“It’s not as if we didn’t see some of this coming,” said Barack Obama, a note of bleak humour in his voice. “I will admit it’s worse than even I expected, but I did warn y’all!”
The crowd at a sports arena in Norfolk, Virginia, half-laughed and half-groaned. “I did,” Obama added. “You can run the tape.”
Now Obama is back on the campaign trail, for Democrats running for governor in New Jersey and Virginia. It gives him a platform to deliver an alternative State of the Union address. And the gloves are off.
To hear the expectant buzz of the 7,000-plus crowd in Norfolk as candidate Abigail Spanberger promised that Obama’s entrance was just moments away was to be reminded that Democrats did once have a president who could match Trump’s superstar charisma.
I just want to point out here, Obama was a moderate, not progressive. He used a Romney healthcare plan, he put in compromise appointments all over, he didn’t support gay marriage in his first campaign. He had to “evolve” on that, along with public opinion, conveniently.
And this guy won 2 terms.
Before that we had Clinton, who was - surprise - a moderate. He got some things done for Dems but cut the government way back. He was still grappling with Reagan fanatics so he had to appeal to them. This guy put in don’t-ask-don’t-tell, which we look back on as a nightmare, but it was also a foot in the door for queers to serve without being dishonorably discharged.
My point is, in recent memory, and certainly now in the Trump era, voters don’t want to see out-of-touch positions, they want to see someone very calm and charismatic who says they can solve their everyday problems.
Can we learn anything for 2028 from this?
it’s not even about being moderate. i believe the stronger vision wins. it’s more like this:
on some policies (like gender issues) you heavily divide the population because people see it very differently. some people will agree heavily, others will disagree just as strongly, and all you’re doing is to divide the population, which is not what we need. if you focus on economic policies instead, people’s agreement is much more even and you get a lot of support from many people, which carries you and the country forward much more, i believe.
Yeah that’s a good way of putting it. We can split ourselves over many different issues which do and don’t align with people, thus splitting our voter base. Or we can unite behind one standard that everyone desperately wants, and coincidentally we have the track record to win on.
Run the most conservative candidates possible so the party can surprised Pikachu when Trump accidentally pushes decent policy through shear contrarianism. Got it
Were Clinton and Obama and Biden the “most conservative candidate” in their races?
This strategy was pioneered by Key and Peele.
Bill and Hillary Clinton are directly responsible for making the DNC into neoliberal shills.
Obama wasn’t a great president. He was a good source of hope which made his weakness worse.
He pulled the US out of a financial crisis only to to go complwte centrist, folding on healthcare (which might have been the right strategic choice), folding on peace in the middle east, folding on socual support, folding on Russia, folding on the SC.
Obama contributed to Democratic decline in the world (through loss of trust in Democrstic instituions) during his term, and then lead to borh Trump and Biden.
Biden was a better president than Obama, despite being half there, and funneling the States towards Trump 2.0.
My point wasn’t how good each president was, just that they actually won, and social causes advanced under their administrations.
You were probably clear … I probably just needed to rant.