Interesting debate; if the candidates were to collide and lock horns who would rise?
To look at this debate we need to first lay out the facts and figures, then get into the nitty gritty topics of electoral opinions.
Through sheer numbers, Obama, campaigning on any two terms would have thrashed Trump, by at least 15million votes. In the 2008 elections the democratic candidate beat his opposition by over 10 million votes. However, whilst thats easy to say, whats difficult is that the candidate Obama had annihilated, Trump would have walked away a victor against. Both of them. Mit Romney and the weird smiley one, McCain.
What if Obama, ran for a third term. An idea which is obviously illegal under current US executive and presidential constraints. Nonetheless, let us dabble in limbo. This is trickier, as we’d have to employ the electoral mandates proposed at the time of the election, and weigh them up to current political attitude and climate to see how popular they would be. This would then assume an answer. Issues at hand at Obama’s 2008 election suggest he would be more popular to sway public opinion in the 2016 election. Campaigning for ‘change’ in many institutions, reactionary votes would arise from the bitterly loathed Bush era which still has social grievances to this day, and debate is regularly constructed from the Iraq war, and peoples attitude towards it. This is a critical limb under the Obama campaign in 2008, and would still ring loudly to the ears of the voters today.
However, Obama’s policy on economy was drowned out in his 2008 election, relative to the 2016 pivotal nature of Trump’s addressing on how ‘America always has the bad end of the deal’ rhetoric. Whilst Republicans would have felt this, on the fence voters would have too, especially voters with economy as a priority (taking into to consideration America’s generally rightwards leaning stance).
Healthcare is difficult to analyse as there are dividing opinion on the matter. There is a ‘however’ here somewhere, let me just check my coat for it.
In this case, the Affordable Care Act; nicknamed Obamacare would have won over against Trump’s proposal of nothing. Obamacare has hit a cord with voters in America, however the nickname has given act the bad rep, and many social studies have suggested that if Obama didn’t have his name on the banner, Republicans themselves would have propped the proposal. So, we’ll say Obama sort of wins here, but also takes a hit.
Race. In the Obama campaign running, Fox News uploaded a segment entitled “Stop picking on Obama’s Baby-mama.”, then apologised right after. There are two polarising arguments here. Obama’s strengthening spiel was his racial awareness, the ‘campaign for change’ argument, the ‘first black president’ argument and so forth. On the other side; Trump’s dogma comes from banning muslims, building a wall against Mexico, blocking refugees from entering and removing aid for impoverished and socially tormented nations. So, here, both have a fundamental backdropping on race related campaigning. On the other side of the coin though, Obama did this reluctantly. Obama wanted race not to be a distinguishable asset to him, and did this proactively, such as having a backdrop of white people behind him when addressing the black community, in an attempt to stay racially unaware. The underlying victory for Obama here is; Obama was reluctant to use race, but it still played in his favour (for whatever reason, it doesn’t matter here), but Trump advertently went out of his way to profess racial issues and divisions, but still didn’t make as much impact as Obama did.
Sadly, I think the picture has been painted here.
Obama, through his political charisma and focus on issues raised above has raced to lead early on in the debate, therefore the need to carry on isn’t one I’m about enjoy. Nope. Obama would have won, and easily may I add.