|
Obama's Popularity Hits an All Time High on Eve of Election
|
|
Topic Started: Nov 8 2016, 08:25 AM (615 Views)
|
|
Opinionated
|
Nov 8 2016, 01:23 PM
Post #21
|
|
- Posts:
- 11,404
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #10
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- CautionaryTales
- Nov 8 2016, 11:38 AM
- Opinionated
- Nov 8 2016, 11:26 AM
- coverpoint
- Nov 8 2016, 11:12 AM
- Opinionated
- Nov 8 2016, 10:38 AM
- coverpoint
- Nov 8 2016, 09:53 AM
I'm not disputing that. I'm just pointing out that Hillary probably could not have done it on her own. Did Bill Clinton help Obama win his first election? Undoubtedly. Could he have still pulled it off on his own? Yeah, I think he probably could have. I can't say the same for Hillary. She's just too unpopular.
I don’t think President Obama could have won election in 2008 without the overt, significant and active campaigning support of Hillary Clinton. Not to mention Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Bill Clinton
Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama after Obama had already won the South Carolina primary by 30 points. While it was an important endorsement, Obama was already well on his way to winning the nomination. I don't think John Kerry's endorsement was as important as you apparently think it was. And I've already acknowledged that Bill Clinton support during the election was helpful, but it probably wasn't definitive. Let's be honest. Obama has several advantages Hillary does not. He is well liked, well spoken, and very charismatic. There is a very real chance that without Bill Clinton's help, he would have still managed to win the election. Hillary, on the other hand, is not well liked, is not an impressive speaker, and is not particularly charismatic. And she has needed all the help she could to put away an opponent which, in all honestly, should have been a pretty easy slam dunk for any other reasonable candidate. The fact that she has struggled so much against Trump implies that against anyone else she would have lost, because Trump is just that bad. And that she couldn't have done it on her own. Period.
I don't think it matters that she needs help to win. I think it's an advantage that she needs to have a coalition of support. I'm also less concerned with her "getting elected" skills and more concerned with her "Being President" skills moving forward Fair points. Still, she should be thanking the hell out of the Obamas and Sanders for helping to make it happen. Because it is highly doubtful it would have otherwise. This is, of course, assuming she wins.
|
|
|
| |
|
Opinionated
|
Nov 8 2016, 01:25 PM
Post #22
|
|
- Posts:
- 11,404
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #10
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- coverpoint
- Nov 8 2016, 11:57 AM
- Opinionated
- Nov 8 2016, 11:26 AM
- coverpoint
- Nov 8 2016, 11:12 AM
- Opinionated
- Nov 8 2016, 10:38 AM
- coverpoint
- Nov 8 2016, 09:53 AM
I'm not disputing that. I'm just pointing out that Hillary probably could not have done it on her own. Did Bill Clinton help Obama win his first election? Undoubtedly. Could he have still pulled it off on his own? Yeah, I think he probably could have. I can't say the same for Hillary. She's just too unpopular.
I don’t think President Obama could have won election in 2008 without the overt, significant and active campaigning support of Hillary Clinton. Not to mention Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Bill Clinton
Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama after Obama had already won the South Carolina primary by 30 points. While it was an important endorsement, Obama was already well on his way to winning the nomination. I don't think John Kerry's endorsement was as important as you apparently think it was. And I've already acknowledged that Bill Clinton support during the election was helpful, but it probably wasn't definitive. Let's be honest. Obama has several advantages Hillary does not. He is well liked, well spoken, and very charismatic. There is a very real chance that without Bill Clinton's help, he would have still managed to win the election. Hillary, on the other hand, is not well liked, is not an impressive speaker, and is not particularly charismatic. And she has needed all the help she could to put away an opponent which, in all honestly, should have been a pretty easy slam dunk for any other reasonable candidate. The fact that she has struggled so much against Trump implies that against anyone else she would have lost, because Trump is just that bad. And that she couldn't have done it on her own. Period.
You may have a bit of a revisionist view of the 2008 election. Senator Obama was a little known first term Senator that barely won the Democratic nomination (much like SOS Clinton). Without Clinton’s full-throated support during the general election (and the support of other Democrats) it is quite likely that he would have lost the election to John McCain. The thing that helped Senator Obama the most in 2008 was George Bush’s low favorability and the 2 wars he was conducting. Had Hillary Clinton won the Democratic nomination in 2008, she also, would have won. You go on believing that if you want, but given how much trouble Hillary has had against Trump, I'm far from convinced she would have won against Romney.
|
|
|
| |
|
coverpoint
|
Nov 8 2016, 02:12 PM
Post #23
|
|
- Posts:
- 2,273
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #53
- Joined:
- Mar 19, 2016
|
- Opinionated
- Nov 8 2016, 01:25 PM
- coverpoint
- Nov 8 2016, 11:57 AM
- Opinionated
- Nov 8 2016, 11:26 AM
- coverpoint
- Nov 8 2016, 11:12 AM
- Opinionated
- Nov 8 2016, 10:38 AM
I don’t think President Obama could have won election in 2008 without the overt, significant and active campaigning support of Hillary Clinton. Not to mention Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Bill Clinton
Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama after Obama had already won the South Carolina primary by 30 points. While it was an important endorsement, Obama was already well on his way to winning the nomination. I don't think John Kerry's endorsement was as important as you apparently think it was. And I've already acknowledged that Bill Clinton support during the election was helpful, but it probably wasn't definitive. Let's be honest. Obama has several advantages Hillary does not. He is well liked, well spoken, and very charismatic. There is a very real chance that without Bill Clinton's help, he would have still managed to win the election. Hillary, on the other hand, is not well liked, is not an impressive speaker, and is not particularly charismatic. And she has needed all the help she could to put away an opponent which, in all honestly, should have been a pretty easy slam dunk for any other reasonable candidate. The fact that she has struggled so much against Trump implies that against anyone else she would have lost, because Trump is just that bad. And that she couldn't have done it on her own. Period.
You may have a bit of a revisionist view of the 2008 election. Senator Obama was a little known first term Senator that barely won the Democratic nomination (much like SOS Clinton). Without Clinton’s full-throated support during the general election (and the support of other Democrats) it is quite likely that he would have lost the election to John McCain. The thing that helped Senator Obama the most in 2008 was George Bush’s low favorability and the 2 wars he was conducting. Had Hillary Clinton won the Democratic nomination in 2008, she also, would have won.
You go on believing that if you want, but given how much trouble Hillary has had against Trump, I'm far from convinced she would have won against Romney. I didn’t say she would have won against Governor Romney, I said she would have won if nominated in 2008 (the race against Senator McCain).
I don’t think President Obama (or any Democrat) would have won against Romney without the full support of the other Democrats.
Charisma, is not enough to win a national election. That is why no 3rd. Party candidate can win and why a major Party candidate cannot win unless they have the full support of their Party. We are likely to see this happen later tonight.
To win a Presidential election, one needs the support of the rest of the people in their Party, especially those they ran against.
Democrats learned that in 1972 and Republicans will learn it in 2016. It is quite likely that the 2020 Republican Primary will employ some sort of “super delegates” to ensure that whoever wins the Party primaries will have the full support of the elected Party members.
|
|
|
| |
|
Opinionated
|
Nov 8 2016, 02:21 PM
Post #24
|
|
- Posts:
- 11,404
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #10
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- coverpoint
- Nov 8 2016, 02:12 PM
- Opinionated
- Nov 8 2016, 01:25 PM
- coverpoint
- Nov 8 2016, 11:57 AM
- Opinionated
- Nov 8 2016, 11:26 AM
- coverpoint
- Nov 8 2016, 11:12 AM
Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama after Obama had already won the South Carolina primary by 30 points. While it was an important endorsement, Obama was already well on his way to winning the nomination. I don't think John Kerry's endorsement was as important as you apparently think it was. And I've already acknowledged that Bill Clinton support during the election was helpful, but it probably wasn't definitive. Let's be honest. Obama has several advantages Hillary does not. He is well liked, well spoken, and very charismatic. There is a very real chance that without Bill Clinton's help, he would have still managed to win the election. Hillary, on the other hand, is not well liked, is not an impressive speaker, and is not particularly charismatic. And she has needed all the help she could to put away an opponent which, in all honestly, should have been a pretty easy slam dunk for any other reasonable candidate. The fact that she has struggled so much against Trump implies that against anyone else she would have lost, because Trump is just that bad. And that she couldn't have done it on her own. Period.
You may have a bit of a revisionist view of the 2008 election. Senator Obama was a little known first term Senator that barely won the Democratic nomination (much like SOS Clinton). Without Clinton’s full-throated support during the general election (and the support of other Democrats) it is quite likely that he would have lost the election to John McCain. The thing that helped Senator Obama the most in 2008 was George Bush’s low favorability and the 2 wars he was conducting. Had Hillary Clinton won the Democratic nomination in 2008, she also, would have won.
You go on believing that if you want, but given how much trouble Hillary has had against Trump, I'm far from convinced she would have won against Romney.
I didn’t say she would have won against Governor Romney, I said she would have won if nominated in 2008 (the race against Senator McCain). I don’t think President Obama (or any Democrat) would have won against Romney without the full support of the other Democrats. Charisma, is not enough to win a national election. That is why no 3rd. Party candidate can win and why a major Party candidate cannot win unless they have the full support of their Party. We are likely to see this happen later tonight. To win a Presidential election, one needs the support of the rest of the people in their Party, especially those they ran against. Democrats learned that in 1972 and Republicans will learn it in 2016. It is quite likely that the 2020 Republican Primary will employ some sort of “super delegates” to ensure that whoever wins the Party primaries will have the full support of the elected Party members. While not denying or rebutting any of that, the bottom line is that Hillary Clinton is struggling in a contest that should have been no contest. Donald Trump should have been laughed off the political stage as the inept bumbling clown that he is. The fact that even at this stage of the game we're not absolutely certain that Clinton will win proves that she is a remarkably weak candidate.
I hope to hell she ends up being a better President than she was a candidate, because man she has stunk as a candidate.
|
|
|
| |
|
coverpoint
|
Nov 8 2016, 03:10 PM
Post #25
|
|
- Posts:
- 2,273
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #53
- Joined:
- Mar 19, 2016
|
- Opinionated
- Nov 8 2016, 02:21 PM
- coverpoint
- Nov 8 2016, 02:12 PM
- Opinionated
- Nov 8 2016, 01:25 PM
- coverpoint
- Nov 8 2016, 11:57 AM
- Opinionated
- Nov 8 2016, 11:26 AM
You may have a bit of a revisionist view of the 2008 election. Senator Obama was a little known first term Senator that barely won the Democratic nomination (much like SOS Clinton). Without Clinton’s full-throated support during the general election (and the support of other Democrats) it is quite likely that he would have lost the election to John McCain. The thing that helped Senator Obama the most in 2008 was George Bush’s low favorability and the 2 wars he was conducting. Had Hillary Clinton won the Democratic nomination in 2008, she also, would have won.
You go on believing that if you want, but given how much trouble Hillary has had against Trump, I'm far from convinced she would have won against Romney.
I didn’t say she would have won against Governor Romney, I said she would have won if nominated in 2008 (the race against Senator McCain). I don’t think President Obama (or any Democrat) would have won against Romney without the full support of the other Democrats. Charisma, is not enough to win a national election. That is why no 3rd. Party candidate can win and why a major Party candidate cannot win unless they have the full support of their Party. We are likely to see this happen later tonight. To win a Presidential election, one needs the support of the rest of the people in their Party, especially those they ran against. Democrats learned that in 1972 and Republicans will learn it in 2016. It is quite likely that the 2020 Republican Primary will employ some sort of “super delegates” to ensure that whoever wins the Party primaries will have the full support of the elected Party members.
While not denying or rebutting any of that, the bottom line is that Hillary Clinton is struggling in a contest that should have been no contest. Donald Trump should have been laughed off the political stage as the inept bumbling clown that he is. The fact that even at this stage of the game we're not absolutely certain that Clinton will win proves that she is a remarkably weak candidate. I hope to hell she ends up being a better President than she was a candidate, because man she has stunk as a candidate. The fact that at this stage we aren’t absolutely certain that SOS Clinton will win says more about conservative voters than it does about Hillary Clinton.
I think we would be in much the same position had Senator Sanders been the Democratic nominee.
|
|
|
| |
|
Dem4life
|
Nov 8 2016, 04:22 PM
Post #26
|
|
- Posts:
- 5,083
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #32
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
President Obama has higher approval ratings than Ronnie "I Can't Recall" Reagan...
|
|
|
| |
|
Opinionated
|
Nov 8 2016, 04:52 PM
Post #27
|
|
- Posts:
- 11,404
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #10
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- coverpoint
- Nov 8 2016, 03:10 PM
- Opinionated
- Nov 8 2016, 02:21 PM
- coverpoint
- Nov 8 2016, 02:12 PM
- Opinionated
- Nov 8 2016, 01:25 PM
- coverpoint
- Nov 8 2016, 11:57 AM
You go on believing that if you want, but given how much trouble Hillary has had against Trump, I'm far from convinced she would have won against Romney.
I didn’t say she would have won against Governor Romney, I said she would have won if nominated in 2008 (the race against Senator McCain). I don’t think President Obama (or any Democrat) would have won against Romney without the full support of the other Democrats. Charisma, is not enough to win a national election. That is why no 3rd. Party candidate can win and why a major Party candidate cannot win unless they have the full support of their Party. We are likely to see this happen later tonight. To win a Presidential election, one needs the support of the rest of the people in their Party, especially those they ran against. Democrats learned that in 1972 and Republicans will learn it in 2016. It is quite likely that the 2020 Republican Primary will employ some sort of “super delegates” to ensure that whoever wins the Party primaries will have the full support of the elected Party members.
While not denying or rebutting any of that, the bottom line is that Hillary Clinton is struggling in a contest that should have been no contest. Donald Trump should have been laughed off the political stage as the inept bumbling clown that he is. The fact that even at this stage of the game we're not absolutely certain that Clinton will win proves that she is a remarkably weak candidate. I hope to hell she ends up being a better President than she was a candidate, because man she has stunk as a candidate.
The fact that at this stage we aren’t absolutely certain that SOS Clinton will win says more about conservative voters than it does about Hillary Clinton. I think we would be in much the same position had Senator Sanders been the Democratic nominee. I disagree. But we'll never know for certain.
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|