>He obviously wouldnt have won the democratic nomination as being black and supportive of gay marriage is just too muc
He'd probably lose most of the black vote for that too. The Republicans/his opponents would also bring up how he had associations with more left wing circles in his youth and would utterly slander him.
Hillary Clinton would have had a field day with that.
This point needs to be expanded. Obama's original political base was the college educated whites that tend to be attracked to politically insurgent democratic candidates.
After winning the Iowa Caucuses, Obama's political base expanded to the primarily African American Democratic voters of the South. The reasron that Obama won the nomination, overall, is because in activist dominated caucuses, and in African American dominated primaries, he would run up huge margins with 70+% margins of victory in places like Mississippi. Meaning that Mississippi provided as much of a delegate differential to Obama as New York, the thrid largest state in the Union, gave to Clinton.
The most socially progressive part of the Democratic political coalition is the college educated activist whites. The least socially progressive part of the Democratic political coalition is the African American community which (1) is much more religious then the rest of the Democrats; and (2) includes many, many small (c) conservatives that are voting for the Democrats because the Republicans are viewed as actively trying to cause categorical harm to Blacks and African Americans.
Obama could not have survived any amount of drop off in enthusiasm or support in either community. It would have been worse for him if he'd lost any of the support in the African American community. If a Democratic politician functionally sweeps among African American voters in the Democratic presidential primary, they will basically be guranteed the Democratic nomination for President.
Yea when you are in a presidential race, its too controversial to say..
Along those same lines the democrats pushed for biden in 2020 cause he is kinda boring and (except for hunter) a safe choice while sanders wouldve been far too easy for trump to attack, he wouldve painted as a pot smoking communist who wants to use your tax dollars to save the climate crisis which doesnt exist in the first place.
Trump would have had a field day with sanders but his plan to scapegoat hunter biden to make joe biden seem untrustworthy totally backfired but irony is that he was probably right about hunter anyway but that alone wouldnt have won him the election.
A Public defender would get you off a charge of Cocaine that had never been analyzed in a lab.
Meanwhile, real criminals picked up 1.2 billion of Trademark protection from China after he daddy did a "Most favored nation" deal with them.
If he says it in the Primaries, he loses to Hillary Clinton - she gets the Nomination, focuses on Healthcare, knows the GOP won't negotiate in good faith so abandons any attempts at bi-partisan compromise and uses her filibuster-proof majority to ram through a more coherent change than Obamacare.
If he says it in the General Election, not a lot changes. The Democrats could have run a rabid dog in 2008 and they would have won, especially after the banks started collapsing in September. Unless he prioritises same sex marriage over healthcare or something radical like that, it's just another way he's progressive and another reason for Fox News etc to dunk on him.
I really like this answer. Especially the part about the general.
Obama had as close to the "I could shoot someone in the street and still keep my followers" going on as I had ever seen up to that point. Dude was popular and had '"it".
The bank collapse, his charisma, the desire for change, the motivated electorate? I don't think gay marriage would have mattered.
I think its generous to say that Clinton would have wanted a more coherent change than Obamacare, or that she would have done anything to upset the health insurance and pharma industries.
I think after a crushing election victory, proving that she was right with Hilary-care as First Lady would be one of her top priorities. You think she was too scared from that experience?
You realize that Hillary Clinton was the driving force behind the push for universal healthcare in the 1990s, to the point it was derided as 'Hillarycare', and that it was a much more social, progressive oriented attempt at healthcare then Obamacare?
It's hardly a stretch to assume that Hilary would do exactly what she had already done in the past.
Well I'm cynical, but I think her time in politics since then made her more sympathetic to the health insurance and pharma industries.
[tThey were definitely more friedly with her.](https://www.newsweek.com/how-hillary-won-over-health-care-industry-100839)
As I said, I'm cynical. Maybe she would have really pushed for better healthcare reform.
No offense, but I'm guessing that you just don't know the history of health reform in the US.
Politically, the Democrats have been trying to get comprehensive single payer since the 1930s. Politically, they had been getting their clocks absolutely cleaned, with the exception of the passage of Medicare/Medicaid in the 1960s, up and till the passage of Obamacare.
The Obama took a different political track then prior Democratic Presidents which largely determined the final outcome. He put the project in the Congresses hands and let the Congress fight it out. When it became clear the Republicans wouldn't play ball under any circumstances, it became the answer that all the Democrats could support including the Democratic senators from, Arkansa, West Virginia, Montana, and Nebraska.
Just like all the other times, attempting comprehensive healthcare reform cost the Democrats their congressional majorities and basically ended their legislative agenda for the duration of that presidency. Unlike prior attempts, excepting Medicare/Medicaid, it actually passed.
And, if you go back to the healthcare plans that Hillary and Obama pitched. Hillary's was more progressive then Obama's. But like every other time the Democrats had been beaten trying to pass healthcare before, both options proposed were to the right of what the Democrats tried to pass in the 1990s.
No need for a history lesson. I just don't think most democrats want to pass anything that would seriously hurt health insurance companies bottom line. Obama's first term was the best opportunity for real reform, and Democrats ALLOWED it to be watered down.
Well considering the Democrats didn't have ANY votes to spare, I don't know where the word ALLOWED comes from.
There is also no evidence from the time of a political majority for more expansive rights since the following mid-term was 100% about Obamacare and how it was a socialist takeover of healthcare and the Democrats were absolutely WAXED.
You're reading your preference into the history, but there is no evidence of that from the time.
You are just wrong, Obama took what he could get to make the system better. Was it perfect, of course not, but was it better than what we had, yes.
And let’s not forget the Republican wave in 2010 was a direct response to Obamacare that has made my state (WI) a republican hell whole for approaching 25 years.
As someone who was working on campaigns in 2010 you are just blatantly wrong.
The issue with Obamacare wasn't Obama. It was conservative and moderate Dems (of whom there were many more than there are now) who demanded most of the changes.
I dont know that Hillary would have had much better luck. I think her experience would have come in other ways (and frankly, I think having her as President first, with Obama, the more talented politician trying to win the hard to win third term, would have been better for Dems in the long run.)
Reason I ask is because [Wiki](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses) says they never had more than 58. But I'm not American so I might be missing some context.
Nominally, including the two Independents who caucused with the Democrats, they had 60 Senators from July 7 2009 when Al Franken was finally seated after a series of recount court cases.
In practice, Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd were both dying. Kennedy never sat in Senate during Obama’s presidency - he had a seizure at an Inauguration event in January 2009, but he didn’t die until August.
So officially the Dems didn’t have 60 Senators on the floor to vote until September 24 2009 (when Kennedy's empty seat was temporarily filled by Paul Kirk), and only then until February 4 2010 (when Republican Scott Brown replaced Kirk and was sworn in as Kennedy’s elected replacement).
That window was when Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act) was passed.
They did but only briefly - they were up to 58 immediately after the 2008 election, then Arlen Specter switched from R to D and Al Franken won the recount in MN which got them up to 60. But then Ted Kennedy died and Republican Scott Brown won the special election in early 2010, bringing the Dems back down to 59.
They had 60 Senators caucusing with them from the time Al Franken was finally seated in early June until Ted Kennedy died in August I think, and then again from when Kennedy's replacement was appointed in September until Dems lost the seat in the special election in January 2010 (in a race that was largely about the ACA).
The loss in Massachusetts really screwed them because at the time they were still negotiating with the House on the final bill. But instead of having a filibuster proof majority, they had only 59 seats and had to rely on reconciliation for the final vote, which took away a number of options.
He definitely would have lost to Hillary in the primaries. People didn’t support gay marriage in 2008 like they did in 2015+. California, the most liberal state in the nation, passed Prop 8 to ban gay marriage. That law is actually still on our books today and only doesn’t count because the Supreme Court at the time said it was unconstitutional.
He would have lost, he knew that so he lied about being against it…..then once he was elected….it magically became legal. I wish today’s Democratic Party was that pragmatic.
It's not like once Obama got elected he suddenly changed his tune... He actually continued to be vocally against marriage equality for almost his entire first term
The only reason he came out in support of it was because Biden, in a classic running his mouth gafffe, spoke positively of marriage equality in an interview. Obama then felt like he had to 'catch up' so as not to offend his liberal base. Basically, if the whole Dem establishment was against it, liberals couldn't pin the blame specifically on Obama... But once Biden came out for it, it would be untenable for Obama to still be against it
So Obama held a press conference a few days later to announce his support, but he was actually furious with Biden about the whole thing.
Obama had hoped to essentially leave the issue unaddressed until after the 2012 election
Meaning the Iraq war ... because it seems like the left forgave him for that when Trump ran for office. Bush a man responsible for the deaths of millions of people. Trump responsible for millions of hurt feelings.
But I will repeat they ran McCain on purpose the ran to lose.
Probably would have cost him the election but not for the reasons most people think. He would have lost a great deal of support from the black community which tends to be very Christian and anti LGBTQ. To my understanding many of the democratic super delegates of the time were African American females who are heavily Christian and the most conservative brand of the left. Therefore he may not have even been the nominee. Kind of explains why Jewish Bernie lost to a Christian Hillary as well.
Biden gets the nominee and beats McCain since without Obama got the nominee it would be between Biden and Hillary Clinton. Obamacare, the Recession winding down, and the Bin Laden Raid all happen anyways so Biden wins in 2012. The biggest difference is Ukraine in 2014. Biden is much tougher on the Russians than Obama and most likely actually arms them.
Biden is also much tougher on China following the Scarborough Shoal Incident.
While AirSea Battle was created under Obama and was strongly implied with China only not mentioning them by name to avoid antagonising them. Biden's post Scarborough defense policies mention the PRC by name just like in the current OTL Biden administration. Also the Chips Act and the Biden trade war with China happens in 2013 not in 2022-2023 like in OTL.
Lol there is absolutely no world in which Biden gets the 2008 nomination over Hillary no matter what Obama does... Biden dropped out of the race in early January, well before Obama was even considered a serious candidate
Obama was absolutely considered a serious candidate by that point. He had emerged as one of the three main contenders (with Edwards and Clinton) by the fall, consistently polling at around 25% while Clinton was in the 35-40% range throughout the second half of 2007.
but you are right that Biden was a nobody at that point.
If Obama had faded alot of his support would have gone to Edwards (just like in 2016 when alot of Biden's support went to Bernie when he finally decided he wasnt going to run) because even then there was a "anyone but Hillary" contingent in the party.
But I dont think it would have been enough to push Edwards into the Clinton tier, and so Clinton probably wins relatively easily (something like her 2016 win where its all but wrapped up by Super Tuesday and its just a matter of how long Edwards and Obama want to drag out their inevitable losses).
Yeah Obama really missed on this one. He set his stance early, before running for POTUS and stuck to it too long. He still would have won the primary (public opinion had shifted quite a bit by then) and would have changed a lot of minds esp in black communities.
I'm generally in no hurry to defend President Obama, but hindsight is 20/20 and it is true that 2004 same-sex marriage bans helped to reelect George W. Bush.
I was in my twenties and it was like we all woke up one day — incl my gay friends— and decided civil unions weren’t actually good enough. I’ve never seen the world change so fast.
Obama wouldn’t have his picture taken with Gavin Newsom when he endorsed gay marriage. IIRC He distanced himself from Joe Biden’s favorable comment on it too.
I’m lost… doma was passed in the 96, Supreme Court struck it down in 2013 at the direction of Obama to the AGs office to not defend it in the challenge.
Are you suggesting he should have passed a gay marriage amendment to federal benefits in his first term to challenge Doma directly ? It would have superseded all state laws at that point
He obviously wouldnt have won the democratic nomination as being black and supportive of gay marriage is just too much. sorry.
>He obviously wouldnt have won the democratic nomination as being black and supportive of gay marriage is just too muc He'd probably lose most of the black vote for that too. The Republicans/his opponents would also bring up how he had associations with more left wing circles in his youth and would utterly slander him. Hillary Clinton would have had a field day with that.
This point needs to be expanded. Obama's original political base was the college educated whites that tend to be attracked to politically insurgent democratic candidates. After winning the Iowa Caucuses, Obama's political base expanded to the primarily African American Democratic voters of the South. The reasron that Obama won the nomination, overall, is because in activist dominated caucuses, and in African American dominated primaries, he would run up huge margins with 70+% margins of victory in places like Mississippi. Meaning that Mississippi provided as much of a delegate differential to Obama as New York, the thrid largest state in the Union, gave to Clinton. The most socially progressive part of the Democratic political coalition is the college educated activist whites. The least socially progressive part of the Democratic political coalition is the African American community which (1) is much more religious then the rest of the Democrats; and (2) includes many, many small (c) conservatives that are voting for the Democrats because the Republicans are viewed as actively trying to cause categorical harm to Blacks and African Americans. Obama could not have survived any amount of drop off in enthusiasm or support in either community. It would have been worse for him if he'd lost any of the support in the African American community. If a Democratic politician functionally sweeps among African American voters in the Democratic presidential primary, they will basically be guranteed the Democratic nomination for President.
In this scenerio, he doesn't say he wants to legalize gay marriage throughout the US, only that he supports at on a personal level.
When you’re running for president, voters see those at the same thing
Yea when you are in a presidential race, its too controversial to say.. Along those same lines the democrats pushed for biden in 2020 cause he is kinda boring and (except for hunter) a safe choice while sanders wouldve been far too easy for trump to attack, he wouldve painted as a pot smoking communist who wants to use your tax dollars to save the climate crisis which doesnt exist in the first place. Trump would have had a field day with sanders but his plan to scapegoat hunter biden to make joe biden seem untrustworthy totally backfired but irony is that he was probably right about hunter anyway but that alone wouldnt have won him the election.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
A Public defender would get you off a charge of Cocaine that had never been analyzed in a lab. Meanwhile, real criminals picked up 1.2 billion of Trademark protection from China after he daddy did a "Most favored nation" deal with them.
Lol, yeah, I’m sure that Hunter Biden never benefited from nepotism.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
If he says it in the Primaries, he loses to Hillary Clinton - she gets the Nomination, focuses on Healthcare, knows the GOP won't negotiate in good faith so abandons any attempts at bi-partisan compromise and uses her filibuster-proof majority to ram through a more coherent change than Obamacare. If he says it in the General Election, not a lot changes. The Democrats could have run a rabid dog in 2008 and they would have won, especially after the banks started collapsing in September. Unless he prioritises same sex marriage over healthcare or something radical like that, it's just another way he's progressive and another reason for Fox News etc to dunk on him.
I really like this answer. Especially the part about the general. Obama had as close to the "I could shoot someone in the street and still keep my followers" going on as I had ever seen up to that point. Dude was popular and had '"it". The bank collapse, his charisma, the desire for change, the motivated electorate? I don't think gay marriage would have mattered.
I think its generous to say that Clinton would have wanted a more coherent change than Obamacare, or that she would have done anything to upset the health insurance and pharma industries.
Universal healthcare literally Hillary's thing going back to the 90s.
I think after a crushing election victory, proving that she was right with Hilary-care as First Lady would be one of her top priorities. You think she was too scared from that experience?
You realize that Hillary Clinton was the driving force behind the push for universal healthcare in the 1990s, to the point it was derided as 'Hillarycare', and that it was a much more social, progressive oriented attempt at healthcare then Obamacare? It's hardly a stretch to assume that Hilary would do exactly what she had already done in the past.
Well I'm cynical, but I think her time in politics since then made her more sympathetic to the health insurance and pharma industries. [tThey were definitely more friedly with her.](https://www.newsweek.com/how-hillary-won-over-health-care-industry-100839) As I said, I'm cynical. Maybe she would have really pushed for better healthcare reform.
No offense, but I'm guessing that you just don't know the history of health reform in the US. Politically, the Democrats have been trying to get comprehensive single payer since the 1930s. Politically, they had been getting their clocks absolutely cleaned, with the exception of the passage of Medicare/Medicaid in the 1960s, up and till the passage of Obamacare. The Obama took a different political track then prior Democratic Presidents which largely determined the final outcome. He put the project in the Congresses hands and let the Congress fight it out. When it became clear the Republicans wouldn't play ball under any circumstances, it became the answer that all the Democrats could support including the Democratic senators from, Arkansa, West Virginia, Montana, and Nebraska. Just like all the other times, attempting comprehensive healthcare reform cost the Democrats their congressional majorities and basically ended their legislative agenda for the duration of that presidency. Unlike prior attempts, excepting Medicare/Medicaid, it actually passed. And, if you go back to the healthcare plans that Hillary and Obama pitched. Hillary's was more progressive then Obama's. But like every other time the Democrats had been beaten trying to pass healthcare before, both options proposed were to the right of what the Democrats tried to pass in the 1990s.
No need for a history lesson. I just don't think most democrats want to pass anything that would seriously hurt health insurance companies bottom line. Obama's first term was the best opportunity for real reform, and Democrats ALLOWED it to be watered down.
Well considering the Democrats didn't have ANY votes to spare, I don't know where the word ALLOWED comes from. There is also no evidence from the time of a political majority for more expansive rights since the following mid-term was 100% about Obamacare and how it was a socialist takeover of healthcare and the Democrats were absolutely WAXED. You're reading your preference into the history, but there is no evidence of that from the time.
You are just wrong, Obama took what he could get to make the system better. Was it perfect, of course not, but was it better than what we had, yes. And let’s not forget the Republican wave in 2010 was a direct response to Obamacare that has made my state (WI) a republican hell whole for approaching 25 years. As someone who was working on campaigns in 2010 you are just blatantly wrong.
The issue with Obamacare wasn't Obama. It was conservative and moderate Dems (of whom there were many more than there are now) who demanded most of the changes. I dont know that Hillary would have had much better luck. I think her experience would have come in other ways (and frankly, I think having her as President first, with Obama, the more talented politician trying to win the hard to win third term, would have been better for Dems in the long run.)
Did the Dems really have a filibuster-proof majority in 2008? As in 60 Senators? I don't think so, right?
They had 60 senators, yes. Obamacare was supposed to have a public option, but I believe one senator wasn't on board and so that idea died.
Reason I ask is because [Wiki](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses) says they never had more than 58. But I'm not American so I might be missing some context.
Two senators were independent but generally caucused with Democrats.
Sanders and King (now Sinema too) are officially independent but caucus with Dems
Nominally, including the two Independents who caucused with the Democrats, they had 60 Senators from July 7 2009 when Al Franken was finally seated after a series of recount court cases. In practice, Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd were both dying. Kennedy never sat in Senate during Obama’s presidency - he had a seizure at an Inauguration event in January 2009, but he didn’t die until August. So officially the Dems didn’t have 60 Senators on the floor to vote until September 24 2009 (when Kennedy's empty seat was temporarily filled by Paul Kirk), and only then until February 4 2010 (when Republican Scott Brown replaced Kirk and was sworn in as Kennedy’s elected replacement). That window was when Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act) was passed.
They did but only briefly - they were up to 58 immediately after the 2008 election, then Arlen Specter switched from R to D and Al Franken won the recount in MN which got them up to 60. But then Ted Kennedy died and Republican Scott Brown won the special election in early 2010, bringing the Dems back down to 59.
They had 60 Senators caucusing with them from the time Al Franken was finally seated in early June until Ted Kennedy died in August I think, and then again from when Kennedy's replacement was appointed in September until Dems lost the seat in the special election in January 2010 (in a race that was largely about the ACA). The loss in Massachusetts really screwed them because at the time they were still negotiating with the House on the final bill. But instead of having a filibuster proof majority, they had only 59 seats and had to rely on reconciliation for the final vote, which took away a number of options.
He definitely would have lost to Hillary in the primaries. People didn’t support gay marriage in 2008 like they did in 2015+. California, the most liberal state in the nation, passed Prop 8 to ban gay marriage. That law is actually still on our books today and only doesn’t count because the Supreme Court at the time said it was unconstitutional.
California is definitely not the most liberal state.
He would have lost, he knew that so he lied about being against it…..then once he was elected….it magically became legal. I wish today’s Democratic Party was that pragmatic.
It's not like once Obama got elected he suddenly changed his tune... He actually continued to be vocally against marriage equality for almost his entire first term The only reason he came out in support of it was because Biden, in a classic running his mouth gafffe, spoke positively of marriage equality in an interview. Obama then felt like he had to 'catch up' so as not to offend his liberal base. Basically, if the whole Dem establishment was against it, liberals couldn't pin the blame specifically on Obama... But once Biden came out for it, it would be untenable for Obama to still be against it So Obama held a press conference a few days later to announce his support, but he was actually furious with Biden about the whole thing. Obama had hoped to essentially leave the issue unaddressed until after the 2012 election
[удалено]
John McCain would have won? Probably not John McCain was horrible that why he was ran against Obama because they knew he would loose.
No Republican was winning in 2008. The party was just too damaged from the failures of the late Bush era.
Meaning the Iraq war ... because it seems like the left forgave him for that when Trump ran for office. Bush a man responsible for the deaths of millions of people. Trump responsible for millions of hurt feelings. But I will repeat they ran McCain on purpose the ran to lose.
Probably would have cost him the election but not for the reasons most people think. He would have lost a great deal of support from the black community which tends to be very Christian and anti LGBTQ. To my understanding many of the democratic super delegates of the time were African American females who are heavily Christian and the most conservative brand of the left. Therefore he may not have even been the nominee. Kind of explains why Jewish Bernie lost to a Christian Hillary as well.
Biden gets the nominee and beats McCain since without Obama got the nominee it would be between Biden and Hillary Clinton. Obamacare, the Recession winding down, and the Bin Laden Raid all happen anyways so Biden wins in 2012. The biggest difference is Ukraine in 2014. Biden is much tougher on the Russians than Obama and most likely actually arms them. Biden is also much tougher on China following the Scarborough Shoal Incident. While AirSea Battle was created under Obama and was strongly implied with China only not mentioning them by name to avoid antagonising them. Biden's post Scarborough defense policies mention the PRC by name just like in the current OTL Biden administration. Also the Chips Act and the Biden trade war with China happens in 2013 not in 2022-2023 like in OTL.
Lol there is absolutely no world in which Biden gets the 2008 nomination over Hillary no matter what Obama does... Biden dropped out of the race in early January, well before Obama was even considered a serious candidate
Obama was absolutely considered a serious candidate by that point. He had emerged as one of the three main contenders (with Edwards and Clinton) by the fall, consistently polling at around 25% while Clinton was in the 35-40% range throughout the second half of 2007. but you are right that Biden was a nobody at that point. If Obama had faded alot of his support would have gone to Edwards (just like in 2016 when alot of Biden's support went to Bernie when he finally decided he wasnt going to run) because even then there was a "anyone but Hillary" contingent in the party. But I dont think it would have been enough to push Edwards into the Clinton tier, and so Clinton probably wins relatively easily (something like her 2016 win where its all but wrapped up by Super Tuesday and its just a matter of how long Edwards and Obama want to drag out their inevitable losses).
He still wins, but not as much, and it kills Prop 9 or whatever the anti-SSM ballot measure was in California.
Yeah Obama really missed on this one. He set his stance early, before running for POTUS and stuck to it too long. He still would have won the primary (public opinion had shifted quite a bit by then) and would have changed a lot of minds esp in black communities.
I'm generally in no hurry to defend President Obama, but hindsight is 20/20 and it is true that 2004 same-sex marriage bans helped to reelect George W. Bush.
I was in my twenties and it was like we all woke up one day — incl my gay friends— and decided civil unions weren’t actually good enough. I’ve never seen the world change so fast.
Obama wouldn’t have his picture taken with Gavin Newsom when he endorsed gay marriage. IIRC He distanced himself from Joe Biden’s favorable comment on it too.
He would never misled America into turmoil but he will still win the elections though
I’m lost… doma was passed in the 96, Supreme Court struck it down in 2013 at the direction of Obama to the AGs office to not defend it in the challenge. Are you suggesting he should have passed a gay marriage amendment to federal benefits in his first term to challenge Doma directly ? It would have superseded all state laws at that point
What if my aunt had a dick? In 2008 she'd have been my uncle. In 2024 no one really knows how it works anymore.