Who did more damage to the Democratic Party, Obama or (either) Clinton?

[All Along The Watchtower]

??

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Well, Obama is the one who really failed to build up the state parties.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Well, Obama is the one who really failed to build up the state parties.

Worse, he actively neglected them as they were being hollowed out and as DWS's borderline malicious incompetence was painfully transparent. But his personal popularity blinded so many Democrats (including myself, truth be told) to just how dire this situation was.

At least the Clintons were/are controversial enough within the Party that criticism of them hasn't been met with quite the same level of aggressive pushback from Democratic partisans compared to criticism of Obama. And Bill and Hillary, to their credit, were absolutely involved in supporting and campaigning for Democrats - in fact, this is perhaps the most important reason for why the vast majority of elected Democrats readily endorsed Hillary for 2008 (before Obama came along, at least) and obviously, 2016. Between the two of them, they've got a massive Rolodex of Democratic politicians, operatives, donors, and would-be candidates.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I might have to go with Obama. I love the guy, but he clearly failed to engage the Democratic base in a meaningful way that could have supported his party and Presidency better. Clinton (and Obama in stumping for her) was trying to make up for that neglect  in 2016, but it was too little too late. Also, Obama potentially could have waited his turn to run at a later date, which would have allowed Clinton to win in 2008 and probably win the general election by a similar margin to him. What could have happened after a President Clinton got inaugurated in 2009, is anybody's guess though.

[morgankingsley]

I would say it was a equal thing between them.

[dw93]

If were comparing Bill Clinton's Presidency to Barack Obama's, Obama's was more damaging to the party. Yes the Republican revolution happened in 1994, but the Democrats, at least in the House, chipped away at the gains made by the GOP in every election until the 2002 midterms and the Democrats damn near took the Senate back in 2000. With Obama, 2010 was worse than 1994 and the only reason the Senate stayed Democratic until 2014 was the fact that the GOP ran terrible candidates in key senate races in both 2010 and 2012. 2014 was also a Republican blow out and we dropped the ball big in 2016, Hillary's campaign made many more crucial mistakes than Gore's and the Down ticket gains in 2016 were weaker than they were in 2000.

The Democratic party under Clinton was also a much bigger tent than the party under Obama (although that isn't entirely Obama's fault). The DNC under Clinton also cared a hell of a lot more about down ticket races than DWS's DNC did under Obama.

[pandes]

Barrack Obama

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

The rural rot of the Democratic Party was in full swing long before Obama took office. Don't lay that on him. It's not Obama's fault that 26 states now have governments under complete GOP control, including states where the GOP has no business being in that kind of power.

Going back to 1992, the Democrats were still a coalition of urban centers, labor, moderates in the Upper South, and Yankee Progressives stretching from New England to Iowa. What happened since?

1. The decline of labor unions as a political force. Obama's fault?
2. Moderates in the Upper South turning on the Democrats. Obama's fault?
3. Progressives in the rural Upper Midwest becoming obsolete. Obama's fault?

Some of this is the fault of the party, which didn't have room for pro-life moderates. Some of this is the fault of Fox News poisoning discourse. Part of it is the world changed radically after 9/11/01, leaving a landscape Democrats were ill-equipped to handle. And yes, part of it is party complacency and retreat into areas of concentrated power that were easy to canvas and easy to win, hoping that the "emerging Democratic majority" would save them Real Soon Now.

But, what would you have done differently if you were Obama?

Bill Clinton isn't really to blame either, except that when Fox News came along to assassinate his character, Bill loaded the gun and handed it to them.

It's a wash.