It didn't help him keeping the House, as inspired people immediately start moping when they don't get all they want. Which btw. is generally why a two party system is favorable for conservatives: The only think liberals and progressives hate more than fascism is each other.
Except Obama won a filibuster proof majority for his first few months then wasted it trying to reach across the aisle to a party that told him to his face they wanted him to fail.
If he had rammed things through like repubs would have, people might actually believe Dems are good for something.
100% correct. But this is hindsight in a timeline where the tea party won and ended US democracy, knowledge people did not have when Obama would have been ramming down the things the left wanted, losing the moderates. Even in Trump 1 were still Reps defending what they had built with Obama.
While it may be hindsight, it is still not a lesson learned for our party. They still keep wasting time and energy trying to negotiate with an obstructionist party whose only job is to stop Dems from getting any wins. Until they give up this need for bipartisanship they will be ineffective.
Yes, and but this is already about Clinton, Biden and Harris. My comment was about Obama, the situation back then, and the liberal/progressive luxury of not voting out of spite.
If you think that helping France’s no fly zone in Libya was the same as sending hundreds of thousands of troops to invade Iraq, dunno what to tell you.
Comments
If he had rammed things through like repubs would have, people might actually believe Dems are good for something.
Making up a bunch of shit and just saying it: it works!