Obama Took 2016 Election as ‘Personal Insult,’ Blamed Hillary’s ‘Soulless, Scripted Campaign’

[acri1]

I'm not sure why yall are so confident that Obama would've won. It's possible but by no means guaranteed.

The country isn't the same as it was in 2008/2012, since then the alt-right has blown up and become mainstream. Sure Obama is more popular than Trump but the only thing that matters is swing states.

 

[Wear My Dawg's Hat]

Obama extremely overestimates the popularity of his presidency, ESPECIALLY among black folks.

Which is why the expected black turnout in 2016 to "cement" his legacy didn't happen.

Also, bear in mind that in 2008 and 2012, Obama ran against the results of an unpopular Republican president in GW Bush, and against two moderate Republicans in McCain and Romney that most conservatives could not stand. In the language of boxing, those two could be described as "tomato cans."

So Hillary's campaign combined her personality deficit along with Obama's lack of political impact, setting up
a devastating loss to the host of NBC's "The Apprentice."

 

[Wear My Dawg's Hat]

not even just him as a personality but maybe his political lane. either way it means there was an enthusiasm gap. some of that lack of enthusiasm could be interpreted as an indictment of the centrist way, which obama was trying to hand off to hillary.

He may blame Hillary now, but the political "streets is watching" and the eyes are most definitely on him, too.


The Fragile Legacy of Barack Obama
ELAINE KAMARCK

The Presidency of Barack Obama: A First Historical Assessment
Edited by Julian E. Zelizer

It becomes clearer every day that Barack Obama, a historic president, presided over a somewhat less than historic presidency. With only one major legislative achievement (Obamacare)—and a fragile one at that—the legacy of Obama’s presidency mainly rests on its tremendous symbolic importance and the fate of a patchwork of executive actions.

Obama was a distant politician. In the end, he was reluctant to fight the political battles that make for sustainable policy. How much of that was due to fate and how much was due to Obama’s own shortcomings as a politician is up for debate and is a question that emerges from Princeton historian Julian Zelizer’s new edited volume, The Presidency of Barack Obama.

With contributions from seventeen historians, the book bills itself as “a first historical assessment” of the Obama presidency. The overwhelming consensus, Zelizer writes, is that Obama “turned out to be a very effective policymaker but not a tremendously successful party builder.” This “defining paradox of Obama’s presidency” comes up again and again: the historians, by and large, approve of Obama’s policies (although some find them too timid) while they lament his politics.

The politics were pretty disastrous. As Zelizer summarizes, “During his presidency, even as he enjoyed reelection and strong approval ratings toward the end of this term, the Democratic Party suffered greatly. . . . Democrats lost more than one thousand seats in state legislatures, governors’ mansions, and Congress during his time in office.” Zelizer could have gone further. According to Ballotpedia, more Democratic state legislative seats were lost under Obama than under any president in modern history.

The Fragile Legacy of Barack Obama

 

[acri1]

He may blame Hillary now, but the political "streets is watching" and the eyes are most definitely on him, too.


The Fragile Legacy of Barack Obama
ELAINE KAMARCK

The Presidency of Barack Obama: A First Historical Assessment
Edited by Julian E. Zelizer

It becomes clearer every day that Barack Obama, a historic president, presided over a somewhat less than historic presidency. With only one major legislative achievement (Obamacare)—and a fragile one at that—the legacy of Obama’s presidency mainly rests on its tremendous symbolic importance and the fate of a patchwork of executive actions.

Obama was a distant politician. In the end, he was reluctant to fight the political battles that make for sustainable policy. How much of that was due to fate and how much was due to Obama’s own shortcomings as a politician is up for debate and is a question that emerges from Princeton historian Julian Zelizer’s new edited volume, The Presidency of Barack Obama.

With contributions from seventeen historians, the book bills itself as “a first historical assessment” of the Obama presidency. The overwhelming consensus, Zelizer writes, is that Obama “turned out to be a very effective policymaker but not a tremendously successful party builder.” This “defining paradox of Obama’s presidency” comes up again and again: the historians, by and large, approve of Obama’s policies (although some find them too timid) while they lament his politics.

The politics were pretty disastrous. As Zelizer summarizes, “During his presidency, even as he enjoyed reelection and strong approval ratings toward the end of this term, the Democratic Party suffered greatly. . . . Democrats lost more than one thousand seats in state legislatures, governors’ mansions, and Congress during his time in office.” Zelizer could have gone further. According to Ballotpedia, more Democratic state legislative seats were lost under Obama than under any president in modern history.

The Fragile Legacy of Barack Obama

The problem with this article is that it downplays the fact tha Obama was just subject to a lot of racist backlash from white voters (and Republican obstructionism) that he really couldn't have prevented, and the Dem party suffered for it.

Policy just isn't what motivates most voters.

 

[Wear My Dawg's Hat]

The problem with this article is that it downplays the fact tha Obama was just subject to a lot of racist backlash from white voters (and Republican obstructionism) that he really couldn't have prevented, and the Dem party suffered for it.

Policy just isn't what motivates most voters.

Opposition is the nature of politics. That is why there are opposing parties. It has to be dealt with, no matter what.

Jimmy Carter faced as much (if not more..) Republican backlash in 1980, which is how Ronald Reagan beat him, taking away his chance for a second term.

Newt Gingrich and the 1994 Republican Contract For America wave stifled Bill Clinton.

If the Republican opposition was so powerful against Obama in 2012, then how did he get re-elected to a second term? Why?

To put that in context, Carter and G.H.W. Bush both only received one term from the country.

And somehow, the racist backlash wasn't enough to energize black voters in 2016 to extend Obama's legacy. That was due to his lack of connection to the community, not because of a backlash externally.

The subsequent #ADOS movement is also partially a reaction to Obama's disconnection from the community.

 

[acri1]

If the Republican opposition was so powerful against Obama in 2012, then how did he get re-elected to a second term? Why?

Because 2012 and 2016 are two completely different years, and in that period the alt-right blew up.

Also, the backlash against Obama manifested in Dems generally losing seats while he was in power even if he got reelected.

 

[the cac mamba]

cant get enough of this thread title

 

[deeznutz93]

not even just him as a personality but maybe his political lane. either way it means there was an enthusiasm gap. some of that lack of enthusiasm could be interpreted as an indictment of the centrist way, which obama was trying to hand off to hillary. sure hillary has high negatives, but so does trump. maybe there is something more to it than just she was a terrible candidate or had a terrible campaign. the election is not only the story of who voted, but also of who chose not to vote and why, and if this book is to be believed, obama is wondering what his legacy is going to look like

It's going to be shyt.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Obama full of shyt though. Hillary’s campaign was trash, yes. But he seriously overestimates his own presidency.

Yeah Hillary dumb as fukk for not visiting the midwest, but so is he for campaigning for TPP during the height of the election and pretending to drink water from Flint and saying it’s ok.

 

[afterlife2009]

Obama full of shyt though. Hillary’s campaign was trash, yes. But he seriously overestimates his own presidency.

Yeah Hillary dumb as fukk for not visiting the midwest, but so is he for campaigning for TPP during the height of the election and pretending to drink water from Flint and saying it’s ok.

when I saw this in the Michael Moore doc

 

[JoogJoint]

when I saw this in the Michael Moore doc

Wow, truly condescending of Obama.

 

[Jhoon]

She thought she had it wrapped up. She did a piss poor job of campaigning.

She thought she had it wrapped in 2008 too. At some point you have to realize she’s a terrible politician.

 

[NZA]

Wow, truly condescending of Obama.

always condescending to his black base

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

when I saw this in the Michael Moore doc

The mural of Obama in Flint now has its head busted out.

Also campaigning hard for another monster international trade agreement during the height of the election season certainly did no favors for turnout.

He and Hillary both supported TPP. It’s plausible that Hillary could’ve avoided the midwest in large part to avoid questions about TPP.

 

[ill]

Obama full of shyt though. Hillary’s campaign was trash, yes. But he seriously overestimates his own presidency.

Yeah Hillary dumb as fukk for not visiting the midwest, but so is he for campaigning for TPP during the height of the election and pretending to drink water from Flint and saying it’s ok.

Meph back