Obama is remaining active in politics, to the detriment of the Democratic Party

[CostinR]

Bush stepped aside to help the party because everyone hated him. He left the office with an approval rating of 22%. Obama is leaving the office with an approval rating of 60%. Obama is very well liked and him still being in politics is a very good thing for the Democratic Party, so long as they learn from their Clinton mistake and stop trying to push neo-liberals that nobody wants anymore into the race for President.

Democrats have a Clinton problem, not an Obama problem.

The point I was making is that Obama should step aside to let a new national leader emerge to lead the party. If Obama wants to be a member of the party to help it out then by all means, but he is not the leader anymore and should move on from that position.

Pushing the Democrats to elect Perez was a move that screamed of Obama refusing to relinquish the power he had.

[NYC17]

The point I was making is that Obama should step aside to let a new national leader emerge to lead the party. If Obama wants to be a member of the party to help it out then by all means, but he is not the leader anymore and should move on from that position.

Pushing the Democrats to elect Perez was a move that screamed of Obama refusing to relinquish the power he had.

Really? Supporting someone who worked in his administration "screams of" that?

Drama.

[Sunseeker]

It's always nice to have the helpful insight of Republicans on how to run the Democratic Party. I mean if there was a voice of wisdom in a crowd that I was straining to hear, it would be a Republican one. /sarcasm (in case that wasn't clear)

Obama is probably more in touch with newer Democratic voters than most of the party. And it's not like the President controls the party anyway, especially with Democrats.

[NYC17]

It's always nice to have the helpful insight of Republicans on how to run the Democratic Party. I mean if there was a voice of wisdom in a crowd that I was straining to hear, it would be a Republican one. /sarcasm (in case that wasn't clear)

Obama is probably more in touch with newer Democratic voters than most of the party. And it's not like the President controls the party anyway, especially with Democrats.

I've seen quite a few people talk about how Obama, while personally popular, was a detriment to the party as a whole because of the defeats they suffered. What's odd is that they never seem to take into account the fact that Democrats ran from Obama's positions in those subsequent elections.


I will say this for Democrats; they never seem to learn the right lessons.

[Mafic]

I've seen quite a few people talk about how Obama, while personally popular, was a detriment to the party as a whole because of the defeats they suffered. What's odd is that they never seem to take into account the fact that Democrats ran from Obama's positions in those subsequent elections.


I will say this for Democrats; they never seem to learn the right lessons.

The problem is the Democrats ran away from Obama during both mid term elections and lost big, so I am inclined to agree you can't pin that on Obama. However, Obama was a big part of Hillary's campaign of staying the course, and more of the same which is disaster not only in American political history but also world history. Once a populace establishes or believes a party is considered establishment it is game over.

Hillary had a chance of winning by running on a diametrically different platform from Obama or even 90's centric DLC blue dog Dems. Had she done that she would have won the election IMVHO but her donors pressured her to take the vanilla approach instead of stepping outside of her comfort zone.

[NYC17]

The problem is the Democrats ran away from Obama during both mid term elections and lost big, so I am inclined to agree you can't pin that on Obama. However, Obama was a big part of Hillary's campaign of staying the course, and more of the same which is disaster not only in American political history but also world history. Once a populace establishes or believes a party is considered establishment it is game over.

Hillary had a chance of winning by running on a diametrically different platform from Obama or even 90's centric DLC blue dog Dems. Had she done that she would have won the election IMVHO but her donors pressured her to take the vanilla approach instead of stepping outside of her comfort zone.

Obama wasn't Hillary's albatross. Hillary was Hillary's albatross. It's pretty easy to argue that if Obama(and his wife) weren't as aggressive at campaigning for Hillary as they had been, she would have lost by even wider margins.

Hillary's shit campaign is on Hillary and the leaders of that campaign. No one else.

[Endus]

Obama wasn't Hillary's albatross. Hillary was Hillary's albatross. It's pretty easy to argue that if Obama(and his wife) weren't as aggressive at campaigning for Hillary as they had been, she would have lost by even wider margins.

Hillary's shit campaign is on Hillary and the leaders of that campaign. No one else.

Most of said "shit campaign" boiled down to "willfully ignorant voters didn't even check the Democratic platform, and blindly believed made-up bullshit they heard on Facebook".

[Mafic]

Obama wasn't Hillary's albatross. Hillary was Hillary's albatross. It's pretty easy to argue that if Obama(and his wife) weren't as aggressive at campaigning for Hillary as they had been, she would have lost by even wider margins.

Hillary's shit campaign is on Hillary and the leaders of that campaign. No one else.

Of course Hillary owns it, but she had to know that running behind the platform of an outgoing President was asking to take the hardest path when there were alternative easier paths she could have chosen.

For example, she could have led the idea of modernizing US infrastructure for the digital age and green energy as her platform. But what happened was green energy was just a footnote of her campaign and it focused too much on CIC duties and foreign affairs regarding Europe and Russia and how Trump did not have the experience while she did.

Americans tend to not care about foreign affairs unless it involves war.

[NYC17]

Of course Hillary owns it, but she had to know that running behind the platform of an outgoing President was asking to take the hardest path when there were alternative easier paths she could have chosen.

For example, she could have led the idea of modernizing US infrastructure for the digital age and green energy as her platform. But what happened was green energy was just a footnote of her campaign and it focused too much on CIC duties and foreign affairs regarding Europe and Russia and how Trump did not have the experience while she did.

Americans tend to not care about foreign affairs unless it involves war.

We had solid democrats who voted for Trump based on the idea that he'd give them their jobs back...

The argument you think Hillary should have made for voting for her seems a little bit too nuanced for the audience that gifted Trump the election.

- - - Updated - - -

Most of said "shit campaign" boiled down to "willfully ignorant voters didn't even check the Democratic platform, and blindly believed made-up bullshit they heard on Facebook".

Yea, sure. However she ignored crucial areas, such as the Rust Belt, because she and her campaign leaders were apparently ignorant, willful or otherwise, as to how unpopular she was/is. It was a shit campaign because they ran it like they were facing a normal opponent, and she herself wasn't a fatally flawed candidate.

They needed to adapt. They didn't...and lost.

[mage21]

Most of said "shit campaign" boiled down to "willfully ignorant voters didn't even check the Democratic platform, and blindly believed made-up bullshit they heard on Facebook".

I'm not convinced there were a significant number of people ready for Hillary, but then Uncle Bob posted a "Hillary Sells Weapons to ISIS" headline on Facebook, and suddenly they're on the Trump train. I maintain that the only people those stories had any sway over were people who wanted to believe.

[primalmatter]

Most of said "shit campaign" boiled down to "willfully ignorant voters didn't even check the Democratic platform, and blindly believed made-up bullshit they heard on Facebook".

Willfully ignorant of what exactly? A informed voter was horrified at her track record...

[mvaliz]

I'm not convinced there were a significant number of people ready for Hillary, but then Uncle Bob posted a "Hillary Sells Weapons to ISIS" headline on Facebook, and suddenly they're on the Trump train. I maintain that the only people those stories had any sway over were people who wanted to believe.

Sadly, the other half were exactly what I said 6 years ago back in 2010... general public who don't follow politics. I asked many of my friends who chose not to vote, and they all said the same thing - that they believed Hillary was a criminal soley because of all the hearings she had... which was EXACTLY what the Republicans wanted the average voter to believe.

I said this YEARS ago on this very forum - the Repubs accusing her of the bengazi crap knew she was innocent, but they knew the average joe doesn't follow politics, so they wanted them to associate the words "Hillary" with "Hearings", and thus everybody said "well, she had ALL these hearings, there MUST be something wrong with her!".

[Underverse]

To the detriment of the Democratic party? That sounds like an opinion that isn't backed up by facts. Obama was a good president. Not the best president. But very, very far from the worst. He's a skilled politician, highly intelligent, understands compromise, and is actually out to help the American people, unlike many others who would rather help just their donors or appeal to the base instincts of their constituencies.

- - - Updated - - -

Sadly, the other half were exactly what I said 6 years ago back in 2010... general public who don't follow politics. I asked many of my friends who chose not to vote, and they all said the same thing - that they believed Hillary was a criminal soley because of all the hearings she had... which was EXACTLY what the Republicans wanted the average voter to believe.

I said this YEARS ago on this very forum - the Repubs accusing her of the bengazi crap knew she was innocent, but they knew the average joe doesn't follow politics, so they wanted them to associate the words "Hillary" with "Hearings", and thus everybody said "well, she had ALL these hearings, there MUST be something wrong with her!".

People should be required to get a license to vote. I'm sure republicans would be for it, with their push for voter ID laws.

- - - Updated - - -

Most of said "shit campaign" boiled down to "willfully ignorant voters didn't even check the Democratic platform, and blindly believed made-up bullshit they heard on Facebook".

We can probably go further and say that most political outcomes are founded on willful ignorance. Only sometimes does chance swing in favor of an intelligent decision.

[Vash The Stampede]

However you feel about Obama his political career is over. He SHOULD step aside and let others take charge. If he doesn't he'll do a lot more damage to the Democrats then one might think.

Considering how many Democrats look like a bunch of sellouts with Hillary leading the charge, I would say Obama is making the democrat party look better than it really is. So does Bernie, but nobody is telling him to step aside to make way for a new generation. Now's not the time to play career day with your politicians.

[Gorgodeus]

Obama is and was constitutionally eligible. Unless we're going all "Kenyan Muslim" here.

He is no longer eligible to be President because he has served 2 terms, thus is ineligible to be Vice-President.

[Celista]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...l-or-good.html

Don't you have your own country's politics to worry about? Why are you constantly making threads about US politics when you don't even live here?

On topic, Obama left office with decent approval ratings, and was generally a well-liked president. I don't see how he's harming the left at all, he's certainly not causing more harm than the Giant Orange Cheeto/Tweeter-in-Chief is causing to international perception of the US/the right.

[Eggroll]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...l-or-good.html



The problem with this is that it doesn't allow a new generation of Democratic leaders to rise up. Bush stepped aside after his party was defeated, and that helped the party...what Obama is doing won't.

I don't know, George W. stepped down and after 8 years of Obama the Reps couldn't come up with someone better than Trump. So how exactly has George W.s stepping down "helped" ?

[Endus]

Yea, sure. However she ignored crucial areas, such as the Rust Belt, because she and her campaign leaders were apparently ignorant, willful or otherwise, as to how unpopular she was/is.

Except, y'know, the Democratic Platform explicitly and specifically detailed their focus of revitalizing the Rust Belt, among other left-behind cities, both economically and otherwise.

So we're back to "people didn't bother to even read the Democratic Platform before raging against Hillary." Because what you just said is explicitly not true.

Here, I'll link directly to the relevant section; https://www.democrats.org/party-platform#ending-poverty

Willfully ignorant of what exactly? A informed voter was horrified at her track record...

Every time people complain about her "track record", that list of "bad stuff that makes her a bad candidate" pretty much just boils down to variations on the theme of "BENGHAZI! EMAILS!"

Even though there's nothing there, as multiple investigations have shown.

- - - Updated - - -

If you have to dig deep to find a presidential candidate's platform that candidate has failed.

It's literally right there on their website.

If you can't be arsed to look it up before voting, you are the problem.

[Gorgodeus]

Your few posts are exceptionally simple. It's not hard to follow. But sarcasm is hard for some to understand, I know.

There is no clear answer about the interaction between the 12th and 22nd amendments. Acting like a decision has been handed down by the Supreme Court is silly, your opinion is no more valid than anyone else's (unless you happen to be versed in Constitutional Law).

It's easy to read the constitution as whatever fits your personal bias.

Bias has nothing to do with it. The 22nd Amendment is designed to term limit a President. Period.

If someone who had already served 2 terms as President were allowed to be Vice-President, one could conceivably be President for life. Simply be the Vice-Presidential pick every election, win, and then have the President resign. Obviously an extreme scenario, but it illustrates why what I stated earlier is true.

There is nothing to interpret. You can't have a VP become President due to death, incapacitation, resignation, etc of the President by someone that has already served 2 terms as President.

[sheggaro]

To the detriment? Isn't Obama one of the more popular Democrats? Unlike Hillary?