My pro-Trump friend is annoying me with attacks on Obama and Hillary. One of his contentions is that no sitting president has stumped for their preferred successor (and that Obama is the devil incarnate for doing so).
So, is he correct that it is unprecedented? If not, can you share some contrary examples that I can give him?
No, it’s nonsense. Here’s an article (one of many) about GWB stumping for McCain. And here he is doing the same for Romney. And here’s an article about Bill Clinton stumping for Gore in the 2000 campaign.
Moved to Elections.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
I thought Gore was miffed at his perception that Bill didn’t stump very hard for him. As I recall, it sounded like he may have even blamed Bill for his election loss.
Obama seems to be pulling out all thee stops for Hillary though. Has any previous president stumped this hard?
Jesus.
The complaint against Obama now is that he’s trying TOO HARD to get another Democrat elected president?
Christ, there is nothing this guy can do right, is there?
My friend is concerned about attacks on Trump. Here is what he said:
“He can give Hillary his endorsement, but he shouldn’t campaign for her, and whether he likes Trump or not, he shouldn’t come out attacking Trump over and over again as if he was campaigning.”
Why the hell not? Obama is a member of the Democratic Party. He shares ideals with other Democratic Party members. Hillary Clinton is running as a member of the Democratic Party. Of course he’s freakin’ campaigning.
Yet your friend thinks that Obama should just shut up? Out of what? A sense of “fair play?” Because Trump is so gentle and kind and truthful?
Why not? He goes out and campaigns for Congresspeople, Senators, governors, etc. A sitting president is always doing political things like fundraising, and campaigning for themselves and others. Why in the bloody hell *wouldn’t *Obama go out and fight like hell to make sure the past eight years (heck, the past 240 years) aren’t undone by a narcissistic and reckless ignoramus?
Like I said, he thinks it is unprecedented (and wrong). I should have made my question clearer, sorry. Examples of presidents attacking successor’s rivals should of been/is what I am asking for.
No, but we don’t really have a huge sample to work with. This is only the sixth election in the jet age where the incumbent president isn’t a nominee.
It’s not unprecedented (see above) and it’s not wrong. Obama is pointing out that Trump has poorly thought out policies, and that Trumps behavior and temperament are clearly not suited to the office of the president.
I’m sure your friend does not like Obama, and wishes he was not elected (twice). And now he wants him to be quiet. Too bad.
Obama campaigned even harder for his parties nominee in 2012.
Where did you get that? 
I don’t think he’s trying too hard. I’m all for it. But he is trying hard, and the degree may be unprecedented.
That was not for his successor.
Let Obama campaign. And Bill. Lizzie Warren. Ellen DeGeneres, Oprah and Colbert. Cheech and Chong, Bruce Springsteen. Willie Nelson. Trump will unleash Jon Voight, but we’ll just have to deal.
Obama is an American citizen. He has the right of freedom of speech, just like everyone else. Ask your friend why Obama should not be allowed to make speeches. Who took away his right to do so?
Considering that Trump has spent years smearing Obama personally with the birther thing and that Trump is a danger to world stability and the global economy, he’s perfectly justified in doing so.
Trump should realise, if you don’t want to get dirty, don’t go playing in the mud.
Look, I was not complaining that Obama is stumping for Hillary. Far from it. I was just wondering if this degree of stumping was unprecedented. That’s all.
A thought from afar.
Everything is unprecedented here.
The nature of the media changes faster than the election cycle. The nature of the party politics changes faster. Trump is unprecedented.
Any claim about “unprecedented” needs a metric to gauge whether the level is higher or not. Hours spent? Number of media minutes? You could come up with a whole slew of them, and probably get any answer you wanted.
From the early 60’s the entire nature of the US electoral system started on a ride atop the modern media. TV and then Internet, and at a speed that now provides essentially real time news coverage, and a reach into every niche imaginable. Every election cycle sees a totally new land.
There is a maxim in politics, which is about inventing maxims. Trump could say that he believes than an incumbent second term president should (as part of the duty of office) refrain from engagement in the election. This is a risk free thing. He isn’t a second term president. It sounds like a logical idea, and he could market this as a new, apparently reasonable, maxim. His only risk is the he eventually does become a second term president, and someone remembers that 8 years before he said that he shouldn’t engage in the election. 8 years is an eternity in politics.
There is a long and inglorious history of such maxim invention. Trump would not be exactly the first to try it on.