Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

WaPo: "'Soul-searching' inside the White House" - (Do they get it yet??)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 11:39 AM
Original message
WaPo: "'Soul-searching' inside the White House" - (Do they get it yet??)
By Anne E. Kornblut

"After nearly two weeks of introspection, President Obama's top advisers have concluded that the "shellacking" Democrats took on Election Day was caused in large part by their own failure to live up to expectations set during the 2008 campaign, not merely the typical political cycles and poor messaging they pointed to at first.

While the president has been on a trip to Asia for the past 10 days, all but a few of his top aides stayed behind to figure out what went so wrong and what to do about it. Wearing casual clothes and with the White House to themselves, they determined that the situation they face is serious and will take significant adjustments to reverse.

The advisers are deeply concerned about winning back political independents, who supported Obama two years ago by an eight-point margin but backed Republicans for the House this year by 19 points. To do so, they think he must forge partnerships with Republicans on key issues and make noticeable progress on his oft-repeated campaign pledge to change the ways of Washington."

<snip>

"One of the questions Obama faced after Election Day was whether he "got it" - got, that is, voters' frustration with his governance and policies. Obama hinted that he did in some respects, noting that his failure to make government more transparent or to curb earmarks did not live up to the high standards he had set.

Once he is back in Washington, Obama will make a more overt effort to demonstrate that he is addressing those promises, aides said. The president's advisers hope that a series of upcoming personnel moves - coming as outside critics call for a White House shake-up - will put Obama in a stronger position to make substantive progress, especially on the economy."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/13/AR2010111304344.html


After reading this article, I'm not sure they get why a lot of voters didn't come to the polls - seems they're more interested in the indies who switched sides than the Dem and indie voters who didn't come to the polls.

Do you think they get it yet?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 11:45 AM
Response to Original message
1. The President is back
While the president has been on a trip to Asia for the past 10 days, all but a few of his top aides stayed behind to figure out what went so wrong and what to do about it. Wearing casual clothes and with the White House to themselves, they determined that the situation they face is serious and will take significant adjustments to reverse.

The advisers are deeply concerned about winning back political independents, who supported Obama two years ago by an eight-point margin but backed Republicans for the House this year by 19 points. To do so, they think he must forge partnerships with Republicans on key issues and make noticeable progress on his oft-repeated campaign pledge to change the ways of Washington.

<...>

Obama's advisers held no political summit to discuss the midterm results, one said, but rather worked on the problems individually. Regular political meetings are expected to resume after Obama's return.


A piece written Saturday while the President was still in Asia. If there was no meeting, was this report based on a hodgepodge of selective statements from anonymous aides?

In any case, no need to speculate, the President is back.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Wish I was comforted by the fact that "the president is back" - so far...
...it doesn't look like he gets it any more that all those smart guys in the WH trying to figure it out while he was abroad. As the article said, they're interested in the indies who switched sides - yet, if they don't address the reasons previous supporters (Dem and indie) didn't come to the polls, they'll lose bigger in 2012.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. Worked on the problems individually? Really!! A major issue like this
and they don't discuss and hash about it as a group? Sounds to me a bunch of incompetents.

But really, what were the people that worked on Obama's campaign doing this election? It leaves a vacuum and disconnect in the mid-terms if they aren't actively involved. What percentage does a Presidential campaign take in comparison to all the Democratic campaigns that occurred nationwide in 2008?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thereismore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 12:11 PM
Response to Original message
3. The shellacking was not about fucking earmarks. It was about standing up for something, and
racism, of course. Give us a reason to get excited, Mr. President. Fight for democratic causes. Fight, dammit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. I know - it was hard not to groan out loud reading that about earmarks. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hawkowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 12:16 PM
Response to Original message
5. Still clueless
The answer, apparently, is they need to compromise more with rethuglicans to get back the independent vote? Idiots.

How about the president standing up and acting like an alpha male leader, instead of the kid who gives his lunch money up every, fucking day, because he is too scared to fight--even though he is the biggest kid on the bloc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Yeah, I don't know why they're so worried about those voters! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hawkowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. False assumptions
I think the White House is under the false assumption that "independents" are a monolithic, cohesive, voting bloc. AND that they overwhelmingly were the linchpin that put Obama over the top. This is DC punditry at its absolute worst. The reason Obama won was he mobilized NEW voters. Voters who ordinarily don't vote. Mainly young white voters, and heavily increased minority turnout. Voters who have classic, progressive, democratic values who usually stay home because they can't tell the difference between two old white guys in blue suits. Yes he peeled off a some independents, but apparently he LOST every white demographic over the age of 30. Besides, in 2008, independents would've voted for a ham sandwich over McCain/Palin. They weren't voting for Obama, they were voting AGAINST McCain!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Why doesn't the WH know this? Don't they do their own research? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dennis4868 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 12:19 PM
Response to Original message
6. I think he really does get it but does not want to...
publicly state the cause of the dems losses - the stupidity of the voters. The Bloomberg poll that came out before the election clearly prove that the voting public is not aware of the facts and instead vote based on the repub/media/FOX News narrative.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. The stupid ones always vote Republican - they should be worried about...
...the Dem and indie voters who were too disgusted to show up - because they'll stay home next time too if things don't change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
great white snark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Any proof of Dem & Indie voters too "disgusted" to vote?
Thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Little Star Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. Any proof they weren't?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. Call it whatever you like - disgust, disillusionment, disappointment, apathy...
Doesn't matter - getting the 2008 voters back to the polls should be the focus, and yet they're worried about the ones who switched sides.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
great white snark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. I'll take that as a no.
Thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. And I'll take you as a joke - thanks! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 12:42 PM
Response to Original message
14. 'bi-partisanship" defeated the Democrats.
as much as anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Why doesn't the WH get this - it's so damned obvious! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
de novo Donating Member (590 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. Bi-partisan is another way of saying the two major parties are:
Conservatives and Liberals.

COnservatives contain the entire repug party and a good portion of the Democratic Party. Liberals are relegated to a portion of the Democratic Party.

D's and R's are meaningless these days.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC