Are the President's efforts to compromise helping or hurting Democrats' chances in 2014...?

[kentuck]

...in taking back control of the Congress?

There is the argument that when voters see how the Repubs are unwilling to compromise with the President, they will vote for Democrats in 2014. The President offers cuts in Social Security and Medicare knowing that the Repubs will not agree to anything. They look the Party that is preventing any progress. It's a brilliant move by the President, they say.

Others believe quite the opposite. The President is accomplishing nothing except to turn off his own base of voters and will hurt Democratic chances in 2014. He is persuading no one to switch from the Republican positions.

Which direction do you tend to lean?

[forestpath]

1. Not just hurting - KILLING.

[MotherPetrie]

12. +1

[davekriss]

18. +2

[newfie11]

23. +10

[AnotherMcIntosh]

29. +11

[indepat]

55. +101010101010101010101010101010101010101010 +

a gazillion as lagniappe.

[The Link]

2. I think he is morally bankrupt for proposing it.

[avaistheone1]

50. What a negotiator! LOL Three-dimensional chess again!!

President Obama

[sadbear]

3. Can't help but think he's hurting Democrats...

because he's basically saying that republicans have been right this whole time about deficits and spending.

[Duer 157099]

4. Consider the IQ of the American voter

Will they understand nuance and 11th dimensional chess? Where will they get their info from? Even if it is well and carefully explained, will they instead prefer the path-of-least-resistance sound bite?

Because in the end, the message will be that a Democratic president proposed this. Period. End of discussion.

Yeah, some people will get it. Those with above-average IQ. But by definition, that is not a majority.

[Bluenorthwest]

7. He did propose it, that is the message because that is the fact.

the chess allusions and such are rhetorical games, not actual facts, the fact is he proposed this, out of his own free will. Disparaging your neighbors for seeing the facts instead of buying some excuses for those facts is a dubious position if you ask me. The President proposed this. That is not some 'message' that is a reporting of what Obama did this morning.

[Duer 157099]

10. Right, I know that

but there are some that want to suggest there is nuance and such involved, this is a poker hand, blah blah blah. That he never intends to see it happen, blah blah blah. Any of which may be true, but yes, he did do it, and that is the bottom line and a very easy sound bite. Not all sound bites are false. Just easy. I'm suggesting that given the choice, anyone with average to below-average IQ will go with the easy answer.

[femmocrat]

5. I go with the second view.

He will never be forgiven for trying to cut SS. "Ordinary" (for lack of a better word) voters aren't seeing the 3-D chess moves or the political loop-de-loops. They will remember in November and the president's advisers should start to realize the political consequences. We could lose the Senate in 2014 for cripe's sake!

[Demoiselle]

6. I don't pretend to be able to analyze the political effects of any politician's actions.

I can only say what I feel about the action. I am always worried when Democrats bargain away their core principles. Obama's efforts at the moment sound like a deal with the Devil to me.

[DJ13]

8. BadBadBad

I cant figure out what in the hell he's thinking with this.

It hurts the Democratic party's standing policies of always protecting the safety nets, and it wont ever be applauded by Republicans since it came from him.

He needs to stop trying to appease the GOP, it never works.

He might as well be the champion of the liberals, at least then he wouldnt destroy the base while getting nothing passed.

[TimberValley]

9. The ruling party usually doesn't do well in either midterm election, right? historically?

So the historical trends were/are probably against the Democrats in 2010 and 2014 to begin with.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

31. They better practice that excuse now.

[msongs]

11. one cannot "bargain away core principles" if one does NOT HAVE core principles nt

[Hoyt]

13. Voting for GOP is going to help. Does anybody believe that?

[kentuck]

15. But the question is:

Will it help get more Democrats and Independents to the polls for the Democrats?

[Hoyt]

19. It ought to. Whether it will, depends on how irrational we choose to be.

[newfie11]

25. No

There are 3rd parties and if people don't see much difference in Obama from repugs they very well may go third party.

Yes I know that may mean repugs win


Just sayin

[Zorra]

14. Considering that numerous Democratic compromises prior to the 2010 elections led to a mass

slaughter of Congressional Democrats in the 2010 elections, it appears that there is strong evidence that they will.

[kentuck]

16. It is my opinion that the President is under the illusion...

...that he is the President of all the people. He could just as well be a Republican as a Democrat. His primary concern is for the nation. He is not beholden to the Democratic Party. He will do whatever it takes to show that he is not favoring one side over the other. However, he is somewhat restrained by some in his Party who don't agree with his tendencies to compromise.

[Douglas Carpenter]

26. what Americans want cuts in Social Security benefits? Who are they?

[kentuck]

28. Republican leaders have always wanted cuts in Social Security?

Are they Americans?

[Douglas Carpenter]

30. do most Republican or Independent voters want these cuts?

[kentuck]

35. Historically, they do not vote what is in their best interests...

They vote against abortion and for the NRA. All else is extraneous. Unfortunately.

[Douglas Carpenter]

36. large parts of America ARE anti-abortions and PRO-Gun. That is a fact. That constituency really does

exist. There is no "cut our Social Security benefits" constituency. That constituency does not exist.

[kentuck]

46. But there is a constituency that exists...

that follows their Party line - whatever McConnell or Boehner tells them is the Party line. They do not think for themselves. That is why they send their Republican Representative to Washington - to think for them.

[Douglas Carpenter]

53. and even they don't support cuts in Social Security benefits.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

33. If he's under that illusion, why doesn't he end the optional wars and occupations in the Middle-East

Who in this country wants the endless wars and occupations?

[kentuck]

38. Good question but...

if you want to leave a good legacy, you have to be a strong war monger. Otherwise known as a strong Commander in Chief.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

45. If so, then Bush-43 is leaving a good legacy and Thomas Jeffererson (who doubled the size of

the United States in peace time) did not.

[kentuck]

49. Republicans still love Bush 43...

Most are just ashamed to admit it in public. Jefferson and Louisiana Purchase not applicable to the present day standards.

[LeftInTX]

47. I agree with your analysis as in response 28 above

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2648861
His is under the illusion that he is President of all the people by working with Republican LEADERS.

He's trying to be centrist, but in this case since it is with the R leaders, the end result is not centrist, but instead it is more right of center.

[kentuck]

51. Harry Reid is a centrist. Nancy Pelosi is a centrist.

There are no centrists in the Republican Party anymore.

[tokenlib]

17. 2014 will be 2010 on steroids..the "you have nowhere else to go" message will kill us

Obama is ripping the heart out of the base of his party. The progressive- traditional democratic base will still vote, but you can't go canvass, man phone banks, and scrape the bottom of the wallet when your heart has been cut out. And the DLC refugee/Third way morons who try to guilt everyone to support the doctor with the leeches are only making matters worse--l

The " you have nowhere else to go" message is not motivation for a campaign. Especially when you are struggling, fearful of the future and just got thrown under the bus.

[City Lights]

20. I lean toward option two.

But I think it's worse than just turning off the base. During the 2014 campaign, I think the republicans will beat Democrats over the head with the fact that Obama was willing to cut Social Security. The republicans' new talking point will be that the Democratic Party is the one that wanted to screw seniors, while the republicans were against it. They will repeat this every chance they get.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

21. I suspect that many will go Bush #1 on him and say...

...something akin to "Voodoo Economics."

[Bandit]

22. He swore he would not touch social security and he has proven himself a LIAR

Will he tar all Democrats, I don't think so but he will demoralize many that might otherwise be energized to try and get rid of some Republicans...... Now it would seem it really doesn't matter that much anymore...Republicans want something and he bends over backward to give it to them...If that is what I get when I vote then I would rather just not vote.....

[Douglas Carpenter]

24. if he was compromising on an unpopular principle such as affirmative actions

or welfare or opposition to the death penalty - it could conceivably help in 2014. But he is compromising on the Democratic Party's strongest and most wildly popular position - the defenders of Social Security. How can that possibly help? NO ONE SUPPORTS THESE CUTS - except those dumbass centrist pundits on the Sunday Morning infotainment talk shows - and they are about as in tune with the pulse of America as Thurston Howell III.

It stunning that an intelligent man like President Obama could make such utterly clumsy political blunder like this.

[kentuck]

27. But, remember when the President said?

We do not live in a blue state or a red state. We live in the United States of America.

What did he mean by that??

[Douglas Carpenter]

34. I realized when he said that he was proclaiming himself a centrist rather than a liberal or

progressive. I'm not shocked about what he would do out of principle - he is a politician - I never thought I was electing the new FDR. I'm shocked that he would make such an obvious political blunder - by weakening the Democratic Party's single strongest and most popular position

[kentuck]

42. I think what we didn't know at the time was...

that "centrist" was just another word for a moderate Republican. Republicans don't take kindly to "moderates" anymore.

[Douglas Carpenter]

52. I don't know about others - but I have known for the last 30 years that every Democratic nominee and

every candidate for the Democratic nomination who actually had any chance at all at becoming the party nominee were moderate Republicans. Even Mondale in 84 or Dukakis in 88 were certainly not to the left of Bill Scranton of 64 or Romney or Rocky in 68. I almost gave up interest for awhile because I couldn't see what was worth fighting for. It is only because the Republican Party has turned into an insane asylum that is so profoundly dangerous - that I have any interest at all. But if the Democrats can or will no longer try to move the country forward and seek a newer world - I would hope that they can at the very least hold the ground on to the most wildly popular policy they ever implemented.

[kentuck]

54. Hard to argue with that.

Ronald Reagan changed the Democratic Party as much as he changed the Republican Party.

[bowens43]

40. he didn't mean anything, mindless rhetoric for the rabel.....

[kentuck]

43. How do you know when it is mindless rhetoric or?

when he means it??

[rurallib]

32. Really fucking things up. We are now the party that proposed cutting SS

[bowens43]

37. hurting

the republicans are clearly winning on major issue and the democrats look weak, especially our so called leadership.

[ebbie15644]

39. Hurting!

He is losing me big time and if the other Dems go along with this, they will lose me! Social security and Medicare are WHY I voted for him and a big reason I vote democratic

[lumberjack_jeff]

41. "The parties are exactly alike" KILLS democrats. n/t

[bullwinkle428]

44. ALAN GRAYSON just said the Democrats could be in deep trouble in 2014

based on this offer by PBO.

[avaistheone1]

48. Obama lied. He is a good as toast. And he has hurt the Democratic Party irreparably.

[kimbutgar]

56. So I guess we are all going to roll over and not vote in 2014?

Get ready for republican rule, with the Christian Taliban taking over and with more people in misery unemployed, dying and living in the streets with no safety nets. Yeah sit home and don't vote and see what that gets you. If you don't like what's going on in Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, North Carolina, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Jersey and Wisconsin despite being mad at the President you still need to get off your a$$es and vote in 2014 and vote Democratic.

[kentuck]

57. Whose fault would that be?

The voters??

[emulatorloo]

58. Yes.

[kenny blankenship]

59. He's not helping Democrats. But then again he didn't help in 2010 either

A strange but persistent Obama pattern. It's as though he would rather negotiate with Republicans on their demands than lead Democrats to achieving theirs.

[bobduca]

60. Intentionally Tanking the chances, IMO

More Gridlock = more centrist proposals = more hippie punching