Obama to be extensively involved in 2016 campaign
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 11:00:49 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Obama to be extensively involved in 2016 campaign
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Obama to be extensively involved in 2016 campaign  (Read 3048 times)
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,578
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: March 17, 2016, 12:34:34 PM »

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/obama-is-increasingly-involved-in-the-2016-presidential-campaign/2016/03/17/0f76e0cc-eb13-11e5-b0fd-073d5930a7b7_story.html?client=ms-android-verizon#

YUGE contrast from Dubya
Logged
The Other Castro
Castro2020
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,230
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: March 17, 2016, 12:37:40 PM »

Dubya didn't exactly have a positive approval rating during the election to replace him. Obama's approval rating is swinging upward at just the right time.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: March 17, 2016, 01:01:47 PM »

Yes, there's quite a yuge difference between a 50% approval rating and a 25% approval rating.

But I'm sure the same pundits who were saying Obama's 45% approval rating doooooomed Democrats in 2016 will now be saying it's irrelevant, because Hillary is so unlikable, shrill, calculating, bitchy, etc. etc.
Logged
Santander
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,850
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: 4.00, S: 2.61


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: March 17, 2016, 01:08:46 PM »

The funny thing is, if there were an election between W and Obama today, I'd vote for W without hesitation.

But yes, this is what needs to be done. Democrats like Grimes trying to run away from Obama in 2014 and running as Republican-lites found out that's a losing strategy.
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,613
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: March 17, 2016, 01:12:30 PM »

The funny thing is, if there were an election between W and Obama today, I'd vote for W without hesitation.

When was the last time you had your head examined?
Logged
Nyvin
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,623
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: March 17, 2016, 01:13:06 PM »

Pretty good idea of the Democrats,  especially with the Republicans blocking the Supreme Court confirmation without any reason.

The funny thing is, if there were an election between W and Obama today, I'd vote for W without hesitation.

You've gotta be kidding me, why?
Logged
Joe Biden 2020
BushOklahoma
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,921
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.77, S: 3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: March 17, 2016, 01:40:14 PM »

This could either be a great idea for the Democrats or could backfire in the worst way.  Trump can dig up a lot of dirt on Obama's presidency, as well.  It's one of those high risk/high reward tactics.  I look forward to seeing where this leads.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: March 17, 2016, 01:44:37 PM »

This could either be a great idea for the Democrats or could backfire in the worst way.  Trump can dig up a lot of dirt on Obama's presidency, as well.  It's one of those high risk/high reward tactics.  I look forward to seeing where this leads.

What dirt? They tried tarnishing him in 2012. Since then, there hasn't been anything worse than before 2012's election that would do any damage. Democrats have very high approval ratings of Obama, so either way it doesn't matter.

Obama has been a decent president overall and no amount of Trump blowing through his piehole will change that Bushie Smiley
Logged
bagelman
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,602
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -4.17

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: March 17, 2016, 01:51:36 PM »

With Cruz and Trump the likely nominee, Obama's campaigning against the GOP just as much if not more than he will for his former primary rival.
Logged
Likely Voter
Moderators
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,344


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: March 17, 2016, 01:53:52 PM »

One of the question marks around 2016 is will black voters turnout out like they did in 2008 and 2012 or return to lower levels like with Kerry or Gore. Black turnout in 2010 and 2014 was actually pretty good so there is some argument that Obama doesn't need to be on the ballot, but with Obama actively campaigning for Hillary it will certainly help.
Logged
Chaddyr23
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 479
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.19, S: -5.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: March 17, 2016, 01:57:47 PM »

It's a shame the Republicans cling onto a President that left office almost 30 years ago. The Dems have two relatively popular presidents to draw on to enthuse the electorate. The "Obama" coalition has to be motivated to secure a win this Fall.
Logged
RightBehind
AlwaysBernie
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,209


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: March 17, 2016, 02:00:11 PM »

Obama has been a good president. Better than Bush.

Put it this way, Clinton could've won a hypothetical third term. Obama, were he running for a third term, could probably win.

Bush, if he waa eligible for a third term in 2008, would've given at least 400 electoral votes to the Dems. That would've been the 21st Century Hoover in 1932.
Logged
Reaganfan
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,239
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: March 17, 2016, 02:00:40 PM »

One of the question marks around 2016 is will black voters turnout out like they did in 2008 and 2012 or return to lower levels like with Kerry or Gore. Black turnout in 2010 and 2014 was actually pretty good so there is some argument that Obama doesn't need to be on the ballot, but with Obama actively campaigning for Hillary it will certainly help.

Indeed. However, having Obama out there could also help Trump drive out the white vote. Obama's share of the white vote was only 39% in 2012, and odds are in 2016 America, his share of the white vote would fall further if he were on the ballot. I'm curious as to how bad Hillary might end up doing with the white vote if the Democratic Party continues to embrace urban rhetoric and dismiss white voters (IE Coal industry, Trump supporters, ect)
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,173
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: March 17, 2016, 02:03:41 PM »

One of the question marks around 2016 is will black voters turnout out like they did in 2008 and 2012 or return to lower levels like with Kerry or Gore. Black turnout in 2010 and 2014 was actually pretty good so there is some argument that Obama doesn't need to be on the ballot, but with Obama actively campaigning for Hillary it will certainly help.

Indeed. However, having Obama out there could also help Trump drive out the white vote. Obama's share of the white vote was only 39% in 2012, and odds are in 2016 America, his share of the white vote would fall further if he were on the ballot. I'm curious as to how bad Hillary might end up doing with the white vote if the Democratic Party continues to embrace urban rhetoric and dismiss white voters (IE Coal industry, Trump supporters, ect)

I can't see Hillary getting more than 34-35% among Whites ... which would be worse than Obama did. And that means something. Especially if many white DEM males are sitting out the election or rural ones who switch over to Trump.

Trump in general will do extremely well with Whites this year.

Of couse Latinos will be about 80-85% for Hillary, which might be enough to counter her Whites problem.
Logged
Santander
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,850
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: 4.00, S: 2.61


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: March 17, 2016, 02:08:18 PM »

Pretty good idea of the Democrats,  especially with the Republicans blocking the Supreme Court confirmation without any reason.

The funny thing is, if there were an election between W and Obama today, I'd vote for W without hesitation.

You've gotta be kidding me, why?
The funny thing is, if there were an election between W and Obama today, I'd vote for W without hesitation.

When was the last time you had your head examined?
Bush was, in many ways, more effective than Obama and wasn't afraid to sometimes do things that angered his base. While Obama has been unfairly disrespected a lot, he brings some of that on to himself because people perceive him as "weak". Say what you will about Bush, but he didn't project weakness to his supporters or political opponents.
Logged
Reaganfan
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,239
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: March 17, 2016, 02:15:34 PM »

One of the question marks around 2016 is will black voters turnout out like they did in 2008 and 2012 or return to lower levels like with Kerry or Gore. Black turnout in 2010 and 2014 was actually pretty good so there is some argument that Obama doesn't need to be on the ballot, but with Obama actively campaigning for Hillary it will certainly help.

Indeed. However, having Obama out there could also help Trump drive out the white vote. Obama's share of the white vote was only 39% in 2012, and odds are in 2016 America, his share of the white vote would fall further if he were on the ballot. I'm curious as to how bad Hillary might end up doing with the white vote if the Democratic Party continues to embrace urban rhetoric and dismiss white voters (IE Coal industry, Trump supporters, ect)

I can't see Hillary getting more than 34-35% among Whites ... which would be worse than Obama did. And that means something. Especially if many white DEM males are sitting out the election or rural ones who switch over to Trump.

Trump in general will do extremely well with Whites this year.

Of couse Latinos will be about 80-85% for Hillary, which might be enough to counter her Whites problem.

I completely agree that the demographics are changing in America, but when you start losing 60-70% of white America, doesn't that spell some concern for Democrats?
Logged
Higgs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,581


Political Matrix
E: 6.14, S: -4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: March 17, 2016, 02:19:20 PM »

The funny thing is, if there were an election between W and Obama today, I'd vote for W without hesitation.

But yes, this is what needs to be done. Democrats like Grimes trying to run away from Obama in 2014 and running as Republican-lites found out that's a losing strategy.

Why are you a Democrat
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: March 17, 2016, 02:22:42 PM »
« Edited: March 17, 2016, 02:26:06 PM by Virginia »

Indeed. However, having Obama out there could also help Trump drive out the white vote. Obama's share of the white vote was only 39% in 2012, and odds are in 2016 America, his share of the white vote would fall further if he were on the ballot. I'm curious as to how bad Hillary might end up doing with the white vote if the Democratic Party continues to embrace urban rhetoric and dismiss white voters (IE Coal industry, Trump supporters, ect)

If Obama ran for a 3rd term, he may actually get less white votes - It's possible, but that problem is most likely his own. A white non-Obama candidate going forward can probably expect slightly less than the Democratic white vote average for the past generation: 41%~, which is more than enough given the massive non-white support we will get.

But it must be noted that Obama's very low white vote national average is heavily influenced by collapsing support in the South, while his white vote averages in all the swing states/states he needed were largely OK, if not better. So the South really skews his averages.


I can't see Hillary getting more than 34-35% among Whites ... which would be worse than Obama did. And that means something. Especially if many white DEM males are sitting out the election or rural ones who switch over to Trump.

And somehow Trump is much more appealing? That makes no sense. Why does everyone conveniently ignore how much of a scumbag Trump is and how shady/terrible his history is, or how toxic his campaign has been so far? How is that not worse than Hillary? Him drawing large crowds of angry Republicans doesn't really mean anything.

After all, Mondale got like 36% or lower in 1984, yet that didn't represent the new white vote ceiling for Democrats, even though people probably said it did back then. Dukakis got only 40% of the white vote as well, but it did rebound eventually. Bill Clinton only got 39% of the white vote in 1992, but 43% in 1996 and Gore/Kerry stayed above 40%. Obama in 2008 got 43%. One election (2012) with 39% does not make it the new ceiling.

Suffice to say, Trump is not going to break even 60% of the white vote. He's too polarizing and offensive. This much should be obvious.

I completely agree that the demographics are changing in America, but when you start losing 60-70% of white America, doesn't that spell some concern for Democrats?

Only getting 40% of the white vote is perfectly manageable, esp if most of that loss is in red states. Democrats can actually stand to get even 37% - 38% if non-white vote support holds up (which it appears it will), and still win the White House. That's how fast demographics are screwing over Republicans.

It's easy to say Republicans will just somehow keep getting more of the white vote, but it ignores the sad reality that the GOP essentially wrote off an entire generation of white youth. They won't favor Republicans nearly as much as older folks do now.
Logged
Nyvin
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,623
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: March 17, 2016, 02:22:47 PM »

One of the question marks around 2016 is will black voters turnout out like they did in 2008 and 2012 or return to lower levels like with Kerry or Gore. Black turnout in 2010 and 2014 was actually pretty good so there is some argument that Obama doesn't need to be on the ballot, but with Obama actively campaigning for Hillary it will certainly help.

Indeed. However, having Obama out there could also help Trump drive out the white vote. Obama's share of the white vote was only 39% in 2012, and odds are in 2016 America, his share of the white vote would fall further if he were on the ballot. I'm curious as to how bad Hillary might end up doing with the white vote if the Democratic Party continues to embrace urban rhetoric and dismiss white voters (IE Coal industry, Trump supporters, ect)

I can't see Hillary getting more than 34-35% among Whites ... which would be worse than Obama did. And that means something. Especially if many white DEM males are sitting out the election or rural ones who switch over to Trump.

Trump in general will do extremely well with Whites this year.

Of couse Latinos will be about 80-85% for Hillary, which might be enough to counter her Whites problem.

I completely agree that the demographics are changing in America, but when you start losing 60-70% of white America, doesn't that spell some concern for Democrats?

Most of the whites that the Democrats are losing are in Appalachia and the South....which isn't competitive anyway outside Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia.  

Whites in the north and west coast are both pretty stable,  which is obvious since Obama won places like Wisconsin or Oregon by much bigger margins than Kerry, despite being heavily white.
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: March 17, 2016, 02:24:17 PM »

This could play both ways, given current sentiments, though comparing Obama's current approvals to Dubya's approvals is ludicrous.
Logged
Santander
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,850
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: 4.00, S: 2.61


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: March 17, 2016, 02:35:42 PM »

Because I wouldn't fit into the GOP, either. I'm a New Keynesian and I am more concerned with the efficiency of government than the size of government. A colleague of mine who is an economics professor says that Republicans are like doctors practicing without a license and Democrats are like Santa Claus. I tend to agree and would rather err on the side of government irresponsibility rather than the destruction of government.
Logged
Reaganfan
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,239
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: March 17, 2016, 02:37:44 PM »

Indeed. However, having Obama out there could also help Trump drive out the white vote. Obama's share of the white vote was only 39% in 2012, and odds are in 2016 America, his share of the white vote would fall further if he were on the ballot. I'm curious as to how bad Hillary might end up doing with the white vote if the Democratic Party continues to embrace urban rhetoric and dismiss white voters (IE Coal industry, Trump supporters, ect)

If Obama ran for a 3rd term, he may actually get less white votes - It's possible, but that problem is most likely his own. A white non-Obama candidate going forward can probably expect slightly less than the Democratic white vote average for the past generation: 41%~, which is more than enough given the massive non-white support we will get.

But it must be noted that Obama's very low white vote national average is heavily influenced by collapsing support in the South, while his white vote averages in all the swing states/states he needed were largely OK, if not better. So the South really skews his averages.


I can't see Hillary getting more than 34-35% among Whites ... which would be worse than Obama did. And that means something. Especially if many white DEM males are sitting out the election or rural ones who switch over to Trump.

And somehow Trump is much more appealing? That makes no sense. Why does everyone conveniently ignore how much of a scumbag Trump is and how shady/terrible his history is, or how toxic his campaign has been so far? How is that not worse than Hillary? Him drawing large crowds of angry Republicans doesn't really mean anything.

After all, Mondale got like 36% or lower in 1984, yet that didn't represent the new white vote ceiling for Democrats, even though people probably said it did back then. Dukakis got only 40% of the white vote as well, but it did rebound eventually. Bill Clinton only got 39% of the white vote in 1992, but 43% in 1996 and Gore/Kerry stayed above 40%. Obama in 2008 got 43%. One election (2012) with 39% does not make it the new ceiling.

Suffice to say, Trump is not going to break even 60% of the white vote. He's too polarizing and offensive. This much should be obvious.

I completely agree that the demographics are changing in America, but when you start losing 60-70% of white America, doesn't that spell some concern for Democrats?

Only getting 40% of the white vote is perfectly manageable, esp if most of that loss is in red states. Democrats can actually stand to get even 37% - 38% if non-white vote support holds up (which it appears it will), and still win the White House. That's how fast demographics are screwing over Republicans.

It's easy to say Republicans will just somehow keep getting more of the white vote, but it ignores the sad reality that the GOP essentially wrote off an entire generation of white youth. They won't favor Republicans nearly as much as older folks do now.

I've been playing with the demographic calculator on 538, and even if Trump loses Romney's hispanic numbers and the turnout is increased overall, he keeps it extremely competitive in the electoral college due to the turnout of non-college whites. In fact, if we can surmise that Trump will do better with black voters than Romney did (you can only go up from there), even if by a small percent, Trump's electoral votes gain drastically.

In fact, many of my calculations show a plausible scenario where Trump loses the popular vote by 1%, but wins a comfortable electoral college victory.
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,173
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: March 17, 2016, 02:39:51 PM »

In fact, many of my calculations show a plausible scenario where Trump loses the popular vote by 1%, but wins a comfortable electoral college victory.

That's right. 2016 has all the potential to end up really close and like the 2000 disaster.
Logged
Maxwell
mah519
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,459
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: March 17, 2016, 02:41:04 PM »

Pretty good idea of the Democrats,  especially with the Republicans blocking the Supreme Court confirmation without any reason.

The funny thing is, if there were an election between W and Obama today, I'd vote for W without hesitation.

You've gotta be kidding me, why?
The funny thing is, if there were an election between W and Obama today, I'd vote for W without hesitation.

When was the last time you had your head examined?
Bush was, in many ways, more effective than Obama and wasn't afraid to sometimes do things that angered his base. While Obama has been unfairly disrespected a lot, he brings some of that on to himself because people perceive him as "weak". Say what you will about Bush, but he didn't project weakness to his supporters or political opponents.

You're right - he doesn't project weakness. He strongly fights for terrible policies that wreck the country.

That's utter nonsense you're spewing.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: March 17, 2016, 02:46:58 PM »

In fact, many of my calculations show a plausible scenario where Trump loses the popular vote by 1%, but wins a comfortable electoral college victory.

Well I'm curious exactly how much of the white/black vote you're giving Trump, and what the turnout is. Trump is unlikely to do much better than Romney with blacks given what has been going on at his rallies. People are watching the news clips showing black people getting assaulted. It doesn't even matter who started it. It's perception and he might as well be George Wallace to black voters. This could even drive their turnout higher than it was in 2012.

Look, we can argue this all day, but I'm saying that you guys need to be more open to the fact that Trump will most likely alienate a lot of white voters. Your scenarios depend on him somehow not alienating those people, which ignores the dark nature of his campaign.

I just don't get the rationale that Hillary simply being Hillary will cost her so much support, yet Trump doing all the offensive, almost-evil things he's done so far costs him nothing. It makes no sense.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.06 seconds with 14 queries.