Yet he lead Clinton by 20% over the question of special interest group influence.

I've seen people on DU mention Trump winning on immigration and terrorism, but the Pew poll didn't support that notion (except moderately on terrorism). On race relations, she was ahead of Trump by 40% -- 66% to 26%!

When she was seen courting money from big donors while promising they'd have little influence over her, even I didn't believe her... and I eagerly voted for her on the first day of early voting in Ohio! (Mostly because she was running against Trump.)

Comey's bullshit announcement of "reopening the email investigation" didn't help, and MAYBE the Russians actually helped steal the election for Trump too. The decades-long Republican witch hunt against her? That didn't help either.

It's still ludicrous (to me) that polls indicated a close general election against Trump, and I think concerns about big money influence played a role this time just like in 2008. If you watch the video that I posted, the talking heads spoke of Obama's 2008 campaign in similar terms to Trump's 2016 campaign -- e.g., "anti-establishment."

About non white men getting power.

If they have a problem with establishment why did so many vote against feingold ?

California went huge for Clinton because minorities make up majority.

between an election following a deeply unpopular and unsuccessful GOP president and an 8 yr Democratic president? The last time a Democrat won in such a situation was Harry Truman. Do you even know when that was?

If voters were so concerned about big money, WTF did they elect Trump? Polls also show the majority of Trump voters think unemployment went up under Obama. That doesn't make it true. It means the epic level stupidity of voters is destroying this country. It fact it already has.

Before you pretend to have some sort of expertise for the Democratic Party, learn a little American history.
That you equate the election of 2008 with 2016 with absolutely no awareness of the different contexts is astounding.

And that you and others keep arguing about this like it has any relevance to what we are facing now shows a bizarre disconnect. Are you paying any attention to what Trump is doing? How you and others can even imagine that the political situation will be similar in 2018 or 2020 astounds me. You can remain mired in the past and repeat every meme about the election you heard on television, but it is absolutely irrelevant to anything.

Anti-Democrats had an opportunity to stand up for policies designed to reduce the influence of money in politics and chose instead to vote against them. We've seen an enormously important issue of campaign finance reform reduced to dishonest rhetoric and personal attacks--somehow used almost exclusively against women and black candidates--while they no longer show any interest in changing the laws that make the situation possible. Those who claim to be too progressive to vote for Clinton chose to instead promote the election of someone who has appointed five billionaires to his cabinet and is using the presidency to enrich himself. What people claim to care about is irrelevant. Actions are what matter. They worked to elect a government by and for billionaires, and that is exactly what they got.

Black women voted feingold 90 percent but white men voted feingold 35 percent.

Feingold voted against trade. His big thing was getting money out of politics. If feingold is not good enough who is ?

Or we could admit it's his support for civil rights for all that offends some.

Trade is a different issue.

And there's no doubt in my mind that many people who voted for Trump will get the polar opposite of what they expected.

Yes, I know when Truman was elected. I'm also aware that FDR won four terms previous to his election. Why would you ask that question?

Ignoring polling evidence is a mistake. It might have been obvious to you and me that Trump was a bigger threat to the "common Joe" in this country, but his 20% lead on an issue that 93% of Americans consider to be a problem isn't something to sweep under the rug.

Obama also got less in 2012 than 2008.

He quickly lost some luster after appointing Timothy Geithner as his Secretary of the Treasury, among other things, although he still remained in the "favorable" category for me throughout his two terms.

He had to be since he is black and standards are higher.

and born in Kenya, or that unemployment went up during his presidency, totally move based on a single cabinet appointment.

Sorry for not making that more clear, especially since I've been mostly addressing the opinions of Americans in general throughout this thread.

Was it enough to make me consider Obama "unfavorable" overall? Most certainly not.

as though the only difference were the individuals running.
Those elections are not comparable for what should be the most obvious of reasons: Democrats were the incumbent party in 2016, so your comment about the candidates means little.

And in this year you're going to cite polls as some sort of absolute? I have no trouble believing that Trump voters believed that con man more credible on the question between money and politics. They believe all kinds of shit, most of it factually wrong. Clinton ran on policies designed to address the problem, whereas Trump did not. To pretend Clinton did not have those policies or didn't talk about the issue is factually false.

Trump had no policies on campaign finance reform, but he did have the kind of empty rhetotoric that has become all the rage. He treated campaign finance as a rhetorical insult, which is precisely how the anti-Democratic "left" deals with the issue, where blame for the system is placed entirely on one woman (or sometimes Corey Booker and Obama) rather than any concern for actual policy addressing the issue. The subtext is that women and African Americans corrupt a political system that needs to be "taken back." The anti-Clinton nitwits even insisted that she was beholden to Citizen United, when the suit itself was based on a political film that smeared Hillary Clinton. They imagine that If only the Democrats ran morally righteous candidates, the problem would disappear. Nevermind that at least one of the candidates they hold up diverted millions of campaign dollars to himself, but they are far more concerned with rhetoric than practice. Don't tell the truth. Don't propose thoughtful policy positions. Play to the ignorance of voters and become rich (or even richer) in the process. I have even seen the Vichy collaboration arguing that four years of Trump was worth shocking Democrats into breaking financial ties with big donors, as though that could possibly happen without changes in the law. I suppose it could if they want to ensure the Democrats are a permanent minority, and I suspect for some that is precisely what they want, particularly those on JPR who openly declare their mission the destruction of the Democratic Party.

They had their chance to vote to reform the campaign finance system and they chose to turn the national treasury over a conman. They don't 'get to then turn around and act self righteous when the fact is they voted against what they pretend to care about.
Moreover, the political situation is becoming more dire by the minute. You go ahead and keep focusing on already moot debates about the 2016 election. The rest of us are focused on trying to contain the damage of a fascist Manchurian president.

I never claimed that she didn't.

Trump talked about it too, blathering about how he was so rich (lol) that he didn't need money from big donors.

At least most Democrats (like me) believed that she'd tackle the problem more effectively, but a significant percentage of Democrats didn't show strong confidence:

About four-in-ten Democrats who supported Clinton in the Democratic primary are not sure she would be the best candidate to reduce the influence of lobbyists and special interests: 57% say she would do the better job on this issue, while 22% say Trump would do better and 16% volunteer that neither would. Views among Democrats who supported Bernie Sanders in the primary are little different: 46% think Clinton would do the better job, while 27% think Trump would and 23% volunteer that neither would.

Trump actually lost.