Posted on 12/29/2016 8:16:51 AM PST by Kaslin
Still shell-shocked from his party's Nov. 8 beating, President Barack Obama said, "I'm confident that if I had run again and articulated it, I think I could've mobilized a majority of the American people to rally behind it" to win a third term.
When the upstart New York Jets' Joe Namath of the old American Football League upset the 19-point favorite Baltimore Colts of the National Football League, stunned the-NFL-is-still-superior sports pundits said things like, well, the Colts would have beaten the Jets nine times out of 10. But the Super Bowl isn't the best nine out of 10, is it?
Hillary Clinton lost. Obama backed her. He and first lady Michelle Obama campaigned hard for her. Obama even claimed that a Clinton loss would be an insult to his "legacy." Clinton still lost.
Besides, isn't Obama the same man who told us that "no one" was "more qualified" than Clinton to serve as president, including him? Never mind -- to offer just one example -- the first President Bush. George Herbert Walker Bush, when running for reelection against Bill Clinton in 1992, had served four years as president, eight years as vice president, as the head of the Republican National Committee, as head of the CIA, as United States ambassador to the United Nations, as a member the House of Representatives and as a decorated a World War II Naval aviator.
Obama, in making the prediction of his hypothetical third-term victory, argues that his policies are working just fine -- and the only problem is the irritating inability of voters not to understand this. They are simply not gifted enough to see it, or Clinton was not talented enough to make them. Here Obama clearly implies that he, as a better communicator than she, would've opened the voters' blind eyes and won the election.
The Obama-as-better-communicator argument arrogantly ignores the approximately two-thirds of Americans who say we're on the wrong track economically, with a similar number feeling the same way about foreign policy. It ignores the low labor force participation rate, reflected by the abandonment of the jobs market by working-age Americans who are frustrated by the most lackluster recovery since 1949.
Take Obamacare. It, maintains Obama, is a wonderful plan, even if it passed with no Republican support and only after an ocean of false promises. These promises included that it would bend the cost curve down; save the average household $2,500; and that if you liked your current plan or doctor, you could keep your plan or doctor.
Premiums went up, not down. Copays went up, not down. Same with deductibles. And yes, some of those who face hikes still get offsetting subsidies, but this just pushes the costs onto others. Who knew that providing health care insurance to 20 million by forcing insurance carriers to accept those with preexisting conditions; forcing carriers to allow parents to keep their "children" on their policies up to their children's 26th birthday; and regulating how carriers set premiums was going cost money?
Obama, a product of two Ivy League schools and the best private school in the state of Hawaii, still does not understand Economics 101, a common phenomenon with someone of his academic pedigree. But how to explain the cluelessness of his fellow non-elite, non-Ivy League educated Democrats? As with Obama, the left sees the world as they want it to be, or the world as it should be -- if they can only get the "obstructionist" Republicans out of the way. This is a most appealing perspective for a politician who survives by peddling this nonsense.
His "climate change" measures are also, according to Obama, working splendidly. Sure, the green-tech jobs that Obama promised did not materialize, and most of the government "investment" provided little if any return for the taxpayer. A devastating "60 Minutes" expose titled "The Cleantech Crash" reported that "the federal government has allocated a total of $150 billion to cleantech -- through loans, grants and tax breaks with little to show for it." Had such a televised piece exposing this outrageous "cleantech" boondoggle run in a Republican administration, the media would've cried for congressional investigations of the program's waste, fraud and abuse. But the President's climate-change crusade did not miss a beat.
In eight years out of office, President George W. Bush said virtually nothing about his successor, his successor's policies or even his own legacy. His father did likewise about his successor, Bill Clinton. But in the waning days of his presidency, Obama and his press secretary attacked his successor while criticizing his successor's cabinet choices. Obama even carps on Donald Trump's use of social media, specifically Twitter, which enabled Trump to go around the traditional anti-GOP media and beat Clinton while spending half as much money.
Compared to other presidents, Obama entered office as a young man and leaves as a young man. Hell hath no fury like a left-wing president, with plenty of sand left in his hourglass, out to preserve his "legacy."
The question is where his real approval ratings in the 50% to 55% range. I bet you they were at least 30% to high.
In his library, in a place of honor, will be his gold plated middle finger. A sign to all Americans.
Both Bushes founded companies....
FWIW-
While working for Dresser, G.H.W. Bush lived in various places with his family: Odessa, Texas; Ventura, Bakersfield and Compton, California; and Midland, Texas.[16] (According to eldest son George W. Bush, then age two, the family lived in one of the few duplexes in Odessa with an indoor bathroom, which they "shared with a couple of hookers".)[17] Bush started the Bush-Overbey Oil Development company in 1951 and in 1953 co-founded the Zapata Petroleum Corporation, an oil company that drilled in the Permian Basin in Texas.[18] In 1954 he was named president of the Zapata Offshore Company, a subsidiary which specialized in offshore drilling. In 1959, shortly after the subsidiary became independent, Bush moved the company and his family from Midland to Houston.[19] He continued serving as president of the company until 1964, and later chairman until 1966, but his ambitions turned political.
G.W. founded an oil company...Wasn't a good venture though...as oil wasn't booming then. He did invest some money in the Texas Ranger baseball club..and that worked out very well.
LOL!!!
Re: “Yeah...and we “know” polls are ALWAYS right!! LOL!!!”
The national polls in the six months before the 2016 election were actually very accurate for Clinton.
The Real Clear Politics (RCP) average for about 150 polls was Clinton beating Trump by 3.3%.
The final result was Clinton beating Trump by 2.1%.
On the other hand, the “polls” at Free Republic were wildly inaccurate.
I spend about one hour each day on Free Republic.
I read dozens of predictions that Trump would win the Popular Vote by a landslide.
However, I saw zero predictions that Trump would lose the Popular Vote, but he would win the Electoral Vote.
The polls projecting Hillary the winner...were all WRONG.
However, they would have been historically justified in predicting a Clinton victory.
Only one president in American history - Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876 - lost the Popular Vote by a larger percentage than Trump lost, but still won the Electoral Vote.
However, the 1876 election was one-of-a-kind.
It also had the largest voter turn out - 81.8% - in American history.
And pollster's can tell you anything they want to tell you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.