How successful can the democrats be without Obama at the top of the ticket?

[Grummgug]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...passes-whites/

I think the people who scream news bias on both sides can pretty much keep quiet here. Its a Fox News story reporting on findings done by the left-wing Associated Press. So, everyone should be happy.

Had people voted last November at the same rates they did in 2004, when black turnout was below its current historic levels, Republican Mitt Romney would have won narrowly, according to an analysis conducted for The Associated Press.

Romney would have erased Obama's nearly 5 million-vote victory margin and narrowly won the popular vote if voters had turned out as they did in 2004, according to Frey's analysis. Then, white turnout was slightly higher and black voting lower.

More significantly, the battleground states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida and Colorado would have tipped in favor of Romney, handing him the presidency if the outcome of other states remained the same.

See, the problem for democrats is that Obama won a narrow victory in 2012 thanks to a huge historic turnout surge of African-Americans. So if they are going to win in 2016, democrats will probably NEED to keep black turnout at record levels. But how can they do that? Obama can't run again. Will blacks turnout in massive numbers for Hillary Clinton? I don't think so.

If black turnout percentage simply falls back to 2004 levels, they lose. The democratic party can't win being the party of non-whites unless they generate massive turnout. There's just not enough votes there.

[Templar 331]

People need a reason to vote here in the U.S. Even if it's "he's black!" What the Dems need to do in the 2016 election is express the need for people to vote for them. First, they would need a strong candidate. Kerry didn't seem like a strong one in 2004 so I'm sure most minorities didn't vote for the Dems or at all. Secondly, they would need a good rallying cry. Something like "We're the party that did this, and we're going to keep doing it if we're in office!" But you can bet the Reps will do the same. But really, the most guaranteed way for the Dems to get votes is if the Reps put forward some of the most retarded people in government to run for office like they did in 2012.

[Roose]

Even more successful.

Still a bunch of racists out there that could have gone Democrat. Also, more racists came out to vote to try to ensure a white president. I am not talking supremacists, just the average racist Joe, which the world is full of.

I think Obama won despite being black. Hard to really prove that though.

[Fugus]

If the democrats want a chance at winning, they should get a candidate whom:

1) Actually does what he says and works for what is best for the people as a whole and not what others pay him more to do at the expense of his job, like actually politically left leaning instead of moderate right with the history to back it up.

2) Even he denounces Obama and promises to attempt to clean up his mess and goes to the point he puts it in writing where he actually faces major punishment if he doesn't make an actual attempt. And some of his promises including ending the patriot act and the department of homeland security, dropping all charges and pardoning Snowden, Manning and Assang on all charges, reigning in military spending, kicking the money out of government politics and actually keeping these promises to the best of his abilities.

3) Chooses a running mate that falls in line with him with neither of them coming off as batshit crazy.

4) Doesn't tow the company line just to tow it and only falls in with them when it is what is best.

Basically they need a true democrat to run, they would be called an independent nowadays though. They manage to back one of these guys, he would get in with ease till he was shot or had a random car accident or run through the ringer for a blow job or some random rape charge or something else. The thing is getting a true democrat instead of the republicans we have now in the democratic party, they would rail against him before they nominate him as well....

[Gheld]

I think a lot of people are in the same boat as me on this thread. Just staring at it, typing a response, and then deleting the response because they really just don't know how to respond to such rubbish.

Here's what I think you're trying to say:

-Obama only won because of blacks. X
-It's not a good thing that blacks actually felt politically empowered to the point that the black voter turnout was good. XX
-The democrats are going to lose because they are out of black presidential candidates. XXX

To which all I can really think to say is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytCEuuW2_A

[Frozenmerc]

I dunno, I think that only Rand Paul has a chance for presidency out of the rest of the Republican party, and MAYBE Chris Christie( Not sure if I spelled that correctly), other than that, I feel that Hillary Clinton has pretty good chances; I honestly don't know how she lost to Obama in the primaries, but I wasn't really paying attention to politics in 2008, so somebody else might. I heard that she didn't really have the good public speaking abilities that Obama did, but that might not be true.

Other than that: Refer to comment by "Gheld", I think it's comment #5

[Verain]

Even more successful.

Still a bunch of racists out there that could have gone Democrat. Also, more racists came out to vote to try to ensure a white president. I am not talking supremacists, just the average racist Joe, which the world is full of.

Bullshit. The fact that Obama is half black was at least a mild boost to him. How many fucking racists do you even meet on a day to day basis? The small swarm of them on their little websites isn't the tip of an iceberg- it's an entire small ice cube, entirely visible.

Racism is negligible. And the very few people who ARE that racist will generally vote against the Democrats anyway.




To address the OP, Obama is a really charismatic and popular president. The Democrats will do a lot worse without him. Especially if they run Clinton.

[Sunseeker]

If the democrats want a chance at winning, they should get a candidate whom:

1) Actually does what he says and works for what is best for the people as a whole and not what others pay him more to do at the expense of his job, like actually politically left leaning instead of moderate right with the history to back it up.

2) Even he denounces Obama and promises to attempt to clean up his mess and goes to the point he puts it in writing where he actually faces major punishment if he doesn't make an actual attempt. And some of his promises including ending the patriot act and the department of homeland security, dropping all charges and pardoning Snowden, Manning and Assang on all charges, reigning in military spending, kicking the money out of government politics and actually keeping these promises to the best of his abilities.

3) Chooses a running mate that falls in line with him with neither of them coming off as batshit crazy.

4) Doesn't tow the company line just to tow it and only falls in with them when it is what is best.

Basically they need a true democrat to run, they would be called an independent nowadays though. They manage to back one of these guys, he would get in with ease till he was shot or had a random car accident or run through the ringer for a blow job or some random rape charge or something else. The thing is getting a true democrat instead of the republicans we have now in the democratic party, they would rail against him before they nominate him as well....

Doesn't all that basically apply to Republicans too?

[NYC17]

I dunno, I think that only Rand Paul has a chance for presidency out of the rest of the Republican party, and MAYBE Chris Christie( Not sure if I spelled that correctly), other than that, I feel that Hillary Clinton has pretty good chances; I honestly don't know how she lost to Obama in the primaries, but I wasn't really paying attention to politics in 2008, so somebody else might. I heard that she didn't really have the good public speaking abilities that Obama did, but that might not be true.

Other than that: Refer to comment by "Gheld", I think it's comment #5

Rand Paul's basic problem is he thinks government has no role in much of anything. He keeps expressing this sentiment in the form of healthcare. We're not talking a reduced role, we're talking no role at all. We just reelected a president whose landmark piece of legislation was deemed as a "government takeover of healthcare" by Paul's supporters as well as those most likely to vote for him. There is no way he can sell privatization of the healthcare industry to this country.

If the choice is government or corporations/privatization, most people outside Paul's base/influence will choose government by default.

[Fugus]

Doesn't all that basically apply to Republicans too?

Pretty much. But from the global perspective, both sides are virtual republicans now.

The modern day democrats in the 1990s would be called a right wing republican. What many of us call a republican would be called batshit crazy as how democrats are now center right to moderate right while our republicans are moderate right to jihad extremist far right.

So I personally see them as republican and republican lite.

[Ausr]

I think a lot of people are in the same boat as me on this thread. Just staring at it, typing a response, and then deleting the response because they really just don't know how to respond to such rubbish.

Here's what I think you're trying to say:

-Obama only won because of blacks. X
-It's not a good thing that blacks actually felt politically empowered to the point that the black voter turnout was good. XX
-The democrats are going to lose because they are out of black presidential candidates. XXX

To which all I can really think to say is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytCEuuW2_A

I think you're right about what the OP was going for.

[InbredPsychosis]

Implying the democrats can't elect a president without some sort of gimmick.

Not that it matters. None of the votes of the people actually influence the outcome of the elections anyway.

[Sunseeker]

Pretty much. But from the global perspective, both sides are virtual republicans now.

The modern day democrats in the 1990s would be called a right wing republican. What many of us call a republican would be called batshit crazy as how democrats are now center right to moderate right while our republicans are moderate right to jihad extremist far right.

So I personally see them as republican and republican lite.

I personally don't give a crap where we fit on the "international scale" of politics. We're under no obligation to seek the same sort of balance that other parts of the world want.

[Fugus]

I personally don't give a crap where we fit on the "international scale" of politics. We're under no obligation to seek the same sort of balance that other parts of the world want.

I don't say it cause I care specifically about other nations except for how they affect us or show our failings and successes, but the scale does show just how far we have slid compared to the rest of the world a great deal of which are pulling ahead while we are sliding behind.

[Grummgug]

They also say its very hard to win 3 presidential elections in row. What always happens is that a party rises to power on a SLEW of promises and hope. Then they break those promises and their base goes from hope to disappointment. Enthusiasm drops. Then people start to look to the other party.

Since Truman, the only time one party won 3 in a row was the GOP in 80, 84, and 88.

A drop in enthusiasm on the left from many sources, such as wiretapping and spying on citizens, could cause democrats to stay home in 2016.

[NYC17]

They also say its very hard to win 3 presidential elections in row. What always happens is that a party rises to power on a SLEW of promises and hope. Then they break those promises and their base goes from hope to disappointment. Enthusiasm drops. Then people start to look to the other party.

Since Truman, the only time one party won 3 in a row was the GOP in 80, 84, and 88.

A drop in enthusiasm on the left from many sources, such as wiretapping and spying on citizens, could cause democrats to stay home in 2016.

The GOP has to offer something positive. They have failed miserably at that in recent history.

[Åmbulance]

Even more successful.

Still a bunch of racists out there that could have gone Democrat. Also, more racists came out to vote to try to ensure a white president. I am not talking supremacists, just the average racist Joe, which the world is full of.

I think Obama won despite being black. Hard to really prove that though.

You understand that this worked both ways. There were plenty of African Americans who voted for him just because he was the same skin color.

[McCulloch]

Hillary Clinton. She would win the youth vote, women will vote for her, minorities will still come out (maybe not as large, but I think it won't be as low as 2004), she'll win a higher percentage of the male and white vote than Obama, and she would win more of the elderly vote than Obama. This all of course assuming Obama is popular by the time the next presidential election rolls around.

[Wells]

You understand that this worked both ways. There were plenty of African Americans who voted for him just because he was the same skin color.

How many?

Obama in 2012 only got about 5% more of the black vote in 2012 than Kerry did in 2004.

http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/ele.../voted_04.html
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/ele.../voted_12.html

If you factor in that Kerry was a far weaker candidate than Obama and how unpopular Romney was among poor and minority groups I'm not seeing much to back you up.

[Pratt]

If the economy continues to improve and the markets keep going up, Hillary wins. Then we'll be talking about how she won just cause she got the female vote.