The Aam Admi Party

Status
Not open for further replies.
They really spread themselves thin .. by putting up 440 odd candidates they tried to appear intimidating but ultimately hurt their own campaign ..
People like Kumar VIshwas were left to fend for themselves against the likes of Rahul Gandhi .. 100 seats would have been more than enough. Target major urban centres where your supporters are ..


Next up are the Delhi Elections, Congress has taken away their support - BJP is in full force -
Congress might even loose the seats which it won last time so its upto the AAP and BJP to steal those seats.
 
something to think about

10348889_10203562369049073_3499372233280262860_o.jpg
 
What BJP folks don't understand is that this result isn't victory of BJP's conservative philosophy. It is victory of Anti-Congress sentiments which are running high right now.
I feel BJP and modi talked about development as the main issue rather than pseudo secularism and communalism which Congress and other pseudo secular parties always talk about.
 
I feel BJP and modi talked about development as the main issue rather than pseudo secularism and communalism which Congress and other pseudo secular parties always talk about.

Because it is easier to say things.

Edit: I think this is worth sharing:

http://www.youthconnectmag.com/2014/05/15/india-failed-manmohan-singh/

In the 10 years that Manmohan Singh presided as the Prime Minister, India rose from being the world’s tenth largest economy to the world’s third largest economy, beating Japan to become the #3 only earlier this month. Foreign investments rose 500% during Manmohan Singh’s first term and 850% in the second, whereas the fiscal deficit dropped to an average of 2.5% during Singh’s first administration, from 5-6% during the previous government’s regime. India’s poverty declined thrice as fast during Singh’s governance – from 0.74% to 2.18%; while exports have doubled – from 17% during 2003-04, to 35% in 2013-14. Infrastructure spending increased to 7-8% rising from 5-6% before Singh’s leadership, and the Sensex rose significantly well during Singh’s governance: annualising at 15% during his first term and 13.9% during his second term, as compared to 5.9% during the previous government’s leadership.Ref. 5, 6

Not to mention, Dr. Singh struck a historic nuclear deal with the United States, where as successfully enforced a significantly stable foreign policy, maintaining cordial relations with the likes of US, Russia, China, Japan, Germany, UK and others. The Right to Information act was passed soon after his government took over, and became a sheet anchor that would help activists expose scams worth billions of rupees.

The success of Singh’s leadership perhaps, became his worst enemy. What his government achieved during the first eight years, it could not replicate during its last two years. The success of the former part of his rule developed high expectations, and when the government could not live up to them, the tables turned. A lot of blame for the government’s failure must be pinned on the global economic conditions, but there were faults in the administration nonetheless. Singh and his administration could not control the scams during their tenures, and when the scams saw the light of the day, the public and the market lost the little trust they had on the government.

In his recent book, ‘The Accidental Prime Minister’Ref. 7, Sanjaya Baru, the former media advisor to the Prime Minister, who is understood to be close to Dr. Singh, claimed that, during the second Singh administration, there came a time when the interference of Mrs. Sonia Gandhi in governance increased to a point where the Prime Minister was not allowed to choose the finance minister of his choice. Baru’s book further claims that, around the start of Singh’s second term, various ministers began to snub the Prime Minister, creating an atmosphere of chaos. The dual-power model was now beginning to show its dark sides, as Manmohan Singh tried hard to hold the reigns.
 
Is that why BSP and National Conference got 0 seats each and JD(U) which has a got a supposedly good governance record got only 2 seats. BJP also came second in both North Kolkata and South Kolkata in a state where it has absolutely no presence.

The Left, JD(U), JD(S), SP, AAP, DMK, INLD etc. must be run by quite incompetent idiots if they couldn't harness a sentiment that wasn't pro BJP but anti congress.

India is among the most religious countries in the world. Is it really surprising that a conservative agenda won? The only thing that changed was that instead of on the basis of caste, people started voting in this election on the basis of class (upper, middle, poor) and religion
Um what? Religion and class? Really?
Using UP as a prime example:

Lets tackle class first - If there was any class involvement SP seats wouldn't have been so decimated. After all, they won the 2012 elections on the same platform. Hell, UP politics have been always been about class (pichda warg and all that).

As for religion, its just amazing. People don't stop spreading FUD, even after the results are out. Lets see.....UP has the largest Muslim population -- who won in UP again?

Is it really that hard to believe that BJP got votes on a development platform? Lets assume this development be a pony at the other side of the rainbow. Still thats what has happened. Depending on your view it might be incumbent Congress votes making it possible (and not real BJP votes) -- that would still make you wonder why AAP won only in Punjab and not Haryana too (lets forget UP for a moment).
Then there was also an issue of parties complaining about coalition (Congress did most of the times). People were sick of marginal regional parties, like DMK, taking fat portfolios and effing them over.
 
Last edited:
I am not sure why you quoted my post since I was also disagreeing with him when he said that the BJP won only because of an anti Congress sentiment so the second part of your post doesn't make any sense to me. Although AIADMK might not be the best example though considering they won almost every seat in TN.

My point was that UP and Bihar do largely vote on the basis of caste. Identity politics continues to remain an important issue. Whether the party chooses to play that card or not is irrelevant. Why do you think Mayawati did so well in the last Lok Sabha elections. BJP had a similar agenda as this time in the last polls for the UP as well. She had unwavering support of almost all backward castes irrespective of what she did back then. But a lot of lower caste voters have been hugely dissappointed with Mayawati since she takes them for a ride every elections. That, along with the consolidation of their already strong demographics helped them win. Whether this was because of being impressed by Modi, development agenda etc. I don't know but there continues to be a correlation in the socio economic states and voting preferences. In fact, Amit Shah had said in a TV interview that there was massive polarisation of votes being done by the SP months before the elections.
 
Thanks for correcting me. I meant DMK.
Though I quoted your post because of the bold part, specially the religion part. I find it really surprising when people keep using it to spread FUD. If that were the case BJP wouldn't have won any seat in Bihar, UP, Assam or even TDP in Andhra - four of the most states with most Muslim population.

I am not sure of the 2nd line of thought: one hand you say identity politics remain an important issue but whether party chooses to play is irrelevant? Is that some type of oxymoron we are talking about? Given the explanation quoted in the following sentences - you do seem to think SP playing the identity card was pretty "relevant" for them to remain in power. I am confused.:confused:
 
Last edited:
Because it is easier to say things.

Edit: I think this is worth sharing:

http://www.youthconnectmag.com/2014/05/15/india-failed-manmohan-singh/
It is actually just as easy to say other things too :)

That said, I dont really have a blog to refer to but this is worth noting:

There has been a thread in TE where people have discussed the economics of India. One of the points coming out the discussion was: India being an export nation is heavily dependent on global economic situations for the growth. I guess @sharktale1212 or @blr_p being involved in that discussion.
Recently there was even a speech by Raghuram highlighting the fact how the central bank policies at developed countries were putting developing ones at risk.
There was a heated exchange with Bernake who was present in the audience. So any figures about growth, FII, Sensex et al are irrelevant.

Whats more disappointing (or rather interesting depending on your view) is within the same post writer mentions "government’s failure must be pinned on the global economic conditions (2nd UPA - 2009-014)" but then conveniently credits the good global economic condition during 2004-2009 to "government's success". I am not sure if I would trust such a writer to present me economic facts.

Secondly, nuclear deal -- major nuclear power generating countries like France, Japan etc are trying to dismantle and reduce their dependency on nuclear power -- one has to wonder why are we trying to increase it. Not to mention there is always an issue with responsibility. Given the fact that we are yet to actually depose Warren Anderson for Union Carbide disaster, one has to wonder what kind of safeguard does nuclear deal has to hold foreign companies responsible if things go wrong. Answer is none.

RTI? I'll give you that one.
 
Last edited:
I am not sure of the 2nd line of thought: one hand you say identity politics remain an important issue but whether party chooses to play is irrelevant? Is that some type of oxymoron we are talking about? Given the explanation quoted in the following sentences - you do seem to think SP playing the identity card was pretty "relevant" for them to remain in power. I am confused.
Yes. Firstly, I mean that even if say, party A pushes for a developmental agenda, the way people belonging to different areas, classes, castes, religions etc. respond to it is different. Some might be easily influenced by it, others might take time etc., others might remain aloof because of past problems, the way media portrays it might affect them differently etc.

Second, if party B tries to polarize community B towards itself, it may push community C towards the other party automatically. So if the SP tries to pander excessively to the Muslims, it may end up pushing others towards the BJP, irrespective of whether the BJP is trying to secure their votes on the basis of religion. Earlier, this segment got split among congress, BSP, SP and BJP but they saw a viable alternative this time in the BJP and the BJP benefited.
 
Because it is easier to say things.
Heh yeah, lots was said last month. We will see how the delivery goes. Am optimistic for now.


http://www.youthconnectmag.com/2014/05/15/india-failed-manmohan-singh/
The only thing that i found of value in this article is the underlined bit.

In his recent book, ‘The Accidental Prime Minister’ Ref. 7, Sanjaya Baru, the former media advisor to the Prime Minister, who is understood to be close to Dr. Singh, claimed that, during the second Singh administration, there came a time when the interference of Mrs. Sonia Gandhi in governance increased to a point where the Prime Minister was not allowed to choose the finance minister of his choice. Baru’s book further claims that, around the start of Singh’s second term, various ministers began to snub the Prime Minister, creating an atmosphere of chaos. The dual-power model was now beginning to show its dark sides, as Manmohan Singh tried hard to hold the reigns.

Political paralysis within the Congress party, the “puppet” image of Dr. Singh, the scams, and an opposition that was raring to come out victorious in the upcoming general election, were enough factors to topple Dr. Singh and his administration. These factors combined, effectively created a poor and a shabby image of the Prime Minister – an image that reeked of incompetence, indecisiveness and corruption. This image was created by handpicking certain flaws in Dr. Singh and his administration, while ignoring most of the good that Dr. Singh and his government did.

That is why a party gets thrown out, when they cannot deliver. Its' happened to a number of other parties as well.

This is the way the system shoukd work.
 
MMS was a honest minister under a corrupt govt. No doubt about it.
But he was being controlled was proved by the recent publications by Sanjay Baru, PC Parakh and then there was one more recent publication (Dont remember. Can anyone help? :()
No matter how good he was, he couldnt do anything about it.

On a different note, whats with the Drama of resignations and then retractions. :D
First Nitish and then Stalin. What drama queens. Why to come back after resgination?
Also these Pseudo Secular parties are still blowing the seularism and communalism bugle. For them Secularism seems synonomous with Minority. The word Hindu means Anti Minority. They still dont have developmental issues to talk about, or introspect that it is the same idiotic thoughts that lead to their defeat in the first place.
 
I think AAP going for 450 seats was a decision with mixed results

Pros-
1) Punjab. Enough said. When a party like AAP with no hope of forming the govt in the Centre wins seats, its cause the people totally believe in it. A lot of seats in punjab were lost by very narrow margins.
2) 450 seats now have an active/semi-active AAP base. Now if there are elections in Bihar or UP or somewhere, AAP has a base it can bank upon.

Cons-
1) Spread themselves very thin.

2) This directly cost them seats. Could have easily got 20 seats from Delhi, Haryana and a few neighbouring states. Plus the win to loss ration would have been significantly reduced. Supporters wouldnt have been dejected.

3) Arvind Kejriwal, Kumar Vishwas, fighting from Delhi would have had a HUGE domino effect. People like Colonel Shekhawat would have won handsomely. That and the volunteers that went to Amethi and Varanasi could have been used MUCH better.


Another problem was their strategy. The moment they stopped talking about Swaraj and Janlokpal and shifted their focus to Modi, they lost a large support base. It wasn't a bad strategy per se, it was just an incomplete strategy. People dont want to see Arvind Kejriwal talking about conspiracy theories or small things, they want to talk about the larger deal, and it seemed by the start of the elections, only Narendra Modi was doing that.

Narendra Modi's last minute interviews also meant that he basically completely dominated the media coverage. Which again meant more votes.

You cant compare AAP's performance with any other party. These are people fighting with white money, complete transparency against all odds. The fact that their vote share increased in an election where it was almost irrelevant, speaks volume of how loyal its support base is. In my city AAP got 70,000 votes. By no means is that less in a city where two very big national leaders were competing.

That said, AAP needs a more holistic strategy, and a much bigger bullseye. It needs to talk more of swaraj, corruption, governance, better living conditions, poverty, infrastructure, education and it needs to brand these things into one HUGE package that transitions easily into say a Delhi model of governance. There is a lot that AAP can do, but internally too, people like Arvind Kejriwal are doing management job and a are the main faces of the party. Now I think AK needs to concentrate of strategy and mobilizing votes while the party is taken care of by others.

Phew. Long post, I know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top