2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumCould Obama win the DNC Primary today if he was going against Sanders or Warren?
Could Obama win the DNC Primary today if he was going against Sanders or Warren?
---
It's a tough question about a popular president and the times.
32 votes, 4 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
Yes, we wouldn't care about his pardoning banksters, drones and American Kill lists. | |
13 (41%) |
|
No, I would vote against pardoning banksters, drones and kill lists | |
19 (59%) |
|
4 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
-none
(1,884 posts)haikugal
(6,476 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)So, a poll conducted here is meaningless.
StevieM
(10,499 posts)Not impossible, but difficult. Especially if there isn't an economic crisis going on.
I think Warren would do much better against Obama than Sanders would, just like she would have done much better against Clinton than Sanders is doing.
Of course, it is a whole different question if we are talking about a hypothetical in which Barack Obama is not the sitting president. In that case, I think Warren would be very formidable.
procon
(15,805 posts)BTAIM, this poll is meaningless. This ain't 2008, and the Obama of 2016 isn't the same person he on was on his inauguration day. Realistically, today's political and social environment is totally different than it was 8 years ago, so nothing that was in effect then would ever fit into the current conditions.
LexVegas
(6,006 posts)Unicorn
(424 posts)I think in today's political climate, he would be in the same situation as Hillary- the progressives refusing to vote for her.
Only he wouldn't have that added Kissinger problem. And, I've never believed Obama is a warhawk. He didn't start any new wars. However his record would make him just as non-viable as Hillary is with hers - if he were in the primaries today and an option that is far more progressive presents itself to run against him. The progressives would choose the progressive.
The moderates would go for the establishment and all that it represents.
Dem2
(8,166 posts)geez, my kids are more clever than this.
aaaaaa5a
(4,667 posts)Obama has won 2 democratic primaries (2008, 2012)
Obama has won the Presidency of the United States twice (2008, 2012)
He is 1 of just 4 Presidents in the history of the country to win back to back Presidential races with more than 51% of the vote both times. ( No, not even Jesus himself, Ronald Reagan accomplished this.) The last president to do this was Dwight Eisenhower and before that FDR. That's the historical company Obama keeps.
The candidate running for HIS THIRD TERM is currently more than 200 pledged delegates and 2 million popular votes ahead in the 2016 democratic primary. No candidate Democrat or Republican has amassed more votes (10 million) than the candidate running for HIS THIRD TERM.
So umm.... Yea, he would win again. And it would not be close in either the primary or general election.
Unicorn
(424 posts)He was running against someone less. He was the most progressive option and I think we all voted for him twice because he was the most progressive option.
That is why he won both times.
If a more progressive option than him shows up, we'll vote for it - the progressives, at least.
aaaaaa5a
(4,667 posts)In 2008 Denise Kucinich ran and his candidacy went nowhere.
In 2012 Bernie Sanders could have challenged the President but he didn't. Instead he ran around the country looking for someone from the left to challenge him. There were no takers because, like Sanders, they knew Obama was to strong.
The GOP thought the same thing. This is why the 2012 GOP presidential field was among the weakest in history. The perceived stronger GOP candidates (like Jeb Bush) wanted to wait for 2016, because Obama wouldn't be on the ballot.
Finally, as mentioned earlier the candidate currently running as "Obama's third term" is soundly defeating a very strong progressive challenger. She will become the presumptive nominee tonight.
Clearly, if Clinton can beat the Warren/Sanders wing of the party, then Obama would beat them too... Only by a much greater margin.
Historically, Obama is one of the strongest Presidential candidates in history.
Unicorn
(424 posts)and will leave over it. Hillary will have half a party.
She is the divider, not the uniter. Good luck with that. It can't win the GE.
She might win the primary battle but she lost the war doing it.
aaaaaa5a
(4,667 posts)In message board terms that's a sign that this issue has now been answered and settled.
To the OP, the answer is YES, Obama would win and he would do so rather handily.
Unicorn
(424 posts)Unicorn
(424 posts)It's the original topic I posted from the beginning.
Unicorn
(424 posts)You go on ignore for flat out lying.
If you wish to ignore someone because they have information which strongly disproves your viewpoint, you are free to do so.
Gwhittey
(1,377 posts)You said "It looks like you just changed the topic." And that read like he edit the topic and made it look like he was being dishonest. So I can see where he would ignore you as it obviously was not true. He ignored you because it looked like you said he edited the topic not because you supposedly you "have information which strongly disproves your viewpoint"
aaaaaa5a
(4,667 posts)It was poorly worded. I would honestly apologize. And restate the position in a more clear matter. But the poster ran off in such a fit instead of calmly stating the misunderstanding, that at this point I'm not sure what I can do.
Thanks for pointing this out. Sometimes it takes a "third party entry" for everyone to see the light.
StevieM
(10,499 posts)Certainly there is some overlap. But I think Warren falls right in between Sanders and Clinton.
I agree that Obama would win a third term if he was allowed to run. That is pretty impressive, given that voters are usually pretty exhausted with a president after eight years in office.
Had Reagan been allowed to run again in 1988, and Gary Hart not been damaged by the Donna Rice scandal, I think it would have been neck and neck between the two.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I'm amazed how answering a caller to the Thom Hartman show's question about a primary has mutated into "RUNNING AROUND THE COUNTRY."
The candidate whose anti-black racism and fearmongering forced obama to quit his church?> The candidate who ran ads trying to link him to terrorism and claims that he was a "secret Muslims"? The candidate whose mailing list spawned birtherism? The candidate who astroturfed the PUMA movement to threaten her way into a cabinet position? The Secretary of State who actively worked to sabotage her former opponent's foreign policy? Who once out of the position attacked him and current SOS Kerry over their diplomatic efforts? Who has alternatingly used Obama as a scapegoat and a shield in her current campaign?
If you think clinton is going to be Obama's "third term" I can only guess that you've spent all afternoon in a garage huffing fix-a-flat out of old tires. She's going to be Hillary clinton's first term at best.
skylucy
(3,734 posts)respect President Obama. He deserves to be memorialized on Mount Rushmore for all that he has accomplished and for showing such class and dignity during these almost eight years of bigoted, right wing smear tactics.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,706 posts)He has a 87% job approval rating among Democrats:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval_among_democrats-1046.html
Oh, he would put Hillary in a clown suit too.
aaaaaa5a
(4,667 posts)History is going to treat the Obama presidency very, very well.
The only politician left in the country (from either party) that would beat Hillary, is constitutionally prevented from doing so.
Tommy2Tone
(1,307 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Who did he pardon? Did the standards for a pardon apply? Just because you hate "banksters" does not mean the bill of rights does not apply to them.
Unicorn
(424 posts)give their corporations fines and hold not one human accountable. I'm talking about mortgage fraud and other illegal practices that Obama's justice department fined corporations billions for.
treestar
(82,383 posts)and the prosecutors have to have proof. That is different from you just declaring them guilty.
And pardons are only for people who have been convicted. You don't need one if you were never charged and convicted.
Unicorn
(424 posts)Hellooooo? I see someone doesn't bother reading the liberal press on the issues.
I think that's the ultimate divider because the Bernie and Hillary supporters. One never watched an episode of Democracynow in their life and the other watches it daily. How else do we explain the Hillary supporter defense of the TPP, warhawkishness, etc.
Now we get you who think the banksters that were fined billions for breaking the law must not have broken the law so couldn't be sent to prison.
Got it.
Gwhittey
(1,377 posts)Having access to internet does not make one non low information as we can see from many on DU who have no clue about many issues that our suppose liberal elected officials do.
LuvLoogie
(6,855 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... in landslides.
With continued gnashing of teeth from the GOP, and the lefts perpetually disgruntled.
FSogol
(45,363 posts)Maybe you can show specifically which banker was guilty of which crime. Just one will do.
Unicorn
(424 posts)I doubt it would hold up when a real rw smear comes along.
It's asking if Obama could win in todays political climate against a more progressive candidate.
READ.
FSogol
(45,363 posts)Some folks are so transparent.
Unicorn
(424 posts)Note they don't name names, but it is individuals.
BeyondGeography
(39,285 posts)mythology
(9,527 posts)But given that Obama had the same coalition as Clinton does, plus the youth vote, at worst I suspect he would be at least least as far ahead as Clinton is if not even further ahead.
Obama was able to drive primary turnout in a way Sanders hasn't.
democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)But in answer to your question, I am honestly torn whether I would vote for Bernie or Obama if Obama could run again.
quantumjunkie
(244 posts)Warren and Sanders are the real deals. These two will always have my vote.
emulatorloo
(43,982 posts)It is right up there with Clint Eastwood's Empty Chair Obama. Lame and stupid.
Warren and Sanders are great but neither of them can explain things as clearly as Obama.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Skid Rogue
(711 posts)pnwmom
(108,925 posts)within six months, the second they had to do anything to compromise with the other side.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)maybe 3.
TheKentuckian
(24,949 posts)individual vote for him.
I think he'd win pretty handily but I'd vote Sanders or Warren.
Obama is a much better campaigner than Clinton, is flat more likable for a larger portion of people, and even after two terms he is and seems significantly younger than the competition.
A 4th term without a strong left pivot in the 3rd would probably be more dicey (though he'd still muddle through and then face a murky general) but I think he'd easily get through a primary and win the general too if eligible for a third.
There probably wouldn't even be a primary but if so he'd win decisively but not with my help, I wrote in on my primary ballot in 2012 as is and nothing has happened that has made me any happier with my concerns from that time.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)approve of him.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval_among_democrats-1046.html
this site is an anomaly and not representative of the democratic party overall
BlueMTexpat
(15,350 posts)are basically in the "When did you stop beating your wife?" category, I'll just say this:
YES. HE. COULD. PERIOD.
But this hypothetical question is altogether moot and you know it:
a) The XXIInd Amendment limits Prez O to two terms, both of which he won handily among ALL comers.
b) Elizabeth Warren is not a candidate at all in 2016 and likely will not be before 2024, if then.
c) Hillary Clinton is already beating Bernie Sanders by large margins in the popular vote, pledged delegates, and SDs. She will consolidate those leads tonight.
Not even unicorns or pixie dust will change tonight's outcome, I'm afraid.
brooklynite
(93,884 posts)Haven't seen it so far.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Uh, okay.
The DU logic is so mind-numbing at times.
BreakfastClub
(765 posts)Bernie's supporters would have been more likely to support Obama though. The pathetic percentage of white males who support Hillary points to obvious sexism at play. Obama would have done much better in that demo.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)When have right wing trolls taken over this site?
__ Now, with Unicorn's post
OR
__ A little bit later, when jurors vote to keep this bullshit up at DU?
Number23
(24,544 posts)lovemydog
(11,833 posts)to keep from crying at the goddamn idiocy of it all.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)Knowing (as we do now) that more than 400 million people senselessly died under his watch, would you now vote for President Obama? Proof: http://bfy.tw/5X1D
____ Yes I love mass murder! That's why I would vote for President Obama.
____ No I would not vote for genocide.
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)he wouldn't have won in 2008.