4 ms·

He wasn't that anti-establishment. There were plenty of elected dems who were not that pro Clinton. Also Obama v Clinton race difference is she voted for the Ir

by bruceb 11y ago

He wasn't that anti-establishment. There were plenty of elected dems who were not that pro Clinton. Also Obama v Clinton race difference is she voted for the Iraq war which a sizable of dems were strongly against and Iraq was still going on. Now 8 years later anger has faded a bit and we don't see troops being killed. She is also Obama chosen candidate.

toyg 11y ago
8 years ago he was very much anti-establishment in message. "Change", "Hope" and "yes we can" were very much anti-establishment slogans in nature. The message changed post-primary, when he cut deals and adopted much of Hillary's platform and personnel, but he certainly defeated Clinton thanks to the combination of his outsider/anti-establishment credentials and his minority status (coupled with powerful oratory skills which are still on a different level). Whether part of the Dem establishment rode on his coat-tails, that's another story - what mattered was the perception of him being the anti-establishment underdog to the veteran Clinton (who, by then, had been extremely visible on the political scene for more than 15 years).
- mc32 11y ago
  Obama was not anti establishment. He was not upsetting the Democratic party. He was anti-Bush. All of that was a protest against the poor governance by Bush. Trump is anti establishment. He's not using the traditional method to nomination. He thumbs his nose at the Republican organs apparatchiks and nomenklatura. Trump is also not only anti-Obama but anti-career politicians and additionally is channeling middle class anger the way the BLM movement channel poor blacks anger. It's people who don't care much about religion or social conservatism but have been ignored and taken for granted for decades by both sides. He's basically the anti-"The Man" and before you day he's "the man" any successful movement requires support from a sympathetic part of the ruling or monied class who see their peers as being out of touch.

by bruceb 11y ago

toyg 11y ago

8 years ago he was very much anti-establishment in message. "Change", "Hope" and "yes we can" were very much anti-establishment slogans in nature. The message changed post-primary, when he cut deals and adopted much of Hillary's platform and personnel, but he certainly defeated Clinton thanks to the combination of his outsider/anti-establishment credentials and his minority status (coupled with powerful oratory skills which are still on a different level). Whether part of the Dem establishment rode on his coat-tails, that's another story - what mattered was the perception of him being the anti-establishment underdog to the veteran Clinton (who, by then, had been extremely visible on the political scene for more than 15 years).

mc32 11y ago
Obama was not anti establishment. He was not upsetting the Democratic party. He was anti-Bush. All of that was a protest against the poor governance by Bush. Trump is anti establishment. He's not using the traditional method to nomination. He thumbs his nose at the Republican organs apparatchiks and nomenklatura. Trump is also not only anti-Obama but anti-career politicians and additionally is channeling middle class anger the way the BLM movement channel poor blacks anger. It's people who don't care much about religion or social conservatism but have been ignored and taken for granted for decades by both sides. He's basically the anti-"The Man" and before you day he's "the man" any successful movement requires support from a sympathetic part of the ruling or monied class who see their peers as being out of touch.