Keith Ellison blasts Obama for party losses (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 30, 2024, 11:35:33 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Keith Ellison blasts Obama for party losses (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Keith Ellison blasts Obama for party losses  (Read 2556 times)
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,255


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

« on: April 24, 2017, 12:27:44 AM »

The problems of the Democratic Party go way beyond the last 8 years - The Democrats still haven't recovered from RONALD REAGAN winning in 1980, getting his policies through a Democrat congress, and then winning re-election in 1984. It's amazing to see a party this long in stagnation whether its electoral (2007 to 2011 is looking more and more like an anomaly everyday) or its ideological (Clinton largely ceded most of the political ground to the right, while Obama pushed for some things but after the public lashed back in 2010 largely stood backwards).




Yup before Reagan the Dems used to have 270 -280 seats in the house and by the end of the decade he reduced that to Dems being in the 250s.


That reduced their majority enough that another wave election would wipe the dems out and thats exactly what happened in 1994.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,255


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

« Reply #1 on: April 24, 2017, 12:53:45 PM »

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.

Pretty ridiculous post because Obama's ratings are at a historic mediocrity. http://www.gallup.com/poll/202742/obama-averages-job-approval-president.aspx

As a matter of fact he has the worst average approval ratings in the recent era. Freaking George Bush has better average approvals than him. Even Richard Nixon has, that is how horrible Obama's ratings are. Bill Clinton had much better ratings

You hold a fringe position & are totally out of touch. That is why Bernie Sanders is consistently the moved popular politician in USA !

It is called the rise of political polarization.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/01/12/presidential-job-approval-ratings-from-ike-to-obama/

Why does George Bush with 26% approval, shunned by his party in 2008, with iraq War has better approvals than Barack Obama? Bush was even in a very divisive partisan era.

And for all the partisan hackery, Bernie Sanders has an approval rating of 57-61% nationwide. Despite a low support from Republicans, he has massive support among Independents powering him up.  Obama has mediocre approval ratings from independents & if you blame everything on polarization, you are being a partisan hack !

Bush had a 91% approval rating after 9/11, that is what boasted his numbers. Obama never reached that high, but he never bottomed out.  

And Obama left office with the 2nd highest approval rating for an outgoing president. (60%, 2nd only to Clinton in 2001). 55% thought Obama was good/great president according to Quinnipiac. His key legislative achievement (Obamacare) is more popular then ever.

So this whole notion that people were sick of Obama is just nonsense.

Reagan's approval was higher when he left :http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/final_approval.php
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.026 seconds with 12 queries.