Whoa there, I basically agree with you that Julian’s resume is not what I’d like to see in a Presidential candidate. But in a world where he runs in the primary and manages to prevail against his opponents and then successfully wins the highest office in the land in a general nationwide election, you’re going to say before it starts that he’d have a terrible, failed Presidency? If he pulls all that shit off he may have unbelievable political skills!
Political skills, as we saw with Barack Obama, aren’t much good for anything beyond getting the candidate himself elected. Barack Obama was an unmitigated disaster for any Democrat not named Barack Obama. His Presidency also ensured that his successor would not be a Democrat. Julian Castro as President would probably end up satisfying most Democratic partisans and he would probably even have significant policy accomplishments. But without the knowledge and experience to do the job well, in a way that appeals to more than just Democratic partisans, a Republican wave in 2022 would be a near certainty.
There’s also a big difference between being able to appeal to Democratic partisans in an election campaign and appealing to the broader electorate. Castro’s unwillingness to face Texas’ voters says that he has no confidence that he can appeal beyond his base.
What’s your basis for saying Julian is unwilling to face Texas voters?
Maybe in your world. Hillary had the election taken from her. She may not have done enough to prevent it, but without Comey and the Russians she would be President right now. The only way Obama had anything to do with that were his decision not to release the info about the Russian meddling and the racist backlash to (heaven forbid!) a black president (although few of them would have voted for her anyway; most of them are as patriarchal as they are racist, and never would have considered voting for the Antichrist).
ETA: Still pissed about that decision. BIG mistake regardless of whether he thought Hillary was a shoo-in or not.
Are you saying the results of the 2016 presidential election was predetermined by Barrack Obama? That neither credit nor fault can be assigned to either of the actual 2016 candidates?
Of course. Everyone knows how much adaher loves Hillary and how he thinks it’s all Obama’s fault she lost. I am pretty sure he’s said that many times. Or maybe I’m misremembering.
Which is the entire point of asking the question now. He’s pointing out the incongruity in what he has said. He just blamed Obama for some sort of “unmitigated disaster,” but the only disaster I can come up with is Trump winning.
Other than Obama not pushing the Trump/Russia connection earlier, I can’t really come up with anything to fault him for. And he clearly is not counting the ACA, since that definitely helped a whole lot of people get insurance that didn’t have it before.
I do not see how Obama in any way hurt any Democrats running for office, which seems to be adaher’s implication. Including Clinton.
Uhh, it wasn’t an implication. It’s almost precisely what he said.
There *is *a fair case that Obama did not do as much as he could to strengthen the party’s grass roots, or to support down-ballot Democrats in election years, in favor of reinforcing his own position. Hillary is open to that charge as well.
Maybe that’s what he meant. But let him say it.
Not sure how he could be clearer than “Barack Obama was an unmitigated disaster for any Democrat not named Barack Obama. His Presidency also ensured that his successor would not be a Democrat.” but ok.
Obama made some tactical and strategic errors, but he stated, and stuck to, the idea that he was governing for the long-term and not the short-term. If we get universal health care in the next decade or two, Obama will get (and deserve) a big chunk of the credit. If Iran and Cuba become peaceful trading partners with the US in the next few decades, Obama will get and deserve a big chunk of the credit. If we avoid another boots-on-the-ground military entanglement in the middle east for the next decade or two, Obama will deserve a big chunk of the credit. A few poor performances in elections aren’t that important compared to that stuff, if it happens.
True, but that will matter mostly to historians, not voters.
But if anything bad happens, that won’t be his fault, right? He only gets credit for the good stuff - nothing else is his fault. Right?
Regards,
Shodan
I guess you totally missed the state-level results.
Obama focused on himself, and let his party hollow out underneath him.
Huh? Is that your position? It certainly isn’t mine. If this is just random snark, then carry on.
Horrible guess. I recommend that you avoid guessing until you get to the bottom this major malfunction.
I’ll give you hint that might help you get on the right track. The post I quoted and the questions I asked didn’t have sweet fuck all to do with state-level results.
Maybe we can get this thread back on track and stop discussing things Julian Castro is afraid of and state-level races lost by Obama.
Beto appears to be taking this thing seriously. It was mentioned previously in this thread that he was planning to visit every county in Texas (to tell people what a POS Ted Cruz is presumably). It appears that he is really doing it.
The Texas primary is three weeks from today. After that we might get some real polling.
Sort of in the same way that Republicans have selective amnesia where Dubyah is involved? I know, Dubyah who?
I’ll roll over and die when a Republican mentions Obama pulling us out of the massive recession that Bush created.
I agree, but you were the one saying otherwise, claiming that isn’t what adaher meant. You disagreed with a guy who interpreted his post as saying that Obama cost Clinton the presidency.
How was Obama a disaster? The democrats lost 1000 seats under Obama, but most of those seats were lost in 2010.
From what I recall of 2010, a big part of why the dems lost was liberals were demoralized. The democrats were grossly incompetent and let the GOP walk all over them. They also kept watering down their legislation to appeal to republicans and lobbyists. They also showed they weren’t willing to use procedural rules as efficiently as the GOP. As a result it was hard to get liberals to get motivated to vote in 2010.
Seeing how liberals now make up something like 35 million voters, almost all democrats, keeping them motivated is very important.
Constantly watering down legislation to appeal to corporate lobbyists, conservative democrats and republicans will not help the democrats win elections. Laws that enrage corporate lobbyists and republicans will keep liberals motivated.
The democrats lost seats because they acted like wimpy center-right republicans and their voters got demoralized and stayed home in the 2010 midterms.