Could Obama's breakneck pace on social issues have inadvertently helped Trump? (UPDATE)

[ericson00]

Last edited Tue Nov 15, 2016, 09:11 PM - Edit history (3)

normally, a guy like Trump, with his comments, past, and lack of experience should lose in a blowout. But it looks like it could be a close race, and Trump is even a contender (unlike Dole, Mondale, McCain, McGovern, etc.).

Obama's done a great job on the economy, the environment, and LGBT rights, especially marriage equality. But sometimes, I wonder if Obama's attempt to talk about race might have unsettled enough of the 70% of the US population that is white to make a candidate like Trump, who overtly harnesses racial animus, resonate. Could Obama and other Democrats energized those who don't like change and social conservatives, with such swift action and discussion on things like transgender issues, so soon after marriage equality? Could his talk on immigration, considerably less "tough" than even Bill Clinton in the 1990s (who did use the term "illegal alien" for illegal immigration), have spurred Trump by making people think that he was outright ignoring the problem? Yes I know the number of deportations of unauthorized immigrants is up, but words do matter. Obama also should've stayed out of things like the Washington Redskins issue; there are a lot of people that really ticked off.

While Obama did win in 2012, he did become more outspokenly progressive form 2013 (his second term) onward on the issues I mentioned in the paragraph above.

Even for as important as it is to fight for principle, given the risk to democracy that Trump poses, I think in retrospect, Obama should've at least paid more attention (when talking) to the sizable part of this country who sat on the opposite side of him on those issues; even for as wrong as those people are on things, at the end of the day, THEY STILL VOTE.

If Trump wins, or its a long night, while its true that Hillary has low favorability numbers, fact is that a guy with no experience, a shoddy sales/"business" career, more wives than even Romney's grandparents might have had, and a racist birther myth got close to the Presidency, and likely closer than Dukakis did in 1988, the last time a party won a 3rd term (excl. 2000 when Gore was cheated). I think its a bitter pill to swallow for progressives, but political overreach has consequences. Sometimes, people should note that the DLC-era had less polarization and less crazy party nominees.

George HW Bush overreached with regards to social conservatism in 1992, with Murphy Brown, Buchananite culture wars, "family values," and his party lost the popular vote in the following 5 out of 6 elections, as well as losing a once considerable electoral college lock. Hillary need not meet the same fate in 4 years.

Update: see this as a good point about what I've said

UPDATE II: This also says it

?t=1m1s

[50 Shades Of Blue]

1. I could not disagree more.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

2. Yeah, why did he have to get all uppity and shit......

.

[ericson00]

4. I didn't say Obama got uppity. I merely do think that potentially, Trump's rise shows the importance

of working for justice and staying in the confines of what is possible without risking consequences that can undo the justice fought for. Its an awful, seemingly amoral "choice," but sometimes, its whats available.

[Trust Buster]

3. Total propaganda. The environment that allowed Trump to flourish was created by the Republican

Party and the Right wing media ratcheting up the hate and vitriol for 8 years there bye conditioning a large enough portion of the Republican base to respond to a nut like Trump. They laid the track on which the Trump crazy train travels down. Any inference that points a finger elsewhere should be interpreted as unmitigated blasphemy IMO.

[ericson00]

7. its not just the GOP base; it could be close to half the country on election day

and a percentage and number of overall voters greater than the amount that voted for him in the GOP primary.

Politics is not a religion: there is no "blasphemy." This isn't the GOP where any talk about Reagan's non-perfection is a sin against God.

No doubt Fox News is a major culprit; sensationalizing everything, giving credence to CTers and Birthers, but Trump didn't get the nomination in 2012; he wanted it and almost sought it. Clearly, something changed after 2012.

[Trust Buster]

12. Scalia's death happened which was like pouring gasoline on the tinder created by the Republicans

and Right wing media. Trump didn't stand on stage and suggest a Second Amendment solution for shits and giggles. My point still stands. And, it is blasphemy on DU for a poster to blame Trump on Obama. And that's the truth....truth.

[ericson00]

18. by then, Trump was already the GOP frontrunner and had won NH

and in theory, Scalia's passing should've helped Ted Cruz.

I blame Fox News first and foremost, but Democrats can't control that. I do think Hillary should probably be a little more willing to "triangulate" on some things, if only to keep the crazies at bay.

And even then, most of the things I cited in my OP were rhetorical, more than legislative things. But I think they do affect the political environment.

[The Wielding Truth]

71. Yes. This atmosphere had been cultivated and Trump was the supreme salesman.

[upaloopa]

6. You remind me of the folks telling the LGBT community to wait because we could

lose support if we supported gay rights.

[ericson00]

9. would you rather Obama have supported marriage equality in 2008 before public opinion was for it

even if it meant electing John McCain and putting Sarah Palin at the Naval Observatory, with Justice Trent Lott, and other Bushies?

There's a reason Obama waited until 2012.

[upaloopa]

13. Yes I would have liked him to support marriage equality in 2008.

Equality would have gone main stream sooner.

I have a gay brother-in-law and a gay sister-in-law. My sister-in-law was in a committed relationship for 26 years by 2008. They did not have the rights my wife and I had during that time.

I didn't think they should wait any longer.

[ericson00]

15. what if that had resulted in John McCain winning? And yes, in elections, that kind of choice exists.

In 2008, we could not have known that marriage equality would be the norm a few years later. We don't have crystal balls. The 2008 race was somewhat close until the financial crisis:


and while Bush's low approvals is often seen as making McCain's loss inevitable, back then, there was uncertainty a POC could even win, and as this election has seen Obama's job numbers rise as a result of the candidates unpopularity, Obama going a little fast on marriage in 2008 could've done the same for Bush.

[upaloopa]

19. Americans were by that time less likely to see equality as a campaign issue that would have

stopped Obama.

A lot of us said similar things about Bernie's positions and now they are part of our platform and adopted by Hillary.

[Egnever]

25. Actually america didn't poll at 50% support till 2011(according to Gallup)

and shortly after Obama got into office he did this

In June 2009, President Obama issued a directive on same-sex domestic partner benefits, opening the door for the State Department to extend the full range of legally available benefits and allowances to same-sex domestic partners of members of the Foreign Service sent to serve abroad. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) also expanded federal benefits for same-sex partners of federal employees and allowed same-sex domestic partners to apply for long-term care insurance.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/06/09/fact-sheet-obama-administrations-record-and-lgbt-community

That was pretty fast and I think holding his outright support to make it through the first election against him is a bit unfair. He was ahead of the country by two years starting with the executive order above.

[lovemydog]

10. I sincerely doubt it.

[grubbs]

11. Could this be a troll post

Blaming Obama for over reaching when it is the reactionary rethugs that go overboard every time? I know you have a lot of posts dude, but you should delete this one. Sick of dems being blamed for causing delusional reps to lash out. This is a real fight. Stop making excuses for people who hate our country.

[RandiFan1290]

62. Yes, it is.

Admins have always allowed a few obvious trolls to stick around.

[Greybnk48]

69. Yes. n/t

[onecaliberal]

14. Since when does a country move to fast on civil liberties and rights? NO

[ericson00]

16. Washington Redskins, & Obama's words (not action) on Zimmerman & gender-identity aren't legislation

but they do affect tone, which affects discourse, and in turn affects the mood of portions of the electorate.

Garner was far more clear cut and dry; but the cases with a certain level of ambiguity could've been handled more carefully by the President. I watched the Zimmerman trial; Zimmerman is a thug and another gun nut, but there was a legitimate case that it was not an issue Obama should've waded into.

[onecaliberal]

20. He is a citizen of the US, he should damn well weigh in on any issue he sees fit.

Seriously WTF? We keep quiet now so the vile crazy racists don't get mad. Fuck that.

[ericson00]

22. and I argue it has and has had consequences. Just because someone has a right to do something,

doesn't mean doing it either IS right or the right thing at the moment in light of all pertinent circumstances.

Words matter; that's how memes, viral videos, and ultimately web tabloid headlines and rumors spread.

[onecaliberal]

24. Just because someone is a racist piece of shit doesn't mean we should accommodate them

Or change behavior for them. I'm done arguing about this. I'm NEVER going to let some psychopath dictate my words and actions period. Enjoy the dust bin.

[ericson00]

31. we shouldn't accommodate them, but sometimes (because after all, nuance is OK), the hornets nest is

best left alone, especially with 300 million people standing underneath it.

[onecaliberal]

71. There aren't 300 million of them so spare me.

[ericson00]

72. I was referring to the population of this country

that could have Trump as its President come January 20.

[UTUSN]

17. There was a "breakneck pace"?!1 I missed that.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

21. Such Concern

[PSPS]

23. LOL. Thanks for your "concern."

[JI7]

26. you really should delete this . Obama daring to run for President while being Black energized these

fuckers. you want to blame obama or call out the bigots who were always bigots ?

[ericson00]

27. a lot of them, yes, but what about people who voted Obama in 2008 and 2012, but are looking at Trump

in 2016? or the fact that Obama won by decisive margins both times and then Trump rose?

[JI7]

28. most of trump voters are racists who did not support obama . Trump is doing worse than Romney and

McCaind did.

yet you want to blame obama for the support that trump has .

[ericson00]

30. in the primary, yes much of Trump's support were racists. We're in the general now

and while he is doing worse than Romney, he's doing better than McCain at this point in 2008. Even if Trump loses the general, he will have had more raw votes, and likely a higher or similar percentage overall compared to the 17-man primary.

And given how Trump even got the nomination, one cannot discount outlier scenarios. Trump's 26.8% chance of winning is NOT 0%, per FiveThirtyEight's polls-plus.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

29. Trump's rise and fall coincide with unprecedented obstruction.

The GOP still have their tax cuts. They still have offshored wealth and an ever smaller pool of an informed electorate. Trump is being rewarded for lying and helping to dumb down the country. That is polar opposite to Obama's presidency.

Global Warming! How many believe in a scientific consensus?

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/pew-most-americans-dont-believe-scientific-consensus-climate-change

[GulfCoast66]

33. I will assume you are not trolling

But Obama's positions and policy has played very little into the shit storm we see today. It is the color of his skin. As an upper-middle class white guy from the rural south I think I have an informed perspective on this.

Reagan made them think that the whole 60's and 70's thing about racial and sexual equality was going to be tamped down and we could return to the business as usual of the 50's. Of course, they really did not remember how poor they were then.

And when Bill won in 92 it shattered their illusions. But they could only hate him so much since he was a good ole boy at heart. But his wife!! The Devil incarnate. I know this since I lived in Arkansas from 76-84. The demonization of Hillary started way before she hit the national stage. And they have focused all their hate onto her since. Once she became first lady and stated she was not going to bake cookies but instead worked for universal healthcare, she became the very image of what they hated.

You cannot reason with their kind of hate and fear...only defeat it. And once she is elected that will start. The more crazy of them will truly threaten the republic in minor ways. But most of them will become ardent law abiding opponents. Her election will send a message that they have lost and their crazy dream of returning the nation to the mythical days of rich white folks and happy underclass black folks will not return. Because that is the dream many of them have. I know. They are my family.


And if you are actually a troll. Read what I just posted. It is the truth. They have lost.

[geek tragedy]

34. Obama would be crushing Trump by 15%. So, no that's not it nt

[ericson00]

37. Any polling to back that up? His current job numbers

Are more a reaction to the current race. Before Trump got the nod for a race people knew Obama wouldn't feature, his job approvals were in toss up land (mid 40s).

2012 was margin of error for most of the time in the polls, and he won by a smaller margin than the previous election(a first for a winning nominee since 1944 and a first for 2nd term since 1916) and Trump's sexism would be less salient than it is today.

[geek tragedy]

39. you're tripping over your own argument.

you're arguing Obama wouldn't be curb stomping Trump, and then say his high approval rating is because people appreciate him more because Trump got the Republican nomination

Reason Obama would stomp Trump is very easy: he'd inspire greater turnout from the Democratic base, especially young voters and African-Americans. Clinton is going to wind up with fewer votes in 2016 than Obama did in 2012, despite the fact Obama had a more credible opponent.

Romney was a formidable candidate who ran a tough campaign, and Obama was still overseeing an economy suffering the hangover from Bush's excesses.

Obama is also 100% scandal free, so there'd be not even a chance to play the false equivalence game

This is Obama's party.

[ericson00]

46. Obama is "above the fray" too these days. If he were in it as a nominee

he would not be, and his job numbers as well as favorability numbers could've very easily stayed in the mid 40s or moved lower (or higher too). He had negative net favorable as recently as February http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/obama-favorable-rating

Obamacare also still has a big PR problem too. Unlike Hillary, his name is attached. I think that's sad because Obamacare helped get rid of the hoodwinking middle man "broker" one used to need to get health insurance, but Obama's communication skills to average voters are indeed an issue. The country still has a wrong-track polling situation.

[geek tragedy]

47. Obama isn't above the fray these days, he's gone after Trump regularly.

The country will always have wrong-track, mainly because we have a hopelessly gridlocked government. But it's a lot better under Obama than it was under Bush.

Obama does well in comparison to Trump (and Clinton for that matter). In a H2H match up with Trump, he'd reap the benefits of increased Hispanic turnout while also maintaining African-American turnout (which unfortunately is cratering in 2016 early voting).

[David Zephyr]

53. Well said.

And thank you geek tragedy, for saying what needs to be said.

It's like there's a "blame Obama" undertow here just in case Hillary implodes. I won't stand for it. Too old to post much anymore and my sight is poor, but I do appreciate your standing up for our President. Hillary's problems right now -- that are weighing on all of us -- are all of her own making. President Obama saved this nation from a total economic meltdown. He never gets credit.

Hillary should have never set up a private server behind President Obama's back. I support her, but but this OP is now trying to make President Obama's goodness into something bad. Can't have that.

[David Zephyr]

48. True.

Painfully so. Brave of you to say it. President Obama would be landsliding this election if he were on the ticket. That's why his job approval ratings are so high.

[Skittles]

36. there is never OVERREACHING as far as human rights go

seriously

[ericson00]

44. read the events I cited; I'm talking rhetoric, which doesn't affect human rights

Obama simply should have been far more moderate in how he talked to the nation about many things.

[Skittles]

60. fuck that shit

Obama got it right

[David Zephyr]

49. Thank you Skittles.

[Skittles]

74. WE GOT THIS, DAVID

JAYSUS, it's either NOT THE TIME or it's OVERREACH

TO HELL WITH THAT

[DonCoquixote]

40. so let's not anger those people who are angry

when a black person or Gay actually does twice the work and gets half the respect?

[DonCoquixote]

41. an analysis of this quote

"I think its a bitter pill to swallow for progressives, but political overreach has consequences. Sometimes, people should note that the DLC-era had less polarization and less crazy party nominees. "

Translated into what is really said:

"You progressives should have learned to beg for your rights, and say thank you even when you were slapped in the face ad sold down the river. Never mind that we picked Hillary and slammed Bernie because she was our centre-right candidate, with OUR staff like Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and that we will balme you for everythign, despite the fact you showed up and voted, just like we expected you to do."

[DonCoquixote]

42. I voted for Hillary

and am fighting for Hillary in Florida, however, if she does not beat Trump, the centre-right better be careful who they blame, because it can easily be sold that what hamstrung Hillary was that she listened too much to their pundits, and not enough to those that wanted her to be clear and lean left early on.

[ericson00]

43. great so we can be like Republicans, who when they lose its because they weren't conservative enough

how productive!

[DonCoquixote]

45. no it is because

we tend to treat our BASE like the crazy old lady in the attic whose social security check we loot. If nothign else, Trump showed that a base, if properly fed, can have power, but our base, meh, we ignore them and expect them to clean our ashtrays and toilets. Hillary got better after DWS was ditched, because she started ditching the TPP and the Pipeline, two dalring gems of the centre left.

[David Zephyr]

55. Agree.

[Rex]

50. No. Not at all. The republicans have been on a slow boil for decades.

Waiting for just the right person to come along and release their inner demon. Trump is their messiah. It is that simple. This is why traditional republicans are fleeing Trump or you have the Never Trump folks that deplore him as well.

[lonestarnot]

51. Blame the victim much?

[Warren DeMontague]

52. No.

[ailsagirl]

54. no

[underthematrix]

56. NOPE

Two factors led to TRUMP

#BlackExcellence in the White House which led to the unspoken truth that white supremacy is a false narrative

the appropriation of black cultural norms by whites and everyone else in America.

Other factors
highly visible black wealth that's also socially responsible

intermarriage

gay rights

uneducated white males feeling left out because they are no longer the dominant cultural norm.

[davidn3600]

57. I think Democrats are too hung up not on social issues, but on identity politics

Talking about race problems and how to advance social issues isn't the problem. The problem is the dividing of people into social identities and then attributing political and philosophical opinions to each group.

That type of politics will never lead to equality. It will enhance racism due to out-group discrimination. But it works good for most political campaigns and something the Democrats very heavily rely on.

One very big mistake Hillary and the DNC made though was ignoring the white middle class, especially in the rust belt area. Even Michael Moore has been making a big point of this. Hillary REALLY failed on connecting with voters in those areas where they used to have good jobs, good family life and now that's gone up in smoke. And it appears Hillary doesnt even recognize it. But Bernie did. And Trump does. They taped into that. And if Hillary loses Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Iowa, or Wisconsin.....that's the reason why. But beyond the White House, this is the reason the Democrats will fail to gain control of Congress. They are hitting the social groups they need to win the presidency, but not the Congress.

[lovemydog]

58. Do you have a suggestion on how she or people running for Congress

can connect better with them? Trump says 'the jobs are coming back' & 'everything's gonna be so great' but it's bullshit. Is that the fault of Trump, or the fault of the people who vote for him? Or maybe a bit of both?

We need more high paying jobs. But high paying manufacturing jobs aren't coming back. At least not when companies can set up non-union shops other states. It seems like we're in a tough position all around. Politicians don't want to say 'high paying paying manufacturing jobs aren't coming back to the rust belt' because it could cost them votes. On the other hand, I wonder if white people in those areas want to hear it. I mean, they seem to go more for people who just keep lying and saying 'everything's gonna be so great' rather than presenting policies that will help them a lot more than empty promises.

Do you think she or they should take a stronger stand against trade deals? That's difficult too because it may be our best current hope for more & better jobs. Not all trade deals are bad. Trade tariffs are problematic too. Just looking for some honest thoughts here. I won't jump all over you in your reply. I don't believe republican policies are better than democratic policies for the white middle class. And Hillary's policies are much more closely aligned to Bernie's than they are to Trump's.

[ericson00]

65. She shouldve taken a middle path on immigration;

No mass deportation, only criminals, BUT FINISH the fence she voted for along the border in the mid 2000s, and it be paid for by the top one percent, not Mexico.

Sadly, I think there is an element of the party, which as Bill Maher said, has a very radical approach towards borders. Are there tons of people who wanna keep foreigners out on the basis of color? Yes! But are there also a lot of people, perhaps enough to swing elections, who genuinely fear for their wages? YES!

[ericson00]

64. If it weren't for Bernie running in the primary, she couldve moved to do that

But bc he did, she had to "prove" she was progressive, and Bernie only left open the social and identity lane.

[get the red out]

59. The basket doesn't go quietly

We can't base morality on what a basket of deplorables will stand. Democrats have played the caution card to the point of stagnation at times, and it hasn't helped democrats get elected.

[longship]

61. Rubbish! Absolute rubbish! nt

[yardwork]

63. Blaming the gays again?

[RobinA]

66. On What Planet

is Obama "outspokenly progressive"? Look, I like the guy, but progressive he ain't.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

70. Probably not in practical terms

I know people for whom some of those issues, particularly the transgender issue is a bridge too far, but their discomfort with that alone isn't going rewire their whole philosophy and make Trump or any other Republican more palatable to them. They roll their eyes and get on with it.

The Trump story is profoundly different, this isn't the Dixiecrats or any other ad hoc movement that formed in a direct backlash to an event, this has been growing gradually for forty years. When Bill Clinton and his other Western contemporaries cleaved the white upper-middle class away from their traditional conservative homes and without their moderating influence the angry white assholes filled the void.

[ericson00]

73. I don't think it was any one single issue, but I think it was a pattern of statements

and discourse from Obama over the years, that had an effect of snowballing the "Washington is altogether out of touch" narrative that really boosted Trump.

Even for the realignment Bill Clinton brought to the country in terms of suburban voters, the GOP and the Democratic base have changed a lot from 2009-now, while Bush has been back on his faux ranch in Texas.

[ericson00]

70. bump

[muntrv]

72. You could replace Obama with LBJ and Trump with Nixon.

[ericson00]

73. sorry, but even the issues of today absolutely PALE in comparison to a

tenth of the entire nation having less legal rights than everyone else, which was the Civil Rights movement. The issues of today regarding equality, are much smaller in scale and scope. They just are because they are.