• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

What grade would you give O for his first term?

Obama's first term grade


  • Total voters
    99
  • Poll closed .
Do you know how royally fucked we would be if McCain was president and bun hair was Vice? Think Spain.
 
I think it makes perfect sense that Congressional rancor is at thirty-year highs at the end of a thirty year Great (economic) Moderation. Don't see why anyone would come to the conclusion that Obama caused it or that anything other than economic expansion would end it.

Am I missing something? The article you linked says non-Congressional rancor is at thirty-year highs, but Congressional polarization is at "historically extraordinary levels."

In “The Dynamics of Political Language,” (pdf) by Jacob Jensen of Stanford University, Suresh Naidu and Laurence Wilse-Samson of Columbia University and Ethan Kaplan of the University of Maryland find that today’s level of polarization in public (i.e. non-Congress) political discourse is indeed historically high, but only relative to 30 years ago. Consistent with other measures, the authors find that Congress itself has polarized considerably to historically extraordinary levels in recent years.

The study looked at polarizing words in Google books to get a feel for "non-Congress" polarization. I'm talking about Congress itself grinding to a halt. I'm not saying Obama caused it. All I'm saying is he hasn't done anything to help, doesn't seem like he can, and it's "historically extraordinarily" bad right now.
 
That's talking about public political discourse, not effectiveness of government. I'm not surprised that "today’s level of polarization in public (i.e. non-Congress) political discourse" has been worse than it is now. The article mentions Reconstruction as an example. I think that's pretty obvious. More pertinent to government functioning, I think, is this: "the authors find that Congress itself has polarized considerably to historically extraordinary levels in recent years." So public discourse is very polarized, and Congress is absurdly polarized. That seems pretty accurate to me.

Seems accurate to me as well. Why can't centrists convince their parties that the vitriol has gone too far? Why are there no more centrists, period, on the right?
 
Seems accurate to me as well. Why can't centrists convince their parties that the vitriol has gone too far? Why are there no more centrists, period, on the right?

Hasn't the Brown-Warren race in Mass. been very vitriol-free? Fairly high-profile race, but that hopefully that will spread to more states.
 
Hasn't the Brown-Warren race in Mass. been very vitriol-free? Fairly high-profile race, but that hopefully that will spread to more states.

Those two hate each other and I've seen some pointed-adds, but I guess it could be worse?
 
Hasn't the Brown-Warren race in Mass. been very vitriol-free? Fairly high-profile race, but that hopefully that will spread to more states.

I think it mainly has been, likely because Brown has to run as a centrist there to have any shot at winning. If he took a single step toward Tea Party rhetoric, he'd lose in a landslide. When the voters won't consider you if you act unreasonably, it forces you to act reasonably. The only possibly GOP Senate winner in MA is a moderate. But that's a Pub running for Senate in MA. Other races don't have such preconditions, so candidates run to appease their base.

The problem is that the GOP base has become so radicalized by the Tea Party movement that they force their candidates to become fringe ideologues to even get on a ticket, or to stay in office. This causes a counter-reaction on the left, because the middle ground of compromise has been defined as a sign of weakness by the right, and there's no point for Dem candidates to look "weaker" than their opponents to no purpose. So excellent, experienced incumbent GOPers and more qualified GOP candidates are getting tossed to curb by the GOP base to make way for pandering, red-faced neophytes with no real conception of how to govern, but with a very good idea of how to speak the bombastic rhetoric that the fringe-driven base eats up like Christmas goose. And in national races, formerly moderate, centrist GOPers (McCain, Romney) are abandoning their former stances (and moderate appeal) to pander to this new Tea Party power base that is driving the GOP primary bus. It s system custom-built for general election failure.

Bottom line: the GOP has to take control of their party back from the Tea Party fringe, and move back toward the center. But I don't know who on the right has the heft (and cover) to make that happen. So far, they're all running scared before the loudest faction of their mob. It has to stop. But so long as the GOP pursestrings are controlled by special interests who don't want anything beyond their special interests being served, it isn't likely to stop. It all comes back to campaign finance reform (it always does).
 
Last edited:
Arlington, you give the Tea Party too much credibility. They primaried Bennett, who had a 95% conservative voting record. They primaried Dick Lugar. The TP doesn't really care.

The best chance the GOP has is for Romney to completely self-destruct and lose the House. If the GOP loses the House, the Bush/big boy wing will have leverage to kick the TP to the curb for 2014 and beyond.
 
I know quite a few centrists on the right and left. Perhaps you're just not as centrist as you think if you don't see any?

I know quite a few myself, because I self-select my own company and don't like ideologues from either party. But if you can't see that the Tea Party is the current driving force in the GOP primary system, you're not looking hard enough. The GOP lost two easily-takable Senate seats last cycle solely because they couldn't get an electable candidate through the primary system (and instead offered two totally unelectable Tea Party lunatics, Angle and O'Donnell). This time around, for example, the GOP has put the least qualified GOP candidate on the ballot in MO, and, as RJ pointed out, have begun purging their best centrist leaders in exchange for Tea Party extremists who know who to better pander to the fringe. McCain and Romney were both forced to ruin their moderate credentials -- flip-flopping on keys issues for moderates -- to secure their nominations. In doing so they became damaged-credibility candidates for a general voting body that doesn't want Tea Party influence.

The Tea Party is driving the GOP into a ditch. Most of the centrists on the right that I know tend to agree.
 
Last edited:
list some of these right-leaning centrists

Unless you know all my friends, it seems a pretty meaningless list. I don't know many politicians, and the ones I know locally are mostly leftist.

Seems accurate to me as well. Why can't centrists convince their parties that the vitriol has gone too far? Why are there no more centrists, period, on the right?

Perhaps I misunderstood Arlington's post. I assumed him to be referring to the country as a whole and not just current elected politicians.
 
The Tea Party is driving the GOP into a ditch. Most of the centrists on the right that I know tend to agree.

Fair enough. So you do know some centrists on the right. They do exist. :)

I have a love and lots of hate relationship with the Tea Party. I like their push for fiscal conservatism, but that's about where it ends.
 
Back
Top