What did OBAMA do differently in '08 from Hillary in 2016?

[yurbud]

At the time, I did not see a lot of difference between the two on policy--apart from Obama being opposed to the Iraq War and Hillary supporting it.

And since Obama had less of a record, it was easier to project our hopes onto him.

On the war issue, Hillary seemed more belligerent than Trump, at least when it came to Russia, and her record as secretary of state and recently consorting with neocons seemed imply she would be looking for more fights than Obama was.

That may not have been the best way to excite the base of the Democratic Party, and may even have given pause to some swing voters.

EDIT: How about POLICY differences? Or at least perceived ones at the time.

[Stargleamer]

1. For starters, he's just a much better public speaker n/t

[yeoman6987]

26. He was a brilliant public speaker

When he spoke it was so interesting. I literally never lost concentration when he spoke. Most politicians make my brain go on to other thought but not the president.

[bhikkhu]

34. The "race speech" in response to the rev wright controversy

Is the perfect example. Nonstop chickens coming home to roost crap on the news and internet, pundits all weighing in about whether he was even electable anymore, party wondering why didn't this get vetted - should we have gone with a different candidate? (All sounding strangely familiar).

...and Obama pulls out of his hat one of the most well thought and eloquent, broad and honest speeches I've ever heard. And the crisis was over as quickly as it started, more people remember the speech than remember the controversy.

Obama met stuff like that head on, publicly and openly.

[Chitown Kev]

49. Yes

Obama met stuff like that head on, publicly and openly.

The contrast of Obama with Clinton is this respect was stunning

[DonCoquixote]

133. yes

head on is exactly the thing that Hillary's people never allowed her to do. Everything was half denial and walkback. I do not blame Hillary for this as much as the people she listened way too much to, whose names I cannot mention for fear of being vote stalked. I will say that the prominent one that got FIRED deserved it.

[rogue emissary]

73. I've been thinking about that moment a lot recently.

I think many of Obama's support including myself, loved his honesty and saw it as a great speech.

Those that "say" they voted for Obama and now proudly voted for trump. Saw it as him putting a black man in his place. They never got that Obama was speaking about America's twisted history when it comes to race.

To a lot of people, the Wright moment was like Bill's Sister Souljah controversy. Hillary never went out of her way to put blacks in our place or show she would stand up to us.

This isn't saying she was great on BLM or that the BLM activist were satisfied with her. She just didn't send that message to whites that she'd keep us in check.

[yurbud]

126. I wish he governed the way he campaigned.

[ncgrits]

53. For starters, he was also a HE. nt

[marylandblue]

2. Having a long record is a disadvantage

Too many things for the other side to attack. I think Obama knew that, which is why he didn't wait to finish his first term as Senator.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

6. I think you are right.. plus I think a younger president is more appealling

All the candidates were too old this time (past normal retirement age).

[Crunchy Frog]

71. I disagree about younger being more appealing.

Reagan is one of the most "appealing" presidents we've ever had. (I don't mean for people on this board, but for the country as a whole).

I don't think that anyone should be ruled out strictly on the basis of age. And that's not simply because Elizabeth Warren is my favorite at the moment.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

95. Democrats seem to do better when they run younger candidates

and I think it might have something to do with younger people tend to be Democrats. I think it doesn't work that way for Republicans. I'm talking about getting the people that lean toward Democrats to show up to vote. Not looking for someone appealing to Republicans. Obviously we already have that in Trump.

[Crunchy Frog]

100. Reagan got a shit load of Democrats to vote for him.

It isn't just Republicans who will vote for an appealing older person. Also don't know whether it may have escaped your notice that Bernie Sanders got quite a lot of enthusiastic support from younger Democratic voters.

Let's not become a party that embraces ageism for the sake of what we think is political expediency.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

104. Bill Clinton and Obama both won being relatively young

It seems to be something that has worked for dems in the past. Ignore it if you want, but I think the dems do better when they run someone young. Want to change the party and get more voters... stop running so many old people. We will look like the party of the future and change that we say we are if we actually run people that are younger. Also, the point that the previous poster made about not having much history to attack... that would be the younger people again.

[Crunchy Frog]

105. Feel free to keep your ageism.

I'll continue to support people based on my own criteria and beliefs.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

107. I'm trying to suggest something that I think will make the dems more likely to win

because younger people show up to vote more when the dems are young. We can keep losing too. Whatever. It isn't up to me anyhow.

[Pisces]

3. He is likable and she was not. He has charisma and she does not.

He is a great public speaker who can inspire people and she fell flat. The Penn. rally day before election highlighted how dry she was. Barrack had them on their feet excited and she came and threw a wet blanket on the crowd. I felt it while I was watching. She was highly qualified, but was missing the "It" factor.

[mcar]

13. Oh, piffle

The media told people that Hillary was "unlikable" and you chose to believe it. All who know her found her to be a warm, funny, caring person. I attended several of her rallies. The people in attendance were certainly excited to hear her speak and she connected with them well. Is she as good a speaker as Obama? No. But she does not lack charisma or character.

This is yet another example of the higher standard for women.

[Pisces]

25. Of course there is a higher standard. The first of anything has to be extraordinary.

These are facts. People didn't like her. It's why she list to Obama in '08. Maybe one on one in personal interactions she comes across as warm, however she could not pull it off in large crowds. She also didn't get large crowds by herself. This does not mean she couldn't do the job, but you have to be able to inspire apathetic Americans to go vote. This is not an attack on her. We now live in an entertainment, reality show crowd. Facts don't matter, and neither do qualifications. Why can't we be honest in our assessment? It is clear to see

[Begabig]

56. That might be your personal experience...

I don't know anyone, off the Internet, who was genuinely moved by her personality.

[Goblinmonger]

57. You know Obama was the first black president, right?

I bet he, and others, could shed a little light on how there are higher standards for blacks.

[Crunchy Frog]

72. Of course, there are absolutely no higher standards for African Americans...

as long as they're male. Right?

[JudyM]

74. You genuinely believe she was as personable, charismatic and inspiring as Obama? And that people

who think otherwise are sexist? Piffle!

[mcar]

80. I did not say that

I said this:

The media told people that Hillary was "unlikable" and you chose to believe it. All who know her found her to be a warm, funny, caring person. I attended several of her rallies. The people in attendance were certainly excited to hear her speak and she connected with them well. Is she as good a speaker as Obama? No. But she does not lack charisma or character.

[JudyM]

82. Ok so what's the distinction you're making here? Looks pretty much the same to me.

[mcar]

83. The distinction is that I wasn't comparing one to the other

I was merely saying that Hillary was warm and engaging.

[JudyM]

86. But you say it was a higher standard for her than him! That's totally making a comparison.

[Lotusflower70]

101. Maybe

But I don't think that translated on a wider scale. Outside of the rallies, she seemed abrasive and unapproachable.

[LisaM]

27. Oh, puhleeze.

I am so fricking sick of that argument. I don't see Obama's charisma at all (I don't dislike him, I just don't respond to his methods). I remember getting a call from an Obama person during the primaries and mentioning I didn't care for that kind of "preacher" cadence he sometimes got in his speeches. The caller was baffled. "But most people like that!" (He didn't even try to deny it). "Well, I don't", I said, and hung up.

Worse, if all you have is someone responding to charisma for one person, it doesn't help the rest of the party out much. He has zero coattails. And a large number of people who voted for him in 2008 didn't care enough about his policies to vote to continue them now.

Everything he's done (and he is accomplished, I think he's tried hard and he's had some real victories) is going to be undone, because it's all about personality?

This is everything that's wrong with this country.

[JI7]

28. speak for yourself. i supported Obama and i find her likable

As do most who voted Obama.

[RazBerryBeret]

102. Exactly right...

Obama made me want to quit my job and work for him... do anything for him to make a change.
Regardless of what anyone else says, he was/is more likeable.... just look at the favorable/unfavorable ratings.

[geek tragedy]

4. Be a relatively young outsider in a change election? nt

[enough]

5. He had a near-catastrophic predecessor and a country on the brink

of financial collapse.

[Cosmocat]

14. Hillary would have won pretty similar to BHO in 2008

for the reasons you noted.

[NewJeffCT]

64. I agree

Clinton would have won fairly easily in 2008 as well. Maybe not quite as easily as Obama, but you never know.

[Crunchy Frog]

77. Not convinced of that.

She was the one that Republicans expected to run against, and whom they had built their entire game plan around. They didn't have a strategy for dealing with an unknown quantity like Obama.

In fact, the Rethugs have been laying the groundwork to defeat Hillary since the early 90s.

[Cosmocat]

87. She would not have won by the same margin

The points you made would have effected the margin.

But, that election was a major anti-bush election.

[mtnsnake]

7. Obama was a natural at campaigning & he had the luxury of running right after 8 yrs of Bush

when practically the entire country had had enough of W and his boss, Cheney. Hillary didn't have that luxury. However she did have the advantage that she was running against a complete joke of a candidate.

And yes, Obama was against the war, but he was never in a position to have to vote for it, one way or the other, like Hillary was.

[PatsFan87]

8. He was relatively new and had far less baggage

The message is important but so is the messenger. There's a lot of controversy around the Clintons. Some is deserved and some is undeserved. But a lot of people seemed to have Clinton fatigue and have a perception that they're "above the rules". Hillary furthered this with the whole email thing and by appointing Debbie Wasserman Schultz as an honorary member of her campaign after everything went down at the DNC. Both of these were very bad optics and the DWS one in particular was tone deaf. People on the left didn't like her and people on the right didn't like her. She didn't have much of a coalition of voters.

Also of note, Obama was a great messenger for millennials. We can not underestimate how helpful millennial support is as far as energy, grassroots organizing (registration, phonebanking, etc.) A lot of millennials voted for Hillary but weren't excited enough about her to put in the extra time and energy to phonebank, volunteer, etc. like they did for Obama.

[Va Lefty]

9. The Media hates Hillary. They "Gored" her.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/opinion/hillary-clinton-gets-gored.html?_r=0


Obama Got a reasonably fair shake from the Media in '08. At least, as fair of a shake as our side will ever get.

[yurbud]

10. there is something to that.

[Cosmocat]

15. YEP

nm

[JI7]

30. add in the foreign influence and huge whoring for trump

by the media.

[NewJeffCT]

65. I would not say that Obama got a fair shake in 2008

from the media. Studies have shown that he got a lot more coverage than McCain, but also a lot more negative coverage, even when it was not deserved. I mean, the Rev. Wright mess was blown way out of proportion, but Obama handled it really well in the end. The same with some of the previous things in his life - I mean, his association with that dude from Weather Underground? Really?

Palin got a week of very positive coverage, and then it went 180 on her when she came out as a moron. Of course, it was media silence from her after that, except for appearances on Hannity and Limbaugh. McCain himself did not get a tremendous amount of media attention.

(Trump got way more media attention than Clinton, even if he did get a decent amount of negative coverage... so, maybe the secret is to get a media friendly candidate? Clinton was only in the media in regards to her emails, and rarely her policies/issues)

[Dems to Win]

11. Obama WORKED for it. 87 days in Iowa at every small town dinner

Huge rallies to generate enthusiasm, 80,000 in Portland, 100,000 in Missouri. Everyone in America knew Obama wanted their vote, he went out and asked for it.

[yeoman6987]

31. When Hillary took weekends off in August I was stunned.

[Joe941]

90. She was sick and is 70 years old - can you cut her a little slack!??

[yeoman6987]

91. True.

[NWCorona]

67. This!

[Crunchy Frog]

84. He had no expectation that it would be handed to him on a silver platter. n/t

[Demsrule86]

12. Obama was not beaten up in a primary.

[ffr]

16. nor by the M$M

I felt sorry for her. She had to be 100% perfect just to slide by. If she so much as woke up with some bad hair, the M$M tore her up over it.

[PatsFan87]

17. Were we watching the same 2008 primary?

"change you can xerox", Rezko, 3am ad, "shame on you Barack Obama".

[NWCorona]

69. McCain even used a Hillary speech in a ad against Obama.

[yurbud]

18. Obama took it in good humor and it kept Dems in the spotlight.

[Exilednight]

43. Yes he was. He was just better at deflecting the he criticism.

Hillary hammered him on his "lack of experience".

He came back with "good judgement beats experience".

[Goblinmonger]

58. OMG. Oh, lord. Man

That's a good one.



Phew. You do remember this picture that he was primaried with, right?


Yeah, Clinton was all roses toward Obama.

[NWCorona]

68. Are you serious? That is a laughable statement. Hillary threw kitchen sink at Obama

[Begabig]

70. How quickly folks forget...

... or try to turn history to meet their own needs.

Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[jmg257]

19. "Change" "Change" "Change" Bottom line.

[Exilednight]

20. Very good question, and one simple answer.

Obama had a plan and a message.

Hillary had a plan, but no message.

Sure, she had an economic policy, but tell me her one line sentence was when asked to address it.

Her answer seemed to be, "look, it's a complicated issue and it's outlined on my website."

Obama had the three to five word answer and then would tell people to go to his website if they wanted specifics on any given issue.

Policy wise they differed in two major areas, Foreign policy, specifically the middle-east where Hillary favored a more hawkish approach;, and health care reform, especially where it concerned the individual mandate. Obama hammered her on those issues and he won.

[yurbud]

50. it reminded me of an Obama meme that sprouted up AFTER he was elected:

This was kind of condescending, and essentially said, "Don't worry your pretty little head about the details. We'll take care of it."

But we have a greater stake in the details than anyone in Washington, and when we leave it to them, they do less than they promised, and compromise too much or give up to easily--unlike when it's a war, bailout, trade deal, or deregulation scam.

[JudyM]

75. So true!

But ... must be sexism.

[NWCorona]

21. Obama followed the 50 state strategy

[TwilightZone]

37. No, he really didn't.

His campaign was very focused on states that had high electoral value and paid very little attention to states like SD and NE he was bound to lose (though, he did manage to win one district in NE). To my knowledge, he didn't even visit NE until early this year. Lived there for 20 years and can't blame him.

If anything, we might have spent too much time in states that were going to be losers in 2016 and not enough in states that everyone knew were battlegrounds from the start.

[NWCorona]

38. The only states that Obama didn't visit in 08 was Alaska and North Dakota

While not quite the 50 state strategy it very close. My real point is that Hillary didn't visit some strong blue states and that IMHO cost her the election. She didn't even visit Wisconsin once during the primary or GE. Pennsylvania and Michigan came into focus way to late as well. I should have been a bit more clear on that.

[TwilightZone]

40. His first trip to NE was in 2012 for events in Iowa.

He flew in to Offutt Air Force base in 2012 for a fundraiser in Iowa because it's the closest airport. He didn't campaign at all in Nebraska and he didn't visit NE in 2008.

He also spent very little, if any, time in other sure-losers like ID, UT, MT, ND, KS, etc.

That's not a 50-state strategy. We don't need a 50-state strategy for the presidency. We need an electoral strategy.

We need a 50-state strategy for local and state-wide elections.

"My real point is that Hillary didn't visit some strong blue states and that IMHO cost her the election."

Which was my point about Obama's strategy. He focused on the states that were going to decide the election.

[NWCorona]

42. Ok I see you now.

[yurbud]

81. more accurately, he BENEFITTED from it. The brief window of control of Congress was thanks to Howard

Dean.

[Garrett78]

22. Post-Bush, rural outreach in purple states, pre-Shelby County v. Holder, favorable media coverage.

There are many factors worth considering, but I'll point out a few. Before I do that, I want to make note of the fact that Clinton is approaching the vote total that Obama reached in 2012.

Obama was following Bush, whereas Clinton would have been following Obama. As I understand, it's pretty rare for a party to be in the White House for more than 2 consecutive terms.

Obama did more outreach to rural areas in purple states such as Iowa. That, by no means, suggests the "working class whites" narrative is valid.

The Shelby County v. Holder decision of 2013 made voter suppression a lot easier.

Obama was a media darling. Trump, though, sucked up the airwaves. A ratings-focused media seems to be getting worse and worse, promoting false equivalencies and taking a "Teach the Controversy" approach. We here at DU took note of the CNN reporter's face palm when confronting one of the many Trump supporters who subscribe to patently false beliefs. Well, where was all the face palming throughout the campaign??? Reporters and anchors should have been face-palming every single day in response to Trump, Trump surrogates and Trump voters.

[LisaL]

23. He was running after two terms of Bush.

[JI7]

24. 2008 was after 8 years of Bush. media was better in calling out Palin

McCain shut down the he's an arab woman.

[Mike Nelson]

29. Easiest answer ever...

...he followed George W. Bush.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

32. He was a "fresh face" with lots of charisma. I would have voted for her in a 2008 GE, but...

... I was very relieved when he won the Democratic nomination!

She had already been a punching bag for conservatives with past "investigations" like Whitewater on record. There's some dumb people out there who automatically think, "Where there's smoke, there's fire" after those kinds of things.

She was married to the guy who signed NAFTA and who lied to the American people about not having sex "with that woman." That wasn't her fault, but some people never wanted another Clinton in the White House after that.

[Else You Are Mad]

33. Simply put:

Obama ran on Hope and Change and that he was working for the average person. Clinton ignored most of her platform to run her campaign saying that she wasn't Trump. The difference? Obama proffered that if you voted for him you were voting for something, and Hillary campaigned
(especially at the end of her campaign) that she wasn't a monster like Trump and that a vote for her was a vote against Trump.

That was the difference.

[NRQ891]

35. be Fresh and New

goes a long way after a dynasty disaster like the W

[stone space]

36. America wasn't ready for a Black President, and Hillary paid the price?

[Crunchy Frog]

92. Hillary lost because Obama is black.

That's the most umm...interesting answer that I've seen so far?

[hollowdweller]

39. OK here are my ideas

First he talked about how we are all one United States. He did not make a big deal about being black or the historic nature of his presidency.

Clinton made more of a big deal out of being a woman and insisting that she should be voted for by all women. She also made sort of a fear based pitch to minorities and called the other side racist (which was true) but not helpful when you are trying to attract independents.

Second Obama did not attack Clinton for not being anti gun enough, so a lot of people who were gun owners were willing to vote for Obama when Bush fucked up so bad.

Clinton attacked Sanders record on gun control and then Chelsea was quoted as saying essentially that if they could appoint some justices once she won they could pass more stringent gun control. This made gun control more of an issue.

Third Obama was pretty scandal free. Clinton had too many soft spots ethically. Because of her Wall Street speeches and some of the stuff she did as Senator Trump was able to basically run the same playbook against her as Obama ran against Romney in 12.


Fourth While Obama did make the comment about clinging to guns and religion, he said it in a way that was not denigrating like "BASKET OF DEPLORABLES"


Fifth, Obama did not say that he was going to put coal miners out of work.


Sixth Obama was not for the war and he also did not act all hawkish like Clinton did.

Seventh, Clinton sunk to Trumps level and as my dad used to say "You don't get in a pissing battle with a skunk"

[yurbud]

78. excellent analysis. The WAR one can't be overstated enough

Obama was the antiwar candidate, especially compared to her.

You would think she would have figured that one out--or maybe she did, but the money people want war with Russia so bad, she had to shake that tree to get them behind her.

[benEzra]

41. Obama told gun owners in a town meeting that he couldn't ban "assault weapons" even if he wanted to.

Hillary said in the primary that she'd spend "every hour of every day" trying to ban them and crush the gun culture, and bashed Sanders for not being anti-gun enough. There was definitely a difference in tone, substance, and emphasis between 2008 and 2014/2016 on that issue.

[RFKISNEEDED]

44. According to Obama

The big thing he did differently is that he did not ignore medium-small town working class areas. Her support in these areas collapsed when compared to Obama's.

[TransitJohn]

45. I think this question is missing the forest for the trees.

It wasn't about policy. It was about her being her. Through no fault of her own, she is not well-liked by the American electorate.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

46. when Obama ran the country had just had 8 years of bush

and couldnt pretend that democratic policies were just the same as republican policies.

every 8 years we seem to get these two parties confused, and think one is just less evil than the other. Then we are reminded of what true evil really looks like.

An 18 year old voting in this election was 10 when the last republican was in power, it was easy enough for some democrats, stein, and johnson to convince them that there is no true diff between D and R.

[JHan]

51. Don't understand how we can easily compare the two either...

the circumstances in this election are different... this is an incumbent year. There's baggage.


Sigh.

[Tatiana]

47. On policy, Hillary is the better candidate. But she is also a poor campaigner.

She doesn't excite anyone. She's not very popular or charismatic. She can't connect with people in the ways that Obama or even her husband could. Bill Clinton said "I feel your pain" and people believed it. Obama said he was going to put on his shoes and march with the unions and people believed it (even if he didn't really do so). They came across as authentic and Hillary simply doesn't. She's probably a bit of an introvert and campaigning doesn't come naturally to her.

[JudyM]

48. Obama put more focus on economic inequality

For illustration, check out the numbers here about how much (stunningly) better Obama did in a white section of Ohio because of that issue:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-hillary-clinton-lost-podcast_us_58420694e4b017f37fe4c532

[hollowdweller]

60. Very True. Trump more or less ran Obama's 2012 campaign playbook against Romney on Clinton.

The "Deplorables" comment strategy was same as 47%. Trump, a millionaire, was able to paint Hillary as an elitist who supported outsourcing US jobs.

I think it's funny when people blame Sanders for Clinton's loss. Obama's 2012 campaign could be more at fault.

[JudyM]

76. Good point. Pity that raising people's consciousness only worked on Dems, not rethugs.

[Squinch]

52. Own a penis.

http://www.vox.com/2016/11/1/13480416/trump-supporters-sexism

[ncgrits]

54. YEP. That's pretty much the baseline. He was a HE. nt

[hamsterjill]

59. You read my mind.

It's sad that this is absolute truth. Makes me sad and makes me angry.

[Crunchy Frog]

93. LOL, I'm still remembering the Edwards supporters in '08 primaries

Who were convinced he was the only one who could win because he was the only one with a white penis. Only The Great White Penis can save us.

It was a crock then and it's a crock now. Always convenient to blame something about your candidate that absolutely cannot be changed, though.

[Squinch]

94. Sure, sure. It had nothing to do with it. And yet, hostility to women is one of the greatest

predictors of a trump vote.

But no, no, no. Nothing to see here!

[Crunchy Frog]

97. I'm not claiming that there was no sexism or misogyny in 2016.

That would be ridiculous.

There was plenty of racism in 2008 and 2012, and yet Obama still managed to win both terms.

I absolutely refuse to accept the narrative being pushed, that women are fundamentally unelectable in this country.

[Squinch]

110. One more time: Hostility to women is one of the greatest predictors of a Trump vote. And Trump won.

[Crunchy Frog]

112. So you're saying that no woman can win the presidency because this one didn't.

Okay, whatever. I'm finished with this discussion.

[Squinch]

113. No. Actually, I never said that. I said that hostility to women was one of the strongest

predictors of a Trump vote. And Trump won. Those are both facts.

I don't believe what you are saying, so obviously I never said it.

[lapucelle]

108. I also remember that Edwards' Iraq War vote never came up as disqualifying in any way.

I wonder how important Biden's Iraq War vote will be if he runs in 2020.

[Squinch]

109. Petraeus's responsibility for Benghazi doesn't seem to be being held against him. These are

things that make us go hmmmmm. 'Merika sure hates us gals.

[lapucelle]

111. Men are allowed to be flawed. Women have to be perfect.

And the double standard is so entrenched that people don't even notice it.

Remember the exchange between Leslie Stahl and Trump concerning Pence's Iraq vote?

- "He's entitled to make a mistake."

- "And Hillary isn't?"

- "Hillary isn't."

[uponit7771]

122. +1

[Begabig]

55. Political baggage... Perceived and real...

Combined with personality issues

[DFW]

61. Obama had an edge Hillary couldn't: He offered a change from 8 disastrous years of Republicans

Same problem as Al Gore had:

Gore ran after a good 8 year run by a Democratic president who, despite Republican opposition, turned the country around. Neither Bill Clinton nor Barack Obama got close to completing the job they were hoping to do, but both turned the country around economically (not all benefited, but a dramatic improvement DID happen). People got complacent, started to believe there was either a.) no difference, or b.) a need for a change, even if it was for the worse.

Well, we got our change for the worse both times, and if you think Cheneybush was bad, wait until Trumppence get their hands on the controls.

Bill Clinton had 12 years of Republican presidents to run against, and Barack Obama had 8 years of the worst Republican regime since Warren Harding to run against. Hell, after Cheneybush, even I could have run in 2008 and won the White House. The difference is that Obama was such a surprisingly forceful candidate that even Republican electoral fraud couldn't overcome the huge majority that was terrified at the thought of Sarah Palin a heartbeat away from the nuclear codes. The Republicans did their Swing State math homework better this time, and their criminal manipulations appear to have been enough to flip things their way--so far, anyhow.

[yurbud]

98. Hillary could have had that same edge but lost to Obama

which makes the differences doubly important.

[DFW]

99. It was obvious after Cheneybish that the next president would be a Democrat

That's why the 2008 primary was so hard-fought--it wasn't just a battle for the nomination. It was a battle for the presidency.

[bigbrother05]

62. He was the change candidate and she wasn't

She ran as the continuation of Obama's admin. He was the change from Bush. That alone could account for enough votes to cause the loss. She nearly won, so it's likely all the factors trotted out post election had a hand. Some didn't like her as well. Some had a problem with her baggage. Some wanted Bernie. Some wouldn't vote for a woman. Some felt her too tied to Wall Street. Some still resent Bill. Etc.... Add all those somes together and you come up short by 80K in WI/MI/PA.

If the roles were reversed and she had run in '08 and Obama ran in '16, would it have turned out differently? My guess is it likely would have. She should have beaten McCain following Bush. Pretty certain Obama could have beaten Trump as the not Clinton Dem, but the world would not have been the same after 8 years of HRC that it is now so we'll never really know.

[FBaggins]

63. Win?

Seems like the most relevant difference

[Grey Lemercier]

66. lol

I cannot believe it took 63 replies to get to this one

[Lil Missy]

79. He won

[rogue emissary]

88. I posted about Obama's rev Wright speech

Along the same lines as my previous post in this thread.

If Hillary had disagreed more strongly with Albright/ Steinem controversy. That whole young girls voted for Bernie to get boys mess. She would have gotten the same effect of Bill's Sister Soulah/Obama's Wright moments.

Democrats always have to stand up to or put down one of our core groups to get the mass of whites to vote for the Democratic candidate.

[Buzz cook]

89. He played to the media nt

.

[TuslaUltra]

96. an incumbent WH party with sub-40 job approval ratings

high ratings don't always mean a win, but sub 40% does always mean a loss: see Democrats in 1952, 1980, and the GOP in 1992 (Bush Sr.'s job approvals thru the election year were sub-40, hence why the [link:fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-ross-perot-myth/|Perot-myth is a lie]), and 2008.

[Lotusflower70]

103. President Obama

He was exciting and new. I love his passion and charisma. He is an intelligent and compassionate man. I campaigned for him in both elections. He was magnetic and he drew you in. Hillary not so much. It was pretty unfair for her to have to try and follow that up. Hillary has a thick skin, she needed it with all the mess she had to put up with. But there were certain segments of people she couldn't reach.

[RandySF]

106. He ran during Bush's eighth year for one.

The scope of Obana's victory was breathtaking, but any Dem who could walk and chew gum was going to win that election. 2012 was s better demonstration of his abilities.

[yurbud]

125. I agree overall though the comparison between Hillary and Obama is important to fix things

going forward

[TheKentuckian]

114. Obama's popularity is personal and non transferable even to his own policies

much less anyone else running on them nor the party really either.

Most voters aren't policy computers or even focused, not beyond the broad strokes, the spin battle, and outcomes which are down the line so a lot depends on who gets the blame.

I think you are trying to make this a far more rational process than it usually is for most people. I wouldn't be surprised if more people went pure "gut"/have a beer with than the policy positions exactly with plenty somewhere in between.

[jfern]

115. Obama benefited from being against the Iraq war, not having a long neoliberal record,

and perhaps most importantly, the worst economy since the Great Depression.

[Coyotl]

116. He brought 4 million more people to the polls.

[betsuni]

117. Oh, another "Hillary is a warmonger" dig.

"Supporting" the Iraq War, "consorting with neocons," "looking for more fights." Well, no need to worry now, is there? You've been saved from the Big Bad Hillary, whew!

[yurbud]

119. The point of the thread is what Dems can do differently next time--are we allowed to do that?

[yurbud]

120. should we just let people with money tell the party what to do?

[JI7]

118. Same Reason Obama did better in 08 than 12

[uponit7771]

121. No Comey?

[EffieBlack]

123. He was running to replace a two-term president of the other party - he represented change nt

[LaydeeBug]

124. RUSSIA did not interefere in '08 or '12. They did this time. nt

[Politicub]

127. Ran as a challenger opponent against the exiting admin

The dem nominee for 2020 will be able to run as a challenger opponent, attacking all things about the Trump admin. Hillary wasn't able to do this, as a democrat, and hope to retain the Obama coalition.

[dawg]

128. Shit was on fire in 2008.

In 2012, he got to run as an incumbent. But it was close, and he probably would have lost if the FBI director had announced that he was under investigation 10 days before election day.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

129. "Eight Year Itch"

The party holding the WH for 8 years traditionally has a harder time keeping the WH for another 4-8 (last time it happened was in 1988 with GHW Bush following Reagan). Plus, there was a lot of pent-up right-wing rage (8 years) against President Obama, Democrats and Trump was able to successfully tap into it. I think that, aside from some right-wing misogny, intense burning hatred of the Clintons by some, and some of the smears against Clinton, what it really boils down to IMHO is that Republicans wanted a Trump/GOP Presidency more than Democrats and others wanted a Clinton Presidency. Their people showed up to vote for Trump/GOP. Ours stayed home or diverted their votes to other candidates in enough numbers to allow Trump to win the states he needed to assume the Presidency. End of line.

[yurbud]

131. Democrats might think about what they can do to earn back those third party votes

And berating those people is not a winning strategy.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

132. I'm not berating anybody

but it most definitely still happened and was a factor in Clinton's loss.

[JCMach1]

130. As simplistic as it seems, it was also the 8yrs. of one party in the WH thing

[randome]

134. It wasn't so much campaign tactics as it was personality.

Obama is vibrant and charismatic and -dare I say it?- cool.

I am tired of the septuagenarians running us into one ditch after another. We need to clean house and give the Millennials their chance. In districts where we have a safe Democratic replacement, we need to oust the ones who keep losing the big battles.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]