are gonna stay in. Biden will have enough delegates

Is "not socialists" code for "bought and paid for corporate puppets"? That's "the goal and the only alternative"? Sad...