According to current projections that assume Clinton will have more than 63.5 million votes, Clinton is going to retain a better share of the 2012 vote, than Obama was able to retain in 2012 of the 2008 vote. In 2012, Obama had the advantages of the incumbency, the media, being more popular, and not facing a primary challenge to alienate a wing of the party, when he last ran.
A few things to keep in mind when comparing the two elections. The Supreme Court struck down some provisions of the VRA in Shelby Co. v. Holder (2013) which suppressed some of Clinton’s support in this election. Remember Benghazi was originally about Susan Rice and Obama. Once the private e-mai server was discovered, the “scandal” would have been on Obama since it was his administration’s fault according to the MSM and RW Wurlitzer. He also would have had to answer for the VA “scandal,” which never became an issue in this campaign. I grew up in the Midwest and his popularity has shrunk just in the past few years. Even his aides thought his win in Michigan was inflated due to the auto bailout. They had serious questions about if he could have won Michigan this term as the benefit of that action has waned in the minds of the blue collar voter. If Sanders had run, Obama is weakened from the Left due to his failures to reign in Wall St., growing inequality, and he is much more open to attacks on trade due to his endorsement of TPP. If Obama had faced no primary challenge, perhaps he could have run a strong campaign on his economic record and he comes out against TPP. However, I am not sure how that would even work with the voters. I think he would done many of the things the Clinton campaign did.
The Internet Left has not been a good place to discuss the many shortfalls of the Obama Presidency. This is a short list, because I am not interested in tearing down Obama to make this point, I just want to acknowledge the last 8 years were not all milk and honey. The Obama administration and the Democratic leadership sided with Wall Street and corporate interests too many times and tried to blame it on Republican intransigence or obstruction. Nobody put a gun to Obama’s head to pick Comey nor Garland. The Hamp Program was a failure, when Obama sided with the banks over the homeowners. The failure for anyone to go to jail over the criminal acts on Wall St. that led to to the Great Recession showed where his allegiance was tied. Obama chose the banks over people when he eschewed cram down.
“Because of all this, HAMP never came close to the three-four million modifications President Obama promised at its inception. As of August 2014, 1.4 million borrowers have obtained permanent loan modifications, but about 400,000 of them have already re-defaulted, a rate of about 30 percent. The oldest HAMP modifications have re-default rates as high as 46 percent. And HAMP modifications are temporary, with the interest rate reductions gradually rising after five years. The first rate resets began this year.”
billmoyers.com/…
So realizing that Trump was willing to run a more racially charged campaign than McCain or Romney were willing to run, would Obama have been able to win the states necessary? Did Clinton lose due to misogyny that Obama would not have faced? Do more POC vote and at higher percentages to offset Trump’s higher vote total? How much did voter suppression and the media playing up Trump’s threats of intimidation depress this bloc? I don’t have the answers, because there are so many variables.
However, now that the economy has returned to a better place than it was in the past 2 elections many voters wanted to return to their idea of normalcy, which is a white man in the White House. Was it an illusion the past 8 years to think Obama could win an election without some serious headwind in his favor? Would he have even won those elections, if either McCain or Romney had been willing to appeal to our baser instincts.
“There’s an easy rejoinder here: How can this be about race when Trump won some Obama voters? There’s an equally easy answer: John McCain indulged racial fears, and Mitt Romney played on racial resentment, but they refused to go further. To borrow from George Wallace, they refused to cry “nigger.” This is important. By rejecting the politics of explicit racism and white backlash, they moved the political battleground to nominally colorblind concerns. Race was still a part of these clashes–it’s unavoidable–but neither liberals nor conservatives would litigate the idea of a pluralistic, multiracial democracy. Looking back, I thought this meant we had a consensus. It appears, instead, that we had a detente. And Trump shattered it. With his jeremiads against Hispanics and Muslims–with his visions of dystopian cities and radicalized refugees–Trump told white Americans that their fears and anger were justified. And that this fear and anger should drive their politics. Trump forged a politics of white tribalism, and white people embraced it.”
www.slate.com/…
I met numerous white voters almost exclusively male, that were undecided or leaning against Clinton, who claimed they had voted for Obama in 2008. Some voted again for him in 2012, others of this same group voted for Romney, while others stayed home. I asked them if they would vote for Obama now, if he were still on the ticket, and only one stated yes. I have no idea, if these people were telling the truth, I certainly had my doubts on a few, but I think most were being honest.
Something to think about while we participate in our habitual circular firing squad of recriminations. I voted for Clinton in the primaries and thought she was our best choice. I don’t think Sanders would have been able to do better due to the problems of Russ Feingold and Zephyr Teachout in their elections. I think too many Clinton supporters would not have supported Sanders like he would need to win a general election. However, I am willing to admit my analysis could be mistaken.
