Obama Prefers a Republican President

American Thinker.com ^ | January 28, 2020 | Allen Gindler

[Kaslin]

During the 2016 presidential election, I had the feeling that Barack Obama was not very enthusiastic about the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. His rare rallies in support of Hillary were not energetic enough and were held in the same style. Obama told the audience about the successes of his administration, and in the end, he casually introduced Hillary and asked supporters to vote for her in the election. It seemed that he was simply fulfilling his duties to the party but would have preferred to spend time elsewhere.

A hypothesis was formed in my head that, in reality, Obama did not want Hillary to win and, if possible, sabotaged her election campaign. At first glance, this proposal seems unrealistic; however, even Hillary herself gently hinted that Obama could have used his time and authority more efficiently in supporting her.

In recent years, facts have been revealed that both support and refute this theory. Let us consider arguments in support of the suggestion. First of all, it should be noted that the Democratic Party was not homogeneous; it consisted of many clans and poles of influence. During the 2008 election campaign, the party was divided into two major camps: the left-centrist and more traditional wing supporting Clinton and the openly far-left, more energetic, and younger wing backing Obama.

These two wings were quite hostile to each other; their undercover bulldog fights often went outside. Clinton's clan considered Obama a new, inexperienced individual whose time had not yet come and who had the audacity to block the road to the future first female president. They tried to bring him down with all possible measures. For example, the movement that questioned Obama's birthplace and citizenship, so-called "birthers," originated among Clintonites. Only much later did this movement begin to include Republicans in its core.

[rollo tomasi]

Obama promoted State capitalism and globalism as well as a good portion of his foreign policy, especially Arab Spring campaign, resembled neocons’ ambitions.

[Impy]

Yes, I don’t think with the economy we could have won in 2008 even if McCain had not been a little bitch.

But 2012 was very winnable. Disastrous election, in the Senate races as well. I remember laughing at the idea of Trump 2012, lol at me. Unfortunately none of the other 2012 candidates strike me as winners either.

And yes, Obama is the only President to win reelection (to a 2nd term, FDR’s 3rd and 4th were reduced) with a reduced popular vote total and electoral vote.

Woodrow Wilson’s margin of victory, popular and electoral, was greatly reduced in 1916 because it was not a 3-way race, but his vote total and percentage of the popular vote went way up. Given that Wilson would have lost if the vote was not split in 1912 (that year he got fewer votes than the rats got in 1908), he actually improved his position.

If you wanna count it, Grover Cleveland’s 2nd non-consecutive term was won with a bigger margin and more raw votes than his first term but a smaller total share of the popular vote (there was a significant third party candidate).

Andrew Jackson was reelected with more votes, a larger popular margin, and more electoral votes, but a slightly smaller share of the popular vote (again there was a third party factor).

The popular vote was not a major factor at the time but James Madison was reelected in 1812 with reduced support. So we can say he’s the only President before Obama to get reelected with less support than he had the first time. Rather amazing stat if you think about it, every other President either lost or did better.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Zero should’ve been the easiest Demonrat Presidential candidate to beat in the history of the Republic. Absolutely no accomplishments as either a State Senator or U.S. Senator (for which he had barely served in the latter, and in the minority for half his time). An empty suit.

He had tried to have it both ways, hoping no one would notice, portraying himself as BOTH a foreign national (born in Kenya, from his own materials) and then lastly switching it to Hawaii when he realized claiming foreign birth would prevent his becoming President. That’s outright fraud, no different than Fauxcahontas. He had foreign governments bankrolling and supporting his educational career (red flags). He was mentored by actual domestic terrorists, had a premier Soviet sympathizer as his “de facto” father. He was raised a Mohammadan in a foreign nation (Indonesia) sent to a Mohammadan school and mislead or denied his religious sympathies.

He attended (for show) an anti-Christian racist “minister’s” SJW circus to get “street cred”, for which had a White candidate attended a church that preached similar doctrine in reverse would’ve been obliterated for.

And this just a few things. An actual candidate for the Republicans and even a half-retarded campaign manager could’ve destroyed this phony and dangerous nutter with ease. They simply didn’t want to, and let this guy spend 8 years “fundamentally changing America” for the worse (capping an additional 20 prior years of establishment corruption that ripped this nation to shreds).

[fieldmarshaldj]

The moment McQueeg said that, he showed his hand. The fix was in. A real party would’ve dragged his ass off the ticket that evening and replaced him with someone who was not a ringer.

I supported former Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating to be drafted for the role in 2008, because he was intimately familiar with Zero’s terrorist mentors during his time as an FBI agent and in a single segment interview on tv, he completely took Zero apart (and showed more concern and drive to win in 2 minutes than McQueeg ever did). He’d have run to win, and he’d have said, “We have EVERYTHING to fear from a President Obama. And let me tell you why...”

BTW, how long does anyone here think if the Dems put up a nominee that said, “We have nothing to fear from (Republican candidate)” the base would be rioting in the streets to have them stripped of the nomination ?

[SunkenCiv]

2008 and 2016 merely showed the race-centered civil war going on within the so-called Democratic Party. Hitlery got appointed Sec'y of State, ****ed the whole thing up, while simultaneously grifting her way across the world landscape, then was replaced by Lurch the 2004 loser and crook. Lurch is now sucking up to Biden in continuation of his pathetic march into irrelevance. Which his? Both.

• Trump's Support Among Black Voters Is TWICE As High As This Time Last Year

[GOPJ]

I have no idea why the elegant Obamas wouldn’t get along with the white trash Clintons... It’s a mystery. /s

[GOPsterinMA]

I support you for Secretary of Quackery.