> He had two years where he had legislative power, and spent that time shoring up the US economy after the financial crisis and passing healthcare reform.
Respectfully, he shored up the banks that had precipitated the crisis rather than the people most affected by the crisis. Some will call that virtuous and necessary, or 'deeply unfair' and necessary (Timothy Geithner), but the people who benefited are not the people who voted last night.
As for healthcare reform, he chose health insurance rather than health care. From the point of view of most of the people who voted last night, that means another bill to pay, not better healthcare.
He invested his power, to the degree he had it, more in keeping things the same than in the change people voted him in for.
Obamacare is a compromise and it's a compromise required because of the Republican party, there was never enough votes to get real health care legislation. So: not Obama's fault, though it is the fault of the Democratic party letting the Republicans gerrymander themselves to a consistent house majority
Until 2010, the Democrats held control of the House, Senate, and White House. At least consider the possibility that they accomplished what they wanted to accomplish.
The ACA was passed with 0 votes from Republicans in the House or Senate, and there was a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. There was no need or desire for real comprise on the ACA.
In fact, after it passes, Speaker Pelosi and Senate majority leader Reid had a little parade where they gloated about getting it through without Republicans.
> Respectfully, he shored up the banks that had precipitated the crisis rather than the people most affected by the crisis. Some will call that virtuous and necessary, or 'deeply unfair' and necessary (Timothy Geithner), but the people who benefited are not the people who voted last night.
Well, even the collapse of Lehman Brothers meant an enormous shock. Given the scale of the crisis, it's very impressive how well the US came out of it, and that is to a significant degree down to his policy. That is, consistent growth for the interim period, and high levels of private sector job growth (up 12 million over the course of his Presidency, compared to a fall for President Bush). That is important for every ordinary individual in the country. It's all very well saying 'he should have let all the banks fail' in retrospect, with the actual prospect of that actually happening.
Also, I'm not just talking about the banking measures in the crisis, but about the moderate banking reforms he put in place, and also about the stimulus bill, which was painted as apocalyptic by the Republican leadership, but which actually seems to have helped a lot.
> As for healthcare reform, he chose health insurance rather than health care.
Well, most European countries have health insurance systems, which work well. The Dutch and the Germans have that system. The French have an insurance system for people earning over a certain level. He chose a moderate reform (which had already been trialled by a Republican in Massachusetts) presumably with the idea that it would be a fairly uncontroversial but significant step to get to universal coverage, which few people would seriously disagree with, and which could then be built on in future. Presumably remembering Hillary Clinton's failure to put a much more ambitious scheme in place two decades earlier. He probably misjudged the mood, should have reconciled himself to the inevitability of being presented as a hate figure, and done a more root and branch reform. Again, easy to say in retrospect.
Respectfully, he shored up the banks that had precipitated the crisis rather than the people most affected by the crisis. Some will call that virtuous and necessary, or 'deeply unfair' and necessary (Timothy Geithner), but the people who benefited are not the people who voted last night.
As for healthcare reform, he chose health insurance rather than health care. From the point of view of most of the people who voted last night, that means another bill to pay, not better healthcare.
He invested his power, to the degree he had it, more in keeping things the same than in the change people voted him in for.