HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Editorials & Other Articles (Forum) » How Democratic Timidity M...

Fri Jun 23, 2017, 02:27 PM

How Democratic Timidity May have Helped Trump Win the Election


What comes through again and again is that the Obama administration was terrified of looking partisan or doing anything that might seem like it was putting a thumb on the scale of the election, and the result was paralysis. This is a manifestation of what some years ago I began calling the Audacity Gap.

Democrats are forever worried about whether they might be criticized, whether Republicans will be mean to them, whether they might look as though they’re being partisan, and whether they might be subjected to a round of stern editorials. Republicans, on the other hand, just don’t care. What they’re worried about is winning, and they don’t let the kinds of criticism that frightens Democrats impede them. It makes Republicans the party of “Yes we can,” while Democrats are the party of “Maybe we shouldn’t.”


https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/06/23/how-democratic-timidity-may-have-helped

16 replies, 4287 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to marylandblue (Original post)

Fri Jun 23, 2017, 02:44 PM

1. It sure as hell seem to me that the Democrats have been too god-damned timid for decades.

 

The Democrats never stand up in Senate and point at the Republicans and say regularly, "You lie! You lie!" They never mention their ongoing lies to the national press on this Sunday TV shows, the cable broadcasts, etc.

It really does seem to me that the Democrats want to be polite and genteel, but politeness and gentility go out the window when we are talking about deaths of people, destruction of their lives, etc.

Harry Truman was perhaps the last practitioner of calling the Republicans out. For example, see:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marylandblue (Original post)

Fri Jun 23, 2017, 02:51 PM

2. These Monday morning quarterback seem to miss the point by playing the blame game

The public had a right to know before the election. It may or may not have changed anything, but it was their right to know

I suspect President Obama was told by the intelligence community not to say anything publicly because it would hurt the investigation, but this was far too important not to inform the public

I disagree with basis of the articles argument that Democrats are afraid to speak out. A lot of what happened in 2016, was the double standard coverage by the media, and Comey's Bull shot maneuver 11 days before the election

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #2)

Fri Jun 23, 2017, 03:37 PM

5. Nope ...

Obama deferred to McConnell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GeorgeGist (Reply #5)

Fri Jun 23, 2017, 04:13 PM

7. That doesn't negate my main point. It isn't about whether that information would or would not have

changed the election results, that we will never know, it is about the publics right to know, and the public had every right to know that the integrity of the election process was being interfered with.

As to what actually happened between the President, Congress, and the intelligence community, we don't have the full story on that, but if both Congress and the President were told by the intelligence community NOT to say anything publicly because it would hurt the investigation, they should have told the public regardless

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #7)

Sat Jun 24, 2017, 07:23 AM

14. Not at all

Democrats have been playing the timid politics for too long than just the 2016 elections. In almost every major political flare up, Democrats have almost always caved to reThuglican onslaught. Democrats have never taken and sustained the initiative on any political hot issues except to triagulate and sell to the left warmed up versions of reThuglican ideas. And I guess that is why the default option for the so-called independents is move towards the reThugs positions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mazzarro (Reply #14)

Sat Jun 24, 2017, 11:03 AM

16. I disagree. Just look at the SC nominees Democrats choose verses republicans.

Last edited Sat Jun 24, 2017, 12:06 PM - Edit history (1)

Frankly there is no ambiguity where the Democrats verses republicans stand on almost every issue

That there is no difference between the two parties is a myth started by the far left, and propagated through the media with the right wing using it to divide

After 5 months of republican control it should be obvious what the differences are

Many do not realize the Democratic Party is not a monolithic. The perfect example of this is the ACA. We did not have the votes for a public option or single payer. The blue dog Democrats refused to vote for that and we needed every vote to get something, otherwise we would have nothing



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #2)

Fri Jun 23, 2017, 06:12 PM

10. Yep. I'm watching the double standard coverage right now, with "Greta". False equivalencyies galore

Hand wringing over the lack of bipartisan solutions on healthcare. What a bunch of crap. The goal of the GOP bill is tax cuts for the rich and to take away any government help for the masses.

The goal of the Dems was to get medical coverage for more people, and Obama succeeded. Were it not for the ideologues that fought it, it would have allowed even more to get coverage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lostnfound (Reply #10)

Fri Jun 23, 2017, 06:37 PM

11. A couple of weeks ago the NY Times was blaming "the hubris of President Obama and the Democrats" for

pushing the republican to take the position against climate change.

I am really sick an tired of those "false equivalencies", as you phrased it.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marylandblue (Original post)

Fri Jun 23, 2017, 02:58 PM

3. Yeah, it is all Obama's fault! (Sarcasm)

Sounds like Plumline's working hard to manufacture 'talking points' for Trumpco.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marylandblue (Original post)

Fri Jun 23, 2017, 03:23 PM

4. So true.

"But imagine what would have happened if there were a Republican administration in office, and Russia mounted a full-scale assault on our election with the obvious intent of hamstringing the future Republican president (at a minimum) or getting the Democrat elected. Could anyone who knows anything about today’s GOP actually believe it would have been so tentative?

Not on your life. Every Republican in Washington from the president on down would have been on TV every day saying that the Democratic nominee was a Russian stooge. They would have undertaken a comprehensive package of retaliatory measures immediately, not waiting until after the election was over. They would have talked about nothing else for months.

That’s not because they would have seen it as a profound threat to American sovereignty. We know that, because they don’t care about that threat right now, as real as it is. Heck, the Republican nominee for president not only didn’t condemn the Russian assault, he celebrated it. Donald Trump gleefully brought up Wikileaks 164 times on the campaign trail and publicly implored Russia to hack into his opponent’s email to see if any damaging information might be found there. Republicans have steadfastly resisted any investigation into what happened in the 2016 election.

No, they would have seen it as a threat to their own partisan interests, and responded with the same ferocity that they bring to all partisan conflicts. They wouldn’t have worried about being criticized or being called partisan; they would have fought."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalLovinLug (Reply #4)

Sat Jun 24, 2017, 07:36 AM

15. It will not be wild to suggest charges of treason

If the Russian efforts had been to help Hillary win the election. Win or not, Hillary would be defending herself against such charges from FauxNoise, Limpballs, Coultergiest, 911-yapper Giuliani, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marylandblue (Original post)

Fri Jun 23, 2017, 04:03 PM

6. Not timid, just a little passive and reactive instead of proactive. And technology-averse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marylandblue (Original post)

Fri Jun 23, 2017, 05:29 PM

8. Yeah, yeah. Democrats suck. We get it.

Oh, and had you perhaps noticed? trump is wiping his ass with this country, his dumbass base seems unfailingly enthusiastic, and the Democratic Party doesn't seem prepared to do anything meaningful about it---even the public demonstrations seem half-hearted, now. Anybody else tired of all this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marylandblue (Original post)

Fri Jun 23, 2017, 05:46 PM

9. This is STILL a tough call for me.

I wrote to Obama in Oct about Russia and my sister assured me that he knew what he was doing. Since then I have been pissed off at him for not doing enough but I also understand why he acted as he did. Dems are always screwed for doing too much or too little. My mom used to say, "You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't". She also said, "Politics are as clear as mud". Wise words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marylandblue (Original post)

Fri Jun 23, 2017, 07:59 PM

12. Isn't that sort of like blaming the victim?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Reply to this thread