Obama: maybe I was "10 or 20 years too early"

[Progressive Pessimist]

It's kind of upsetting to see Obama succumb to despair just like the rest of us. It's not his fault. It's ours. This country just cannot overcome its divisions.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It's kind of upsetting to see Obama succumb to despair just like the rest of us. It's not his fault. It's ours. This country just cannot overcome its divisions.

We could have had hope and change if that wasn't just a slogan for him.

[junior chįmp]

As a political organized/party leader Obama was largely unsuccessfully. He was great at running himself for the Presidency, but the party in general was left in much worse shape. First he tossed Dean's 50 states strategy and elevated mediocre leader such as Kaine for chair, then pretty much ceded control to the Clintonites. What I find particularly puzzling is the President being fine with his own party chair (DWS) fighting him over one of his signature policy decisions (Iran deal).

Yeah that's probably Obama's biggest mistake in terms of politics: he let the Clinton faction run the Democratic party into the ground.

Up until Obama, Bill Clinton presided over the most state legislature seat losses under a Democratic president going back to the 1920s. There is a reoccurring pattern here irrespective of who actually runs the DNC. Thirdwayism was never a big winner for Democrats

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

As a political organized/party leader Obama was largely unsuccessfully. He was great at running himself for the Presidency, but the party in general was left in much worse shape. First he tossed Dean's 50 states strategy and elevated mediocre leader such as Kaine for chair, then pretty much ceded control to the Clintonites. What I find particularly puzzling is the President being fine with his own party chair (DWS) fighting him over one of his signature policy decisions (Iran deal).

Yeah that's probably Obama's biggest mistake in terms of politics: he let the Clinton faction run the Democratic party into the ground.

Up until Obama, Bill Clinton presided over the most state legislature seat losses under a Democratic president going back to the 1920s. There is a reoccurring pattern here irrespective of who actually runs the party. Thirdwayism was never a big winner for Democrats

Yup, the only midterm that wasn't an utter disaster in their 4 terms was because of backlash from Clinton being impeached.

1994 and 2010 were the biggest House swings in any election since 1948. And speaking of 1948, unlike Obama and Clinton, Truman lost the House in his first midterm but won it back 2 years later.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

As a political organized/party leader Obama was largely unsuccessfully. He was great at running himself for the Presidency, but the party in general was left in much worse shape. First he tossed Dean's 50 states strategy and elevated mediocre leader such as Kaine for chair, then pretty much ceded control to the Clintonites. What I find particularly puzzling is the President being fine with his own party chair (DWS) fighting him over one of his signature policy decisions (Iran deal).

Yeah that's probably Obama's biggest mistake in terms of politics: he let the Clinton faction run the Democratic party into the ground.

Up until Obama, Bill Clinton presided over the most state legislature seat losses under a Democratic president going back to the 1920s. There is a reoccurring pattern here irrespective of who actually runs the DNC. Thirdwayism was never a big winner for Democrats

Thirdwayism was a crucial element in the suburbs flipping in the 90s.

[junior chįmp]

As a political organized/party leader Obama was largely unsuccessfully. He was great at running himself for the Presidency, but the party in general was left in much worse shape. First he tossed Dean's 50 states strategy and elevated mediocre leader such as Kaine for chair, then pretty much ceded control to the Clintonites. What I find particularly puzzling is the President being fine with his own party chair (DWS) fighting him over one of his signature policy decisions (Iran deal).

Yeah that's probably Obama's biggest mistake in terms of politics: he let the Clinton faction run the Democratic party into the ground.

Up until Obama, Bill Clinton presided over the most state legislature seat losses under a Democratic president going back to the 1920s. There is a reoccurring pattern here irrespective of who actually runs the DNC. Thirdwayism was never a big winner for Democrats

Thirdwayism was a crucial element in the suburbs flipping in the 90s.

A Democratic president who had the good fortune of running after 12 years of GOP rule and had the perfect timing to become president over the largest peace time economic expansion in US History due to the dot com boom had more to do with that.

Think of how good the economy was under Clinton...yet despite that, the Democrats lost 524 state legislature seats during his presidency. Under George W. Bush.... Republicans only lost 324 state legislature seats despite Bush literally being one of the worst presidents in history.

[Virginiá]

A Democratic president who had the good fortune of running after 12 years of GOP rule and had the perfect timing to become president over the largest peace time economic expansion in US History due to the dot com boom had more to do with that.

Think of how good the economy was under Clinton...yet despite that, the Democrats lost 524 state legislature seats during his presidency. Under George W. Bush.... Republicans only lost 324 state legislature seats despite Bush literally being one of the worst presidents in history.

Didn't Clinton start out more left-leaning?

Regardless, the election results of the mid-late 90s seem like an expected transition from Democratic to Republican rule after a Republican realignment. It had to happen eventually. And even for all those seats lost, Democrats still held onto a bunch of southern state legislatures until Obama came along and finished that off. I don't think Third Way stuff has been good for the party, but I don't think all these losses under Clinton and Obama were always avoidable either. Maybe it could have been mitigated a bit, but a lot of it was bound to happen eventually.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

As a political organized/party leader Obama was largely unsuccessfully. He was great at running himself for the Presidency, but the party in general was left in much worse shape. First he tossed Dean's 50 states strategy and elevated mediocre leader such as Kaine for chair, then pretty much ceded control to the Clintonites. What I find particularly puzzling is the President being fine with his own party chair (DWS) fighting him over one of his signature policy decisions (Iran deal).

Yeah that's probably Obama's biggest mistake in terms of politics: he let the Clinton faction run the Democratic party into the ground.

Up until Obama, Bill Clinton presided over the most state legislature seat losses under a Democratic president going back to the 1920s. There is a reoccurring pattern here irrespective of who actually runs the DNC. Thirdwayism was never a big winner for Democrats

Thirdwayism was a crucial element in the suburbs flipping in the 90s.

A Democratic president who had the good fortune of running after 12 years of GOP rule and had the perfect timing to become president over the largest peace time economic expansion in US History due to the dot com boom had more to do with that.

Think of how good the economy was under Clinton...yet despite that, the Democrats lost 524 state legislature seats during his presidency. Under George W. Bush.... Republicans only lost 324 state legislature seats despite Bush literally being one of the worst presidents in history.

The 90s were a decade in which the country were very concerned about:

• undocumented immigrants (see: Proposition 187)
• taxes (see: NJ Governor Florio losing in 1993)
• crime (see: GOP elected mayors in Jersey City and NYC)
• the deficit (the Balanced Budget Amendment almost got passed Congress

Even if Democrats won in 1992 with someone like Mario Coumo, they could have well lost in '96 - Mario managed to lose re-election in New York in '94, the issue of crime had that much salience.

[junior chįmp]

A Democratic president who had the good fortune of running after 12 years of GOP rule and had the perfect timing to become president over the largest peace time economic expansion in US History due to the dot com boom had more to do with that.

Think of how good the economy was under Clinton...yet despite that, the Democrats lost 524 state legislature seats during his presidency. Under George W. Bush.... Republicans only lost 324 state legislature seats despite Bush literally being one of the worst presidents in history.

Didn't Clinton start out more left-leaning?

Regardless, the election results of the mid-late 90s seem like an expected transition from Democratic to Republican rule after a Republican realignment. It had to happen eventually. And even for all those seats lost, Democrats still held onto a bunch of southern state legislatures until Obama came along and finished that off. I don't think Third Way stuff has been good for the party, but I don't think all these losses under Clinton and Obama were always avoidable either. Maybe it could have been mitigated a bit, but a lot of it was bound to happen eventually.

That part might be true (since historically the president's party losses seats) but those losses were historically unprecedented. I still don't get how Obama managed to lose more state legislature seats than Nixon despite the Watergate scandal and all. Obama holds the all time record for losses despite running a mostly scandal free and somewhat legislatively successful presidency.

Reagan bucked the trend and actually left office with a net gain in seats but Clinton had a much bigger and more robust economic expansion than Reagan and a higher overall approval rating but still lost a ton of seats (second to Obama for Democrats)

It's true that losing these seats might have something to do with a forthcoming realignment but they are still unprecedented and point to the Democratic Party just having a chronic turnout and enthusiasm problem.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

A Democratic president who had the good fortune of running after 12 years of GOP rule and had the perfect timing to become president over the largest peace time economic expansion in US History due to the dot com boom had more to do with that.

Think of how good the economy was under Clinton...yet despite that, the Democrats lost 524 state legislature seats during his presidency. Under George W. Bush.... Republicans only lost 324 state legislature seats despite Bush literally being one of the worst presidents in history.

Didn't Clinton start out more left-leaning?

Regardless, the election results of the mid-late 90s seem like an expected transition from Democratic to Republican rule after a Republican realignment. It had to happen eventually. And even for all those seats lost, Democrats still held onto a bunch of southern state legislatures until Obama came along and finished that off. I don't think Third Way stuff has been good for the party, but I don't think all these losses under Clinton and Obama were always avoidable either. Maybe it could have been mitigated a bit, but a lot of it was bound to happen eventually.

That part might be true (since historically the president's party losses seats) but those losses were historically unprecedented. I still don't get how Obama managed to lose more state legislature seats than Nixon despite the Watergate scandal and all. Obama holds the all time record for losses despite running a mostly scandal free and somewhat legislatively successful presidency.

Reagan bucked the trend and actually left office with a net gain in seats but Clinton had a much bigger and more robust economic expansion than Reagan and a higher overall approval rating but still lost a ton of seats (second to Obama for Democrats)

It's true that losing these seats might have something to do with a forthcoming realignment but they are still unprecedented and point to the Democratic Party just having a chronic turnout and enthusiasm problem.

Clinton and Obama seemed to make the party just about the Presidency and not so much about the other seats. And then ironically their party lost the Presidency afterwards despite the economy doing well.

[junior chįmp]

As a political organized/party leader Obama was largely unsuccessfully. He was great at running himself for the Presidency, but the party in general was left in much worse shape. First he tossed Dean's 50 states strategy and elevated mediocre leader such as Kaine for chair, then pretty much ceded control to the Clintonites. What I find particularly puzzling is the President being fine with his own party chair (DWS) fighting him over one of his signature policy decisions (Iran deal).

Yeah that's probably Obama's biggest mistake in terms of politics: he let the Clinton faction run the Democratic party into the ground.

Up until Obama, Bill Clinton presided over the most state legislature seat losses under a Democratic president going back to the 1920s. There is a reoccurring pattern here irrespective of who actually runs the DNC. Thirdwayism was never a big winner for Democrats

Thirdwayism was a crucial element in the suburbs flipping in the 90s.

A Democratic president who had the good fortune of running after 12 years of GOP rule and had the perfect timing to become president over the largest peace time economic expansion in US History due to the dot com boom had more to do with that.

Think of how good the economy was under Clinton...yet despite that, the Democrats lost 524 state legislature seats during his presidency. Under George W. Bush.... Republicans only lost 324 state legislature seats despite Bush literally being one of the worst presidents in history.

The 90s were a decade in which the country were very concerned about:

• undocumented immigrants (see: Proposition 187)
• taxes (see: NJ Governor Florio losing in 1993)
• crime (see: GOP elected mayors in Jersey City and NYC)
• the deficit (the Balanced Budget Amendment almost got passed Congress

Even if Democrats won in 1992 with someone like Mario Coumo, they could have well lost in '96 - Mario managed to lose re-election in New York in '94, the issue of crime had that much salience.

I don't really buy into this notion because the single biggest predictor of a president winning re-election/election is short-term income growth in the months leading up to the election:

graph

Whoever would of won in 1992 (be it Cuomo or Tsongas) would of been re elected in 1996 due to the dot com boom.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

As a political organized/party leader Obama was largely unsuccessfully. He was great at running himself for the Presidency, but the party in general was left in much worse shape. First he tossed Dean's 50 states strategy and elevated mediocre leader such as Kaine for chair, then pretty much ceded control to the Clintonites. What I find particularly puzzling is the President being fine with his own party chair (DWS) fighting him over one of his signature policy decisions (Iran deal).

Yeah that's probably Obama's biggest mistake in terms of politics: he let the Clinton faction run the Democratic party into the ground.

Up until Obama, Bill Clinton presided over the most state legislature seat losses under a Democratic president going back to the 1920s. There is a reoccurring pattern here irrespective of who actually runs the DNC. Thirdwayism was never a big winner for Democrats

Thirdwayism was a crucial element in the suburbs flipping in the 90s.

A Democratic president who had the good fortune of running after 12 years of GOP rule and had the perfect timing to become president over the largest peace time economic expansion in US History due to the dot com boom had more to do with that.

Think of how good the economy was under Clinton...yet despite that, the Democrats lost 524 state legislature seats during his presidency. Under George W. Bush.... Republicans only lost 324 state legislature seats despite Bush literally being one of the worst presidents in history.

The 90s were a decade in which the country were very concerned about:

• undocumented immigrants (see: Proposition 187)
• taxes (see: NJ Governor Florio losing in 1993)
• crime (see: GOP elected mayors in Jersey City and NYC)
• the deficit (the Balanced Budget Amendment almost got passed Congress

Even if Democrats won in 1992 with someone like Mario Coumo, they could have well lost in '96 - Mario managed to lose re-election in New York in '94, the issue of crime had that much salience.

I don't really buy into this notion because the single biggest predictor of a president winning re-election/election is short-term income growth in the months leading up to the election:



Whoever would of won in 1992 (be it Cuomo or Tsongas) would of been re elected in 1996 due to the dot com boom.

If Clinton continued to govern as a solid liberal after '94, he would have lost re-election. Reaganomics may had been somewhat discredited after the early 90s recession, but America didn't really want to replace it with tax-and-spend liberal policies. (note that one of the factors in the '94 midterm victory for the GOP was the tax bill the Democrats passed)
America really wanted something in the middle. That's what Clinton stood for after the midterms. And on this platform he won re-election.

[OSR stands with Israel]

A Democratic president who had the good fortune of running after 12 years of GOP rule and had the perfect timing to become president over the largest peace time economic expansion in US History due to the dot com boom had more to do with that.

Think of how good the economy was under Clinton...yet despite that, the Democrats lost 524 state legislature seats during his presidency. Under George W. Bush.... Republicans only lost 324 state legislature seats despite Bush literally being one of the worst presidents in history.

Didn't Clinton start out more left-leaning?

Regardless, the election results of the mid-late 90s seem like an expected transition from Democratic to Republican rule after a Republican realignment. It had to happen eventually. And even for all those seats lost, Democrats still held onto a bunch of southern state legislatures until Obama came along and finished that off. I don't think Third Way stuff has been good for the party, but I don't think all these losses under Clinton and Obama were always avoidable either. Maybe it could have been mitigated a bit, but a lot of it was bound to happen eventually.

That part might be true (since historically the president's party losses seats) but those losses were historically unprecedented. I still don't get how Obama managed to lose more state legislature seats than Nixon despite the Watergate scandal and all. Obama holds the all time record for losses despite running a mostly scandal free and somewhat legislatively successful presidency.

Reagan bucked the trend and actually left office with a net gain in seats but Clinton had a much bigger and more robust economic expansion than Reagan and a higher overall approval rating but still lost a ton of seats (second to Obama for Democrats)

It's true that losing these seats might have something to do with a forthcoming realignment but they are still unprecedented and point to the Democratic Party just having a chronic turnout and enthusiasm problem.

If someone like Booker is President do you think the Democrats will do good down ballot

[YE]

A Democratic president who had the good fortune of running after 12 years of GOP rule and had the perfect timing to become president over the largest peace time economic expansion in US History due to the dot com boom had more to do with that.

Think of how good the economy was under Clinton...yet despite that, the Democrats lost 524 state legislature seats during his presidency. Under George W. Bush.... Republicans only lost 324 state legislature seats despite Bush literally being one of the worst presidents in history.

Didn't Clinton start out more left-leaning?

Regardless, the election results of the mid-late 90s seem like an expected transition from Democratic to Republican rule after a Republican realignment. It had to happen eventually. And even for all those seats lost, Democrats still held onto a bunch of southern state legislatures until Obama came along and finished that off. I don't think Third Way stuff has been good for the party, but I don't think all these losses under Clinton and Obama were always avoidable either. Maybe it could have been mitigated a bit, but a lot of it was bound to happen eventually.

I can understand the South losses, but the Democrats should have been able to hold their own in the midwest, west, and northeast. Particularly in 2014 when the economy was decent and the previous two years were uneventful. In many other places, they should have capitalized off of the GOP bullsh**t and did not - the 2012 Wisconsin recall and 2014 Kansas governor race are probably the best examples of this.

To be fair, I don't really fault Obama personally too much for the midterm wipeouts. He had bigger and better things to do in his time in office such as actually being president. I fault the Democratic establishment operations more than anything.

[junior chįmp]

A Democratic president who had the good fortune of running after 12 years of GOP rule and had the perfect timing to become president over the largest peace time economic expansion in US History due to the dot com boom had more to do with that.

Think of how good the economy was under Clinton...yet despite that, the Democrats lost 524 state legislature seats during his presidency. Under George W. Bush.... Republicans only lost 324 state legislature seats despite Bush literally being one of the worst presidents in history.

Didn't Clinton start out more left-leaning?

Regardless, the election results of the mid-late 90s seem like an expected transition from Democratic to Republican rule after a Republican realignment. It had to happen eventually. And even for all those seats lost, Democrats still held onto a bunch of southern state legislatures until Obama came along and finished that off. I don't think Third Way stuff has been good for the party, but I don't think all these losses under Clinton and Obama were always avoidable either. Maybe it could have been mitigated a bit, but a lot of it was bound to happen eventually.

That part might be true (since historically the president's party losses seats) but those losses were historically unprecedented. I still don't get how Obama managed to lose more state legislature seats than Nixon despite the Watergate scandal and all. Obama holds the all time record for losses despite running a mostly scandal free and somewhat legislatively successful presidency.

Reagan bucked the trend and actually left office with a net gain in seats but Clinton had a much bigger and more robust economic expansion than Reagan and a higher overall approval rating but still lost a ton of seats (second to Obama for Democrats)

It's true that losing these seats might have something to do with a forthcoming realignment but they are still unprecedented and point to the Democratic Party just having a chronic turnout and enthusiasm problem.

If someone like Booker is President do you think the Democrats will do good down ballot

Booker would be a disaster. People would stop turning out for the midterms after he wins. Especially with Trump gone

If Clinton continued to govern as a solid liberal after '94, he would have lost re-election. Reaganomics may had been somewhat discredited after the early 90s recession, but America didn't really want to replace it with tax-and-spend liberal policies. (note that one of the factors in the '94 midterm victory for the GOP was the tax bill the Democrats passed)
America really wanted something in the middle. That's what Clinton stood for after the midterms. And on this platform he won re-election.

Clinton continued losing seats downballot after moving to center. Despite having a 70% approval rating and 3% unemployment....Gore lost anyway.

Clinton was never a leftist. Supposedly....Clinton's health care plan is why Dems lost Congress....but George H W Bush ran in 1988 on letting people buy into a Medicaid public option and won anyway.

[junior chįmp]

A Democratic president who had the good fortune of running after 12 years of GOP rule and had the perfect timing to become president over the largest peace time economic expansion in US History due to the dot com boom had more to do with that.

Think of how good the economy was under Clinton...yet despite that, the Democrats lost 524 state legislature seats during his presidency. Under George W. Bush.... Republicans only lost 324 state legislature seats despite Bush literally being one of the worst presidents in history.

Didn't Clinton start out more left-leaning?

Regardless, the election results of the mid-late 90s seem like an expected transition from Democratic to Republican rule after a Republican realignment. It had to happen eventually. And even for all those seats lost, Democrats still held onto a bunch of southern state legislatures until Obama came along and finished that off. I don't think Third Way stuff has been good for the party, but I don't think all these losses under Clinton and Obama were always avoidable either. Maybe it could have been mitigated a bit, but a lot of it was bound to happen eventually.

That part might be true (since historically the president's party losses seats) but those losses were historically unprecedented. I still don't get how Obama managed to lose more state legislature seats than Nixon despite the Watergate scandal and all. Obama holds the all time record for losses despite running a mostly scandal free and somewhat legislatively successful presidency.

Reagan bucked the trend and actually left office with a net gain in seats but Clinton had a much bigger and more robust economic expansion than Reagan and a higher overall approval rating but still lost a ton of seats (second to Obama for Democrats)

It's true that losing these seats might have something to do with a forthcoming realignment but they are still unprecedented and point to the Democratic Party just having a chronic turnout and enthusiasm problem.

Clinton and Obama seemed to make the party just about the Presidency and not so much about the other seats. And then ironically their party lost the Presidency afterwards despite the economy doing well.

The problem is that it wouldn't of mattered who ran the DNC or the party because there is never any grassroots excitement in the Democratic Party. (Well up until Trump) You can spend as much money as you want and hire thousands of field directors and staff to try train and retain volunteers but it makes no difference when people don't feel compelled to participate.

Democrats may be able to win the presidency due to demographics but they just cannot get voters to participate beyond that.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

The burning hatred for Obama among socialists for only giving them 90% of what they wanted never ceases to astound me.

What the hell are you talking about? Socialism is the workers taking control of the factories. When did Obama give socialists "90%" of what they want? Do you even know what a socialist is? Do you believe that socialism is when the government does things?

I meant 90% of what they wanted from presidency.

So this is from a little back in the thread but its sheer, concentrated lunacy requires me to raise it from the dead.

People who were on the left of the party (many of whom now call themselves socialists, or social democrats, or just Progressives) wanted the following things from the Obama Presidency:

1) An end to US involvement in Iraq, and a general pullback from imperial conflict worldwide
2) A restoration of pre 9/11 civil liberties
3) The closure of the prison at Guantamo Bay, Cuba.
4) A robust response to the Great Recession that involved prosecutions of the financiers responsible for the bankrupting of large swathes of the American public, and a response that was oriented toward alleviating suffering on the part of the public rather than bailing out financial institutions.
5) The prosecution of Bush Administration officials that presided over torture programs.
6) A universal health care program with AT LEAST a public option.

(idk the Left was really FP focused in the oughts, this wouldn't necessarily be my laundry list but there you have it)

Where's the 90% of that we got?

=================================================

As for the OP: Politician interprets world events as being about them but in such a way that they cop none of the blame, more at 10 from our special correspondent.

[Virginiá]

That part might be true (since historically the president's party losses seats) but those losses were historically unprecedented. I still don't get how Obama managed to lose more state legislature seats than Nixon despite the Watergate scandal and all. Obama holds the all time record for losses despite running a mostly scandal free and somewhat legislatively successful presidency.

Reagan bucked the trend and actually left office with a net gain in seats but Clinton had a much bigger and more robust economic expansion than Reagan and a higher overall approval rating but still lost a ton of seats (second to Obama for Democrats)

It's true that losing these seats might have something to do with a forthcoming realignment but they are still unprecedented and point to the Democratic Party just having a chronic turnout and enthusiasm problem.

Reagan also entered office with Republicans still at a low point in terms of legislatures they controlled. His initial wave won some more but overall he left office with less legislatures than he came in with, and keep in mind we're talking about a real small number.. By 1988, Republicans only controlled 9 legislatures, although more were split compared to the Watergate period. The one area where Reagan did well in entry vs exit was Governors offices. Republicans picked up a bunch in 1986. Inroads in the South and reclaiming some Midwest states helped with this, but without a doubt, R+8 is incredible for a 6-year itch midterm. Per your economic argument - I'm not sure the economy was factoring into it all that much. The South's transition in party control never seemed to stop for anything, and they played a big role in the GOP ascendancy to power. This is part of what I meant by Reagan being in a period of realigning power - performing unusually well even when traditional metrics say they shouldn't is a classic sign of such an event.

Also consider that:

1. Democrats held a lot of legislative/House seats that they really didn't have any business holding, but up to that point had done so nonetheless. Obama's first midterm was for many of those areas a mass abandonment of ticket splitting. It's how you end up with Alabama Republicans gaining 20+ state House seats in a single election. Or Arkansas Democrats' spectacular collapse over two election cycles, with almost 20 state House seat losses in 2010. North Carolina was a state where Democrats were especially vulnerable to a wave, and it happened just in time for Republicans to implement a brutal gerrymander that has so far managed to keep the legislature safe R.

2. Another problem was that Democratic strength was inflated after 2 back-to-back waves. You had states like Michigan, where Democrats had 67 seats to Republicans 43 post-2008, and the status quo since the 90s had been probably around 58 - 60 Republican seats, so Democrats were bound to lose that. I've argued before that Democrats' real position in the states was obfuscated by their 2006-2008 performance, and part of the dramatic collapse was more like a reversion back to the norm, but with the added effect of a GOP wave causing further losses + gerrymandering locking those into place (or worse).

3. As stated above^, gerrymandering and additional shifting of the coalitions deepened these seat deficits too IMO. Perhaps in Michigan, Democrats would have won the state House again in 2012, but because of the rigged maps, that wasn't possible even though they won an 8% popular vote victory. Imagine how this played out across the country, such as in states like Indiana, where pre-Obama, Democrats had actually kept the state House competitive but during/after Obama find themselves at a pathetic 40 seat deficit (!). Part of it is gerrymandering, part of it is Obama being chronically unpopular (two midterm waves is pretty bad) and part of it is shifts of WWC voters away from Democrats.

Think about talk of potential Democratic gains this year in again, Michigan. It's be proposed that the state House may be possible in a big wave, and there are TONS of retirements in the state Senate, which may open it up too. But here's the thing - the presidential results of the district maps describe a map hostile to Democrats in general, so yeah, if a wave washed them in, it'll take them out too when it recedes and Republicans are back on at least neutral ground. I think Obama had the unlucky effect of taking office after 2 waves, saw inflated Democratic power everywhere, and then a brutal backlash not only took all that away but also a lot more.

-

You're right that it's hard to explain the party's stunningly massive losses with any of the usual things - gerrymandering, turnout differentials, etc. But I'd argue it's a combination of policy (3rd way stuff included), gerrymandering, inflated power after 2 waves, and the fact that even before Obama, Democrats' short/medium-term future in the states was more dire than people understood. If you look at Democratic strength in the states from 2000 - 2005, and compare it to this year, it's not that different. Yes, Democrats are weaker and control less, but it's not a huge difference. They controlled 19 Governors offices in 2000, and 16 now, and it would be more like 19 if Republicans didn't luck out and get 3 very popular Governors in blue states (VT, MA, MD). The biggest difference is the legislatures, but again, it was already headed towards GOP domination with the Southern legs booting Dems out and the erosion of split ticket voting meaning Democrats were not doing so well in traditionally Republican states.

Anyway, I'm not disagreeing entirely with you, just that I think there are a number of explanations. Losses under Obama indeed are stunning at first glance but make more sense IMO if you consider the factors I laid out

[Virginiá]

Also, Mondale + TimTurner, can you please edit these posts and significantly reduce the size of that image please? It's screwing up the page: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=293107.msg6233905#msg6233905 https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=293107.msg6233912#msg6233912

[uti2]

I think Obama was exactly eight years too early, while Clinton was exactly eight years too late.

If Hillary won in 2008 I think she would have been a one-term President. If not for Obama running an excellent campaign against Romney, he probably would also have lost reelection in 2012 and Hillary is nowhere near as good of a campaigner as Romney is so she loses. This is what I think happens


2008:

Clinton/Kaine 372
McCain/Pawlenty 166


2012:

Romney/Ryan 285
Clinton/Kaine 253

Hillary would've ginned up anti-mormonism to win reelection by swinging those southern states into her column again in 2012.

[uti2]

@Crumpets: Agreed.

2008 was Hillary's best shot, at the perfect point where she was still respected by the base enough to bounce off any opposition, and a dead cat would've defeated McCain by at least 4 points.

And Obama in 2016 would've been less naive and likely kept all the telegeny he needed to beat Trump or Cruz or Cain [yeah, I'm pretty sure Herman Cain actually would've been much stronger if Hillary had won '08].

There wouldn't have been a Tea Party without Obama, that being said, Obama would've still likely lost in 2016. Bernie would've had the Left in his column, while Hillary's VP (with Hillary's active endorsement) would've had the Centrist vote, Obama would've been badly damaged from being squeezed between the two factions.

[uti2]

I guess I retract parts of my previous post with this post .

Look at Obama's coalition in 2008. Obama did better in wealthy suburbs without big demographical changes than Hillary and unlike Hillary Obama actually won or tied wealthy voters. While Obama won a lot of voters who didn't vote for Hillary, Obama's core support reflected Hillary's support in 2016. For a Democrat Obama had unprecedented support among postgraduates and wealthy voters and he won places that hadn't voted Democratic since 1964. He wasn't going to govern as a left-wing populist, a lot of his voters didn't even want him to do that. Obama 2008 might have been the gateway drug for the upscale Republicans who didn't vote for Trump. I strongly suspect many Romney-Clinton voters voted for Obama in 2008 (and outside of Appalachia where coal played a huge issue many Obama-Trump voters probably voted for Bush). Bush vs Gore in 2000 and Obama vs McCain in 2008 really were the first precursors to what happened in 2016 (wealthier people trending massively D and 'the creative class' being the core Democratic constituency), 2004 and 2012 look like (temporary?) reversions to the mean (with the exception of coal county I suppose) once you ignore demographic changes.

Obama still managed to disappoint Wall Street enough to make sure 85% of Wall Street donations went to Romney btw, so it's not like he governed like a total DLC Democrat.

Mccain lead Obama in EC polling prior to the Lehman Brothers collapse, almost all of those regions would've voted for Mccain without the economic collapse.

Those voters never gave him any credit and went for Romney anyway in 2012 though.

[Person Man]

I guess I retract parts of my previous post with this post .

Look at Obama's coalition in 2008. Obama did better in wealthy suburbs without big demographical changes than Hillary and unlike Hillary Obama actually won or tied wealthy voters. While Obama won a lot of voters who didn't vote for Hillary, Obama's core support reflected Hillary's support in 2016. For a Democrat Obama had unprecedented support among postgraduates and wealthy voters and he won places that hadn't voted Democratic since 1964. He wasn't going to govern as a left-wing populist, a lot of his voters didn't even want him to do that. Obama 2008 might have been the gateway drug for the upscale Republicans who didn't vote for Trump. I strongly suspect many Romney-Clinton voters voted for Obama in 2008 (and outside of Appalachia where coal played a huge issue many Obama-Trump voters probably voted for Bush). Bush vs Gore in 2000 and Obama vs McCain in 2008 really were the first precursors to what happened in 2016 (wealthier people trending massively D and 'the creative class' being the core Democratic constituency), 2004 and 2012 look like (temporary?) reversions to the mean (with the exception of coal county I suppose) once you ignore demographic changes.

Obama still managed to disappoint Wall Street enough to make sure 85% of Wall Street donations went to Romney btw, so it's not like he governed like a total DLC Democrat.

Mccain lead Obama in EC polling prior to the Lehman Brothers collapse, almost all of those regions would've voted for Mccain without the economic collapse.

Those voters never gave him any credit and went for Romney anyway in 2012 though.

Map.

[uti2]

I guess I retract parts of my previous post with this post .

Look at Obama's coalition in 2008. Obama did better in wealthy suburbs without big demographical changes than Hillary and unlike Hillary Obama actually won or tied wealthy voters. While Obama won a lot of voters who didn't vote for Hillary, Obama's core support reflected Hillary's support in 2016. For a Democrat Obama had unprecedented support among postgraduates and wealthy voters and he won places that hadn't voted Democratic since 1964. He wasn't going to govern as a left-wing populist, a lot of his voters didn't even want him to do that. Obama 2008 might have been the gateway drug for the upscale Republicans who didn't vote for Trump. I strongly suspect many Romney-Clinton voters voted for Obama in 2008 (and outside of Appalachia where coal played a huge issue many Obama-Trump voters probably voted for Bush). Bush vs Gore in 2000 and Obama vs McCain in 2008 really were the first precursors to what happened in 2016 (wealthier people trending massively D and 'the creative class' being the core Democratic constituency), 2004 and 2012 look like (temporary?) reversions to the mean (with the exception of coal county I suppose) once you ignore demographic changes.

Obama still managed to disappoint Wall Street enough to make sure 85% of Wall Street donations went to Romney btw, so it's not like he governed like a total DLC Democrat.

Mccain lead Obama in EC polling prior to the Lehman Brothers collapse, almost all of those regions would've voted for Mccain without the economic collapse.

Those voters never gave him any credit and went for Romney anyway in 2012 though.

Map.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF9ndn-R1_I&t=126s

This relative EC weakness of Obama was always known.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2008/05/clintons-closing-argument-to-superdelegates/53314/

[Skill and Chance]

Obama's problem was he wasted his political capital on bipartisanship. The GOP was in a death spiral due to Bush and Obama should of pushed them off a cliff and given them a final death blow. Instead Obama pissed away a year and a half thinking he was getting somewhere with the GOP while they were just trolling him and strategically obstructing his legislation.

Hopefully for once, the Democrats have learned their lesson.

The Democrats are not going to have 60 Seats in 2021 like they did in 2009

Won't matter.  Either the legislative filibuster will be entirely gone by 2021/25, or the parliamentary rules of reconciliation will be blown open wide enough to drive a freight train through.