Niall Ferguson Claims He Was Smeared by Facts, Fights Back

Across the Wide Missouri: Journamalism Watch:

"Obama's failure to transcend America's partisan divide is not the result of a deliberate decision by the Republican Party to deepen that divide, but rather of Obama's failure to lead, with leadership." That is something that professional Green-Lantern "centrists" like Clive Crook and Ron Fournier have said. That is something they continue to say--even though moderate Republicans' talking point now is: Pelosi and Reid kept Obama from being the bipartisan centrist president he wanted to be.

I wonder why they have not yet smelled the coffee, and gotten the memo. It would be easy to shift to: "Obama tried to lead, but Pelosi and Reid refused to follow". It would be more plausible and not more untrue than the current position. So why not shift?

Ron Fournier: The Right Way and Wrong Way to Win the Presidency: "Hillary Clinton appears to be taking the easy path. It would be the wrong one: Democratic and Republican presidential candidates face a choice...

...They can appeal to the broadest possible audience or pander to their most devoted partisans. Most will choose option No. 2, because it's the easiest and clearest route to the presidency. But it's not the right path.... Amid a wave of dissatisfaction with the U.S. political system, the percentage of self-identified independents is at the highest level in decades.... Yet, a large and growing number of self-identified independents consistently vote only Republican or Democratic. That explains Clinton's strategy: Technological advances will allow her team to pinpoint every possible backer and motivate them to vote with messages designed to stoke fear and hatred toward the GOP. After all, that's exactly what Republicans plan to do to Clinton—find every possible GOP voter, even among disillusioned independents, and teach them to hate her.... My problem with this approach is that it works only until Election Day, when a polarizing, opportunistic candidate assumes the presidency with no standing to convert campaign promises into results. 'It makes governing harder,' wrote Chuck Todd and his team at NBC's First Read....

Bottom line: Campaigns don't engage in persuasion anymore. They simply look for unmotivated like-minded potential voters and find an issue to motivate them.... By taking advantage of polarization, a candidate could lose some of the authority that comes from the civic exercise of appealing to much of the nation. 'The president is the one person who potentially could be the unifying figure in the country,' said H.W. Brands, a historian at the University of Texas at Austin. 'And if the president or a presidential candidate basically writes off 40 states, then how in the world do the people in those 40 states feel like they have a stake in that person or that election?'...

For the Clinton team, and for each of her competitors, the 2016 campaign can't be merely about winning. It needs to be about winning in a way that makes the successful candidate a successful president. Barack Obama managed to run a campaign in 2008 that leveraged his demographic advantages while appealing to a broad swath of the electorate. The fact that he didn't follow through on his promise to unite the country after Election Day doesn't meant that it can't be done...

Comments