So will you go on record and be prepared to admit Trump’s presidency is a failure if he produces similar numbers, i.e. national debt up 40% in four years, America’s Triple-A rating not restored, national growth continues under 3% annually?
They don’t much like Trump but the opportunity to gloat at the people they really can’t stand is just too delicious to overlook.
On the other hand, how else would we have humor like this:
I do think he’s right but it’s not a dig against Clinton. The following makes his intent obvious:
Obama stressed his admiration for Clinton and said she had been the victim of unfair attacks. But, as he has in other exit interviews, Obama insisted that her defeat was not a rejection of the eight years of his presidency. To the contrary, he argued that he had put together a winning coalition that stretched across the country but that the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign had failed to follow through on it.
What I think is obvious is that the man who beat both John McCain and Mitt Romney could certainly have beaten an unpopular orange buffoon, and that the purpose of his statement was to quite rightfully defend his own legacy. He is undoubtedly pissed that Hillary’s failings and missteps have created the appearance that the voters rejected his own accomplishments, whereas in fact what the voters rejected was Hillary while Obama remains as popular as ever. He’s not happy with the outcome or with Hillary but it’s not personal.
I still remember Obama being asked a long time ago if he could imagine Trump ever giving a State of the Union address, and he said, “Maybe on SNL I could”. He must be furious at that stupid woman for so badly bungling the campaign.
Yet here you are implying how horrible a person Hillary is and just kind of shuffling Trump under the rug as if it meant nothing to your argument.
You’re building straw men again. Show me cites where low voter turnout is attributed solely to Hillary. Matter of fact, though I doubt you’ll pay any attention to the conclusions of the article because it disagrees with you, you might read this:
[QUOTE=Rebecca Harrington and Skye Gould, Business Insider]
For some Americans, the two names at the top of the 2016 ticket were so unpalatable that they opted not to vote for president at all, instead focusing on down-ballot races.
In 14 states, more people voted in the Senate races than voted for president. The overall results show that nearly 2.4 million people nationwide cast ballots but left the presidential line blank.
[/QUOTE]
I also note that you seem to have statistics that no one else does, so once again I want cites. I’ve been watching and I’ve seen no percentage breakdowns by party yet.
Well then back up your claim with actual, you know, evidence. Published facts.
And, since I missed the edit deadline by a minute, I had more to say on the second point:
Total of POTENTIAL not ACTUAL voters is what you claimed, which has absolutely nothing to do with my point and never did. It proves nothing. Yeah, so I made a mistake in terminology. Mea maxima fucking culpa. I meant something slightly different, but you can read in whatever you want. And, I’m certain, you will.
Welcome to poor winner land. But that’s not an uncommon reaction with Republicans right now. In point of fact, it’s your overwhelming attitude.
But so what? When did I ever say anything about Trump not having won the election?
If wishes were fishes then pigs would fly. And we have the king pig about to enter the White House, followed by all his little piglets. That’s reality.
The fact that he got elected in the first place only proves how gullible the electorate is in the main. That is also reality.
Why is it that people keep just assuming that I said ANYWHERE that Trump never won the election?
Whatever, say it until you’re blue in the face, I never even implied it. But that’s all part of the strategy, isn’t it? Divert and propagandize.
Your little ‘grow up,’ ‘get over it,’ ‘work with us because Trump won’ propaganda is not going to work, especially after 8 years of Republican obstructionism. Demonstrations are more than just a childish lashing-out, no matter how much you try to paint it otherwise. Trump is deeply unpopular and unqualified. And you can yell all you want about how he won the election, it won’t stop me from brazenly and loudly proclaiming how much of a worthless, inept fool he is.
Because that’s the way that little inconvenient thing called freedom of speech works. It doesn’t mean freedom for me to mouth your beliefs, no matter how much you want it to.
This one is just too good to pass up. Democrats must relearn the art of compromise which Republicans forgot for over two decades and have now suddenly rediscovered. Are you fucking serious?
Uh-uh, bub. Fugeddaboutit.
By the way, a special note: certain conservatives here on this very board, but more importantly Trump, managed to push me someplace I haven’t been before, and didn’t expect to be for a while. For the first time in my 3 and a half decades of voting, I am a registered Democrat. Independent no more.
And will stay that way. Republicans are a sham cover for naked powergrabbing at any price (including and especially democracy) using any means, and they must be stopped.
Looking at the math, it’s hard to disagree with Obama. But, understand that the dynamics of the Trump - Clinton race are different than the dynamics of a Trump - Obama contest. Hillary lost in large part because of she’s Hillary, but Obama himself had come to represent the establishment - the same establishment that Trump ran against and won, beating 17 opponents in the process.
One major problem would have been Obamacare. The ACA’s perceived flaws would have hurt him in the Rust Belt, and since it was his signature piece of legislation, it probably would have actually affected him more than it did Hillary. At least Hillary could step back and disown it – Barack Obama couldn’t have done that.
Obama also would have been weak on foreign policy, with the same perceived flaws as Hillary. He would have been exposed for his inability to prevent hacking, his failures to de-escalate the Middle Eastern conflicts, his failings in diplomacy with Russia. He won’t be remembered as a particularly bad foreign policy president but he won’t be regarded as one of the better ones either.
Obama probably would have pushed more minority voters to the polls, but they also probably would have continued the downward trend in enthusiasm that minority voters have had since 2008. The fact is that America’s lived with a black president the past 8 years – the country hasn’t changed that much. And some minority communities have actually become poorer and more violent. Obviously this isn’t Obama’s fault, but people need to be inspired to vote – the reality for economically depressed minority communities isn’t really that inspiring.
Obama would have won the popular vote by probably an ever larger margin. But it really is up for debate as to whether he would have won the blue collar votes that went to Trump this year. A lot of those voters weren’t just rejecting Hillary Clinton; they were rejecting Barack Obama’s legacy as well. And others were simply not that inspired by it.
My argument is that the claim, quoted above, that Hillary Clinton mobilized a majority of the American people is a false statement, that she did not actually ‘mobilize’ a majority of the American people as a whole, of eligible voters (less than 1/3), or of the votes cast (less than 1/2). Trump really is irrelevant to my argument, because at a base level it is about what Hillary did, and at a further level about the Democratic party’s acceptance of that myth and their tendency to decide that they did better in elections than they did. Also I made no claim about Hillary Clinton being a horrible person.
Asking me to provide cites for an untrue claim that I didn’t make is stupid. You can’t just make up positions out of the blue, then demand that I support them, then claim victory when I don’t find cites for the thing you made up that I don’t even agree with. I simply didn’t claim that low voter turnout is attributed solely to Hillary.
Asking me to provide cites for some kind of percentage breakdown that you have in your head and that I didn’t talk about is also just plain stupid. I don’t even know exactly what claim you’re arguing with, but it’s not a claim that I made so the idea that I’m obligated to support it makes no sense whatsoever.
Do you really need cites for something as well-known as the number of eligible voters in 2016, or the popular vote percentages? Or are you asking for cites for arguments that you made up and I didn’t make, which again is a stupid thing to ask?
While Johnny Ace and John Mace have variants on the same first name and rhyming last names, as far as I know they are not the same person (and AFAIK sock accounts are against the rules for this board). The claim that I was arguing with initially was made by John Mace, not Johnny Ace.
I think you mis-spelled Harry Reid’'s name here.
Ooh, snap! Wilde?
Srsly?
How’s that been workin’ out for ya lately? :rolleyes:
*If *what Obama says is true then how does this square with racist white voters electing Trump?
Personally, I believe Obama would most likely have defeated Trump. However, Trump knows this cannot be proven or dis-proven. This is one of the most blatant examples of Trump trolling.
(post shortened)
Yes. The Democrat Party now has a secure hold on 2nd place in Congress. They can stand on the sidelines and watch legislation being passed, or they can re-learn to work with the majority party. The ability to compromise is the corner stone of good government.
The Democrats and Republicans have worked together. They’ve passed legislation together. They used to go on junkets together. The status quo of the last 8 years is fine with me, but if the Democrat Party wants to accomplish anything over the next several years, they are going to have to re-learn the art of compromise. Or not.
Well, let’s see. Trump was elected President, Hillary won’t get a chance to pick another gun-banning cretin for the Supreme Court, Hairy Reid is going to retire to whichever bridge he originally crawled out from under, and Obama is going golfing full time.
Seems to be workin’ out pretty well. Thanks for askin’ 
Do you feel that this is what Republicans did in 2008 that led to them regaining control of Congress in 2010? Because I don’t think you can honestly say that with a straight face. They united to oppose, in lockstep, everything that Obama and the Democrats wanted to do, and they did it as loudly as possible, making their argument that Obama was uniquely awful, imperious, and dangerous. And they made their case to the public every second of every day of the entire Obama Administration. I’m not claiming to be unbiased here, I’m a Democrat myself, and I think that they were wrong, but what I can’t argue is that they were effective. Why shouldn’t the Democrats take a page from the Republican playbook now?
It’s their choice. The Democrat and Republican legislators didn’t work well together for the last eight years. Little was accomplished. I noticed that the world didn’t come to an end.
OTOH, the last eight years proved that the Democrats were incapable of forming a working coalition with the loyal opposition. As the majority party, the leadership party, many voters may have held them in contempt, in the non-legal sense. Out with old and busted, in with the new hotness.
:rolleyes:
Can I nominate this for some kind of award or something?