Democrat shaming strategy beginning already

By J. DeVoy

In addition to last month’s anemic job growth, other numbers are mounting up against Barack Obama.  In particular, the youth who handed him his 2008 victory, are slowly deserting him.  With 85% of the class of 2011 moving back into their parents’ basements, it’s easy to understand why.  Yes, the president doesn’t control the economy, but he surely hasn’t made it better, or taken actions that would improve the situation – cutting spending, using whatever tools he has to end the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing program (the most potent of which being to tell people what it is), and not getting into a land war in Libya would be good starting points.

Out of political ammunition and burdened by the yoke of being proven political failures, democrats are using the only blunt tool they can frantically grab: shame.  If you don’t support Obama, you’re racist.  It’s already happening, as the GOP’s initiatives are likened to Jim Crow-era America by the DNC.  As being merely accused of racism has become America’s high holy sacrilege, even if the claim is meritless, the social and professional stigma of not publicly supporting Obama will leave an indelible stink on all Americans who are not right-thinking and right-voting (and who have dulled their senses enough to find Jon Stewart funny).  Imagine the folly of those who dare to criticize him!

If Obama wins re-election, it won’t be based on substance.  There’s very little of it, and what we’ve seen is unimpressive.  Still waiting for those Bin Laden death pics, dude!  Instead, victory will be achieved by convincing average people that they’re bad – even worse, racist – for not attempting to fix something that’s very clearly broken.

19 Responses to Democrat shaming strategy beginning already

  1. blueollie says:

    Hmmm, as far as one of your factual points (the young people’s support), a quick look at Gallup shows that it is still at 59 percent which is what it has been for months) (20-29 age group).

    I agree that his approval ratings (after the Bin Laden bounce) are higher than they might be given the current state of the economy; even Nate Silver at 538.com agrees with that.

    But in our country, we really have only “R’s and D’s” and whereas the job growth IS anemic right now, there were job losses when the R’s had the keys.

    So my guess is that he might win reelection because the R’s are offering…well…nothing better and probably worse.

    The President isn’t making the patient well again, but the previous party is the one that got the patient sick to begin with.

    And yes, we might disagree as to what would make the economy better; I am a demand-side type of guy myself.

    • Sean F says:

      “…a quick look at Gallup shows that it is still at 59 percent which is what it has been for months) …”
      The operative word in DeVoy’s post was “slowly”.

      Also, I would say that you are looking at the wrong numbers in the unemployment category. Job “losses” may have stopped with several out-of-work people getting new jobs and those with jobs not getting laid-off anymore, but new players (i.e. 20 somethings) in the job market can’t get any work at all. We didn’t “lose” our jobs because we never had them.

      The generational bias and loyalty of the baby boomers (who got us into this mess to begin with) and, to a lesser extent, gen x keeps all of the decent jobs out of our reach. I am a member of that 85% who had to move back home and work in a goddamn McJob (part-time since it was all that was available) to get BARELY enough to pay my student loans, let alone pay rent and buy food.

      Basically there’s a whole generation of people who are qualified and capable enough to live on their own, but they don’t have the opportunity to do so and the Obama administration which promised “change” is opting for the status quo. That equals less voter support for Democrats.

      At least, it should.

    • J DeVoy says:

      Quick thoughts:

      -It’ll be a slow erosion of support. The youth are always more liberal than the elders; at one point I was a Howard Dean supporter. But as people realize the futility of achieving success in the only way they can at ages 15-20 – academically – they’ll hopefully get very angry at the apolitical institutions that led us to this point, such as federal intervention in the student loan market.

      -Job growth has been terrible. We’re adding jobs, but a lot of them are just churn work, such as the 50-60k jobs added by McDonald’s. Even if we were creating legitimate middle class jobs, there would not be enough.

      -I’m beginning to agree with you about demand-side. I’m kind of an economic agnostic and believe in employing what works. I think supply side worked to grow GDP and increase the overall standard of living for all people from 1980-2000, which came at the cost of the rich getting exponentially richer. Now there are no benefits to the rich getting richer, and no real need to prop them up with supply-side policies. There may come a time when they’re needed again. Instead of doing something affirmative on the demand side, though, I think removing the supply side prop will do the work on its own.

      • blueollie says:

        “Job growth has been terrible. We’re adding jobs, but a lot of them are just churn work, such as the 50-60k jobs added by McDonald’s. Even if we were creating legitimate middle class jobs, there would not be enough.”

        I agree completely.

        But whether Obama gets reelected or not has to do not only with current conditions but also with who is running against him.

        Remember the Delaware Senate race? That could well happen nationally.

      • David says:

        What does removing the supply side prop mean?

        • J DeVoy says:

          Letting corporate taxes reflect reality, ending QE (which has just been a giveaway to large companies, particularly financials), making tax code revisions that penalize certain types of outsourcing, enhanced penalties for violating immigration laws. it’s a bit populist, but if shareholders lose a few pennies off their dividend, that’s less problematic to social fabric than swaths of entire generations being disenfranchised and checking out of their communities.

  2. JCH says:

    I appreciate that substantive responses to this piece of idiocy. But because I have seen NO evidence of any effort by any Democratic politician to use false “racist” accusations, I will still feel free to J. Devoy as a lying fuckbag. Try to use at least one fact next time, asshole.

    There, I feel better.

    • J DeVoy says:

      Huh?

      Fact: Youth support is slowly falling for Obama

      Fact: A whopping 85% of c/o 2011 college grads are moving home with their parents

      Fact: The DNC chair was just recently on CNBC likening Republican policies to Jim Crow

      Fact: There is an undeniable racial component to Obama’s presidency

      Clearly I employed “at least one fact.” Who’s the “lying fuckbag” (how clever) now? Given your poor conception of what a “fact” is, I’m going to wager you were a sociology or anthropology major, based on my experience with those types. I am, however, glad that my musings threw a bold keyboard warrior such as yourself into a fit of impotent rage.

      • blueollie says:

        http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/14/pf/boomerang_kids_move_home/index.htm

        the 85 percent is up from 67 percent in 2006.

        I admit that this surprised me as I teach at a small university and haven’t seen anything approaching this with our graduates; then again I know mostly the science/math/engineering graduates.

        As far as the “undeniable racial component to Obama’s presidency”: true but much of that (most?) is generated from the President’s opponents.

        • J DeVoy says:

          Come now, the “first black president” mantra was a lib’s wet dream and a major selling point for them. At least based on my observations among young people desperate to prove they weren’t even slightly racist at all, no-sir-ree-bob.

      • andrews says:

        I will say that. intentional or not, the GOP voting bills in Florida, and particularly Ch. 2011-40, L.F., seem intended particularly to reduce access by lower-income public.

        S:4, for instance, virtually eliminates third-party registration efforts. Those folks signing up voters at the grocery, such as the League of Women Voters, will be out of that business. Guess who moves more and thus has more need to re-register/update registrations?

        Can you imagine any legitimate purpose to S:39, eliminating week-end voting? Yes, I’m biased, in that I have worked out of town in the past.

        I will grant that S:26 looks relatively harmless, but reasonable interpretations will require more provisional ballots as people move.

  3. Ben Mullison says:

    I understand youth disappointment in Obama and the DNC. I enter the job market in two years and I’m feeling like just dropped the soap. But before people decide to react to this by voting against Obama, think for a moment: Is the GOP or any GOP candidate looking out for you?

    Lowering the deficit doesn’t create jobs. There just isn’t a causal connection. Instead it will mean cuts to unemployment, medicaid and other safety-net programs. Tax cuts to corporations won’t create jobs, because even if they have the money they’re waiting for the economy to improve to expand. These just mean more cuts will have to be made to spending. Repealing healthcare reform won’t create jobs either. But it would hurt twenty-somethings who can now use it to piggyback off of their parent’s health insurance for a few years.

    That’s basically the whole republican agenda right now.

    I know the status quo isn’t good enough, but the race isn’t between the Dems leaving our generation out to dry and the republicans picking up the slack.

    The republicans want to fuck us in the ass, and they aren’t sugar coating it.

    • J DeVoy says:

      When do you want your brutal raep to occur, though? When you’re young and relatively acclimated to poverty, or when you’re older and actually have assets to lose? I know where I stand.

      • Ben Mullison says:

        You think the Republicans are going to look after seniors?

        Where have you been? Republicans want to turn medicare into a grossly inadequate voucher system, the only virtue of which is that it lines the pockets of insurance companies. I’m not making this up here. That’s they’re plan. They’re pretty open about it.

        And maybe they won’t privatize social security in the next election cycle, but they would certainly like to. It’s been on the agenda for a while.

        Your dichotomy bears no resemblance to reality.

        • J DeVoy says:

          Am I a senior? Do I particularly care about making sure the money expropriated from me and others via taxation goes to support the economically inactive? I love my grandparents, but I can’t deny that they’re not *doing* anything. Even factoring in inflation, end-of-life costs can wipe out an entire lifetime of economic productivity. It makes sense to cap them. Plus, what most 70-90-year-olds do hardly qualifies as “living.” They’re alive, but the frailty, forgetfulness and slow movement doesn’t make it much of a life. Also, all of your friends are dead.

          • Unfortunately due to how emotionally charged people get when talking about death, they have a tendency not to see what you just said as, “It’s really shitty to drag out the process of dying for as long as technologically possible.” And instead see, “Fuck old people, let kill’em all!”

  4. James l. says:

    “In particular, the youth who handed him his 2008 victory, are slowly deserting him.” It is VERY slow. The only non-anecdotal support from the linked article comes from a Pew Research poll. It said 62% of young voters identified as Democrat in July ’08 and 57% did so in early 2011. Big deal.
    “If you don’t support Obama, you’re racist. It’s already happening, as the GOP’s initiatives are likened to Jim Crow-era America by the DNC.” The linked article that supports this claim is comment about GOP voter “fraud” proposals that are designed, at at least arguably, to depress minority voter turnout. That one statement, albeit over the top (although no more over the top than calling Obama a socialist, anti-colonial Muslim), doesn’t support the claim made by the author here. Using this example is like using a picture of a demonstrator at a Tea Party rally holding a sign showing Obama with a bone through his nose and claiming that means all Tea Party members are bigots.
    “Still waiting for those Bin Laden death pics, dude!” Really!!! And his long form birth certificate really is a fake……

  5. Dogs That Bark says:

    Interesting -but seems some have gotten away from topic “Dem Strategy”

    For decades we have had the 80/20 rule where 80% of “tax payers” supported the other 20%. We are now approaching 50/50 and what once was looked apon as land of opportunity is turning into the land of the free ride.

    The voting exit polls demographics clearly define the playing field-

    –and “strategy”
    -free cash for clunkers
    -mortgage forgiveness
    -2 year unemployment ETC ETC

    –buying the public off is not fix to problem–lots of merit to old adage-

    Feed a man a fish and you’ve fed him for a day-
    Teach a man to fish and you fed him for a lifetime.

    Most these discussions have one basic denominator and that being–which side of the redistribution one is on.

    • J DeVoy says:

      Strife among social classes will be more significant than strife between races, as you note in your post. There’s less out-group altruism along class lines than along racial ones (i.e., yuppies care deeply about helping Africa and South America, but don’t want to be associated with Wayde from the trailer park).

%d bloggers like this: