Keith Ellison blasts Obama for party losses

[Mr. Smith]

To be fair, given the economic meltdown in 2008-10, a lot of that was baked in and had nothing to do with party leadership. Look at what happened in 1874, 1894, 1930, 1958, 1974, and 1982. It didn't matter that Cleveland blamed the Panic of '93 on the Republicans passing the Sherman Silver Purchase Act, or that the Democrats rejected the Bourbons in 1896.

It had everything to do with Obama putting Goldman Sachs in charge of the nation's finances at a time when the public was screaming for the blood of the bankers (and most of us still are). Instead of punishing Wall Street greed, he rewarded it! It was a historic fumble at a moment when the American people were demanding actual change. Imagine if Franklin Delano Roosevelt had put Henry Ford in charge of the nation's economy. What a disaster.

This is bullsh**t lefty talk.

The issue in 2010 was the backlash to the ACA. In 2014, it was a combination of Obama fatigue (year six of his presidency) and issues like the "if you like your plan you can keep it", NSA leak, the ACA website problems, Syria etc.

People are sick of Obama, who let those who crashed the world economy like former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin off the hook. And Cory Booker who said that Obama was too mean to Bain and Kamala Harris who let Trump's Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin off the hook are not the answer.

Obama left office with high approval ratings and favorability and would have won a third term fairly easily if he was eligible.

Seriously, some of you on the left need to realize that the general public does not give a sh**t about Wall-Street, Goldman Sachs, bankers etc. They never have and never will and you will go no where if you think it is some "winning" message.

Being in the '50's isn't "high approval ratings", and most of that came from a receiving a break from coverage. He was blatantly in the 40's all the way from the Shutdown until the cycle began.

If he were going for Part III, he might very well have lost as well because of this, and by worse since the platform wouldn't be forced far enough left to satiate the base.

[Mr. Smith]

To be fair, given the economic meltdown in 2008-10, a lot of that was baked in and had nothing to do with party leadership. Look at what happened in 1874, 1894, 1930, 1958, 1974, and 1982. It didn't matter that Cleveland blamed the Panic of '93 on the Republicans passing the Sherman Silver Purchase Act, or that the Democrats rejected the Bourbons in 1896.

It had everything to do with Obama putting Goldman Sachs in charge of the nation's finances at a time when the public was screaming for the blood of the bankers (and most of us still are). Instead of punishing Wall Street greed, he rewarded it! It was a historic fumble at a moment when the American people were demanding actual change. Imagine if Franklin Delano Roosevelt had put Henry Ford in charge of the nation's economy. What a disaster.

This is bullsh**t lefty talk.

The issue in 2010 was the backlash to the ACA. In 2014, it was a combination of Obama fatigue (year six of his presidency) and issues like the "if you like your plan you can keep it", NSA leak, the ACA website problems, Syria etc.

People are sick of Obama, who let those who crashed the world economy like former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin off the hook. And Cory Booker who said that Obama was too mean to Bain and Kamala Harris who let Trump's Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin off the hook are not the answer.

Obama left office with high approval ratings and favorability and would have won a third term fairly easily if he was eligible.

Seriously, some of you on the left need to realize that the general public does not give a sh**t about Wall-Street, Goldman Sachs, bankers etc. They never have and never will and you will go no where if you think it is some "winning" message.

Being in the '50's isn't "high approval ratings", and most of that came from a receiving a break from coverage. He was blatantly in the 40's all the way from the Shutdown until the cycle began.

If he were going for Part III, he might very well have lost as well because of this, and by worse since the platform wouldn't be forced far enough left to satiate the base.

He was at 50% during the election of 2012, when the economy was in much worse shape and he doesn't have the baggage Clinton had.

Yes, that was during re-election when Mitt Romney was even more out of touch and the GOP overplayed their hand with the Tea Party.

Also, he had knocking off Osama to ride on.

That doesn't change the 2 year below 50 slump he had right around the time of the bad Obamacare rollout all the way to the cycle.


And as for the last comment: So what does it really matter if he did come oyt with the highest since Bill if he couldn't transfer it anyway?

[Mr. Smith]

To be fair, given the economic meltdown in 2008-10, a lot of that was baked in and had nothing to do with party leadership. Look at what happened in 1874, 1894, 1930, 1958, 1974, and 1982. It didn't matter that Cleveland blamed the Panic of '93 on the Republicans passing the Sherman Silver Purchase Act, or that the Democrats rejected the Bourbons in 1896.

It had everything to do with Obama putting Goldman Sachs in charge of the nation's finances at a time when the public was screaming for the blood of the bankers (and most of us still are). Instead of punishing Wall Street greed, he rewarded it! It was a historic fumble at a moment when the American people were demanding actual change. Imagine if Franklin Delano Roosevelt had put Henry Ford in charge of the nation's economy. What a disaster.

This is bullsh**t lefty talk.

The issue in 2010 was the backlash to the ACA. In 2014, it was a combination of Obama fatigue (year six of his presidency) and issues like the "if you like your plan you can keep it", NSA leak, the ACA website problems, Syria etc.

People are sick of Obama, who let those who crashed the world economy like former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin off the hook. And Cory Booker who said that Obama was too mean to Bain and Kamala Harris who let Trump's Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin off the hook are not the answer.

Obama left office with high approval ratings and favorability and would have won a third term fairly easily if he was eligible.

Seriously, some of you on the left need to realize that the general public does not give a sh**t about Wall-Street, Goldman Sachs, bankers etc. They never have and never will and you will go no where if you think it is some "winning" message.

Being in the '50's isn't "high approval ratings", and most of that came from a receiving a break from coverage. He was blatantly in the 40's all the way from the Shutdown until the cycle began.

If he were going for Part III, he might very well have lost as well because of this, and by worse since the platform wouldn't be forced far enough left to satiate the base.

He was at 50% during the election of 2012, when the economy was in much worse shape and he doesn't have the baggage Clinton had.

Yes, that was during re-election when Mitt Romney was even more out of touch and the GOP overplayed their hand with the Tea Party.

Also, he had knocking off Osama to ride on.

That doesn't change the 2 year below 50 slump he had right around the time of the bad Obamacare rollout all the way to the cycle.


And as for the last comment: So what does it really matter if he did come oyt with the highest since Bill if he couldn't transfer it anyway?

And you don't think his approval rating would have gone up against Trump?

The point is that it refutes Jfern's notion that people are sick of Obama, that isn't politically reality at the moment.

Not at all, the GOP would make sure to keep him demonized and 42% minimum would drink that Kool-Aid.

[Mr. Smith]

This is revisionist history.

Democrats didn't want anything to do with Obama in 2010 and 2014 and ran away from his record and didn't want him to campaign for them. Obama should take hits for keeping DWS, but D's need to own up to their own ineptitude down the ballot.

They ran away because he was polarizing and said almost nothing in his defense. And in the case of 2014, the damage was far done, AND most key elections were in The South.


But that's no excuse for what happened to Sestak, no excuse for not doing more for Tom Barrett or Russ Feingold [you know in a state Obama won by a good margin both times].

Come to think of it, the only Solid Blue Stater who needed Obama, got Obama, and still fried was Anthony Brown...maybe Martha Coakley as well.