A Good Idea?

[DarkFury]

Obama just backed Hillary Clinton. But was that the smartest thing to do?
Democrats got their ass kicked in the off year because Obama tied his policies to their re-elections and then went on to suffer the worst loss in history.

Now Hillary has tied herself to those polices. And the worst job report in five years. If the economy so much as coughs, well........it could wind up looking a lot like this..

Hillary of course is older and nastier looking.

Fury

 

[JoeMoma]

Hillary needs Obama to keep the justice department off her back. Hillary might a point Obama as a supreme court justice in return.

 

[Kat]

Who knows. This is by far the craziest election ever. Anything could happen.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Obama has a positive approval rating over 50%, which is damn good considering how divided this country is, and just got done kicking the shit out of your party with 360 and 332 electrol votes for 2008 and 2012.

 

[Pogo]

Obama just backed Hillary Clinton. But was that the smartest thing to do?
Democrats got their ass kicked in the off year because Obama tied his policies to their re-elections and then went on to suffer the worst loss in history.

Where the fuck do you get your info, Pinkie? Duh Bubble?


1. 1946
President: Harry S Truman — Democrat
Senate losses: 12
U.S. House losses: 54

2. 1958
President: Dwight D. Eisenhower — Republican
Senate losses: 13
U.S. Houses losses: 48

3. 1994
President: Bill Clinton — Democrat
Senate losses: 8
U.S. House losses: 54

4. 1922
President: Warren G. Harding — Republican
Senate losses: 6
U.S. House losses: 77

5. 1938
President: Franklin D. Roosevelt — Democrat
Senate losses: 7
U.S. House losses: 72

6. 1930
President: Herbert Hoover — Republican
Senate losses: 8
U.S. House losses: 52

7. 2010
President: Barack Obama — Democrat
Senate losses: 6
U.S. House losses: 63

8. 1942
President: Franklin D. Roosevelt — Democrat
Senate losses: 8
U.S. House losses: 45

9. 2006
President: George W. Bush — Republican
Senate losses: 6
U.S. House losses: 30

10. 1974
President: Gerald Ford — Republican
Senate losses: 4
U.S. House losses: 48

-- Ten worst midterms of the last century

2014 resulted in Republican gains of 9 Senate and 13 House seats. Doesn't even make the top ten.

 

[JakeStarkey]

HRC and her position trumps Trump's right now.

 

[DarkFury]

Obama just backed Hillary Clinton. But was that the smartest thing to do?
Democrats got their ass kicked in the off year because Obama tied his policies to their re-elections and then went on to suffer the worst loss in history.

Where the fuck do you get your info, Pinkie? Duh Bubble?


1. 1946
President: Harry S Truman — Democrat
Senate losses: 12
U.S. House losses: 54

2. 1958
President: Dwight D. Eisenhower — Republican
Senate losses: 13
U.S. Houses losses: 48

3. 1994
President: Bill Clinton — Democrat
Senate losses: 8
U.S. House losses: 54

4. 1922
President: Warren G. Harding — Republican
Senate losses: 6
U.S. House losses: 77

5. 1938
President: Franklin D. Roosevelt — Democrat
Senate losses: 7
U.S. House losses: 72

6. 1930
President: Herbert Hoover — Republican
Senate losses: 8
U.S. House losses: 52

7. 2010
President: Barack Obama — Democrat
Senate losses: 6
U.S. House losses: 63

8. 1942
President: Franklin D. Roosevelt — Democrat
Senate losses: 8
U.S. House losses: 45

9. 2006
President: George W. Bush — Republican
Senate losses: 6
U.S. House losses: 30

10. 1974
President: Gerald Ford — Republican
Senate losses: 4
U.S. House losses: 48

-- Ten worst midterms of the last century

2014 resulted in Republican gains of 9 Senate and 13 House seats. Doesn't even make the top ten.

"Given the narrow margin for error enjoyed by President Obama in 2012, a swing of a little less than 3 points in the two-party vote would hand the White House to the Republicans—and swings of that size are far more the rule than the exception. In fact, looking at the two-party vote, no non-incumbent since Ulysses S. Grant in 1868 has lost less than 3 points off the prior re-elected incumbent’s showing. If Hillary Clinton wins the presidency in 2016, it will be a historically unprecedented event in more ways than just her gender."
History Is Not On The Democrats’ Side In 2016

 

[JakeStarkey]

DF does not understand that those historic defeats did not hurt a president who had 46% popularity or more.

Obama is quite popular in comparison to Bush.

This strange election year is going to fool all of us, I think.

And, yes, Obama got the bounce of those swings, and HRC will do even better against a Trump.

A Kasich would have beat her by eight points.

 

[Pogo]

Obama just backed Hillary Clinton. But was that the smartest thing to do?
Democrats got their ass kicked in the off year because Obama tied his policies to their re-elections and then went on to suffer the worst loss in history.

Where the fuck do you get your info, Pinkie? Duh Bubble?


1. 1946
President: Harry S Truman — Democrat
Senate losses: 12
U.S. House losses: 54

2. 1958
President: Dwight D. Eisenhower — Republican
Senate losses: 13
U.S. Houses losses: 48

3. 1994
President: Bill Clinton — Democrat
Senate losses: 8
U.S. House losses: 54

4. 1922
President: Warren G. Harding — Republican
Senate losses: 6
U.S. House losses: 77

5. 1938
President: Franklin D. Roosevelt — Democrat
Senate losses: 7
U.S. House losses: 72

6. 1930
President: Herbert Hoover — Republican
Senate losses: 8
U.S. House losses: 52

7. 2010
President: Barack Obama — Democrat
Senate losses: 6
U.S. House losses: 63

8. 1942
President: Franklin D. Roosevelt — Democrat
Senate losses: 8
U.S. House losses: 45

9. 2006
President: George W. Bush — Republican
Senate losses: 6
U.S. House losses: 30

10. 1974
President: Gerald Ford — Republican
Senate losses: 4
U.S. House losses: 48

-- Ten worst midterms of the last century

2014 resulted in Republican gains of 9 Senate and 13 House seats. Doesn't even make the top ten.

"Given the narrow margin for error enjoyed by President Obama in 2012, a swing of a little less than 3 points in the two-party vote would hand the White House to the Republicans—and swings of that size are far more the rule than the exception. In fact, looking at the two-party vote, no non-incumbent since Ulysses S. Grant in 1868 has lost less than 3 points off the prior re-elected incumbent’s showing. If Hillary Clinton wins the presidency in 2016, it will be a historically unprecedented event in more ways than just her gender."
History Is Not On The Democrats’ Side In 2016

​

I just gave you the numbers. You're way the fuck off. As in not even close.

FYI and as antidote to spin from a Bubble machine, virtually every mid-term election loses Congressional seats for the party holding the White House. There have been exactly three exceptions since the two parties have been competing, just after the Civil War.

In fact the three Presidents whose party benefitted from those exceptions are all sitting on that same list of the ten worst.

 

[DarkFury]

Obama just backed Hillary Clinton. But was that the smartest thing to do?
Democrats got their ass kicked in the off year because Obama tied his policies to their re-elections and then went on to suffer the worst loss in history.

Where the fuck do you get your info, Pinkie? Duh Bubble?


1. 1946
President: Harry S Truman — Democrat
Senate losses: 12
U.S. House losses: 54

2. 1958
President: Dwight D. Eisenhower — Republican
Senate losses: 13
U.S. Houses losses: 48

3. 1994
President: Bill Clinton — Democrat
Senate losses: 8
U.S. House losses: 54

4. 1922
President: Warren G. Harding — Republican
Senate losses: 6
U.S. House losses: 77

5. 1938
President: Franklin D. Roosevelt — Democrat
Senate losses: 7
U.S. House losses: 72

6. 1930
President: Herbert Hoover — Republican
Senate losses: 8
U.S. House losses: 52

7. 2010
President: Barack Obama — Democrat
Senate losses: 6
U.S. House losses: 63

8. 1942
President: Franklin D. Roosevelt — Democrat
Senate losses: 8
U.S. House losses: 45

9. 2006
President: George W. Bush — Republican
Senate losses: 6
U.S. House losses: 30

10. 1974
President: Gerald Ford — Republican
Senate losses: 4
U.S. House losses: 48

-- Ten worst midterms of the last century

2014 resulted in Republican gains of 9 Senate and 13 House seats. Doesn't even make the top ten.

"Given the narrow margin for error enjoyed by President Obama in 2012, a swing of a little less than 3 points in the two-party vote would hand the White House to the Republicans—and swings of that size are far more the rule than the exception. In fact, looking at the two-party vote, no non-incumbent since Ulysses S. Grant in 1868 has lost less than 3 points off the prior re-elected incumbent’s showing. If Hillary Clinton wins the presidency in 2016, it will be a historically unprecedented event in more ways than just her gender."
History Is Not On The Democrats’ Side In 2016

​

I just gave you the numbers. You're way the fuck off. As in not even close.

FYI and as antidote to spin from a Bubble machine, virtually every mid-term election loses Congressional seats for the party holding the White House. There have been exactly three exceptions since the two parties have been competing, just after the Civil War.

And a third term party win is one of the hardest things to do. Reagan/Bush did it last.

 

[Pogo]

Obama just backed Hillary Clinton. But was that the smartest thing to do?
Democrats got their ass kicked in the off year because Obama tied his policies to their re-elections and then went on to suffer the worst loss in history.

Where the fuck do you get your info, Pinkie? Duh Bubble?


1. 1946
President: Harry S Truman — Democrat
Senate losses: 12
U.S. House losses: 54

2. 1958
President: Dwight D. Eisenhower — Republican
Senate losses: 13
U.S. Houses losses: 48

3. 1994
President: Bill Clinton — Democrat
Senate losses: 8
U.S. House losses: 54

4. 1922
President: Warren G. Harding — Republican
Senate losses: 6
U.S. House losses: 77

5. 1938
President: Franklin D. Roosevelt — Democrat
Senate losses: 7
U.S. House losses: 72

6. 1930
President: Herbert Hoover — Republican
Senate losses: 8
U.S. House losses: 52

7. 2010
President: Barack Obama — Democrat
Senate losses: 6
U.S. House losses: 63

8. 1942
President: Franklin D. Roosevelt — Democrat
Senate losses: 8
U.S. House losses: 45

9. 2006
President: George W. Bush — Republican
Senate losses: 6
U.S. House losses: 30

10. 1974
President: Gerald Ford — Republican
Senate losses: 4
U.S. House losses: 48

-- Ten worst midterms of the last century

2014 resulted in Republican gains of 9 Senate and 13 House seats. Doesn't even make the top ten.

"Given the narrow margin for error enjoyed by President Obama in 2012, a swing of a little less than 3 points in the two-party vote would hand the White House to the Republicans—and swings of that size are far more the rule than the exception. In fact, looking at the two-party vote, no non-incumbent since Ulysses S. Grant in 1868 has lost less than 3 points off the prior re-elected incumbent’s showing. If Hillary Clinton wins the presidency in 2016, it will be a historically unprecedented event in more ways than just her gender."
History Is Not On The Democrats’ Side In 2016

​

I just gave you the numbers. You're way the fuck off. As in not even close.

FYI and as antidote to spin from a Bubble machine, virtually every mid-term election loses Congressional seats for the party holding the White House. There have been exactly three exceptions since the two parties have been competing, just after the Civil War.

And a third term party win is one of the hardest things to do. Reagan/Bush did it last.

Uhhh.. OK but it's got zero to do with your original point. Maybe I need a 214 IQ to follow that connection, 'cause it just looks like deflection.

 

[flacaltenn]

Obama just backed Hillary Clinton. But was that the smartest thing to do?
Democrats got their ass kicked in the off year because Obama tied his policies to their re-elections and then went on to suffer the worst loss in history.

Where the fuck do you get your info, Pinkie? Duh Bubble?


1. 1946
President: Harry S Truman — Democrat
Senate losses: 12
U.S. House losses: 54

2. 1958
President: Dwight D. Eisenhower — Republican
Senate losses: 13
U.S. Houses losses: 48

3. 1994
President: Bill Clinton — Democrat
Senate losses: 8
U.S. House losses: 54

4. 1922
President: Warren G. Harding — Republican
Senate losses: 6
U.S. House losses: 77

5. 1938
President: Franklin D. Roosevelt — Democrat
Senate losses: 7
U.S. House losses: 72

6. 1930
President: Herbert Hoover — Republican
Senate losses: 8
U.S. House losses: 52

7. 2010
President: Barack Obama — Democrat
Senate losses: 6
U.S. House losses: 63

8. 1942
President: Franklin D. Roosevelt — Democrat
Senate losses: 8
U.S. House losses: 45

9. 2006
President: George W. Bush — Republican
Senate losses: 6
U.S. House losses: 30

10. 1974
President: Gerald Ford — Republican
Senate losses: 4
U.S. House losses: 48

-- Ten worst midterms of the last century

2014 resulted in Republican gains of 9 Senate and 13 House seats. Doesn't even make the top ten.

Largely because the composition PRIOR to 2014 in the House was ALREADY fairly balanced.

Most of your examples on WIDE house swings comes when one or the other party started out highly UNDER-Represented in the House. And the SENATE swing in 2014 WAS a historically significant amount..

 

[Pogo]

Obama just backed Hillary Clinton. But was that the smartest thing to do?
Democrats got their ass kicked in the off year because Obama tied his policies to their re-elections and then went on to suffer the worst loss in history.

Where the fuck do you get your info, Pinkie? Duh Bubble?


1. 1946
President: Harry S Truman — Democrat
Senate losses: 12
U.S. House losses: 54

2. 1958
President: Dwight D. Eisenhower — Republican
Senate losses: 13
U.S. Houses losses: 48

3. 1994
President: Bill Clinton — Democrat
Senate losses: 8
U.S. House losses: 54

4. 1922
President: Warren G. Harding — Republican
Senate losses: 6
U.S. House losses: 77

5. 1938
President: Franklin D. Roosevelt — Democrat
Senate losses: 7
U.S. House losses: 72

6. 1930
President: Herbert Hoover — Republican
Senate losses: 8
U.S. House losses: 52

7. 2010
President: Barack Obama — Democrat
Senate losses: 6
U.S. House losses: 63

8. 1942
President: Franklin D. Roosevelt — Democrat
Senate losses: 8
U.S. House losses: 45

9. 2006
President: George W. Bush — Republican
Senate losses: 6
U.S. House losses: 30

10. 1974
President: Gerald Ford — Republican
Senate losses: 4
U.S. House losses: 48

-- Ten worst midterms of the last century

2014 resulted in Republican gains of 9 Senate and 13 House seats. Doesn't even make the top ten.

Largely because the composition PRIOR to 2014 in the House was ALREADY fairly balanced.

Most of your examples on WIDE house swings comes when one or the other party started out highly UNDER-Represented in the House. And the SENATE swing in 2014 WAS a historically significant amount..

The numbers are the numbers. They don't spin.

 

[flacaltenn]

Obama just backed Hillary Clinton. But was that the smartest thing to do?
Democrats got their ass kicked in the off year because Obama tied his policies to their re-elections and then went on to suffer the worst loss in history.

Where the fuck do you get your info, Pinkie? Duh Bubble?


1. 1946
President: Harry S Truman — Democrat
Senate losses: 12
U.S. House losses: 54

2. 1958
President: Dwight D. Eisenhower — Republican
Senate losses: 13
U.S. Houses losses: 48

3. 1994
President: Bill Clinton — Democrat
Senate losses: 8
U.S. House losses: 54

4. 1922
President: Warren G. Harding — Republican
Senate losses: 6
U.S. House losses: 77

5. 1938
President: Franklin D. Roosevelt — Democrat
Senate losses: 7
U.S. House losses: 72

6. 1930
President: Herbert Hoover — Republican
Senate losses: 8
U.S. House losses: 52

7. 2010
President: Barack Obama — Democrat
Senate losses: 6
U.S. House losses: 63

8. 1942
President: Franklin D. Roosevelt — Democrat
Senate losses: 8
U.S. House losses: 45

9. 2006
President: George W. Bush — Republican
Senate losses: 6
U.S. House losses: 30

10. 1974
President: Gerald Ford — Republican
Senate losses: 4
U.S. House losses: 48

-- Ten worst midterms of the last century

2014 resulted in Republican gains of 9 Senate and 13 House seats. Doesn't even make the top ten.

Largely because the composition PRIOR to 2014 in the House was ALREADY fairly balanced.

Most of your examples on WIDE house swings comes when one or the other party started out highly UNDER-Represented in the House. And the SENATE swing in 2014 WAS a historically significant amount..

The numbers are the numbers. They don't spin.

Didn't think you'd get the logic there. But logic is IMPORTANT to understanding HOW those numbers came to be. And the SENATE shift was monumentally historical. Everything I said about the EXPECTED shifts that MIGHT happen is completely correct. You cannot expect large shifts when the representation is more or less balanced. That's how "numbers" come to be.

 

[emilynghiem]

Obama just backed Hillary Clinton. But was that the smartest thing to do?
Democrats got their ass kicked in the off year because Obama tied his policies to their re-elections and then went on to suffer the worst loss in history.

Now Hillary has tied herself to those polices. And the worst job report in five years. If the economy so much as coughs, well........it could wind up looking a lot like this..

Hillary of course is older and nastier looking.

Fury

When I think of all the people who have a problem with Obama,
I don't see any of them voting for Hillary anyway.
I think Obama knows that.

Democrats are worried about getting their own voters out.
Large blocks of voters who got excited and motivated to vote because of Obama
are NOT that excited about Hillary. So maybe he's hoping this will unite
and motivate voters to put their party first?

The election will go to whoever gets more voters to the polls.
So many on both sides are wavering on staying home instead.

In my circles there are more anti-Hillary than anti-Trump.
But there are more anti-Trump and pro-Hillary who will go out and vote.
I think the pro-Trump and anti-Hillary are too confident
Trump will win and won't push as hard as the anti-Trump vote
more opponents are willing to fund and push politically
than Trump supporters who won't invest in what they think already belongs to them.

Their overconfidence that Hillary will fail may cost them this election.

 

[Kosh]

Obama just backed Hillary Clinton. But was that the smartest thing to do?
Democrats got their ass kicked in the off year because Obama tied his policies to their re-elections and then went on to suffer the worst loss in history.

Where the fuck do you get your info, Pinkie? Duh Bubble?


1. 1946
President: Harry S Truman — Democrat
Senate losses: 12
U.S. House losses: 54

2. 1958
President: Dwight D. Eisenhower — Republican
Senate losses: 13
U.S. Houses losses: 48

3. 1994
President: Bill Clinton — Democrat
Senate losses: 8
U.S. House losses: 54

4. 1922
President: Warren G. Harding — Republican
Senate losses: 6
U.S. House losses: 77

5. 1938
President: Franklin D. Roosevelt — Democrat
Senate losses: 7
U.S. House losses: 72

6. 1930
President: Herbert Hoover — Republican
Senate losses: 8
U.S. House losses: 52

7. 2010
President: Barack Obama — Democrat
Senate losses: 6
U.S. House losses: 63

8. 1942
President: Franklin D. Roosevelt — Democrat
Senate losses: 8
U.S. House losses: 45

9. 2006
President: George W. Bush — Republican
Senate losses: 6
U.S. House losses: 30

10. 1974
President: Gerald Ford — Republican
Senate losses: 4
U.S. House losses: 48

-- Ten worst midterms of the last century

2014 resulted in Republican gains of 9 Senate and 13 House seats. Doesn't even make the top ten.

Another far left drone that proves they can not understand what they read.

 

[S.J.]

Obama just backed Hillary Clinton. But was that the smartest thing to do?
Democrats got their ass kicked in the off year because Obama tied his policies to their re-elections and then went on to suffer the worst loss in history.

Now Hillary has tied herself to those polices. And the worst job report in five years. If the economy so much as coughs, well........it could wind up looking a lot like this..

Hillary of course is older and nastier looking.

Fury

When I think of all the people who have a problem with Obama,
I don't see any of them voting for Hillary anyway.
I think Obama knows that.

Democrats are worried about getting their own voters out.
Large blocks of voters who got excited and motivated to vote because of Obama
are NOT that excited about Hillary. So maybe he's hoping this will unite
and motivate voters to put their party first?

The election will go to whoever gets more voters to the polls.
So many on both sides are wavering on staying home instead.

In my circles there are more anti-Hillary than anti-Trump.
But there are more anti-Trump and pro-Hillary who will go out and vote.
I think the pro-Trump and anti-Hillary are too confident
Trump will win and won't push as hard as the anti-Trump vote
more opponents are willing to fund and push politically
than Trump supporters who won't invest in what they think already belongs to them.

Their overconfidence that Hillary will fail may cost them this election.

Ain't gonna happen. The Trump supporters aren't taking any chances, they'll turn out to vote in record numbers, just like in the primaries.

 

[emilynghiem]

Obama just backed Hillary Clinton. But was that the smartest thing to do?
Democrats got their ass kicked in the off year because Obama tied his policies to their re-elections and then went on to suffer the worst loss in history.

Now Hillary has tied herself to those polices. And the worst job report in five years. If the economy so much as coughs, well........it could wind up looking a lot like this..

Hillary of course is older and nastier looking.

Fury

When I think of all the people who have a problem with Obama,
I don't see any of them voting for Hillary anyway.
I think Obama knows that.

Democrats are worried about getting their own voters out.
Large blocks of voters who got excited and motivated to vote because of Obama
are NOT that excited about Hillary. So maybe he's hoping this will unite
and motivate voters to put their party first?

The election will go to whoever gets more voters to the polls.
So many on both sides are wavering on staying home instead.

In my circles there are more anti-Hillary than anti-Trump.
But there are more anti-Trump and pro-Hillary who will go out and vote.
I think the pro-Trump and anti-Hillary are too confident
Trump will win and won't push as hard as the anti-Trump vote
more opponents are willing to fund and push politically
than Trump supporters who won't invest in what they think already belongs to them.

Their overconfidence that Hillary will fail may cost them this election.

Ain't gonna happen. The Trump supporters aren't taking any chances, they'll turn out to vote in record numbers, just like in the primaries.

So you think Hillary's nomination would drive the NO voters among Trump supporters
more than Trump's nomination would motivate the Hillary voters?

Many people believe this S.J.

But if even Romney being too moderate kept rightwing voters at home or running to other parties,
I don't think Trump can unite enough following.

Trump has incited a visible and vocal opposition to support a different candidate,
which Romney did not do.

Trump had better work with all conservative leaders to spell out a unified plan and policy.
If he can then work with other party leaders as well
to iron out solid business and economic plans to create jobs
that WORKING PEOPLE support including immigrants,
he might pull off the unity and diversity needed.

Whoever is too confident, Trump or Clinton, thinking they can rule the world on their own,
and doesn't feel they need to include working people and other leaders directly in implementing solutions,
will miss this opportunity to unite people across parties who want to see unified leadership and business plans.

 

[xband]

Hillary needs Obama to keep the justice department off her back. Hillary might a point Obama as a supreme court justice in return.

That is something that I had not thought about and is not without precedent. After Taft was President he was a Supreme Court Justice.

 

[my2¢]

My gut feeling is that connecting with and energizing large crowds just isn't Hillary's thing. So Obama on the campaign trail for her is not only a good thing, but also a necessary move.