• abff08f4813c
    link
    fedilink
    22 months ago

    In fact it wasn’t quite enough in the end as he actually was focused on two major arcs:

    The ACA and the DREAM act. The ACA made it but the DREAM act failed (and we ended up with DACA instead).

    I don’t want to give up on the dreamers, but OTOH, instead of focusing on them perhaps he could have had more successful results spending that effort and capital on your plan? Though of course hindsight is 20/20.

    • @InverseParallax
      link
      English
      1
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      No, the only chance to get campaign financing reform was to make that the only press, 100%, and go all in on one roll.

      The thing is: afterwards he would have had capital left, but after the ACA he just made more political hostility, that’s what happens when your opposition party can spend a whole term fundraising and getting lobbied because you’re touching a political third rail.

      If he’d managed serious campaign finance and lobbying reform, he could have used that win to neutralize his opposition and land either the ACA or the dreamers.

      Actually maybe he could do campaign finance and the dreamers, the problem is for the ACA he would have been constantly threatened and bargained with the dreamers, and those bargains would have to be cashed in anyway to close the deal, ACA was such a political battleground it forced everyone to mobilize for war footing.

      The GOP were desperate for a rallying cry against Obama and he gave it to them on a platter.

      • abff08f4813c
        link
        fedilink
        12 months ago

        Ah, yes that makes sense. Either ACA or DREAM would have burned thru too much on it’s own, so that would have had to be the first one and then ACA/DREAM as the second act.