Is Obama is another Julius K. Nyerere? A one democratic party?
My suspicion that he IS like another Julius K. Nyerere. I mean, I just read the one-party democratic government. I am not here to discriminate anyone, but I am here to tell that our country is being violated, being perverted, and our rights can be turned around into a one party government. Even the marshal law has been increased to where cops can carry an assault rifle. Is America are preparing for a New World Order? What's your opinion?
Did Hillary Clinton and the Democrats lose because of identity politics?
I'm neither a democrat, Republican nor American for that matter. But over the last 2 decades of watching American politics I'll give you the what makes democrats win and loose. Lack of conviction. Democrats believe in principals but are willing to compromise and “do what's best” this produces good governments. Republicans do what they believe is right and is all that matters they will lie, cheat, steal. Tell you the sky is green over and over and over if it gets the result they want. They will preach God and Country and comfortably follow a man like Donald Trump because it helps their cause. No negotiation, no compromise, no guilty conscious. They somehow have an ability to be fervent in a cause they couldn't care less about because it will get them the win. This makes them great at winning elections and poor at governance. So you will generally get a cycle that works like this, years of being told democrats are destroying America, then a republican wins and makes a right old mess, so you go democrat things get better somewhat but republicans tell you the opposite. You believe it and vote Trump. Hooray. In short they lost because they were not prepared to win at any cost, had their government made use of the Russia information the way Republicans would have Trump would not be here but good old boy scout Barack felt it would not be fair.I would like to find out if that cycle has ever been broken, as in Dems or Reps running 3–4 terms consecutively?
How do you explain Barack Obama's rise to the American Presidency, given his unconventional background?
I accredit it to five things:Bush/GOP-exhaustion. Any Democrat was gonna' win. This meant that the Dems could go with someone really non-mainstream like a woman or a black man and get elected. I would have preferred the lady. America took the black guy. Either way, it wasn't gonna be the old man and the moron from Alaska. The promise of change. For realz, people believed this. It wasn't just the message of change, the guy really was different. He looked different, sounded different, had a different name, different background. For many historic changes to happen, there are moments when different matters and at that moment, it was a great thing.Because he really was a great candidate. Obama -- despite his funny name and darkish complexion -- really was a different kind of candidate. Go back and watch his campaign. He just came across fresh and idealistic. He gave incredible speeches and did very well in debates. Hillary was too long in politics to be that wide-eyed and spritely. The need to prove something. I know MANY middle-conservative white voters who voted for Obama because because, in many ways permitted by the above bullet-points, white people just wanted to finally be able to say, "There, we did it. We elected a black guy!"The Democratic machinery shifted gears. Hillary had that shit locked up tight. But somewhere along the way, the quite insiders began to think, "We don't want a dynasty and -- hey -- there's this guy that ticks four boxes: liberal change, black guy, anti-Bush, super-different. I think we should go with him. Keep in mind that the most controversial bullet point above may well be the "need to prove something" because it may appear that I'm saying, "people voted for him 'cause he's black." Which is silly. It ain't the ONLY reason, but it is a contributing factor. To act like it's an offensive reason -- when for centuries the only reason we voted for X guy was because he was (a) a man, (b) white, (c) christian, (d) protestant and (e) from XYZ state -- is hypocritical. People wanted CHANGE and Obama was the very personification of that change.
Why did white Americans vote for President Obama twice? Was it his experience as a Senator, their preference to him vs. other candidates, because he’s a Democrat, or because they wanted to show they aren’t racist?
It is bordering on disrespectful for you to think that something as serious as a Presidential election would be decided on this basis. Competence matters in this job. He's only leading a huge, powerful country with nuclear weapons.I voted for him because he seemed to be the most dynamic candidate in the first election, with experience being both rich and poor, and with management of people who were not required to do their jobs with community organizing. He also voted against the second Iraq War and was one of the few to do so and to question the intelligence.This is a very valuable skill. I'd watched John McCain for many years and he'd gone from being a strong, eclectic, logical moderate, who I sometimes disagreed with, to man aimlessly wandering around, having trouble expressing himself, and parroting overly conservative ideas without much more than talking points to explain his change of heart.For the second, it was because the alternative was again, not better. I hadn't liked many aspects of Mr. Obama's performance, but Mr. Romney lacked insight into others, and considered himself better than others. He also considered substandard working conditions for garment workers in another country to be acceptable and to be OK for this country. It's extremely important to me that candidates be concerned for the quality of life for their citizens. Mr. Romney had no such concerns. I don't want third world working conditions in the US. Not until the third world improves drastically.