13 opinions, 10 replies
Add your opinion:
Preview:
(mouse over or touch to update)
Add your opinion
100
2 votes
Oct 9, 2015

Obama may have been the best candidate in both elections, but that's not why the people elected him.

in 2008, the majority of people elected the non-Republican party because of the Bush presidency.

In 2012, Obama was re-elected (in my opinion) because he was a standing president who was not doing a bad job.

The true shame of the 2012 election was that the only consistent political point that all Republican candidate brought to the table was "beat Obama no matter what." That's hardly a strategy for leading a country.

subscribe
100
User voted Simply because he was the best candidate.
2 votes
Oct 12, 2015

I find the question too obvious to ignore what it is implying: Did people vote for President Obama the first time because he was black, and why would they vote for him a second time since he is not a good president?

Did some people vote for President Obama because they wanted to see the first African-American President? Probably, though how many is impossible to quantify. However, in light of the fact that all past presidents were from from only one group of citizens, white males, while more qualified women, African-Americans, or other minorities were overlooked, I can sympathize with that choice. In a representative democracy, people get to choose for whom they will vote, and it is only in the last 50 or 60 years that the choices for any office have included candidates who were not white males. Most are very well qualified.

Also consider that if the supposed standard is to vote for candidates only because of their qualifications, then voting for a candidate for any other reason, like simply because they are a Republican or Democrat, is no different than choosing on basis of race or gender.

As to opinions about President Obama's fitness or performance, it is obvious many are based simply on ideology. History will be the judge. Economically, the trend will show that the economy improved slightly and the deficit began to decline. His positions on gay marriage and immigration will be considered as obvious moves in the right direction. Regardless of the quality of the ACA, the US not already having universal health care by 2000 will be puzzling.

President Obama's foreign policy actions will be viewed as fairly consistent with other modern U.S. presidents, with the exception of George W. Bush. His rejection of permanent troops in Afghanistan and Iraq is consistent with every other post-Vietnam administration's approach to regional conflicts. President Obama's use of the military in the Middle East is consistent with the Carter Doctrine adhered to by Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton: deployment of force only if U.S. vital interests are threatened by other nations - vital interests being the supply of oil to U.S. and its allies. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Doctrine

His policy on Israel is not materially different except that he has been more open about disagreements with the Israeli government. The nuclear deal with Iran is considered a no-brainer by the other P5+1 nations. President Obama's approval of the use of drones to kill terrorists in other nations would be considered quite hawkish by some Democrats and Republicans of the past and by some historians in the future.

Many people support President Obama for these reasons, not simply because of his ethnicity or the fact that he is a Democrat.

subscribe
100
1 vote
Oct 9, 2015

White %age of population =79.9 Black %age of population = 12.9 Not sure how race was that huge a factor. Certainly the Clarence Thomases, Condi Rices, certainly did not vote for Obama. 44% of whites vote democrat pretty much regardless of either party's candidate. No candidate can win without a large plurality of white votes.

The Republican "run to the right" merely turns off white independent swing voters. Republicans split the white vote 56-44 pretty consistently. They seem intolerant to minorities, except Cubans in Florida thereby alienating 18% of the population. I would imagine that in the race to capture the hearts and minds of all Americans, the republicans are slowly losing.

subscribe
100
1 vote
Oct 9, 2015

If there is a best candidate for president, our election method isn't going to find it, and we'd have to entirely restructure our media and electoral system to even get close. Nobody on the ballot was even a good candidate. A good candidate for that job doesn't desire power enough to make it that far in our current political system.

subscribe
100
User voted Simply because he was the best candidate.
1 vote
Nov 7, 2015

In 2008, pretty much anyone who wasn't a Republican and who had a pulse was going to win. Obama had a strong mandate for change based on the Republican Party having lost all credibility on both foreign and economic affairs. He got a lot of people excited about "hope" despite the fact that his actual policy schemes were incredibly centrist and corporate. He was very much a Wall Street candidate who managed to brand himself in the right way at the right time, and ride a wave of youth distaste with the present state of politics.

In 2012, I think that the Tea Party hit the wall of the four-year election. Democratic voter turnout increases in presidential elections because there's a direct correlation with higher turnout and a more liberal turnout. I think that Obama's apparent failure to get much done over two years helped the Tea Party immeasurably (and while I think no President could have repaired the Great Recession rapidly I do believe Obama made a number of mistakes and also showed the very limited nature of his progressivism during that time). But two years with the Tea Party showed people that they weren't a silver bullet either.

Even in 2016, I think you're going to see the same pattern. People are getting increasingly hopeless, and the first party that can actually make a real impact on people's perceived prosperity will have won a lot of the American electorate for a very long time.

subscribe
75
4 votes
Oct 9, 2015

When the other party brings corporate shills, and religious nut cases to the voting booth it is not surprising America voted for the 3rd option because the republican party no longer exists.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
main reply
0 votes,
Oct 9, 2015

Unfortunately though, the only candidates we see after the primaries are both shills. The nature of the <1% in this nation being the ones to vote on candidates during the primaries is precisely what ensures that all candidates we see are intrinsically linked to corporate interests. In order to successfully emerge from the primaries and have a funded campaign, these candidates must take money from someone - which always comes with strings attached.

If you pay attention to what both parties are doing in politics and read the bills submitted and/or passed, you will likely notice that while the methods used sometimes vary, the goals of both parties are quite frequently the same. At the end of the day, the only real evident difference between the two parties is which companies they directly support.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
1 vote,
Oct 9, 2015

My point was that people won't vote for the extreme end of the spectrum, of course both sides offer up shills but the republicans blatantly put up people that are so overly crazy no one could be expected to vote for them. To some degree this may have been an election / primary cycle where the republicans were focused on the states rather than the white house since you need to win the states to push things through anyway.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Oct 9, 2015

This is true. I must say though, that I can at least respect the Republicans for their transparent agenda and sticking to their guns. The Democrats (Obama especially) on the other hand, in some instances are just as extreme but are much better at deception. They will promise to help the little guy, yet behind closed doors pass things that benefit only large corporations and the rich. Overall I'd say this two-party system really isn't working out.

subscribe
17
6 votes
Oct 9, 2015

Barack Obama was elected because he is black the first time. I have no idea why he was elected the second time. The novelty of a black president had worn off, he had revealed himself to be completely incompetent and corrupt and he sure as hell didn't do anything to be reelected for. Michelle Obama said: “Being president doesn't change who you are — it reveals who you are.” And Barack Obama certainly revealed who he is and it ain't pretty!

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
main reply
1 vote,
Oct 9, 2015

Incumbent presidents have only lost elections 3 times in the history of this country. I'm not sure why, but for some reason, people don't like swapping out presidents very often; maybe it's a "the enemy you know is better than the one you don't" sort of thing. Also, when his competition is openly dismissive of 47% of the population, has no solutions for any real-world problems, and has a LONG, robust history of changing every one of his positions just for political gain, it's pretty difficult to lose.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Simply because he was the best candidate.
main reply
0 votes,
Nov 7, 2015

I think the idea that Barack Obama reaped only benefits from being black is incredibly silly indeed. Political dialog is ugly in this country no matter who one is talking about, but the belief that he was literally not born in this country and is not the religion he says he is remains pretty well unique.

subscribe
17
User voted Other reason.
6 votes
Oct 9, 2015

While fraud is vehemently denied as a main cause, I still have my doubts. In some reporting precincts Obama got over 100% of the vote. In some places, there were more votes than registered voters. Then there was that Ohio woman that admitted that she voted for Obama 6 times. How many more cases like this do we not know about?

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
main reply
1 vote,
Oct 9, 2015

I was actually pretty intruiged by your argument, so I googled it. This should answer some your questions. factcheck.org/2013/01/voting-conspiracies/

Many people in this country take voting very, very seriously, and voter fraud is a fairly serious crime. If the fraud in that election was widespread enough to make any difference at all, many, many people would be arrested and tried for it.

Also, there are pretty compelling reports that the Republican party was attempting deliberate fraud. It seems incredible, but sometimes truth is as strange as fiction: youtube.com/watch?v=zANRaBoscpg

subscribe
0
6 votes
Oct 9, 2015

one thing, if you watched the numbers in the last election, Romney was actually ahead in the poll numbers in most of the polls. BUT what killed him was "not" the 47% remark. It was the "I will get everyone back to work and off the welfare system!" The next day, he dropped 5 points average. That told me all I needed to know at this point. He lost when he said that. I have pride and work everyday. I wish most of America had that attitude. But alas people seem to be raised to gain the system.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
75
main reply
4 votes,
Oct 9, 2015

I'd be confidant in estimating that the percentage of abusers of welfare or other safety net programs is significantly less than the percentage of people that use it and do want to lift themselves out of poverty. Being able to escape poverty is not as easy as the rich white republicans want to make it sound.

subscribe
-1
1 vote
Jun 30, 2016

Because people didn't see any good candidate, great person to be leader for their country.. what the question?!

subscribe
0
0 votes
Oct 9, 2015

The first time because "I believed" - the second time because I was terrified of having a President Romney. Overall, Obama has been a huge disappointment to me.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
main reply
0 votes,
Nov 9, 2015

Just going to play Devil's advocate here: why has he been a disappointment?

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Nov 11, 2015

Mainly his support of the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) which I find particularly damning. Also, I am against his secret drone warfare. Further, he hasn't done anything to reign in NSA spying on American citizens, and then there is his inability to convict a single Wall St exec after 2008. These things broke my trust with him.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Nov 11, 2015
subscribe
0
User voted Other reason.
0 votes
Oct 12, 2015

Why did people elect Obama, easy "FREE STUFF!" The "rich" will pay for it all.

subscribe
0
0 votes
Dec 10, 2015

Simply because he does a good job...

subscribe
Add your opinion
Challenge someone to answer this topic:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
OR
Invite your friend via email:
OR
Share it: