Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Bonobo

(29,257 posts)
Sun May 10, 2015, 10:14 PM May 2015

Obama was NOT elected because he ran on "incremental change"

The election of Barack Obama was a call for BIG CHANGE. We may have wound up with incremental change, but that is in large part because the electorate was swinging for the fences.

Vote for incremental change and you will get nothing but a continued drift to the right as the opposition redefines our lukewarm "incremental candidate" as "far left" and resets what is considered center towards the right. THIS is what has been going on and there is no better poster child for this outcome than Hillary Clinton right now.

No. Vote for, demand for BIG CHANGE.

You may only wind up with incremental change, but you will help to reset our center back towards the left from where it has steadily drifted over the last 30 years.

10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Obama was NOT elected because he ran on "incremental change" (Original Post) Bonobo May 2015 OP
we were hoping there would be big change. oh well nt msongs May 2015 #1
Yes, we were. Bonobo May 2015 #2
Sorry, but cynics are too cynical to demand BIG CHANGE. JaneyVee May 2015 #3
Post removed Post removed May 2015 #4
Some people are more afraid it seems BrotherIvan May 2015 #5
It was a damn great campaign. joshcryer May 2015 #6
He ran on not being tied to partisan ideology Recursion May 2015 #7
Well it is all very open to interpretation. Bonobo May 2015 #8
I thought I was voting for some big change...nt Mojorabbit May 2015 #9
I also remember him saying... Javaman May 2015 #10

Bonobo

(29,257 posts)
2. Yes, we were.
Sun May 10, 2015, 10:33 PM
May 2015

And perhaps we SHOULD be a little happy that we got anything.

But my point is that he was armed with an enormous amount of political capital from an electorate that wanted BIG CHANGE.

Imagine now what will happen if we vote for an incremental change candidate. We will go backwards.

Response to Bonobo (Original post)

BrotherIvan

(9,126 posts)
5. Some people are more afraid it seems
Sun May 10, 2015, 11:43 PM
May 2015

The Republicans are so scary, they are running for whomever they think will protect them. They are willing to sell freedom for security.

joshcryer

(62,270 posts)
6. It was a damn great campaign.
Mon May 11, 2015, 12:00 AM
May 2015

But it was wholly false when you look at the power a President has to enact change.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
7. He ran on not being tied to partisan ideology
Mon May 11, 2015, 12:46 AM
May 2015

I don't remember anything about "big sweeping change" other than "I won't try to keep things as strictly Democrat vs. Republican". Which ads did you see that talked about that?

Bonobo

(29,257 posts)
8. Well it is all very open to interpretation.
Mon May 11, 2015, 12:50 AM
May 2015

It all comes down to hope and change.



Foreign policy based on our moral standing? Living wage for workers? Those are big issues. BIG ISSUES.

Combined with the idea that we were going from the WASPiest of old money WASPS to the first black president, people can be forgiven for thinking they were voting for a big change.

I do not believe that was lost on the campaign bigwigs. Do you?

Javaman

(62,528 posts)
10. I also remember him saying...
Mon May 11, 2015, 10:47 AM
May 2015

I'd rather be a good one term president than a mediocre two term president.

he's leaning toward mediocre

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Obama was NOT elected bec...