You’re missing the point of Obama describing himself as a Rorschach test. To a large extent, Obama was “right on the issues” in the same sense that there is “really” a butterfly in the ink blot.
Regards,
Shodan
Natural born citizen, 35 years old. That’s the qualifications. Even Trump is qualified. (Cruz may not be, but who cares?)
He worked as a civil rights attorney and taught constitutional law at University of Chicago Law School between 1992 and 2004. He served three terms representing the 13th District in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004. Not to mention his one term in the Senate.
That might be true for some voters, but for others (including myself), we picked Obama because he was right on the issues.
I don’t understand your point. I wanted the things that Obama said he would try to do and didn’t want the things McCain said he would try to do. That’s “right on the issues,” or, in other words, he laid out positions consistent with what I wanted. I will concede he didn’t have extensive political experience.
Dems were going to win in '08 even if they ran a chimpanzee.
Let’s dispel with the notion that Rubio didn’t know what he was doing. He knew exactly what he was doing. 
However the voters didn’t care for what he offered.
Rubio tried to run as the establishment candidate, same as Jeb, same as Christie, but without their baggage. Nobody could have seen Trump’s ascendancy and the anti-establishment vibe during these primaries.
Obama said that a lot of his supporters projected their assumptions onto him, and that he wanted what they wanted, and that this was one of his strengths.
And your reference to McCain somewhat misses the point. Being an ink blot is also how he beat Hillary - in part because it was easier to believe that Obama agreed with the voter than that Hillary agreed with the voter. Because Hillary had more experience than Obama, as well as actual involvement with policy and positions. As I said, Obama was able to turn his lack of experience to his own advantage. Because there were enough voters who didn’t wait for him to explain his positions - they just assumed “hope and change” means whatever they wanted it to mean.
Regards,
Shodan
I think the schism is overblown. After all, Dan Quayle endorsed Trump today.
The man was VP, show some respect!
The Republicans have been walking down this road long before Obama; this started when Ronald Reagan hitched his wagon to the Moral Majority in the 1980s. When they got in bed with the evangelical right, they began to kill that beautiful old idea we inherited from the British: Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. That is, the idea that your opponents on the opposite side of the aisle are a parcel of fat-headed, empty-minded nincompoops and corrupt rouges…who love their country and are trying to do what’s best for it, even if they are tragically and utterly misguided halfwits.
But that’s not how Jerry Falwell and Franklin Graham, Focus On The Family and the Southern Baptist Convention think. They think in terms of good and evil, and with evil, pace Euphonious Polemic, there can be no accommodation. Just look at how the religious right has demonized the word liberal; according to them, liberals are anti-God and anti-American. No compromise with the Devil! The end result of this thinking is a Dominionist like Ted Cruz or John Ashcroft. (Well, actually, the end result is John Calvin and Reformation Geneva; but fortunately, the evangelicals are still a minority in this country.)
[quote=“Slow_Moving_Vehicle, post:89, topic:754089”]
The Republicans have been walking down this road long before Obama; this started when Ronald Reagan hitched his wagon to the Moral Majority in the 1980s. When they got in bed with the evangelical right, they began to kill that beautiful old idea we inherited from the British: Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. That is, the idea that your opponents on the opposite side of the aisle are a parcel of fat-headed, empty-minded nincompoops and corrupt rouges…who love their country and are trying to do what’s best for it, even if they are tragically and utterly misguided halfwits.
[ /QUOTE]
Good points, and like I posted before: PJ O’Rourke
""I am endorsing Hillary, and all her lies and all her empty promises," O’Rourke continued. “It’s the second-worst thing that can happen to this country, but she’s way behind in second place. She’s wrong about absolutely everything, but she’s wrong within normal parameters.”
Hypothetically, would adding Quayle to a Trump/Quayle ticket increase or decrease their total IQ?
“Losers” like Nixon have come back and won the Presidency.
I voted for Obama, and I recognize that astorian has a point. Obama wasn’t really ready to be President, but he appeared to be against W Bush’s Iraq War, he wasn’t a Clinton, and he was running in a year the GOP couldn’t win. I suspect many in the GOP didn’t even want to win that year
Obama is pretty well-liked as President, well enough to be re-elected. Of course, Romney couldn’t win in 2012 because a lot of evangelicals consider LDS to be “cultists.”
Rubio is not as personally charismatic as Obama. Someone with only Rubio’s public speaking skill might not have pulled off a presidential nomination on the Democratic side. And Rubio probably suffers from having spent his entire Senate career in the TEA Party era, as part of a screwy do-nothing coalition.
This is somewhat true. Not that Obama doesn’t have real positions, and even some respectable ones. But a lot people are disturbingly willing to assume of him that he is probably both smarter than them and vaguely on their side. Kind of like how people see Jesus of Nazareth.
Now, that’s not a unique Obama phenomenon. But it is definitely disturbingly common among Obama fans, and his personal charisma encourages it somehow.
That’s the point everyone seems to be missing in comparing Rubio to Obama. Yes, Obama didn’t have a lot of experience when he first ran for President. But he did, and still does, have a ton of charisma. He could get people fired up.
Marco Rubio just seemed like a blank sheet of paper.
I’m willing to assume that someone who was the lead editor of the Harvard Law Review is smarter than me. 
Cool- you know who ELSE was editor of the Harvard Law Review? Ted Cruz!
So, you gladly admit he’s waaaaay smarter than you. Right?
Yes, he is smarter. And he uses his smarts for evil.
Sure! And then he went on to clerk for the Chief Justice of the United States. He’s clearly got a lot on the ball in the brains department.