WaPo: "'Soul-searching' inside the White House" - (Do they get it yet??)

[polichick]

By Anne E. Kornblut

"After nearly two weeks of introspection, President Obama's top advisers have concluded that the "shellacking" Democrats took on Election Day was caused in large part by their own failure to live up to expectations set during the 2008 campaign, not merely the typical political cycles and poor messaging they pointed to at first.

While the president has been on a trip to Asia for the past 10 days, all but a few of his top aides stayed behind to figure out what went so wrong and what to do about it. Wearing casual clothes and with the White House to themselves, they determined that the situation they face is serious and will take significant adjustments to reverse.

The advisers are deeply concerned about winning back political independents, who supported Obama two years ago by an eight-point margin but backed Republicans for the House this year by 19 points. To do so, they think he must forge partnerships with Republicans on key issues and make noticeable progress on his oft-repeated campaign pledge to change the ways of Washington."

<snip>

"One of the questions Obama faced after Election Day was whether he "got it" - got, that is, voters' frustration with his governance and policies. Obama hinted that he did in some respects, noting that his failure to make government more transparent or to curb earmarks did not live up to the high standards he had set.

Once he is back in Washington, Obama will make a more overt effort to demonstrate that he is addressing those promises, aides said. The president's advisers hope that a series of upcoming personnel moves - coming as outside critics call for a White House shake-up - will put Obama in a stronger position to make substantive progress, especially on the economy."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/13/AR2010111304344.html


After reading this article, I'm not sure they get why a lot of voters didn't come to the polls - seems they're more interested in the indies who switched sides than the Dem and indie voters who didn't come to the polls.

Do you think they get it yet?

[ProSense]

1. The President is back

While the president has been on a trip to Asia for the past 10 days, all but a few of his top aides stayed behind to figure out what went so wrong and what to do about it. Wearing casual clothes and with the White House to themselves, they determined that the situation they face is serious and will take significant adjustments to reverse.

The advisers are deeply concerned about winning back political independents, who supported Obama two years ago by an eight-point margin but backed Republicans for the House this year by 19 points. To do so, they think he must forge partnerships with Republicans on key issues and make noticeable progress on his oft-repeated campaign pledge to change the ways of Washington.

<...>

Obama's advisers held no political summit to discuss the midterm results, one said, but rather worked on the problems individually. Regular political meetings are expected to resume after Obama's return.

A piece written Saturday while the President was still in Asia. If there was no meeting, was this report based on a hodgepodge of selective statements from anonymous aides?

In any case, no need to speculate, the President is back.

[polichick]

2. Wish I was comforted by the fact that "the president is back" - so far...

...it doesn't look like he gets it any more that all those smart guys in the WH trying to figure it out while he was abroad. As the article said, they're interested in the indies who switched sides - yet, if they don't address the reasons previous supporters (Dem and indie) didn't come to the polls, they'll lose bigger in 2012.

[LiberalFighter]

10. Worked on the problems individually? Really!! A major issue like this

and they don't discuss and hash about it as a group? Sounds to me a bunch of incompetents.

But really, what were the people that worked on Obama's campaign doing this election? It leaves a vacuum and disconnect in the mid-terms if they aren't actively involved. What percentage does a Presidential campaign take in comparison to all the Democratic campaigns that occurred nationwide in 2008?

[thereismore]

3. The shellacking was not about fucking earmarks. It was about standing up for something, and

racism, of course. Give us a reason to get excited, Mr. President. Fight for democratic causes. Fight, dammit.

[polichick]

4. I know - it was hard not to groan out loud reading that about earmarks. nt

[Hawkowl]

5. Still clueless

The answer, apparently, is they need to compromise more with rethuglicans to get back the independent vote? Idiots.

How about the president standing up and acting like an alpha male leader, instead of the kid who gives his lunch money up every, fucking day, because he is too scared to fight--even though he is the biggest kid on the bloc.

[polichick]

7. Yeah, I don't know why they're so worried about those voters! nt

[Hawkowl]

11. False assumptions

I think the White House is under the false assumption that "independents" are a monolithic, cohesive, voting bloc. AND that they overwhelmingly were the linchpin that put Obama over the top. This is DC punditry at its absolute worst. The reason Obama won was he mobilized NEW voters. Voters who ordinarily don't vote. Mainly young white voters, and heavily increased minority turnout. Voters who have classic, progressive, democratic values who usually stay home because they can't tell the difference between two old white guys in blue suits. Yes he peeled off a some independents, but apparently he LOST every white demographic over the age of 30. Besides, in 2008, independents would've voted for a ham sandwich over McCain/Palin. They weren't voting for Obama, they were voting AGAINST McCain!

[polichick]

12. Why doesn't the WH know this? Don't they do their own research? nt

[dennis4868]

6. I think he really does get it but does not want to...

publicly state the cause of the dems losses - the stupidity of the voters. The Bloomberg poll that came out before the election clearly prove that the voting public is not aware of the facts and instead vote based on the repub/media/FOX News narrative.

[polichick]

8. The stupid ones always vote Republican - they should be worried about...

...the Dem and indie voters who were too disgusted to show up - because they'll stay home next time too if things don't change.

[great white snark]

9. Any proof of Dem & Indie voters too "disgusted" to vote?

Thanks

[Little Star]

13. Any proof they weren't?

[polichick]

15. Call it whatever you like - disgust, disillusionment, disappointment, apathy...

Doesn't matter - getting the 2008 voters back to the polls should be the focus, and yet they're worried about the ones who switched sides.

[great white snark]

17. I'll take that as a no.

Thanks

[polichick]

18. And I'll take you as a joke - thanks! nt

[kentuck]

14. 'bi-partisanship" defeated the Democrats.

as much as anything.

[polichick]

16. Why doesn't the WH get this - it's so damned obvious! nt

[de novo]

19. Bi-partisan is another way of saying the two major parties are:

Conservatives and Liberals.

COnservatives contain the entire repug party and a good portion of the Democratic Party. Liberals are relegated to a portion of the Democratic Party.

D's and R's are meaningless these days.