bmacleod From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 2082 posts, RR: 0 Posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 702 times:
3 weeks ago there was an edition of Newsweek where Obama, if re-elected, would become the Democratic version of Ronald Reagan.
Can't go into specifics, you have to read the copy, but there is one similarity. Reagan had GOP majority in Senate but faced Democratic House. Obama has the opposite....
[Edited 2012-11-07 10:14:45]
The engine is the heart of an airplane, but the pilot is its soul.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7776 posts, RR: 22 Reply 1, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 704 times:
Quoting bmacleod (Thread starter): 3 weeks ago there was an edition of Newsweek where Obama, if re-elected, would become the Democratic version of Ronald Reagan.
Can't go into specifics, you have to read the copy, but there is one similarity. Reagan had GOP majority in Senate but faced Democratic House. Obama has the opposite....
The big difference is that Reagan frequently invited the Opposition leadership to the White House for discussions. Tip O'Niell (the Democrat Speaker of the House), met with Reagan every single week, and they hashed out their differences over beers. They actually seemed to like each other quite a bit.
Obama is well known for very rarely inviting the opposition. I think Boehner said a couple of weeks ago that he has not been invited to the White House for nearly a year (apart for photo-ops and special events, where no business can be discussed).
tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 4631 posts, RR: 7 Reply 2, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 702 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4): The big difference is that Reagan frequently invited the Opposition leadership to the White House for discussions. Tip O'Niell (the Democrat Speaker of the House), met with Reagan every single week, and they hashed out their differences over beers. They actually seemed to like each other quite a bit.
Obama is well known for very rarely inviting the opposition. I think Boehner said a couple of weeks ago that he has not been invited to the White House for nearly a year (apart for photo-ops and special events, where no business can be discussed).
I am hoping that can and will change now with the election over. I think there has been an antagonistic element recently where anything someone says or does became fodder for the election and the opposition. So everyone basically stopped doing anything that could be used against them. It's pretty darned pathetic actually but I understand it too.
Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
AeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 18841 posts, RR: 64 Reply 3, posted (6 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 704 times:
Quoting bmacleod (Thread starter): 3 weeks ago there was an edition of Newsweek where Obama, if re-elected, would become the Democratic version of Ronald Reagan.
I don't know if I agree with the methodology behind his conclusions, but blogger Ben Smith agrees with your thread title.
"The first post–baby boomer president was returned to the White House with the widest, clearest reelection win since Ronald Reagan won 49 states in 1984, yet a smaller mandate than his own 2008 victory. And Democrats now have, in Obama, their Reagan: A figure both historic and ideological, who can carry, if not quite fulfill, a liberal vision of activist government and soft but sometimes deadly power abroad that will define his party for a generation.
Obama lacks Reagan’s sweeping victory, and presides over a more deeply divided country than when he took office. But the breadth of his accomplishments have been validated by Tuesday’s vote."
IMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6203 posts, RR: 43 Reply 4, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 702 times:
If you mean as a useless mouthpiece yes, Obama & Reagan are the same.
What is it with all the "is there a possibilty airline X will.." threads? The answer it'll is possible.
AeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 18841 posts, RR: 64 Reply 6, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 702 times:
Quoting bmacleod (Reply 5): Obama won less electoral votes than Bill Clinton in 1992 & 1996.
Clinton also had geography going for him, as the former governor of Arkansas. He picked up neighboring states such as LA, TN, and MO that Obama lost to Romney.
Quoting bmacleod (Reply 5): Also Obama got a lot more votes than Clinton did in both elections (increase in population and his voter appeal).
Another factor played into this, being that in '92 a very popular third party candidate, Ross Perot, picked up 18.9% of the popular vote. Perot picked up another 8.4% of the popular vote in '96.
columba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 6798 posts, RR: 5 Reply 7, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 702 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 1): Obama is well known for very rarely inviting the opposition. I think Boehner said a couple of weeks ago that he has not been invited to the White House for nearly a year (apart for photo-ops and special events, where no business can be discussed).
Well, in that case you must blame Boehner and the Republicans. If people don´t want to talk with you, it makes no sense at all inviding them. Obama after all had a Republican Minister of Defence in the beginning.
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
Max Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 3289 posts, RR: 19 Reply 9, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 702 times:
Exactly, the Republicans have basically been so impossible to deal with in the last four years there's no point in reaching out as they refuse to reciprocate.
Their arrogance is a big part of why they were so overwhelmingly defeated.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
EA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 12559 posts, RR: 64 Reply 10, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 702 times:
Quoting Max Q (Reply 9): Their arrogance is a big part of why they were so overwhelmingly defeated.
Actually, the Republicans shot themselves in the foot; they didn't even turn out in the same numbers that supported McCain/Palin in 2008! Had they turned out the same numbers they did for Bush in 2004, we'd be talking about President-elect Romney.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
ltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12333 posts, RR: 12 Reply 13, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 702 times:
There is no doubt in the view of 'liberals' and 'progressives' that President Obama is more like Ronald Reagan than historical Democrats. Part of that is so he and the Democrats keep executive contol of government where the real power is and so have to make deals with Republicans to satisfiy their demands to keep their power position.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10463 posts, RR: 20 Reply 14, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 702 times:
Actually the first post in the 'Fiscal Cliff' thread points out that Obama called Boehner to discuss the topic, amongst others.
As for not inviting him over, I suppose that's poor form, but then again it's more important they have a working relationship rather than a social one.
Personally I wish Obama was as good a politician as was Reagan, but IMHO Reagan was an exceptional politician, although I don't agree with his fiscal or social policies. Obama's style is to work the phones in the background over time, not to bash things out in big summit meetings like Reagan did. Obama hardly ever uses his "bully pulpit", Reagan did all the time, at all levels of discourse.
IMHO LBJ was a better politician too. Even though he had lots of skeletons in his closet and one can question his motivations, the fact is he that he was a master at getting Congress to do what he wanted them to do via the carrot and stick technique.
Obama's main skills seems to be in the rhetorical domain, but he claims he's been learning more about how to be President, and we shall see if he has or not. He seemed shocked that his base was pissed at him for caving into the GOP on the last extension of the Bush tax cuts, he won't be able to claim that if it happens again.
dl021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11433 posts, RR: 81 Reply 15, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 702 times:
Whoever said that is stumping for President Obama. He is nothing like Presidnt Reagan, and got nowhere near the popular vote percentage, and nowhere near the mandate. He doesn't seek to cooperate, or negotiate. His idea of bipartisan leadership,is to tell the Republicans to fall in line or he's going to blame them for not giving in.
President Reagan gave Tip O'Neill and the Dems when he asked for things, while maintaining his principles in most cases.
Another case of the media trying to elevate the stature of Pres. Obama.
rfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 6150 posts, RR: 25 Reply 16, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 702 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 1): The big difference is that Reagan frequently invited the Opposition leadership to the White House for discussions. Tip O'Niell (the Democrat Speaker of the House), met with Reagan every single week, and they hashed out their differences over beers. They actually seemed to like each other quite a bit.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 1): Obama is well known for very rarely inviting the opposition.
Quoting columba (Reply 7): Well, in that case you must blame Boehner and the Republicans.
We had a more intelligent form of government 30+ years ago when a President knew he had to work with the opposition, and the other party knew they had to work with the President to get things done.
We've seen hundreds of candidates run for office this year on a public vow to NEVER WORK WITH THE OTHER PARTY.
And people vote for them.
That is where the root of the problem exists - with voters who would rather their congressmen and senators do nothing than actually work with the administration.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5303 posts, RR: 47 Reply 17, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 702 times:
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 16): We've seen hundreds of candidates run for office this year on a public vow to NEVER WORK WITH THE OTHER PARTY.
And people vote for them.
Yeah it is extremely ridiculous. They'll complain about the other side not compromising, then when they are presented with a bill that slightly raises taxes while slashing a lot of the budget, they refuse! That's why in this year's senate race, I voted for the guy I agreed with less because from his website, he actually seemed like he'd work for compromise while the other guy ranted, didn't give any specifics, and basically resorted to name calling. Luckily, my guy won
Rara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 1823 posts, RR: 3 Reply 18, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 702 times:
Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 12):
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 10):
Had they turned out the same numbers they did for Bush in 2004, we'd be talking about President-elect Romney.
So if a different amount of people voted for someone in an election the result could have been different?
Thanks
No, it's more interesting than you make it out to be. If you lose enough voters to another party, you lose the election, that's pretty obvious. But in this case, Republican voters didn't switch to the Democrats, they simply stayed at home. It'd be interesting to know why they did so. I can see why Obama would attract less voters than in 2008 when he was carried by a huge wave of public enthusiasm. But why would significantly fewer people vote for Romney than for McCain? McCain didn't run a particularly engaging campaign after all.
Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5303 posts, RR: 47 Reply 19, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 702 times:
Quoting Rara (Reply 18): I can see why Obama would attract less voters than in 2008 when he was carried by a huge wave of public enthusiasm. But why would significantly fewer people vote for Romney than for McCain? McCain didn't run a particularly engaging campaign after all.
Honestly, I think that the haze from right wing media fooled us all. They built up a world where most of the American people HATE the President and screw polls, there's no way the President will win reelection! That seemed to be the rhetoric from that side this year. It was so intense, it actually bled off a bit and made us think that at least the Republicans would come out in record numbers...
Both accounts were wrong... the American people may not love the President, but they do not hate him and they actually liked him enough to get reelected over the GOP challenger. Also, the fervor from the right about this being the most important election in our nation's history and the right was going to flood the polls was also wrong, to our surprise.
I think this delusion is why the right lost this election and wasted the past 2 years. I don't mean delusion in a negative way, I just think they shut off many other media outlets and other ways of thinking and mostly talked among themselves... when this happens, it perpetuates many feelings and intensifies them. In their minds, public opinion was a lot more anti-Obama than reality.
But that situation is human nature. It's not that Republicans are stupid people. It can happen to any group of people. They lost and I think they realized what happened now. I'm actually optimistic for the next 4 years... I see compromises in the works. I can only hope
einsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 2043 posts, RR: 6 Reply 20, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 704 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 1): Obama is well known for very rarely inviting the opposition. I think Boehner said a couple of weeks ago that he has not been invited to the White House for nearly a year (apart for photo-ops and special events, where no business can be discussed).
It's pretty difficult to 'invite the opposition' when the opposition said that they would not work on anything with the president. Of course, when the 'opposition' sees its favorite things threatened with cuts, they cry foul and say that the president will not work with them.
Republicans in the House (at least in the Senate there are a couple more who are moderate enough to cross party lines) must see that the president was reelected. Their goal of a one-term president is no longer functional, and while it's true that they maintained their majority, it's also true that either they work together or together they fall. Of course, Obama has nothing to worry about. His second and final term is about to begin, so if the fiscal cliff happens, he'll still serve up to January 2016, but the Republicans in the House will face an election two years prior.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
kngkyle From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 354 posts, RR: 1 Reply 21, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 704 times:
Well, in the last 100 years only 4 presidents have won the popular vote with >50% in both election and re-election: Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Reagan, and Obama.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10463 posts, RR: 20 Reply 22, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 706 times:
Quoting dl021 (Reply 15): He doesn't seek to cooperate, or negotiate. His idea of bipartisan leadership,is to tell the Republicans to fall in line or he's going to blame them for not giving in.
I think that was true in his first 2 years (Obamacare) but not in his second (debt ceiling crisis, renewal of Bush tax cuts).
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 19): Also, the fervor from the right about this being the most important election in our nation's history and the right was going to flood the polls was also wrong, to our surprise.
It certainly motivated those who did not want to see the right wing in control to get out and vote.
EA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 12559 posts, RR: 64 Reply 23, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 702 times:
Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 12): Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 10):Had they turned out the same numbers they did for Bush in 2004, we'd be talking about President-elect Romney.
So if a different amount of people voted for someone in an election the result could have been different?
Thanks
Way to miss the point!
Rara understood:
Quoting Rara (Reply 18): If you lose enough voters to another party, you lose the election, that's pretty obvious. But in this case, Republican voters didn't switch to the Democrats, they simply stayed at home. It'd be interesting to know why they did so. I can see why Obama would attract less voters than in 2008 when he was carried by a huge wave of public enthusiasm. But why would significantly fewer people vote for Romney than for McCain? McCain didn't run a particularly engaging campaign after all.
It's interesting how not only were conservative pundits wrong about projected GOP voter turnout, but they were staggeringly wrong and that GOP voters who came out for McCain stayed home for Romney for some reason.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
Quoting Rara (Reply 18):
If you lose enough voters to another party, you lose the election, that's pretty obvious. But in this case, Republican voters didn't switch to the Democrats, they simply stayed at home.
Actually, that does not look so much like the case.
Voter turnout was on par with 2008 turnout in most states, but even improved in most of the contentious states.
The problems that the GOP are going to have to wrap their brains around is that 1) contrary to their belief, America does not hate Obama and his policies, and 2) America does not particularly like the GOP. America has not shifted to the left, but rather, the GOP has become so far extreme to the right that it no longer can capture the votes it needs to survive.
25 Revelation: It seems to me that the right has very well developed "talking circles" that seem to convince themselves that they are mainstream when they really ar
26 DeltaMD90: And honestly, if they drop a bit of their more social issues, compromised a bit better, and didn't oppose the President on EVERYTHING, I could see th
27 Ken777: I believe that Obama will be the "Reagan" for people of color. Bill Clinton will probably be the Democrats Reagan. Just look at the reception he recei
28 EA CO AS: Are you sure about that? Re-read the chart from Nate Silver's blog that you posted: As Mr. Silver himself says: turnout in the battleground states ov
29 Dreadnought: Taxes for the poor and middle class are already rock-bottom. There is nothing more to reduce. Dems have said for years that things were peachy under
30 rfields5421: This quote is from the blog quote in Reply 28 - Not the words of EA CO AS My personal opinion is that as the public has become more aware of the impor
31 DeltaMD90: This is why I think there should be some sort of proportional awarding of EVs. In each state, 2 will go to the candidate with the most votes and the
32 Ken777: Taxes for the poor should be rock bottom, because that is only income taxes. Now add in all the other taxes the poor pays. Start with FICA, sales tax
33 rfields5421: I disliked George as governor and as president for a lot of reasons. One of which was leaving us with Rick Perry for Gov. However, I have to give him
34 Dreadnought: Most of those are state and local. They don't count. FICA supposedly goes to your own "account" (cough, cough). I'm talking about the General Fund -
35 Revelation: Mitt's solution was to have them 'self-deport' - what??? Now we read: Senators Propose Comprehensive Immigration Changes which says: Seems the GOP ha
36 D L X: It still blows up your thesis, that Republicans lost because of turnout. Of the 9 swing states plus Pennsylvania (which wasn't really a swing state),
37 Dreadnought: That's funny - It's pretty much the same general proposal that the GOP has been advocating for at least a decade. Secure the borders first, then we c
38 casinterest: This seems so simple, yet it is highly complex, and as the recent Jeep episode shows us, there are countless ways that a " Wall " can be comprimized.
39 EA CO AS: No, it blows up your statement of yours: It actually reinforces my point, which was if the voters had gone for Romney in 2012 in the same numbers the
40 casinterest: Not really, the numbers were lost because the electorate is changing. Even if the 9% in those states had shown up, who is to say it would have benefi
41 flipdewaf: He explained it in the way you agree with. So how the fuck are they republicans then?!? I once worked in a pub, doesn't make me a barmen for the rest
42 Rara: OK, so if you prefer: people who voted for McCain/Palin in 2008 stayed home in 2012 in sufficient numbers to enable the re-election of Barack Obama.
43 rfields5421: One key responsibility of a candidate is to excite members of his/ her own party enough that they actually go vote. I don't think Romney did this. Al
44 D L X: Dude. Did you completely forget the argument you were trying to make? A reminder: Now, tell me how my chart shows support for your position at all. T
45 Rara: Yeah, you're correct. I didn't check properly. McCain in 2008 had fewer votes than Obama in 2012. With that, I retract all my previous statements in
46 EA CO AS: Apologies, my first statement was put in an incorrect manner; I had meant to say Romney would have won if voters went for him the same as Bush in 2004
47 tommy767: I don't buy it. He's a slightly better version of Carter in my book. Romney is more of a republican John Kerry, however. It's amazing how Obama got re
48 Revelation: Despite the economy, exit polling showed voters felt that Obama and Romney were both equally suited to fix it. This gives credence to the fact that t
49 rfields5421: He was good with the Congress because he grew up there in an age of statesmen. And he knew where the bodies were buried. Heck, he help bury most of t
50 pu: Thanks for the refreshing dose of cynicism. I do think most of the work of government, even most policy choices, is done by a nameless crew of men be
51 BN747: That was a different era, people were a lot less cynical and caught up in 'gotcha politics'. For that to match up to have validity, Reagan would have
52 stratosphere: Yep that about sums it up. I came out of hiding and voted for the first time since 1984 and I didn't vote for Obama. I voted for Romney even though i
53 D L X: Yup, and add to that certain factors (the conservative entertainment complex, for instance) that excoriate certain people for being seen with the oth
54 Revelation: Seems Romney used his large war chest to beat everyone else into submission, but we now know that left him broke when he needed to respond to issues
55 DeltaMD90: And you know, on this site, I'm the annoying voice for "reason and understanding," but really, I think I'm being perfectly center on this issue and t
56 zippyjet: Now all we need is for Michelle to re-decorate the White House and buy fancy chi chi China patterns on our dime. Have Michelle consult an astrologer.
Sponsor Message: 
From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 2082 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7776 posts, 
From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 6798 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1522 posts, 
From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 2043 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
