Wrong. He won because the War in Iraq and George W Bush were both grossly unpopular in 2008. And while he did run on "change", his candidacy was never as left wing as so called "progressives" claim it was. Lest we forget he ran to the RIGHT of Clinton on health care and immigration reform. He also opposed marriage equality, so yes he was…
Wrong. He won because the War in Iraq and George W Bush were both grossly unpopular in 2008. And while he did run on "change", his candidacy was never as left wing as so called "progressives" claim it was. Lest we forget he ran to the RIGHT of Clinton on health care and immigration reform. He also opposed marriage equality, so yes he was indeed "punching down." He was for upholding "social norms."
BTW most Democrats are in fact running on those issues that you claim to be populist. Heck, here in Virginia Abigail Spanberger who is a center left to centrist Democrat is running for Governor on raising the minimum wage to at least $15 per hour. Not to mention very strong union support, which says a lot in this so called "right to work" state.
It's like you didn't really read my comment at all.
I specifically pointed out that Obama was not a far left populist, pointing towards the goal being center-left. Saying I must be wrong because he wasn't as far left as some people say is completely missing the point.
Likewise, on policies I started off the whole thing by saying "A lot of things come down to how you package them" — that means it isn't just down to the policies but how it's pitched to voters.
It also depends on timing. FDR runs for President in 1928 using the same campaign he ran in 1932, he gets crushed electorally. It took the 1929 Wall Street Crash for the majority of Americans to be willing to go for basic federal social programs. Presuming Orange Slob is grossly unpopular in 2028 and/or we are in at minimum a recession, we have a MAJOR edge that year. Presuming of course that our nominee is not too far ahead of public option.
Wrong. He won because the War in Iraq and George W Bush were both grossly unpopular in 2008. And while he did run on "change", his candidacy was never as left wing as so called "progressives" claim it was. Lest we forget he ran to the RIGHT of Clinton on health care and immigration reform. He also opposed marriage equality, so yes he was indeed "punching down." He was for upholding "social norms."
BTW most Democrats are in fact running on those issues that you claim to be populist. Heck, here in Virginia Abigail Spanberger who is a center left to centrist Democrat is running for Governor on raising the minimum wage to at least $15 per hour. Not to mention very strong union support, which says a lot in this so called "right to work" state.
It's like you didn't really read my comment at all.
I specifically pointed out that Obama was not a far left populist, pointing towards the goal being center-left. Saying I must be wrong because he wasn't as far left as some people say is completely missing the point.
Likewise, on policies I started off the whole thing by saying "A lot of things come down to how you package them" — that means it isn't just down to the policies but how it's pitched to voters.
It also depends on timing. FDR runs for President in 1928 using the same campaign he ran in 1932, he gets crushed electorally. It took the 1929 Wall Street Crash for the majority of Americans to be willing to go for basic federal social programs. Presuming Orange Slob is grossly unpopular in 2028 and/or we are in at minimum a recession, we have a MAJOR edge that year. Presuming of course that our nominee is not too far ahead of public option.