
Obama's lost army - gukov
https://newrepublic.com/article/140245/obamas-lost-army-inside-fall-grassroots-machine
======
Jerry2
Obama's "Hope and Change" slogan was all smoke and mirrors and was pretty much
meaningless because he never fully explained what those meant to him. In an
absence of a concrete definition, people just assumed that 'change' was
whatever their pet cause was and Obama's team never corrected anyone. It was
truly a stroke of genius.

Unfortunately, he had no chance of making any meaningful change when Wall
Street picked his whole cabinet for him [0]. It was just impossible to make
changes that the society wanted because he was owned by the people who didn't
want any change.

[0] [https://newrepublic.com/article/137798/important-
wikileaks-r...](https://newrepublic.com/article/137798/important-wikileaks-
revelation-isnt-hillary-clinton)

~~~
ricw
Having read obamas book audacity of hope (highly recommended), I strongly
disagree. I presume that what he describes in his book was what he was
referring to as change: ending bi-partisanship in Washington and
constructively making things better by bridging the gap between republicans
and democrats.

In the end, it seems he was more gridlocked then any of the prior presidents
in recent memory and had to resort to more executive orders than previous
president. Though potus 45 seems to be following his example in that regard..

~~~
aaron-lebo
It's been said that Obama was a better campaigner than a politician (not to
say he was a bad politician), and I think that holds up decently well. Keep in
mind the book you cite is partially a campaign/marketing piece.

I mean the Democrats had control of government prior to 2010 and the ACA was
still a compromise with lots of infighting between Democrats. Obama of course
didn't help the divide by making pointed insults (clinging to their guns and
religion). I don't have an article on hand, but even Democrats criticized
Obama for having trouble forming cross-party friendships in a way someone like
Bill Clinton did not.

He may have had the best intentions, but his difficulties were a little bit of
obstructionism and a little bit of his own personality traits.

edit:

This is the kind of cross-party criticism that Obama got:

[https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/a-brief...](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/a-brief-
history-of-president-obama-not-having-any-friends/378761/)

[http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/04/opinion/takiff-obama-
fatherhoo...](http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/04/opinion/takiff-obama-fatherhood/)

[https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/19/us/aloof-obama-is-
frustra...](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/19/us/aloof-obama-is-frustrating-
his-own-party.html)

~~~
GuiA
The main reason Bill Clinton had no trouble forming these cross party
relationships is because he was white.

~~~
aaron-lebo
Bill Clinton is incredibly personable; I don't think that has anything to do
with race.

------
rdtsc
> The grassroots discontent that Obama had harnessed so skillfully in 2008
> would soon belong to the right.

It could have belonged to the left as well. Has anyone seen Sanders' rallies,
the enthusiasm and energy there? A relatively unknown, old, white male somehow
got college kids, minorities and many other groups to follow him.

People like to say that the primaries weren't rigged and he lost fair and
square. Ok, maybe. The problem is how close he was to winning. He got so close
despite a media blackout, despite the DNC being against him, despite POTUS
rooting for Hillary, despite Saudi Arabian and Wall Street money. DNC should
have really stopped and paid attention to what had happened.

At the very least, Hillary should have quickly moved to embrace those
supporters. Maybe make Sanders Vice-President, issue apologies for all the
back-dealing and talking against him, adopt his policies and so on. (Well and
not go and setup private email servers years before, but that's another
story).

~~~
jordanb
Amy Goodman pointed out that the cable news channels broadcast more minutes of
empty podium before Trump's speeches than they showed of Bernie's speeches
total.

Bernie started out with virtually no name recognition, no money, no
organization, no establishment support, a nearly complete media blackout on
his campaign and went on to win 22 states and receive more votes than Trump
received in the primary, against the most well-funded presidential campaign in
history.

It should be blindingly obvious to everyone that something real was happening
there and the Democrats just threw it all away because it was "Hillary's turn"
and besides, the election's in the bag, innit it?

~~~
dragonwriter
> It should be blindingly obvious to everyone that something real was
> happening there and the Democrats just threw it all away because it was
> "Hillary's turn" and besides, the election's in the bag, innit it?

Look, I am a Bernie supporter, but, no, Democratic primary voters, for the
most part, chose Clinton because of a combination of preference for her policy
positions and trust for her to execute and, frankly, expectation that she'd
end up being the stronger general election candidate (yes, polls showed
Sanders polling better against Trump so that he had a better starting
position, but it's not like one couldn't honestly believe that his negatives
would gonip faster on a general election campaign), not because it was "her
turn".

------
verst
A lot of us former (and some current) federal government employees working in
various technology aspects under POTUS 44 (Obama) are continuing to work in
various ways to bring meaningful change to the people (across private and
public sectors). We call ourselves Digital44.

Disclaimer: I'm not speaking on behalf of the group or its agenda.

~~~
tubehouse
I'm curious, what is the agenda of this group? Bringing meaningful change is
rather vague

~~~
verst
Honestly, I can't represent it well.

Let's just say that we are all good human beings committed to making things
better for all of us. Very politically active individuals with deep government
experience and connections.

~~~
jgord
How the hell do we get the money out of politics and the democracy back in ?

The DNC also seems almost in a stalemate due to this cancer - under the
survival pressure they evolved into a fundraising outfit beholden to big
money, and they have not rallied at all post election defeat.

They don't seem to understand they can represent Dems and get funded in $27
increments... and win over large swathes of young supporters if they just
change their mindset.

I think at this point the only hope to replace the old-timers with less-
infected newcomers but that will take us to 2018, when we need a strong and
vibrant and well organised opposition, urgently.

~~~
yeukhon
> How the hell do we get the money out of politics and the democracy back in ?

Don't take this negatively, but you lost your argument when you said "get
funded in $27 increments." You are already going back to money.

Crowdfunding / crowd donation works really well when people are running for
major elections like the Presidential election or the governor race. When it
comes to your own district's representative, you can't find hundreds to fund
them through crowd funding. You just can't for every representative. Maybe for
NYC, but what about that rural area in Maine? You need to rely on big donators
and getting money from your party. Where does your party money come from?
Membership and donations. You don't actually need to go to the big corps
because the people who are the most likely to donate to you are the locals,
business owners who held prestige roles and titles in the community/district.
They won't donate 1M but they will donate 10K, 20K by getting their uncles and
aunts to send you checks.

Actually, little do some people know, Dem and GOP each has a building in D.C.
where Congressmen and Congresswomen would sit in a designated cubicle cold
calling voters. That's the worst kind of job one can get.

Also, don't ignore the older folks. Not every non-20-ish years old men and
women voters voted Trump, there were plenty sided with Bernie Sanders, just to
be fair and respectful.

------
altern8tif
What's stopping this from happening again? Why can't a non-partisan Movement
2.0 (or 3.0) be started now that can spur greater grassroot involvement in the
political process?

Sure, we're seeing elements of it in the Women's March and other recent
protests being organised on Facebook, but it would be better if the people
could debate about issues and organise themselves locally to effect change
that they want to see.

Top-down politics has got us to where we are now. As Obama said, politics
needs to move in the direction of being more bottom-up.

------
nickgrosvenor
Funny how much people over think a lot of this stuff.

Most of it fails the test of Occam's razor. Which is that it's almost
impossible to elect a same-party candidate after an 8 year presidential term.

~~~
lend000
> Which is that it's almost impossible to elect a same-party candidate after
> an 8 year presidential term.

Evidence? That's a bold claim, and not true at all if you look at the length
of time political parties have continuously held the White house. There's
plenty of examples to the contrary, and nothing statistically significant
about the number of 8 year terms followed by a different party that would
indicate "impossibility":
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_power_in_the_United_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_power_in_the_United_States_over_time#Full_Congress_and_White_House_Control_by_Party_Past_100_Years)

However, a plausible explanation for why there is a bit lower chance (roughly
1/3) of re-electing your party after 8 years is that roughly 2/3rds of our two
term presidents have failed to deliver on promises (or failed in other ways)
to the American people, and Obama happens to fit that explanation very well.

~~~
aaron-lebo
It's not that controversial.

Since the 1920s we've had one president (HW Bush) who fits the bill under
normal circumstances.

The following were all oddities:

* Nixon -> Ford

* JFK -> Johnson

* FDR -> Truman

It doesn't have to be statistically significant to be a pattern. In fact, one
of the few presidents to have a proper "successor" was Roosevelt with Taft and
that didn't turn out so well...

~~~
Aloha
I don't understand why this is being downvoted - its all true.

Reagan to GW Bush was the anomaly really. Even with Obamas popularity its not
surprising there was a party changeover - unfortunately the candidate from the
other side was trump.

~~~
nickgrosvenor
And even that is an anomaly, because people forget that Reagan was shot during
his first term which upped his favorability out of sympathy. Much like GWB's
approval rating after 9/11.

He had the largest landslide victory of any two term president.

He basically won every state. And that goodwill carried over to George HW
Bush's campaign.

------
angry-hacker
For hackers and technology minded people, he has to be the worst president of
all times. Of course technology as we know is still young so I'm sure there
will be worse, but how much worse can it get if you think it's ok to wiretap
the whole world? If there was even half of outcry and protest compared to
Trump.

------
portpecos
>Only those who aren't paying attention can seriously claim nothing has gotten
better wrt Wall Street regulation.

And yet somehow these improved regulations did nothing when 95% of income
gained fell right back into the hands of the top 1% of earners. Under Obama's
watch.

~~~
knowaveragejoe
I don't think that is the point of Wall Street regulation.

------
keeptrying
I naievly assumed that Clinton would use this because it had been so effective
For Obama.

Anyhoo ...

