Obama: Dems lost because we didn't 'show up'

[mystery-ak]

Obama: Dems lost because we didn't 'show up'
By Rebecca Savransky - 12/19/16 07:14 AM EST

President Obama is blaming his party's electoral losses this year on Democrats' failure to "show up" and make their argument all around the country.

In an interview with NPR broadcast Monday, the president said the country has a "scrambled political landscape."

"There are some things that we know are a challenge for Democrats — structural problems," he said.

Obama noted that Democratic voters are often clustered in urban areas and on the coasts.

more
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/310969-obama-dems-lost-because-we-didnt-show-up

[r9etb]

President Obama is blaming his party's electoral losses this year on Democrats' failure to "show up" and make their argument all around the country.

That's gotta  be a new record even for this contemptible piece of work.  An entire political party, thrown under the bus.

[skeeter]

Obama: Dems lost because we didn't 'show up'
By Rebecca Savransky - 12/19/16 07:14 AM EST

President Obama is blaming his party's electoral losses this year on Democrats' failure to "show up" and make their argument all around the country.

In an interview with NPR broadcast Monday, the president said the country has a "scrambled political landscape."

"There are some things that we know are a challenge for Democrats — structural problems," he said.

Obama noted that Democratic voters are often clustered in urban areas and on the coasts.

more
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/310969-obama-dems-lost-because-we-didnt-show-up

Did the soon to be ex president offer probable specifics on why his people refused to 'show up'?

[Cripplecreek]

That's gotta  be a new record even for this contemptible piece of work.  An entire political party, thrown under the bus.

But he happens to be right.

Turnout was the key in a low turnout election. Their turd just happened to be slightly less appetizing than the steaming pile on our plate.

[r9etb]

But he happens to be right.

Turnout was the key in a low turnout election. Their turd just happened to be slightly less appetizing than the steaming pile on our plate.

Well, there's "right," and there's right.  The reason for the low turnout is their candidate, as you stated; plus the smug arrogance of Obama and Democrats in general, which created the frustration that Trump tapped into.

But Obama can't go that far -- it's not his fault at all.  No, it's fault of the people who didn't ask for mayo and lettuce on the sh*t sandwich the Democrats tried to serve them.

[Victoria33]

Obama: Dems lost because we didn't 'show up'
President Obama is blaming his party's electoral losses this year on Democrats' failure to "show up" and make their argument all around the country.

@mystery-ak

Instead of folks calling Obama names because they don't like his politics, consider this man can get voters out to get himself elected the second time when conservatives thought it couldn't happen that second time.  If he had been running this time, he likely would have beaten Trump.  His approval rating was, and is, over the 50 percentile.  I heard some of his speeches when he spoke for Clinton at rallies, and he was still great doing that.

He is correct Democrat voters did not show up this time as in the past for him.  Blacks didn't show up in the great numbers that got him elected along with the liberals. 

My opinion:  Frankly, blacks didn't show up for a white woman.  First she was a woman and they consider men more powerful than women (and so do white people).  (However, in the black culture, generally, the mother is the backbone of the family.)  And, Clinton was not black.  She was a weak white woman to blacks.  If she had been a black man with Obama's charisma, blacks would have shown up and likely have beaten Trump. 

[Cripplecreek]

@mystery-ak

Instead of folks calling Obama names because they don't like his politics, consider this man can get voters out to get himself elected the second time when conservatives thought it couldn't happen that second time.  If he had been running this time, he likely would have beaten Trump.  His approval rating was, and is, over the 50 percentile.  I heard some of his speeches when he spoke for Clinton at rallies, and he was still great doing that.

He is correct Democrat voters did not show up this time as in the past for him.  Blacks didn't show up in the great numbers that got him elected along with the liberals. 

My opinion:  Frankly, blacks didn't show up for a white woman.  First she was a woman and they consider men more powerful than women (and so do white people).  (However, in the black culture, generally, the mother is the backbone of the family.)  And, Clinton was not black.  She was a weak white woman to blacks.  If she had been a black man with Obama's charisma, blacks would have shown up and likely have beaten Trump.

The GOP will face a much higher hurdle in 4 years. If they ran Michelle Obama they would sweep Trump aside like a dust bunny.

[truth_seeker]

Day before yesterday, it was the Ruskies. Get your story straight.

[r9etb]

Instead of folks calling Obama names because they don't like his politics, consider this man can get voters out to get himself elected the second time when conservatives thought it couldn't happen that second time.  If he had been running this time, he likely would have beaten Trump.  His approval rating was, and is, over the 50 percentile.  I heard some of his speeches when he spoke for Clinton at rallies, and he was still great doing that.

Well, yes... but that really is an indictment of the American electorate's fundamental lack of seriousness.  Any serious assessment of Obama's record as president must rank him very low, indeed.  His politics stink, but he ought to be judged by the disasters he's left behind in pretty much matter of policy in which he's been involved.

[cato potatoe]

This is the same excuse he used in 2014.  Does this fool own a mirror?

[Frank Cannon]

The GOP will face a much higher hurdle in 4 years. If they ran Michelle Obama they would sweep Trump aside like a dust bunny.

Based on what? The only thing voters know about her is that she screwed up school lunches. Other than that she has been off the radar. There is absolutely no evidence that she is even viable to run for congress in a Lib state. Donny on the other hand mopped the floor with a massively funded Rat candidate.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

That's gotta  be a new record even for this contemptible piece of work.  An entire political party, thrown under the bus.

 

I hadn't thought of it that way before, but you're right.  The (current) Narcissist in Chief still hasn't accepted a shred of responsibility for the negative coattails he's carried throughout his Presidency.

[240B]

I hadn't thought of it that way before, but you're right.  The (current) Narcissist in Chief still hasn't accepted a shred of responsibility for the negative coattails he's carried throughout his Presidency.

Obama's paradigm, along with most Democrats/Liberals, has always been that their message is not wrong. Liberals and Democrats are enlightened and correct in everything they think and do.


The problem is with the proletariat, the peasants are just way too 'stupid' to understand how enlightened the Liberals are. So, it is not the fault of the Liberals that they can't get elected. They are simply too smart for the average American to grasp.


This condescending attitude is one of many reasons they lose. However, given their nature of thinking of themselves as royalty, they will never admit or accept the obvious fact that their hubris and arrogance is killing them. 

[libertybele]

A sobering thought; it took the likes of Obama to give us Trump!!

[Right_in_Virginia]

A sobering thought; it took the likes of Obama to give us Trump!!

Why go there?  I appreciate you're a zealot .... but this simply raises the sobering thought that it took Bush 41 to give us Clinton and Bush 43 to give us Obama.   

[Frank Cannon]

Why go there?  I appreciate you're a zealot .... but this simply raises the sobering thought that it took Bush 41 to give us Clinton and Bush 43 to give us Obama.   

So who is Trump 45 going to give us? Stalin? Mao? Pol Pot?

[HonestJohn]

So who is Trump 45 going to give us? Stalin? Mao? Pol Pot?

Keith Ellison, perhaps?

[musiclady]

A sobering thought; it took the likes of Obama to give us Trump!!

That's absolutely true.

With Obama we already had elected a completely unqualified narcissist who appealed to people entirely on emotion and not a bit on substance.

The bar was very low because of jerk Obama.

That said, it's clear that Obama has destroyed the Dem party, just as Trump will destroy the Republican party.

Time to start over.

[goatprairie]

The Dems thought they had a pretty good plan....a sizable pct. of all the immigrants (legal and illegal)  they let into the country in the last thirty years would tilt the balance and assure them of regular prez. election victories. Except most of them are in California.
Also, I haven't seen a reliable estimate of how many illegals managed to vote. The three million His Orangeness quoted has not been validated by any reliable sources. I don't know if anyone has ever done an analysis of illegal votes in prez elections. But I would guess the great majority of illegal votes go to Dems.

[r9etb]

The Dems thought they had a pretty good plan....a sizable pct. of all the immigrants (legal and illegal)  they let into the country in the last thirty years would tilt the balance and assure them of regular prez. election victories. Except most of them are in California.

And thus had no additional effect, due to the fact that CA's electoral votes would go to the Democrats in any case.