Was the 2012 election meaningless?

[Arizona Iced Tea]

Unlike 2008 or 2016, I can't think of a single accomplishment Obama achieved in his 2nd term. Republicans kept the house thus keeping his agenda killed for 2 years. After capturing the Senate in 2014, the 1 SCOTUS opening in 2016 was out of Obama's reach by then. Out of all of the elections of the 21st century (including 2000), 2012 seems like the one with the least value in terms of impact.

[heatcharger]

History will remember Obama’s second term as the most consequential inconsequential presidential term. Because he did so little domestically it got Trump elected, which reversed most of his foreign policy work (Iran deal, TPP, Cuba thaw).

[Person Man]

History will remember Obama’s second term as the most consequential inconsequential presidential term. Because he did so little domestically it got Trump elected, which reversed most of his foreign policy work (Iran deal, TPP, Cuba thaw).

It was actually going pretty well until the Obamacare fiasco, ISIS, and the media turning on him. He was definitely a lame duck after 2016.

[Open Source Intelligence]

It was meaningless in the sense that at no point did I ever have doubt Obama would not win reelection to me a political nerd completely checked out of the whole process, from GOP debates to primaries to the general election campaign. I think Republicans knew they were going to lose too and with the exception of Romney the whole primary field was a bunch of B-class pretenders. The next best candidates were Santorum who I've never considered talented or anything special when it comes to politics, and Gingrich who was 15 years past his prime.

I think the 2016 election in retrospect casts a bad light on his 2nd term. Not just Trump, but Bernie Sanders. It's not like Sanders hated Obama but his campaign was pretty clearly the campaign of Democrats not happy with the Obama presidency, he gave Hillary much more of a fight than he had any right too, and he won white Democratic primary voters with Hillary overwhelmingly winning blacks due to those people voting more for Obama instead of for her. You can't say a la 1988 with the Reagan to Elder Bush transition the country was largely happy with everything when your encouraged successor fought tooth and nail against a threat that was from outside the party, with the national party chair thrown out over interference to help your successor win. If Democratic primary voters in 2016 were happy, let alone the general elecctorate but just talking Democratic primary voters, she should've been Al Gore squashing Bill Bradley in 2000. And then she unexpectedly lost the general out of a broad desire for Change and Hillary was seen as continuing the status quo.

Policy-wise, I feel the complete failure of Western policy in Syria doomed his whole administration's foreign policy (chemical weapons were used crossing the stated red line, did nothing; Russians showed hard power trumps soft power in real conflicts; and we stated there must be regime change away from Assad, he is still in power today). There was the opiate crisis as well where the Obama as well as now Biden Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack got that put in his lap as his major issue and stated he was frustrated at an Obama administration that seemed to not care about it.

[Devils30]

2024 might be too despite the hysteria around Trump. Both Biden and Trump will get a very evenly divided Congress and 4 years of little to nothing passed.

[Dan the Roman]

Obama was the wrong genre savvy. He was really the perfect President for 2007, but his misfortune was that he was ill-adapted for the post-2008 world which was less aspirational, and worse, his opponents, John McCain and Hillary Clinton, were even more poorly suited to it.

Obama was very much the product of a culture in which a middle class kid could go to a liberal arts school, major in whatever, be a summer camp counselor, then throw out applications and land a consulting or finance gig in the spring of senior year and move to an inner suburb of Boston or a gentrifying section of DC. That whole world was wiped out as he took office, and his conviction was that this was temporary and if he waited long enough it would reassert itself.

As it was the natural state of the world, he had to do nothing to make it reassert itself.

As the natural arc of history in that world "turned towards justice" he also had to do very little elsewhere other than a soft nudge as once it came back everything else would take care of itself.

His foreign policy errors are the product of the same factors as his domestic ones. The same trends that were driving millennial and Gen X politics in the US were at work in Russia and China during the 2000s. But they also halted or reversed after 2008 and "Reset" was basically applying his domestic waiting game to Russia.

His premise was wrong, which is why it now appears he did nothing.

[Mr.Barkari Sellers]

He passed Obamacare he wanted to pass immigration reform and minimum wage increase but Boehner blocked everything

Obama said he made the mistake of not ending the Filibuster with 60 seats in 2009

[Sir Mohamed]

2024 might be too despite the hysteria around Trump. Both Biden and Trump will get a very evenly divided Congress and 4 years of little to nothing passed.

Latter might be true, though Trump can still inflict severe damage as the head of the executive branch. This is not like a Romney coming to office. That said, I'm relatively certain that which side ever wins in 2024 is going to lose in 2028. And most likely by an election not that close.

[Open Source Intelligence]

Obama was the wrong genre savvy. He was really the perfect President for 2007, but his misfortune was that he was ill-adapted for the post-2008 world which was less aspirational, and worse, his opponents, John McCain and Hillary Clinton, were even more poorly suited to it.

Obama was very much the product of a culture in which a middle class kid could go to a liberal arts school, major in whatever, be a summer camp counselor, then throw out applications and land a consulting or finance gig in the spring of senior year and move to an inner suburb of Boston or a gentrifying section of DC. That whole world was wiped out as he took office, and his conviction was that this was temporary and if he waited long enough it would reassert itself.

As it was the natural state of the world, he had to do nothing to make it reassert itself.

As the natural arc of history in that world "turned towards justice" he also had to do very little elsewhere other than a soft nudge as once it came back everything else would take care of itself.

His foreign policy errors are the product of the same factors as his domestic ones. The same trends that were driving millennial and Gen X politics in the US were at work in Russia and China during the 2000s. But they also halted or reversed after 2008 and "Reset" was basically applying his domestic waiting game to Russia.

His premise was wrong, which is why it now appears he did nothing.

It's an interesting take on it. I see what you're talking about in an economic sense, Obama's entire presidency we had ZIRP just waiting for the economy to turn, where what was extreme lows going back centuries became "normal" to companies, investors, and individuals, and we're still dealing with the problems from that today. For the "why he came to power", I'm a little more critical. The New York Times I remember published some interactive maps on their website summer 2007 of the reported Q2 fundraising of every primary candidate, both parties, by zip code. For the more minor candidates, they were dominated by the region they were from with little to nothing elsewhere. A candidate like Ron Paul was unique having consistent medium-low levels of fundraising all across the U.S. that put him a step above those minor ones. Obama, a freshman Senator from Illinois, had the same very high levels of fundraising from Manhattan as Hillary Clinton, a former First Lady with deep connections to the party apparatus and controlling members, a Senator representing New York State, and at that time the clear frontrunner. So using the Manhattan zip code as their surrogate, the corporate community picked him to run and backed him early, even before he got mass support (the Black Caucus the start of that primary backed Hillary, not Obama; when he rose they were more or less forced to change by their constituents).

I do think taking the long view of history, the further we get away from his presidency the more critically it will be looked at. We still are not all the way through the economic repercussions of ZIRP. And the lack of foreign policy action over Crimea 2014 only fully played into a much bigger problem 8 years and two Presidents later. It's easy to see the theory Bush's not doing anything in Georgia 2008 and Obama's likewise not doing anything in Crimea 2014 helped create the Russo-Ukrainian War of 2022-24 by emboldening Putin into thinking he could do anything in his near abroad with no consequences.

[jojoju1998]

Obama was the wrong genre savvy. He was really the perfect President for 2007, but his misfortune was that he was ill-adapted for the post-2008 world which was less aspirational, and worse, his opponents, John McCain and Hillary Clinton, were even more poorly suited to it.

Obama was very much the product of a culture in which a middle class kid could go to a liberal arts school, major in whatever, be a summer camp counselor, then throw out applications and land a consulting or finance gig in the spring of senior year and move to an inner suburb of Boston or a gentrifying section of DC. That whole world was wiped out as he took office, and his conviction was that this was temporary and if he waited long enough it would reassert itself.

As it was the natural state of the world, he had to do nothing to make it reassert itself.

As the natural arc of history in that world "turned towards justice" he also had to do very little elsewhere other than a soft nudge as once it came back everything else would take care of itself.

His foreign policy errors are the product of the same factors as his domestic ones. The same trends that were driving millennial and Gen X politics in the US were at work in Russia and China during the 2000s. But they also halted or reversed after 2008 and "Reset" was basically applying his domestic waiting game to Russia.

His premise was wrong, which is why it now appears he did nothing.

It's an interesting take on it. I see what you're talking about in an economic sense, Obama's entire presidency we had ZIRP which we're still dealing with the problems from that today. For the "why he came to power", I'm a little more critical. The New York Times I remember published some interactive maps on their website summer 2007 of the reported Q2 fundraising of every primary candidate, both parties, by zip code. For the more minor candidates, they were dominated by the region they were from with little to nothing elsewhere. A candidate like Ron Paul was unique having consistent medium-low levels of fundraising all across the U.S. that put him a step above those minor ones. Obama, a freshman Senator from Illinois, had the same very high levels of fundraising from Manhattan as Hillary Clinton, a former First Lady with deep connections to the party apparatus and controlling members, a Senator representing New York State, and at that time the clear frontrunner. So using the Manhattan zip code as their surrogate, the corporate community picked him to run and backed him early, even before he got mass support (the Black Caucus the start of that primary backed Hillary, not Obama; when he rose they were more or less forced to change by their constituents).

Obama was the candidate of the upper middle class academics.


If you look at the 2008 election, and where Obama improved compared to John Kerry in 2004; it was with the suburbs. Educated voters. In both the primaries and general. It was a foreshadowing of what was to come.

[Open Source Intelligence]

Obama was the wrong genre savvy. He was really the perfect President for 2007, but his misfortune was that he was ill-adapted for the post-2008 world which was less aspirational, and worse, his opponents, John McCain and Hillary Clinton, were even more poorly suited to it.

Obama was very much the product of a culture in which a middle class kid could go to a liberal arts school, major in whatever, be a summer camp counselor, then throw out applications and land a consulting or finance gig in the spring of senior year and move to an inner suburb of Boston or a gentrifying section of DC. That whole world was wiped out as he took office, and his conviction was that this was temporary and if he waited long enough it would reassert itself.

As it was the natural state of the world, he had to do nothing to make it reassert itself.

As the natural arc of history in that world "turned towards justice" he also had to do very little elsewhere other than a soft nudge as once it came back everything else would take care of itself.

His foreign policy errors are the product of the same factors as his domestic ones. The same trends that were driving millennial and Gen X politics in the US were at work in Russia and China during the 2000s. But they also halted or reversed after 2008 and "Reset" was basically applying his domestic waiting game to Russia.

His premise was wrong, which is why it now appears he did nothing.

It's an interesting take on it. I see what you're talking about in an economic sense, Obama's entire presidency we had ZIRP just waiting for the economy to turn, where what was extreme lows going back centuries became "normal" to companies, investors, and individuals, and we're still dealing with the problems from that today. For the "why he came to power", I'm a little more critical. The New York Times I remember published some interactive maps on their website summer 2007 of the reported Q2 fundraising of every primary candidate, both parties, by zip code. For the more minor candidates, they were dominated by the region they were from with little to nothing elsewhere. A candidate like Ron Paul was unique having consistent medium-low levels of fundraising all across the U.S. that put him a step above those minor ones. Obama, a freshman Senator from Illinois, had the same very high levels of fundraising from Manhattan as Hillary Clinton, a former First Lady with deep connections to the party apparatus and controlling members, a Senator representing New York State, and at that time the clear frontrunner. So using the Manhattan zip code as their surrogate, the corporate community picked him to run and backed him early, even before he got mass support (the Black Caucus the start of that primary backed Hillary, not Obama; when he rose they were more or less forced to change by their constituents).

I do think taking the long view of history, the further we get away from his presidency the more critically it will be looked at. We still are not all the way through the economic repercussions of ZIRP. And the lack of foreign policy action over Crimea 2014 only fully played into a much bigger problem 8 years and two Presidents later. It's easy to see the theory Bush's not doing anything in Georgia 2008 and Obama's likewise not doing anything in Crimea 2014 helped create the Russo-Ukrainian War of 2022-24 by emboldening Putin into thinking he could do anything in his near abroad with no consequences.

Obama was the candidate of the upper middle class academics.


If you look at the 2008 election, and where Obama improved compared to John Kerry in 2004; it was with the suburbs. Educated voters. In both the primaries and general. It was a foreshadowing of what was to come.

I think it was more he was the candidate of the well-to-do's, be it upper middle class academics or Manhattanites.

To go back to Dan the Roman's take on foreign policy and my take Obama was the corporations' candidate, his "waiting take" was pretty atypical for multinational business. It's only been post-Covid that businesses have changed their tune on geopolitics and given up thinking we can change places like Russia and China via our trade liberalizing them (naturally a slow process). "Friendshoring" only goes back a couple years.

[Mr. Smith]

It only appears that way because all of Obama's biggest accomplishments were easily undone by Trump, and Biden's been too cowardly to reinstate them as is.

A Hillary win would've cemented more of these actions for good.

[Sir Mohamed]

It only appears that way because all of Obama's biggest accomplishments were easily undone by Trump, and Biden's been too cowardly to reinstate them as is.

A Hillary win would've cemented more of these actions for good.

Obama's greatest achivements were the ACA and economic recovery. They weren't undone, Trump even took credit for the economy he inherited from Obama. While the Iran Deal was difficult to be put back in place, Biden has undone policies like the withdrawl from Paris.

[Mr. Smith]

It only appears that way because all of Obama's biggest accomplishments were easily undone by Trump, and Biden's been too cowardly to reinstate them as is.

A Hillary win would've cemented more of these actions for good.

Obama's greatest achivements were the ACA and economic recovery. They weren't undone, Trump even took credit for the economy he inherited from Obama. While the Iran Deal was difficult to be put back in place, Biden has undone policies like the withdrawl from Paris.

Forgetting Cuba already?

[Sir Mohamed]

It only appears that way because all of Obama's biggest accomplishments were easily undone by Trump, and Biden's been too cowardly to reinstate them as is.

A Hillary win would've cemented more of these actions for good.

Obama's greatest achivements were the ACA and economic recovery. They weren't undone, Trump even took credit for the economy he inherited from Obama. While the Iran Deal was difficult to be put back in place, Biden has undone policies like the withdrawl from Paris.

Forgetting Cuba already?

That's the only one, though in the long term, I expect relatations to normalize again.

[Tekken_Guy]

2024 might be too despite the hysteria around Trump. Both Biden and Trump will get a very evenly divided Congress and 4 years of little to nothing passed.

Latter might be true, though Trump can still inflict severe damage as the head of the executive branch. This is not like a Romney coming to office. That said, I'm relatively certain that which side ever wins in 2024 is going to lose in 2028. And most likely by an election not that close.

The biggest damage Trump will do is replace federal bureaucrats with unqualified cronies and have a very activist DOJ a la Ken Paxton. And being buffoonishly incompetent with foreign policy. Other than that, appointing more conservative judges like his first term as long as the Senate is in R hands.

A lot of Trump’s most ambitious proposals will not be able to make it out of congress and/or will get slapped down by the courts. Also expect a lot of vetoes.

[Open Source Intelligence]

It only appears that way because all of Obama's biggest accomplishments were easily undone by Trump, and Biden's been too cowardly to reinstate them as is.

A Hillary win would've cemented more of these actions for good.

Obama's greatest achivements were the ACA and economic recovery. They weren't undone, Trump even took credit for the economy he inherited from Obama. While the Iran Deal was difficult to be put back in place, Biden has undone policies like the withdrawl from Paris.

How can you take credit for an economy operating on ZIRP? "Hey, the economy's doing fine now simply because we're allowing everything to be bought on massive levels of cheap debt, increasing inequality and leading valuations to be completely disconnected from reality." That was Barack Obama's 8 years in office. I at a very very basic fundamental level completely disagree that any economy operating on ZIRP should ever be called healthy. If it was healthy, you wouldn't be at ZIRP.

[gerritcole]

All elections are meaningless, we are all grains of sand being thrown in the air by the wheels of history

[Dan the Roman]

It only appears that way because all of Obama's biggest accomplishments were easily undone by Trump, and Biden's been too cowardly to reinstate them as is.

A Hillary win would've cemented more of these actions for good.

Obama's greatest achivements were the ACA and economic recovery. They weren't undone, Trump even took credit for the economy he inherited from Obama. While the Iran Deal was difficult to be put back in place, Biden has undone policies like the withdrawl from Paris.

It didn't matter because the world that produced the Paris accords no longer exists.

There can be a debate about whether Trump as a symptom or cause. History has bumps along the road. Hillary narrowly winning might have flipped the Supreme Court which can, of, course have impacts on how people experience wider trends on an individual level. However, it is likely that the Iran deal would have collapsed under a Clinton Presidency(due to the paranoia of an aging Khamenei and the dynamics of Zimbabwe 2018-esque pre-coup situation), Xi Jinping and Putin as we have seen are more threatened by color revolutions than geopolitics meaning that they would have been more aggressive under Clinton, and the Cuba rapprochement was always going to be a victim to Washington's relations with Moscow and Beijing. Havana was never going to pick Washington over them(nor was Tehran absent a total revolution) so post 2014 Obama's entire FP was doomed(for reasons he should have known re Russia and ones which are obvious in hindsight - ie Xi Jinping's ideological trajectory).

Once Russia broke with the West, then the Green energy consensus in Europe was going to implode.

[FT-02 Senator A.F.E. 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

No, because we got absolute gems like this because of it

[Lumine]

It would be more accurate to say that the Obama administration was, for the most part, meaningless.

[Devils30]

2024 might be too despite the hysteria around Trump. Both Biden and Trump will get a very evenly divided Congress and 4 years of little to nothing passed.

Latter might be true, though Trump can still inflict severe damage as the head of the executive branch. This is not like a Romney coming to office. That said, I'm relatively certain that which side ever wins in 2024 is going to lose in 2028. And most likely by an election not that close.

The biggest damage Trump will do is replace federal bureaucrats with unqualified cronies and have a very activist DOJ a la Ken Paxton. And being buffoonishly incompetent with foreign policy. Other than that, appointing more conservative judges like his first term as long as the Senate is in R hands.

A lot of Trump’s most ambitious proposals will not be able to make it out of congress and/or will get slapped down by the courts. Also expect a lot of vetoes.

This is all very bad but how would Trump get an AG like that confirmed with 52 senators and have random arrests sustained in court/get any jury to convict? I think the biggest thing he would do is having the Feds and local police get a lot rougher with protestors in major cities.

[Tekken_Guy]

2024 might be too despite the hysteria around Trump. Both Biden and Trump will get a very evenly divided Congress and 4 years of little to nothing passed.

Latter might be true, though Trump can still inflict severe damage as the head of the executive branch. This is not like a Romney coming to office. That said, I'm relatively certain that which side ever wins in 2024 is going to lose in 2028. And most likely by an election not that close.

The biggest damage Trump will do is replace federal bureaucrats with unqualified cronies and have a very activist DOJ a la Ken Paxton. And being buffoonishly incompetent with foreign policy. Other than that, appointing more conservative judges like his first term as long as the Senate is in R hands.

A lot of Trump’s most ambitious proposals will not be able to make it out of congress and/or will get slapped down by the courts. Also expect a lot of vetoes.

This is all very bad but how would Trump get an AG like that confirmed with 52 senators and have random arrests sustained in court/get any jury to convict? I think the biggest thing he would do is having the Feds and local police get a lot rougher with protestors in major cities.

If Trump has a 52 R senate he can’t afford to lose any votes other than Collins and Murkowski. Bill Cassidy might say no, Tim Scott might say no, John Thune might say no, even the Turtle himself might say no. Getting MAGA cabinet members confirmed may be nearly impossible and he’ll go back to Establishment Republican Trump from his first term.

The feds yeah but Trump isn’t in charge or local police departments.

[HisGrace]

I think it was pretty culturally significant. The rage from losing to Obama twice broke the Republicans brains and led to them supporting Trump and being in their current state. Then Democrats got overconfident with the "DEMOGRAPHICS SCIENCE" narrative after the election, leading to how Clinton ran her campaign in 16 and the whole mindset of the activist left since then that they don't need any support or engagement from white men.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Unlike 2008 or 2016, I can't think of a single accomplishment Obama achieved in his 2nd term. Republicans kept the house thus keeping his agenda killed for 2 years. After capturing the Senate in 2014, the 1 SCOTUS opening in 2016 was out of Obama's reach by then. Out of all of the elections of the 21st century (including 2000), 2012 seems like the one with the least value in terms of impact.

On the foreign policy front, he made the decision to keep support for Ukraine extremely weak, leading to Russia's escalation in 2022. And he basically destroyed Libya.

On the domestic front, he made the decision to let wealth inequality keep going up, to allow radical right-wing terrorism to grow, and to make sure the Trump campaign's unlawful foreign contacts were kept under wraps.

That's in addition to giving torture, domestic spying, and massive financial fraud a free pass for four more years.

Obama accomplished a lot in his second term... just not for the United States or its citizens.