Politics Is Stupid, Cont'd

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 11:04:49 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Jed Lewison asks a simple question:

[H]ow [did] the GOP managed to capture 30% of the votes of the 37% of people who listed their top priority as increasing spending to create jobs.

Simple answer - politics is stupid. Then again, President Obama and the Democratic Congress were not promising to increase spending to create jobs. The President himself said it was time for the government to tighten its belt. So the stupidity was all around us.

Perhaps someone might figure this out by now, but people vote based on how they are doing, especially economically. The Democrats did not deliver adequate results regarding the economy. That's why they lost. As Atrios wrote:

The policy failure was about the economy and the foreclosure crisis, and the politics was the failure to recognize how deeply this mattered. No matter what people say in polls, nobody cares about the deficit or "spending," they care about whether they have any money. [. . .] I don't know how politicians lacked the self-preservation skills to recognize that if they failed to deliver on the economy they would fail, but that's what happened.

Indeed. Speaking for me only

< 49% | The Lost Decade Will Continue >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Politics Is Stupid, Cont'd | 36 comments (36 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

It's the Dr. Phil philosphy (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by jbindc on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 11:08:12 AM EST

Look at your situation right now. Are you happy with where you are? If not, ask yourself if continuing the same thing will improve your situation.

In other words, the voters asked themselves, "How's that workin' for ya?" and decided the status quo wasn't. It doesn't have to be rational, just different.

I love this quote (5.00 / 4) (#2)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 11:22:48 AM EST

I don't know how politicians lacked the self-preservation skills

amen. I just kept thinking, eventually they will get it. but they did not. how is that even possible.

What Atrios highlights is something (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by MO Blue on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 11:25:32 AM EST

that never fails to amaze me. The only thing that really surprised me about the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress is:

I don't know how politicians lacked the self-preservation skills to recognize that if they failed to deliver on the economy they would fail, but that's what happened.

It's understandable (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by Cream City on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 11:31:24 AM EST

and I see it all the time in students who have been carried to college.

So in the case of some pols, they may not have had to think about the strategies and tactics of self-preservation, if they have been repeatedly rescued (and/or even created) by others.


: Might just boil down to the fact that (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by MO Blue on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 12:38:20 PM EST

a whole lot of our politicians don't need to worry about economic self-preservation. Most are rich enough in their own right and/or can look forward to a lucrative career provided by their savvy friends who they serve so well.

great (none / 0) (#4)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 11:27:15 AM EST

minds . . .


The only reason that I could come (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by inclusiveheart on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 11:55:59 AM EST

up with that might explain their foolish oversight is ideology. I think Obama is an ideologically driven politician and as a centrist and the likes of Summers and Geithner advising him, I think that he simply thought that belt tightening was the right thing to do. ANd I think that they thought that they were omnipotent.

I recall that he and his surrogates explained that the American people were reasonable and patient. That has never ceased to amaze me. Anyone who thinks that people who can't find a job or who are losing their homes - or both - are going to be reasonable and patient has a lot of learning to do about human nature.


O.K. that might apply to Obama (5.00 / 3) (#11)
by MO Blue on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 12:02:49 PM EST

but a lot of Dems in Congress have been in office for quite a while. They should have understood the connection between the economy and self preservation.

The Dem members in Congress had the option not to go along with the ideology of Obama, Summers and Geithner. They chose not to fight for other alternatives and they and the American people are paying the price.


I actually have said for years now (5.00 / 3) (#26)
by inclusiveheart on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 03:14:26 PM EST

that a lot of the Democratic Congressional representatives haven't a clue how to deal with a real national economic crisis because there haven't been any really severe events for decades.

A lot of the current crop came up through the ranks when the big issues were school prayer and school uniforms.


and what to do (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 03:35:33 PM EST

with the Clinton surplus


: Yep. nt (none / 0) (#28)
by inclusiveheart on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 03:40:45 PM EST

Guess they missed the (none / 0) (#30)
by MO Blue on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 03:44:50 PM EST

lesson of "It's the economy, stupid."


The lesson they took from that (none / 0) (#33)
by inclusiveheart on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 04:35:13 PM EST

rather mild recession by comparison was that we could work our way out of a recession - which is true sometimes - but not really when it is a full on economic collapse which is what we have faced in recent years.

If you look at what steps Obama took to address the economic crisis, they were all fine and pretty good for a mild recession, but no where near enough to combat the collapse that we faced. The Congressional Members went with his team's assessment. I also know that some pretty key staffers didn't have a clue.

The bottom line is that we had few people who understood the crisis and the solutions and that the few who did were either told to shut up or had their own reasons for keeping quiet. Moderation was the tune they were seeking when they were faced with radical change that they could not control without what they viewed as radical responses.


: That sounds about right. (none / 0) (#34)
by MO Blue on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 04:46:06 PM EST

I see I'm going to need to type faster (none / 0) (#14)
by MO Blue on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 12:35:02 PM EST

at least 3 seconds faster.

Atrios' point should have been very obvious. Unfortunately, the Dems miss it or chose to ignore it.


Obama and his administration (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by coast on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 11:31:54 AM EST

worried too much about keeping the "keys to the car" rather than working to make sure people kept the keys to their house.

Lesson, hopefully, learned.

Funny (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Edger on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 11:48:01 AM EST

I thought the democrats lost because... politics is stupid.

And democrat politicians? Well... heh... what is there to say?

Answer: (5.00 / 8) (#8)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 11:49:04 AM EST

Simple: Because we have two parties and no other choices. The Democrats failed. The default choice then is the Republicans.

If there had been other choices, I believe people would not have chosen Republicans. Both parties are utter failures.

Obama and the Democrats' plan (5.00 / 5) (#10)
by inclusiveheart on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 11:59:01 AM EST

was NOT to call out the Republicans for obstruction. So, to the extent that the Republicans did obstruct efforts to better the economy, most people really didn't notice. So, if you're one of the angry people who wants something done and you don't read Krugman or the blogs, you're going to vote out whomever you can and replace them. Especially, if the party in power doesn't tell you anything about what their plans might be or notify you that the problem is with their opposition.

Exactly (none / 0) (#13)
by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 12:14:13 PM EST

Although I heard/read some GOP (none / 0) (#22)
by oculus on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 02:27:14 PM EST

bigwig criticizing President Obama for calling out GOP Congressional leaders by name. "Not very Presidential," sd. the guy. Wow. I thought--when did Obama ever do that post-Inauguration? Wish he had and loudly.


: The Rs see leprechauns, too. (none / 0) (#29)
by inclusiveheart on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 03:42:21 PM EST

lol

: He "called out" Boehner by name (none / 0) (#35)
by christinep on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 07:51:55 PM EST

several times. That, of course, is fine with me...and, apparently, with Boehner (who had the sense to say "that's politics.")

How much further will the Dems (none / 0) (#31)
by MO Blue on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 03:55:19 PM EST

push the stupid?

Heath Shuler Would Challenge Pelosi For House Minority Leader Post

Sure hope more 3 rd party candidates decide to run in MO. Absolutely will not vote for a party that has Shuler in any leadership position.


Alan Grayson would agree (none / 0) (#32)
by ruffian on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 04:13:41 PM EST

Grayson explained Thursday that Republicans' strategy of opposing the Democrats' big-ticket legislative items such as healthcare reform, the cap-and-trade energy bill and financial regulatory reform, helped them win back the House majority they lost in 2006.
"So they've got their strategy intact, our strategy for the last two years has been appeasement, look where that got us," he said. "I think Democrats want a fighting president, a fighting leadership" who act on items such as immigration reform and union card check legislation.

In another interview he said "Democrats can't win if Democrats don't vote".

The demoralization of the party hurt him and a lot of other candidates. Just scaring people about the alternatives does not work on many people (besides me, but then I scare easy.)


Maybe the problem is that voters and (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by observed on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 12:04:15 PM EST

politicians refuse to accept that a country cannot be a colonial/imperial power and provide for social welfare of its citizens.

not seeing it (5.00 / 5) (#16)
by dandelion on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 12:57:07 PM EST

2 years ago I had dinner here in the Bay Area with a long-time friend from DC who's worked years as a Dem Hill staffer and I talked about the unemployment and foreclosure issue and told him that I didn't know a single person whose family hadn't either faced a job loss or a furlough or severe pay cut of some kind -- and he was surprised. He turned to his wife and said, "gee, I guess we don't really see that where we are." And I in turn was gobsmacked that someone really up on politics could be so unaware of what a then 11% unemployment rate in a populous state like California meant. I truly think that even though they were aware of the statistics there was some way in which they thought it wasn't real for "real people."

There are all sorts of ugly implications in that.

But I honestly believe that Congressional Dems have felt that if unemployment only affected minorities and the non-college educated, they'd be fine. I think they've been perfectly content with 50% unemployment for young African American males and very very high unemployment for laborers of all kind. I think the political calculation was that on an electoral level this was "manageable."

One month ago I had dinner with this same friend and I told him the Dems were in big trouble with women and should expect to see that play out in the mid=terms. He didn't believe that at all, and said women knew they had to vote Dem to protect Roe.

Then he explained to me in all seriousness why the Democrats would need to tackle Social Security reform, cutting benefits "just a little bit" to deal with the deficit.

Cluelessness doesn't begin to describe....

Marvelous (5.00 / 3) (#17)
by Cream City on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 01:09:56 PM EST

-- they think that they still can wave the Roe v. Wade flag? The one that this administration has at half-staff?


beltway CW (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 01:28:47 PM EST

has SS on the table. I dont see it being taken off.

lucky for me I like my job cause I wont be retiring any time soon I think.


: Social Security has no powerful (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by KeysDan on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 02:11:01 PM EST

friends, in either party, at the moment. And, it is not because social security has no money, but because it does. As Willie Sutton said, I rob banks because that is where the money is. If all federal programs were in as good a shape as social security we would be just fin. And, should a fix be necessary in, say, twenty-years, the payroll cap could be raised, preferably taking a cue from Medicare Part D--with a donut hole, starting again at $250,000 and up.

This mindset and lack of awareness (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by MO Blue on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 02:04:38 PM EST

doesn't surprise me at all. It is the same as Rep. Clyburn saying that he and his colleges enjoy working into their seventies so raising the retirement age shouldn't be a problem. Joan at DKos has a great post on how raising the retirement age will effect "real folk" who don't reside in the rarefied atmosphere of Congress.

At the Cooper Tire plant in Findlay, Ohio, Jack Hartley, who is 58, works a 12-hour shift assembling tires: pulling piles of rubber and lining over a drum, cutting the material with a hot knife, lifting the half-finished tire, which weighs 10 to 20 pounds, and throwing it onto a rack.
Mr. Hartley performs these steps nearly 30 times an hour, or 300 times in a shift. "The pain started about the time I was 50," he said. "Dessert with lunch is ibuprofen. Your knees start going bad, your lower back, your elbows, your shoulders."
...
A new analysis by the Center for Economic and Policy Research found that one in three workers over age 58 does a physically demanding job like Mr. Hartley's -- including hammering nails, bending under sinks, lifting baggage -- that can be radically different at age 69 than at age 62. Still others work under difficult conditions, like exposure to heat or cold, exposure to contaminants or weather, cramped workplaces or standing for long stretches.
In all, the researchers found that 45 percent of older workers, or 8.5 million, held such difficult jobs. For janitors, nurses' aides, plumbers, cashiers, waiters, cooks, carpenters, maintenance workers and others, raising the retirement age may mean squeezing more out of a declining body.

Those who won't be able to squeeze more out of a declining body will have to survive on drastically lower benefits.


Who is this friend of yours? (none / 0) (#36)
by christinep on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 08:00:15 PM EST

He/she may represent a lot more of what-used-to-be-called "yuppies" than we think. If they are aides to Congresspeople, they would pass on some of the same obtuse takes on the insulated world around them. Personally, I'm more likely to ascribe insularity to ignorance, tho, rather than to deliberate coldness or arrogance. In the case of the Democrats, I'll continue to hope that is the case. We are back to the importance of real empathy again.


Easy question (2.00 / 1) (#24)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 02:55:46 PM EST

Perhaps those are the folk that have been told that tax rate cuts are spending.

A loophole (none / 0) (#21)
by zyx on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 02:17:50 PM EST

I haven't written here for a long time, but something came up that some of you might find interesting. Remember how happy parents and kids were about insurance-to-26. I have a kid who turns 25 next month: no job (yet). I was prepared to be happy. BUT I got a letter a few days ago from our insurance carrier, Texas-based, university-based, that he'll be kicked off next month on his b-day. WTF? I called and got an inarticulate 'splanation. I googled and got a better one.

If the entity renewed for the contract year before the law took effect (September 23), then the entity did not have to comply with the new rule. My son falls in that crack. Our insurance has had a 25-year-old limit, up until (and including) now.

Thanks for nothing yet, Health Care Reformers. (FACEPALM)

Someone should teach schoolkids (none / 0) (#23)
by s5 on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 02:42:33 PM EST

that "personal finance" and "macroeconomics" are two completely different things. Global economies don't have a "belt" to tighten.

: teach everyone (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by dandelion on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 03:06:46 PM EST

Somneone should teach everyone that. Including our President, who once again yesterday described government debt as analagous to household debt. Every time he does this I want to tear my hair out.
Really, I wish the Dem leadership would all enroll in an Econ 101 seminar preferably not taught by a U of Chicago prof and then all be assigned to write 10 pages on Why A Government Sovereign in Its Own Currency Is Not At All Like a Household.
Bonus points if they can explain why its not even like Greece.