Obama: We are not going to win just by increasing the turnout of people who already agree with us

[highplainsdem]

Important comments from Obama today, reminding Democrats of the foolishness of purity tests, and of thinking we can win in 2020 just by increasing Democratic/progressive turnout.


https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/471608-obama-everybody-needs-to-chill-out-about-differences-between-2020

Former President Obama spoke candidly Thursday to a room of 100 donors who paid top dollar to see him speak, telling the room that “everybody needs to chill out” about the differences among the 2020 Democratic candidates.

“Everybody needs to chill out about the candidates,” Obama said to a crowd of about 100 Democratic donors who had paid thousands to listen to his talk in Silicon Valley, according to the Mercury News. “But gin up about the prospect of rallying behind whoever emerges from this process and making sure we’re hitting the ground running.”

Speaking with Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez following the fifth installment of Democratic debates Wednesday night, Obama said he doesn’t care if voters don’t think the eventual nominee is the “perfect” candidate who agrees with them on all important issues.

“The choice is so stark and the stakes are so high that you cannot afford to be ambivalent in this race,” he said.

Obama gave a warning to the slate of candidates that simply getting the Democratic base to turn out to vote next year may not be enough to beat President Trump.

“We are not going to win just by increasing the turnout of people who already agree with us completely on everything, which is why I’m always suspicious of purity tests during elections,” he said. “You know what? The country’s complicated.”

-snip-

[evertonfc]

1. Obama

is correct.

[crazytown]

2. He's wrong.

Hillary would have won with a 2012 turnout.

[The Valley Below]

20. Don't remind us what happened there.

Bad memories.

[customerserviceguy]

22. And she would have had a 2012 turnout

had she picked an African-American as her running mate, instead of the most boring politician in Virginia.

[BannonsLiver]

23. This is exactly right

I'll never understand why she picked Tim Kaine. Nice guy, but he brought ZERO to the ticket. I'm not sure she would have reached Obama levels. He was a special candidate and I think sometimes people forget how electric 2008 was, but she likely would have won if she had done what you suggested in your post. It was a big error, and one that felt like a blunder when she selected him. No monday morning quarterbacking necessary.

[customerserviceguy]

24. Similarly

Our 2020 nominee must balance the ticket with a correct (and opposite) gender and race pick. If Joe Biden gets the nomination, he needs to pick a woman of color (preferably African-American) to be a running mate. Stacey Abrams will do nicely.

[BannonsLiver]

29. I'd rather have someone like Tammy Duckworth but agree balance is imperative.

[rownesheck]

26. I remember

the exact moment I heard she picked Tim Kaine. We were in Tennessee in a Krystal drive thru. It was announced on the radio and I said, "who?! Oh fuck. She's gonna lose." The only time any prognostication of mine ended up being correct.

[Nay]

37. I live in VA, and I said the same thing when I found out Kaine was the pick!! WTF?

Yes, he's a nice guy, but he brought NOTHING to the ticket. NOTHING.

[customerserviceguy]

40. Yes

if Hillary couldn't have won Virginia without Kaine, she would have lost in a lot more places than she did.

[Demsrule86]

46. It was a swing state...and Romney was considered a moderate Democrat...

[Midwestern Democrat]

71. With the exception of Geraldine Ferraro, Kaine was easily the weakest VP nominee of this party in

at least the last 40 years. The party's VP nominees since 1976 could be roughly put into two categories - men of national stature (Mondale, Bentsen, Lieberman, Biden) or rising stars/potential future presidential nominees (Gore, Edwards). Kaine was in neither category - he was just an ordinary US Senator.

[mjvpi]

51. That was a move to the middle, just as Obama is suggesting

How’d that work out?

[BannonsLiver]

56. Hmmm I'm not sure I agree with your hypothesis

Especially given that most on the Bernie left saw Clinton as a conservadem in the first place so there would be no need to "move to the middle" by picking Kaine. It really is quite a silly point, to be honest. But hey, when there's a chance to get a shot in at Obama, who won 2 elections by WIDE margins,and Hillary, I guess some folks never miss that opportunity.

[customerserviceguy]

72. I don't either

The ticket must be perceived as balanced, or we risk losing to Trump again. And that means racial and gender balance, not just centrist/progressive balance.

[mjvpi]

77. Why do you think she picked Kaine?

I proudly voted for Senator Clinton, but was puzzled by this pick. A more progressive pick would have brought in the Sanders supporters.

By the way, you look no better than the DU members that you are reacting to.

[PhoenixDem]

68. All real Democrats would agree with PBO n/t

[stopdiggin]

28. that was my first response

then I read the actual remarks .. and Obama was, once again, spot on the money.

“We are not going to win just by increasing the turnout of people who already agree with us completely on everything, which is why I’m always suspicious of purity tests during elections,” he said. “You know what? The country’s complicated.”

The OP heading created a misleading impression of what the man was saying.

[Demsrule86]

41. He is not wrong...and here in Ohio some who voted for Obama did not vote for

Hillary. He had a coalition of voters...anyone who believes this is a base election (not saying you) has not looked at the Electoral College and where we need to win.

[Joe941]

58. +1

[Blue_true]

60. You just proved the point that he made.

That 2012 turnout included a lot of people that were moderates, but trusted President Obama more than Romney.

[IronLionZion]

3. Says the guy with record high turnout

Our side went all out to elect him twice.

[redqueen]

4. He's absolutely correct.

Been saying this for months so I totally agree of course.

[crazytown]

12. Empirically, Obama is not correct.

Hillary would have won with a 2012 turnout. An estimated 4.5 million Obama voters stayed at home.

[Demsrule86]

42. They turned out for Obama and were not neccesarily base voters...also I will remind

you that no matter the popular vote...had Obama not carried MI, PA and WI, he would have lost and so will any candidate in 20 who can't carry these state...lots of moderate voters here.

[LakeArenal]

52. Moderate to right wing gerrymandering nut jobs.

[AncientGeezer]

82. Gerrymandering doesn't affect a Federal election though.

[LakeArenal]

84. It does. We can still pull it out.

But local Republicans hold a lot of sway.
I always say WI is 47-47%. We are always fighting for 3-4%.
When I worked on the recall, Pukes would come in and literally yell that you’ll never change “my”vote. We always said we did not want “his” vote. We were working for the three per cent that might. That if “he”was smart he’d be out there trying to find them like we were.

[AncientGeezer]

86. "LakeArenal 84. It does. We can still pull it out." NO..no it doesn't

[wellst0nev0ter]

88. Black voter turnout fell in 2016

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/12/black-voter-turnout-fell-in-2016-even-as-a-record-number-of-americans-cast-ballots

We'd be idiots to ignore these voters while chasing after white racists.

[The Mouth]

54. President Obama is the kind of candidate that only comes along

every several decades.

Reagan,

Bill Clinton.

Barrack Obama.



These folks are like gymnasts who score all 10's, or baseball hitters who can hit .375. Rarities. Charisma, killer instincts and *LOVE* to campaign. Hillary didn't have that, nobody in our group has that. No one might have that for another 25 years, Democrat or Republican.

The combination of being able to excite the base, reach out to folks from the other side, and remain energized all the way through a grueling campaign like a rock star who *LIVES* to be on stage. It is rare, maybe the 3 such folks above in my 58 year lifetime (although JFK wasn't bad, but he also had immense logistical resources) in my lifetime.

It's not a criticism of any 'mere mortal', no matter HOW smart, patriotic or big hearted any more than saying that I can't play basketball like Michael Jordan or shoot golf like Tiger Woods in his prime, box with Ali; Obama was gifted in a way no one was or is, or probably will be for decades. I thus think it kind of unfair (although brutally realistic) to compare her turnout to Obama's.

Thus it comes down to GOTV Ground game.

2020 Will go to the person with the best organization, infrastructure and use of resources.

[TryLogic]

5. He blew his first two years trying to find middle ground.

He had big majorities in the House and Senate, if I recall correctly, but he thought that Republicans could be reasonable. He thought Republicans were actually concerned about the American people.

[highplainsdem]

8. You don't remember how difficult it was for Obama to get anything through the Senate even his

first two years.

Here's a reminder of how close he came to not getting important bills through, and how Biden's ability to sway Republicans got the stimulus and the ACA through the Senate:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287262162

[crazytown]

13. Not one Republican voted for the ACA.

Biden got three GOP'ers on side for the Recovery Act, at a time of absolute national emergency.

[highplainsdem]

14. Read the thread I linked to. The ACA passed because Arlen Specter switched parties because of Biden

and that gave us the 60 votes needed.

[Cha]

15. Edge of our Seats Times!

Thanks for the reminder, hpd!

[crazytown]

16. Will do.

Thank you.

[Demsrule86]

47. I had forgotten that. That is right without this, the ACA would have gone down.

Biden has worked across the aisles! I don't think we ever had a party that cared nothing for the country before the modern Republican Party...it truly is an awful party full of those who seek personal gain and don't care about our country.

[wellst0nev0ter]

89. This just shows how utterly broken our senate is

and how it will continue to be broken unless it is completely reformed or completely eliminated.

There is no excuse for Democrats being paralyzed while having a large majority in the Senate.

[JudyM]

10. Yes, same as Harry Reid. And some still hold that wishful thinking view.

[Cha]

11. No way in hell President Obama "blew his first 2 years.. " Stop

spreading misinformation.

[zentrum]

19. Agree.

[Cha]

27. No, President Obama did Not "Blow his first 2 years

in Office".

[still_one]

33. Big majorities? Really? In 2009-2011 we had control of the House, but GUESS WHAT, legislation DOES

not pass without the Senate

The Senate operates with the 60-vote-requirement filibuster rule. Total control of the Senate requires 60 votes.

In January 2009, Democrats had 57 seats, with Sanders and Liberman caucusing with the Democrats for 59 votes.

That 59 included both Kennedy and Franken. Franken was not officially seated until July 2009, and Kennedy had a seizure in January 2009, and never returned to the Senate to vote, so the actual number was 55 plus two independents which makes 57.

It was during that time that President Obama was able to pass a stimulus package, but only because 3 republicans, Collins, Snowe, and Specter voted to break a filibuster guaranteeing its passage

In April 2009, Specter became a Democrat, Kennedy was still at home too ill, and Franken was still not seated in April. In May 2009, Byrd got sick, and didn't return to the Senate until July 2, 2009, and Democrats still had only 59 votes Kennedy's seat was temporarily filled by Kirk, but not until Sept, 2009


It was then that Democrats had at least potentially 60 votes in the Senate, and it lasted all of 4 months, from Sept 24, 2009 through Feb. 4, 2010, at which point Scott Brown, a republican was sworn in to replace Kennedy

The only thing the Democrats had control of for two years was the House, and for only 4 months did we have total control of congress.

Let's use the ACA as an example during that 4 month time frame where the same argument was pushed that during that four month period we could have included a public option in the ACA, or Medicare for ALL.

Not likely. People seem to conveniently forget that there were blue dog Democrats
who made it very clear they would not vote for a public option or Medicare for All. They were Blanche Lincoln, Lieberman, Nelson in Florida, Nelson in Nebraska, and I believe Mark Pryor. Contrary to what some like to project, we didn't have the votes, and there was NOT ONE republican who was willing to vote for any healthcare package with the Democrats, let alone one with a public option or Medicare for all

For those who continue to push this inaccurate narrative should perhaps put things in perspective

[StarfishSaver]

38. Brilliant breakdown

Bookmarking because this is critical information.

[still_one]

39. I think a good number of Monday morning quarter backs have a disconnect, and don't realize what

President Obama had to put up with, and in spite of that, what he accomplished is amazing!!!

[BumRushDaShow]

75. The biggest impediment at the time re: Public Option

was this guy --> Max Baucus (D-MT)



who headed up the Senate Finance Committee at the time and who started off his portion of the process (along with other committees working on the ACA), by not inviting single-payer reps to the kick-off discussions. So with the assistance of the other ones you mentioned, both single-payer and the Public Option, became non-starters.

This sort of thing puts Democrats in the unenviable position of keeping the blue dogs and the Senate majority (but at a cost to more progressive legislation) or removing the blue dogs and losing the majority, where nothing "progressive/liberal" or even "moderate" will ever happen.

[Tarheel_Dem]

35. Big majorities? Let's not make shit up. That's part of the problem. n/t

[Demsrule86]

43. After Kennedy became sick we lost our 60 vote majority...it was not about GOP types being

reasonable but about the numbers. We also had some conservadems who gave us this majority...who would not vote for things like a public option and then of course Brown was elected. And that was that...In the mid terms our side punished Obama for what he couldn't do ...get single payer or a public option and effectively stopped all progressive policy for the rest of Obama's term. I hope we will not do that again...did the same in 94 to Clinton. The left still doesn't like Pres. Obama particularly in many cases and often it shows. I adore him...he was the best president of my lifetime...saved our economy and gave us health care which saved my daughter's life.

[Demsrule86]

48. You recollection is not correct. I suggest Google.

[Joe941]

59. Revisionist history.

[nbsmom]

85. I lost some faith in Obama when he brought Rahm Emanuel in.

Rahm shut out Howard Dean, who originated the idea of a 50 state strategy. IMO this move to the center lost a lot of populist points in some of the red states, which hurt Dems in 2010.

[Cha]

6. "But gin up about the prospect of rallying behind whoever emerges from this process and making sure

“Everybody needs to chill out about the candidates,” Obama said to a crowd of about 100 Democratic donors who had paid thousands to listen to his talk in Silicon Valley, according to the Mercury News. “But gin up about the prospect of rallying behind whoever emerges from this process and making sure we’re hitting the ground running.”

Mahalo, highplainsdem!

[msongs]

7. lotsa ppl who agree with us sit out elections. be nice if they voted nt

[Nay]

55. Agree, but you can't make them. Obama's turnout was large because it was a

mind-blowing historic chance to vote for the first black person for President. The only black people who didn't turn out were in the hospital recovering from something. White and Hispanic people who were also excited to vote in such an election also turned out. I live in Virginia, near a blue city but in a red county, and the lines ran waaaay out into the parking lot. I vote every election. I have never seen so many people of all colors in line. I did NOT see the same turnout, or even the same color mix, in 2016. Many people who came out for Obama did not come out that time.

[ritapria]

9. We won KY and La. by turning out the base

We lost MS because the base did not turn out …..In La.. We increased our share of the vote from 47% in Round One to almost 52% in the ensuing runoff because the base turned out in Round 2 ……...Had our based turned out in 2016 , Hillary would have carried the popular vote by 5% to 6% and won a handsome victory in the Electoral College …….If the Dem base shows up like they did in 2018 and 2019 , It won't be close …..If not, we're looking at another squeaker …...

[BeyondGeography]

17. Thank you

Look at the Louisville totals for Beshear. Jefferson County/Louisville margin of victory went from 37k in 2015 to 100k. Margin of victory was 5k votes. Say no more.

[Demsrule86]

49. Look at the suburbs totals without which we would have lost.

[Demsrule86]

44. No we didn't...we won by turning out the base and getting new voters in the suburbs...

Turning out the base wouldn't have been enough by itself and we barely won those elections...we must turn out the base and get new voters in the suburbs to win statewide and national elections moving forward.

[Blue_true]

63. I agree. And that is what President Obama did in 2008 and 2012 and Hillary failed to do in 2016. nt

[Blue_true]

62. You are really conflating things.

You seem to be trying to say that the base is Sanders type voters. They aren't, Sanders is struggling with the African Anericans who help democratic governors in Ky and La and who failed to help a guy that was not much different from the republican in Ms. If we get a Bernie/Tulsi ticket, we will likely not excite Black voters and will likely lose the General. Black voters give us a broad base from which we can reach to victory.

[StarfishSaver]

18. He said "people who already agree with us completely on everything"

That's different than saying simply "people who already agree with us."

[Cha]

25. Yes, it is!

[marlakay]

21. No one wants to admit or talk about it

But a lot of people didn’t vote last time because of strong feelings against Hillary. I knew some of those people having worked with them on Bernies primary.

I voted for her but some would not. The DNC favoring her really got a lot of people really angry.

If we can get through this campaign season without destroying each other we can get our Obama numbers back no matter who wins the primary.

I told my moderate friend for Biden, if I can 100% support him if he wins then you can 100% support Warren.

Same goes for Bernie or any others. We should support our candidates but overall be saying vote Blue no matter who!

[stopdiggin]

30. I believe Obama covered this ground precisely

in saying that he had little use for "purity tests." I really hope some lessons were learned in 2016. NEVER should have happened.

[Blue_true]

65. It doesn't look like some people have learned a lesson.

The notion that the DNC favored Hillary when study after study showed that she decisively won her primary is case in point. Can we really count on people that believe that if a person from their list of favored candidates is not nominated? I want to believe we can count on them, but there is a uneasiness inside me when I see repeating of the proven false DNC favoritism claim.

[Demsrule86]

45. Well I hope those who didn't vote for Hillary are happy about what they did...they literally

have blood on their hands. Vote blue no matter who. But it wasn't just about Hillary, we saw the same sort of thing with Gore and Kerry...some who claim to be on our side really are not.

[Joe941]

61. Exactly the DNC was biased against Bernie. That has kept me angry...

For a long time. But isnt this reliving 2016 against the forum rules? Seriously how does that help our 2020 candidates. We must win this time.

[AncientGeezer]

83. The primary voters were biased against Bernie...he lost and will again.

[Blue_true]

64. It has been decisively shown that the DNC DID NOT FAVOR HILLARY.

There was a study out just 2 months ago on that issue, it concluded that absolutely NO favoritism took place.

[Hekate]

31. God bless the man. He's right.

[YOHABLO]

32. I admire Obama, but people who pay $$$ money to hear him, already know this.

My question to Obama would be, how do we FIX this? How do we assure the public that their vote will count? Half the country is so apathetic about politics, and believe that corporate America and the 1% are running things, why bother? Did anyone ask Obama that?

[Tarheel_Dem]

34. K&R

[brooklynite]

36. But what does HE know about winning elections?

[Demsrule86]

50. I agree completely!

[helpisontheway]

53. I think Obama knows we are about to F this up and cause Trump to have 4 more years..

I hope those that want to rip the Democratic Party apart (force everyone in MFA, free college for everyone, free student loan payoff,etc) will be happy once we lose an election that should be a no brained. Ignore one of the democrats that managed to serve two times. People counted Obama out in 2012 and he outsmarted them again. So yeah, ignore Obama so you can prop up favorites.

[emmaverybo]

78. The free everything candidates will cost us the election during a time of a record high deficit,

when the existing social safety net is under threat, and middle class voters know they will bear the brunt of a big tax increase to pay for these many additional programs—which indiscriminately would help the well-off along with lower income groups.

Sensible candidates offer progressive, doable, and affordable plans. To lose the election over extravagant plans that have a snowball’s chance in hell of coming to fruition would be tragic for us, and ultimately, for the world.

[Cha]

57. Obama on key values: "Be kind. Be useful. Ask why not?

Link to tweet

[betsuni]

67. Republicans.

The enemy lip-service-platitude-status-quo-do-nothings are Republicans.

[LongtimeAZDem]

69. The "do nothings" are the people who don't vote

[marble falls]

79. Exacta Mundo. The biggest lie people have fallen for since Reagan has been "your vote doesn't ...

count". Then why are the RW so eager to disenfranchise "useless" voters?

Then comes that "government cannot work" because only incompetents work for the federal government. Then why do they want to work for the government so much? The deep government they cry about proves that government does work, its saving us from Trump as we process to impeachment.

[DCofVA]

70. Do what is right, not what is easy

Keep this in mind when you step into the voting booth. Never let anyone discourage you from your resolve. Always vote for what you know is right.

[Meub]

73. He's half right

We need to retain those who support is and also persuade swing voters

[LongtimeAZDem]

74. If we don't retain them, they don't really support us

[FloridaBlues]

76. He is speaking truth. The candidate must appeal to other voters

[andym]

80. Summary: It requires more than just great turnout from the Democratic base to win

at the national level, and President Obama is correct. It's the same reason that Trump will hopefully not do well this time-- little crossover and swing voter appeal puts a candidate at a huge disadvantage.

[Jakes Progress]

87. Says the man

who won with the biggest turnout of the Democratic base in decades.

There are more of us than there are of them. We won the last election even with many idiots sitting on their hands.