PDA

View Full Version : Will we see a major Dem challenge Obama for the 2012 nomination?


Saul Good
01-23-2010, 08:43 AM
Hillary has been suspiciously quiet for at least the past 6 months. I think she knows that she will be way too old in 2016. Then, you see some Dems like Harold Ford doing their own thing and going against the party establishment. I've never seen an incumbent get a serious challenge in the primary, but I could see it happening this time.

Earthling
01-23-2010, 08:50 AM
Hillary is probably smiling in the shadows even now.

HonestChieffan
01-23-2010, 08:58 AM
She will have the goods on him

MarcBulger
01-23-2010, 09:09 AM
Doubtfullllll, if the did the blacks would turn onthe Dems in a heartbeat,,,Without the 95% black votes the Dems would be done...

Saul Good
01-23-2010, 09:10 AM
So you guys think Hillary is the most likely candidate? Who do you think the establishment will rally around?

If she decides that she really wants it, I think she'll start up a "grasroots" draft Hillary campaign to make it look like she's being dragged into the race against her wishes.

Saul Good
01-23-2010, 09:12 AM
Doubtfullllll, if the did the blacks would turn onthe Dems in a heartbeat,,,Without the 95% black votes the Dems would be done...

The Democrats could necklace the entire NAACP in Times Square, and they'd still get 90% of the black vote. All the Republicans ever did was free the slaves, start affirmative action, and vote for the ERA.

Chief Henry
01-23-2010, 09:16 AM
Time will tell. But if more media types drill into Obama like Mort Zuckerman did this morning on PMSNBC, the savior could see a challenger. if you guys can find that interview of Mort Zuckerman, its worth your time. Ol Morty laid into Barry HARD. The female interviewer actually sort of agreed with him too, and this was on PMSNBC !!!

ILChief
01-23-2010, 10:06 AM
0% chance

HonestChieffan
01-23-2010, 10:19 AM
Maybe Blago?

yuck yuck

Jenson71
01-28-2010, 01:31 AM
Absolutely not.

The Mad Crapper
01-28-2010, 04:43 AM
Remember B.O.'s goofy Office of the President-Elect seal? Ha ha.

whatsmynameagain
01-28-2010, 05:33 AM
grayson!
Posted via Mobile Device

Norman Einstein
01-28-2010, 06:20 AM
So you guys think Hillary is the most likely candidate? Who do you think the establishment will rally around?

If she decides that she really wants it, I think she'll start up a "grasroots" draft Hillary campaign to make it look like she's being dragged into the race against her wishes.

If Hillary should run in 2012 and beat out a sitting President who would be the best republican to throw up against her to guarantee a republican win?

blaise
01-28-2010, 06:27 AM
No, it would be suicide for the party. And if Hillary had designs on it she would have had to stay as a Senator, because she's basically removed from the public eye right now. She had 10X the exposure and platform as a Senator.

memyselfI
01-28-2010, 06:47 AM
She ruined her chance. Had she listened to me then she would be in position to make a run but noooooooo....

MGRS13
01-28-2010, 06:49 AM
She ruined her chance. Had she listened to me then she would be in position to make a run but noooooooo....
She never had a chance. not then. not now. get over your self.

stevieray
01-28-2010, 06:55 AM
She never had a chance. not then. not now. get over your self.

your self?

patteeu
01-28-2010, 07:50 AM
No, it would be suicide for the party. And if Hillary had designs on it she would have had to stay as a Senator, because she's basically removed from the public eye right now. She had 10X the exposure and platform as a Senator.

I don't think Hillary really needs the exposure. She's a first name celebrity like Tiger, Oprah, Madonna, and (at least for the old people) Cher. Without any significant diplomatic successes, I don't think being SecState will be much of a launching pad though.

blaise
01-28-2010, 08:11 AM
I don't think Hillary really needs the exposure. She's a first name celebrity like Tiger, Oprah, Madonna, and (at least for the old people) Cher. Without any significant diplomatic successes, I don't think being SecState will be much of a launching pad though.

She has the name, but in order for people to think he has some different view that would warrant a thing like changing candidates she would need almost a weekly platform for people to take note of what she says. It would have to be a situation where she let it be known implicitly by comments, TV face-time, and public debate on issues she'd do things differently and let it grow from there. It wouldn't work if all of a sudden she basically started a campaign for the nomination.
It wouldn't happen either way, I'm just saying if it even had a chance it would have to be a sort of public push toward it and that would mean she would need to be in the public eye more than she is. She's basically invisible now.

Direckshun
01-28-2010, 08:14 AM
This place is a veritable think tank sometimes.

blaise
01-28-2010, 08:14 AM
This place is a veritable think tank sometimes.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you stopped posting because of snide comments.

The Mad Crapper
01-28-2010, 08:15 AM
This place is a veritable think tank sometimes.

Did you believe anything B.O. said last night?

:drool:

The Mad Crapper
01-28-2010, 08:16 AM
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you stopped posting because of snide comments.

ROFL

He's a phoney like his hero, B.O.

Direckshun
01-28-2010, 08:20 AM
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you stopped posting because of snide comments.

Swing and a miss. I haven't stopped posting, and I have no trouble with snide comments.

Tell you what -- I'll make a bet once again to prove here that no conservatives actually believe this will happen, but are instead just saying this because it's some dumb fad you've embraced.

If there is a "major Dem challenge" to Obama in 2012, I get control of your signature for the rest of the existence of ChiefsPlanet.

If there isn't such a thing, you get mine.

Or, really, any other bet you want to come up with. That's how stupid this conjecture is.

If somebody's actually interested in putting their money where their baseless rumor mills are, let me know.

But we both know there won't be.

The Mad Crapper
01-28-2010, 08:23 AM
Swing and a miss. I haven't stopped posting, and I have no trouble with snide comments.

Tell you what -- I'll make a bet once again to prove here that no conservatives actually believe this will happen, but are instead just saying this because it's some dumb fad you've embraced.

If there is a "major Dem challenge" to Obama in 2012, I get control of your signature for the rest of the existence of ChiefsPlanet.

If there isn't such a thing, you get mine.

Or, really, any other bet you want to come up with. That's how stupid this conjecture is.

If somebody's actually interested in putting their money where their baseless rumor mills are, let me know.

But we both know there won't be.

ROFL

Keep your shoit on, lady.

blaise
01-28-2010, 08:26 AM
Swing and a miss. I haven't stopped posting, and I have no trouble with snide comments.

Tell you what -- I'll make a bet once again to prove here that no conservatives actually believe this will happen, but are instead just saying this because it's some dumb fad you've embraced.

If there is a "major Dem challenge" to Obama in 2012, I get control of your signature for the rest of the existence of ChiefsPlanet.

If there isn't such a thing, you get mine.

Or, really, any other bet you want to come up with. That's how stupid this conjecture is.

If somebody's actually interested in putting their money where their baseless rumor mills are, let me know.

But we both know there won't be.

You didn't recently say that you'd been posting less because of comments very much like the one you made yourself above?
And, dude, we've heard your swing and a miss line a few times now. Feel free to mix in some new material.

patteeu
01-28-2010, 08:26 AM
Swing and a miss. I haven't stopped posting, and I have no trouble with snide comments.

Tell you what -- I'll make a bet once again to prove here that no conservatives actually believe this will happen, but are instead just saying this because it's some dumb fad you've embraced.

If there is a "major Dem challenge" to Obama in 2012, I get control of your signature for the rest of the existence of ChiefsPlanet.

If there isn't such a thing, you get mine.

Or, really, any other bet you want to come up with. That's how stupid this conjecture is.

If somebody's actually interested in putting their money where their baseless rumor mills are, let me know.

But we both know there won't be.

Did you read the thread? blaise said he didn't think it would happen. Why would he make this bet with you?

ClevelandBronco
01-28-2010, 08:28 AM
Being out of the public eye right now is far from detrimental to anyone's presidential aspirations.

petegz28
01-28-2010, 08:28 AM
Obama would have to be ready to resign for a Dem to make a major challenge. No party is going to seriously challenge their own incumbent.

The Mad Crapper
01-28-2010, 08:29 AM
Ereckshun is throwing down the gauntlet! Just back off, everbody!

ClevelandBronco
01-28-2010, 08:32 AM
...If there is a "major Dem challenge" to Obama in 2012, I get control of your signature for the rest of the existence of ChiefsPlanet.

If there isn't such a thing, you get mine...

Getting a guy's sig is like him having to give you a ride to school every day.

Play for pinks, man.

patteeu
01-28-2010, 08:34 AM
Obama would have to be ready to resign for a Dem to make a major challenge. No party is going to seriously challenge their own incumbent.

Ted Kennedy challenged Jimmy Carter. Barack Obama is the closest thing we've had to Jimmy Carter since Carter himself. By the time it's all said and done, he may out-Carter Carter.

I don't expect it to happen, but with Hillary's ambition and Obama's pathetic first year, I won't dismiss the possibility either. I also won't dismiss the possibility that Obama could rebound and easily win a second term.

The Mad Crapper
01-28-2010, 08:35 AM
Ted Kennedy challenged Jimmy Carter. Barack Obama is the closest thing we've had to Jimmy Carter since Carter himself. By the time it's all said and done, he may out-Carter Carter.

Or B.O. can pull an LBJ and just quit.

Direckshun
01-28-2010, 11:34 AM
You didn't recently say that you'd been posting less because of comments very much like the one you made yourself above?
And, dude, we've heard your swing and a miss line a few times now. Feel free to mix in some new material.

No, I did not say that.

I'd do my usual swing/miss motif but I'm going to give you a chance to correct yourself before I do.

Direckshun
01-28-2010, 11:34 AM
Obama would have to be ready to resign for a Dem to make a major challenge. No party is going to seriously challenge their own incumbent.

There it is, Pete. You've answered your own question.

Thanks for the thread.

Direckshun
01-28-2010, 11:35 AM
Getting a guy's sig is like him having to give you a ride to school every day.

Play for pinks, man.

I don't know what that means.

Norman Einstein
01-28-2010, 11:37 AM
Swing and a miss. I haven't stopped posting, and I have no trouble with snide comments.

Tell you what -- I'll make a bet once again to prove here that no conservatives actually believe this will happen, but are instead just saying this because it's some dumb fad you've embraced.

If there is a "major Dem challenge" to Obama in 2012, I get control of your signature for the rest of the existence of ChiefsPlanet.

If there isn't such a thing, you get mine.

Or, really, any other bet you want to come up with. That's how stupid this conjecture is.

If somebody's actually interested in putting their money where their baseless rumor mills are, let me know.

But we both know there won't be.

What money? Sigs? jeesh

blaise
01-28-2010, 11:37 AM
No, I did not say that.

I'd do my usual swing/miss motif but I'm going to give you a chance to correct yourself before I do.

I don't need to correct myself. You said words to the effect that the level of discourse here had sunk to such a level that you lost interest in posting. I don't see how your previous post did anything to promote any kind of intelligent discourse. You can excuse it however you want to.

Donger
01-28-2010, 11:38 AM
Wouldn't a Democrat who challenged Obama in 2012 (if he chooses to run again) immediately be declared a racist?

Norman Einstein
01-28-2010, 11:40 AM
Obama would have to be ready to resign for a Dem to make a major challenge. No party is going to seriously challenge their own incumbent.

You are probably right, but if the economy keeps tanking and the dems want to retain the white house it might be necessary to flush.

Norman Einstein
01-28-2010, 11:41 AM
Wouldn't a Democrat who challenged Obama in 2012 (if he chooses to run again) immediately be declared a racist?

You should direct that question to KCNative, he is the resident who most frequently calls someone out as being racist.

Direckshun
01-28-2010, 12:10 PM
I don't need to correct myself.

Really? Because you've done it a few times already.

First it was:
I thought you stopped posting because of snide comments.
Then you felt the need to correct yourself by saying:

You didn't recently say that you'd been posting less because of comments very much like the one you made yourself

Then you felt the need to correct yourself once more:

You said words to the effect that the level of discourse here had sunk to such a level that you lost interest in posting. I don't see how your previous post did anything to promote any kind of intelligent discourse.

So let's call a spade a spade instead of trying to referee conversation.

Direckshun
01-28-2010, 12:14 PM
By the way, I don't have, and have never felt I have, the responsibility to make people "talk smart" around here. Because I prefer a better atmosphere for discourse doesn't mean it's my responsibility to somehow turn chicken shit into chicken salad.

If you folks want to be idiots, be idiots. I have zero responsibilities to anybody, including myself, on ChiefsPlanet other than post whatever I like whenever I like.

blaise
01-28-2010, 12:15 PM
Really? Because you've done it a few times already.

First it was:

Then you felt the need to correct yourself by saying:



Then you felt the need to correct yourself once more:



So let's call a spade a spade instead of trying to referee conversation.

Okay, call a spade a spade. I corrected my statement and you recently remarked that you had been posting less due to the less than desireable level of intellectual discourse. You then posted a comment in this thread that does nothing to add any level of intellectual discourse in any way shape or fashion.

Direckshun
01-28-2010, 12:17 PM
Okay, call a spade a spade. I corrected my statement and you recently remarked that you had been posting less due to the less than desireable level of intellectual discourse. You then posted a comment in this thread that does nothing to add any level of intellectual discourse in any way shape or fashion.

I don't have to add anything. It's not my responsibility to do any of that here.

I talk politics here, and I love to snark. Snarking ain't the problem I've had with DC recently.

blaise
01-28-2010, 12:18 PM
By the way, I don't have, and have never felt I have, the responsibility to make people "talk smart" around here. Because I prefer a better atmosphere for discourse doesn't mean it's my responsibility to somehow turn chicken shit into chicken salad.

If you folks want to be idiots, be idiots. I have zero responsibilities to anybody, including myself, on ChiefsPlanet other than post whatever I like whenever I like.

No you don't have to turn chickem shit into chicken salad, but don't lament chicken shit and then add horseshit to it. You're then just as much part of the problem as those you previously criticized.

blaise
01-28-2010, 12:19 PM
I don't have to add anything. It's not my responsibility to do any of that here.

I talk politics here, and I love to snark. Snarking ain't the problem I've had with DC recently.

Ok, explain the problem.

Direckshun
01-28-2010, 12:20 PM
Ok, explain the problem.

There is no problem. DC is a fully functional boilerplate of centrist opinion. Why would there ever be a problem?

blaise
01-28-2010, 12:23 PM
There is no problem. DC is a fully functional boilerplate of centrist opinion. Why would there ever be a problem?

Why have you been posting less?

alanm
01-28-2010, 12:32 PM
This place is a veritable think tank sometimes.It's scary isn't it? :eek::D

Direckshun
01-28-2010, 04:40 PM
Why have you been posting less?

Because the lines for the welfare that I desperately need to feed me and my eight homosexual children have been really, really long lately.

patteeu
01-28-2010, 04:47 PM
Now that Direckshun's back, this place is a lot more like a think tank. :p

Direckshun
01-28-2010, 04:50 PM
I'm really not even that smart of a guy. I never claimed to be.

I get shit wrong, that's fine. That's how it goes.

But I don't just say stuff to see how it sounds and waste bandwidth with it, which is what this thread is.

Norman Einstein
01-28-2010, 04:59 PM
I'm really not even that smart of a guy. I never claimed to be.

I get shit wrong, that's fine. That's how it goes.

But I don't just say stuff to see how it sounds and waste bandwidth with it, which is what this thread is.

Even more since you've joined in.

blaise
01-28-2010, 05:00 PM
Because the lines for the welfare that I desperately need to feed me and my eight homosexual children have been really, really long lately.

Oh, that's weird. I thought in another thread about a week ago you said it was because conservatives here were basically posting garbage. That's why I considered it so weird that you would come into a thread, not make any actual comment regarding the topic, and just make a comment that seems to be just more visual garbage not intended to further any real discussion.
But my mistake. I guess from now on we won't hear any lamenting from you about the level of debate here in DC and why you've been posting less because it wasn't up to your standards. That's good news, huh? Because then you might seem sort of hypocritical. Like I said. my bad. Carry on with the snide useless comments that you had previously seemed to decry but now embrace.

blaise
01-28-2010, 05:02 PM
I'm really not even that smart of a guy. I never claimed to be.

I get shit wrong, that's fine. That's how it goes.

But I don't just say stuff to see how it sounds and waste bandwidth with it, which is what this thread is.

Aside from me you've probably posted more in this thread than anyone.

ClevelandBronco
01-28-2010, 05:20 PM
...Play for pinks, man.

I don't know what that means.

Loser leaves.

Perhaps the reference is archaic. It refers to street drag racing for ownership of the loser's car.

banyon
01-28-2010, 05:24 PM
Harold Ford Jr. is done. He lost his TN Senate race and tied himself to Goldman Sachs. That's political poison for the near future.

|Zach|
01-28-2010, 05:26 PM
Will we see a major Rep challenge Obama for the 2012 election?

Chocolate Hog
01-28-2010, 05:29 PM
If there is no healthcare reform we'll see Howard Dean.

Saul Good
01-28-2010, 06:43 PM
There it is, Pete. You've answered your own question.

Thanks for the thread.

What the hell does this even mean? The only smart thing you've said in this thread is that you aren't that smart.

Saul Good
01-28-2010, 06:59 PM
Harold Ford Jr. is done. He lost his TN Senate race and tied himself to Goldman Sachs. That's political poison for the near future.

Maybe he should have tied himself to Fannie and Freddie.

Saul Good
01-28-2010, 07:00 PM
Will we see a major Rep challenge Obama for the 2012 election?

That's the million dollar question.

Norman Einstein
01-28-2010, 07:13 PM
That's the million dollar question.



Actually no, it's the trillions of dollars question.

Direckshun
01-28-2010, 07:21 PM
What the hell does this even mean? The only smart thing you've said in this thread is that you aren't that smart.

Pete starts a thread asking if we will see a major Dem challenge in 2012.

Pete then says of course not about 25 posts later.

Then I had some fun.

Really, it was a fascinating discussion.

Direckshun
01-28-2010, 07:22 PM
Loser leaves.

Perhaps the reference is archaic. It refers to street drag racing for ownership of the loser's car.

Gotcha.

Hell, I'd do that, too.

Take me up on it, anybody.

Saul Good
01-28-2010, 07:26 PM
Pete starts a thread asking if we will see a major Dem challenge in 2012.

Pete then says of course not about 25 posts later.

Then I had some fun.

Really, it was a fascinating discussion.

Please tell me you aren't this dumb. Even if you don't know why, apologize to Pete for your stupidity.

Saul Good
01-28-2010, 07:27 PM
Gotcha.

Hell, I'd do that, too.

Take me up on it, anybody.

Have you seen anybody predict that it will happen?

Saul Good
01-28-2010, 07:51 PM
How's this for timing? On Drudge:

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/peter-roff/2010/01/27/a-hillary-clinton-primary-challenge-to-obama-in-2012.html

A Hillary Clinton Primary Challenge to Obama in 2012?
January 27, 2010 04:42 PM ET | Peter Roff | Permanent Link | Print

By Peter Roff, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

When President Barack Obama asked New York Sen. Hillary Clinton to join his cabinet as secretary of state, the move was widely praised. Clinton, his principal rival for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, added a measure of gravitas to his team of advisers and would, it was suggested, help unite the president's party at a time the Republicans appeared to be on the verge of complete collapse.

At the time, comparisons were made to Abraham Lincoln. Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin recounts in her book Team of Rivals how the 16th president of the United States invited others who held leadership claims on the new Republican Party
into his cabinet in an effort to present a united front. But Lincoln's decision to invite his rivals for the 1860 Republican nomination--William H. Seward, Edward Bates, and Salmon P. Chase--into his administration was also a matter of political preservation. Their inclusion in the cabinet kept them inside the tent looking out rather than outside the tent looking in, forcing an alliance with Lincoln as the Union threatened to come apart.

It will be up to history to judge whether Obama's selection of Clinton falls in the same category. Whether it does or not depends on what Clinton decides to do.

She is not, unsurprisingly, speaking publicly about her intentions beyond saying, as she told PBS's Tavis Smiley in an interview that airs Wednesday night, that she is "absolutely not interested" in running again for president of the United States. But in the same interview Clinton also allows that her current job is a difficult and time-consuming one and that, while she is honored to have it, she cannot see herself serving in the same post in a second Obama administration.

The ongoing decline in the president's approval ratings has more than a few Democrats concerned. The Democratic defeats in the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial elections and the Massachusetts Senate race have a number of them running scared, in much the same way that the party's poor performance in 1978 helped propel Sen. Edward M. Kennedy forward to challenge incumbent President Jimmy Carter in 1980.

The chatter has increased in recent days about Clinton leaving the cabinet sometime in the first term, likely over some matter of principle, so that she can position herself to challenge Obama in 2012. Perhaps it is just wishful thinking on the part of those Democrats who have already grown tired of Obama. What is true is that Clinton can still mobilize the political infrastructure necessary to mount an effective challenge to the sitting president. A primary challenge against a sitting president whose approval numbers are above 50 percent and one mounted against an incumbent who is below 50 percent are two very different things, a fact of which the Clinton political team is surely aware.

Direckshun
01-28-2010, 08:44 PM
There couldn't be less material in there if you tried, SG. I mean, lord.

The one piece of actual evidence he has is Clinton's own words, which completely deflate his argument.

Listen, I don't care. If you guys want to follow this ridiculous strand, go for it.

But until someone takes me up on my bet, it's just grab ass. That's all it is.

Saul Good
01-28-2010, 09:02 PM
There couldn't be less material in there if you tried, SG. I mean, lord.

The one piece of actual evidence he has is Clinton's own words, which completely deflate his argument.

Listen, I don't care. If you guys want to follow this ridiculous strand, go for it.

But until someone takes me up on my bet, it's just grab ass. That's all it is.

I wasn't using it as proof nor even evidence. I just found the timing interesting. I still haven't seen anyone predict it. It just seems more likely to happen this time than any time in my life. Hillary wants to be president, and she isn't one to table her goals. She knows that she becomes less electable every year. It could get interesting.

patteeu
01-28-2010, 09:28 PM
There couldn't be less material in there if you tried, SG. I mean, lord.

The one piece of actual evidence he has is Clinton's own words, which completely deflate his argument.

Listen, I don't care. If you guys want to follow this ridiculous strand, go for it.

But until someone takes me up on my bet, it's just grab ass. That's all it is.

I think it's unlikely, but I don't think it's nearly as unlikely as you do. Out of our last 5 presidents, not counting Obama, 2 of them had significant primary challenges after their first term (Kennedy in 80 and Buchanan in 92). Both lost their re-election bid. Even if you discount Buchanan, that's a 20% challenge rate. And if Obama remains as mired in difficulty as he is today, he'll be a lot more like Carter than Reagan, Clinton or either Bush when it comes time to decide whether to mount a challenge. I think a 20% chance that someone like Hillary or Howard Dean challenges Obama is a reasonable estimate.

Saul Good
01-28-2010, 09:30 PM
If Direkshun is so sure that it won't happen, why did he start the thread?

patteeu
01-28-2010, 10:11 PM
If Direkshun is so sure that it won't happen, why did he start the thread?

ROFL

Royal Fanatic
01-28-2010, 10:22 PM
I think it's unlikely, but I don't think it's nearly as unlikely as you do. Out of our last 5 presidents, not counting Obama, 2 of them had significant primary challenges after their first term (Kennedy in 80 and Buchanan in 92).
Don't forget one of the strongest challenges of all to an incumbent President by a member of his own party: Ronald Reagan almost took the nomination away from Gerald Ford in 1976. In fact, the race was so close the undecided delegates wound up deciding it at the convention.

That makes it 3 out of the last 6 Presidents before Obama, a 50% rate. I'm not willing to bet on it with Direkshun, but it's foolish of him to assert that there is no way it could happen. It could.

patteeu
01-28-2010, 10:26 PM
Don't forget one of the strongest challenges of all to an incumbent President by a member of his own party: Ronald Reagan almost took the nomination away from Gerald Ford in 1976. In fact, the race was so close the undecided delegates wound up deciding it at the convention.

That makes it 3 out of the last 6 Presidents before Obama, a 50% rate. I'm not willing to bet on it with Direkshun, but it's foolish of him to assert that there is no way it could happen. It could.

That's a good point. And if we go back 2 more presidents to LBJ we get 4 of the last 8 (assuming you can count him even though he was so thoroughly challenged that he gave up). It's looking less and less uncommon all the time.

patteeu
01-28-2010, 10:29 PM
The Carter/Kennedy race looks like the closest model. A weak, ineffective leftwing president who came out of nowhere presiding over a failing economy being challenged by a high profile, establishment member of his own party.

Royal Fanatic
01-28-2010, 10:29 PM
That's a good point. And if we go back 2 more presidents to LBJ we get 4 of the last 8 (assuming you can count him even though he was so thoroughly challenged that he gave up). It's looking less and less uncommon all the time.

Wouldn't it be nice if Obama was so thoroughly challenged that HE gave up?

Too bad that will never happen.

Royal Fanatic
01-28-2010, 10:31 PM
The Carter/Kennedy race looks like the closest model. A weak, ineffective leftwing president who came out of nowhere presiding over a failing economy being challenged by a high profile, establishment member of his own party.
And then Carter became one of the few sitting Presidents to LOSE the next election. Now that is something to hope for.

ClevelandBronco
01-28-2010, 10:31 PM
The Carter/Kennedy race looks like the closest model. A weak, ineffective leftwing president who came out of nowhere presiding over a failing economy being challenged by a high profile, establishment member of his own party.

You're right. And if Teddy hadn't been damaged goods, he might have been able to pull it off.

Royal Fanatic
01-28-2010, 10:31 PM
You're right. And if Teddy hadn't been damaged goods, he might have been able to pull it off.
John Edwards in 2012!

ClevelandBronco
01-28-2010, 10:37 PM
John Edwards in 2012!

Shoot me. Shoooot. Shoooot.

http://www.cinemorgue.com/ngocle.jpg

The Mad Crapper
01-29-2010, 06:25 AM
First we clean out Congress: 278 DAYS UNTIL THE 2010 ELECTIONS!

Then we clean out the cesspool that is the B.O. administration.

Saul Good
10-30-2010, 06:54 PM
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=213&pid=0&sid=2099680&page=2

Poll: Dems split over handing Obama '12 nomination
October 30, 2010 - 12:13pm
President Barack Obama addresses rally for Rep. Tom Perriello, D-Va., Friday, Oct. 29, 2010, at the Charlottesville Pavilion in Charlottesville, Va. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
By ALAN FRAM
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic voters are closely divided over whether President Barack Obama should be challenged within the party for a second term in 2012, an Associated Press-Knowledge Networks Poll finds.

That glum assessment carries over into the nation at large, which is similarly divided over whether Obama should be a one-term president.

A real Democratic challenge to Obama seems unlikely at this stage and his re-election bid is a long way off. But the findings underscore how disenchanted his party has grown heading into the congressional elections Tuesday.

The AP-KN poll has tracked a group of people and their views since the beginning of the 2008 presidential campaign. Among all 2008 voters, 51 percent say he deserves to be defeated in November 2012 while 47 percent support his re-election _ essentially a tie.

Among Democrats, 47 percent say Obama should be challenged for the 2012 nomination and 51 percent say he should not be opposed. Those favoring a contest include most who backed Hillary Rodham Clinton's unsuccessful faceoff against Obama for the 2008 nomination. The poll did not ask if Democrats would support particular challengers.

Political operatives and polling experts caution that Obama's poll standings say more about people's frustrations today with the economy and other conditions than they do about his re-election prospects. With the next presidential election two years away _ an eon in politics _ the public's view of Obama could easily improve if the economy revives or if he outmaneuvers Republicans on Capitol Hill or in the presidential campaign.

"Democrats currently disappointed with Obama will likely be less disappointed if he spends the next two years fighting a GOP Congress" should Republicans do well on Election Day, said Charles Franklin, a University of Wisconsin political science professor and polling analyst.

Even so, the poll illustrates how Obama's reputation has frayed since 2008. It suggests lingering bad feelings from Democrats' bitter primary fight, when he and Clinton _ now his secretary of state _ roughly split the popular vote. Political professionals of both parties said the findings are a warning for the president, whose formal re-election effort is expected to begin stirring next year.

"It's an indicator of things he needs to address between now and then," said Kiki McLean, a Democratic strategist who worked in Clinton's 2008 campaign.

The White House declined comment on the results.

The 1,254 randomly chosen people in the survey are from a group that was polled 11 times during the 2008 campaign by AP, Knowledge Networks and Yahoo News. The poll finds that over that period, Obama has retained most supporters while seeing some erosion:

_Nearly 3 in 10, or 29 percent, of Democrats who said during the spring of 2008 that they were backing Obama for the Democratic nomination now say they want him to be challenged in 2012. Seven in 10 want him renominated.

_Sixty-one percent of Democrats who said in spring 2008 that they were backing Clinton now say Obama should face an opponent for the party's nomination.

_More than 8 in 10 overall who on Election Day 2008 said they'd voted for Obama want to re-elect him, though 1 in 7 say he should be defeated.

_More than 1 in 4 who said in October 2008 that Obama understands the problems of ordinary Americans now say he doesn't. The same is true for those who said he is innovative, cares about people like them and shares their values.

_Of those who said right after the 2008 election that they had a favorable opinion of Obama, nearly one-quarter now view him negatively.

"Nobody wants to work with this guy," said Steven Fagin, 45, of Cincinnati. A Democrat and 2008 Obama voter, he cited deep divisions between Democrats and Republicans. "We're never going to get anything done."

The survey found that those likeliest to oppose Obama's re-election include men, older people, those without college degrees and whites. Those groups mostly supported his 2008 Republican opponent, John McCain.

Three in four Democrats want Obama re-elected while nearly 9 in 10 Republicans oppose it. Independents lean slightly against Obama, 46 percent to 36 percent.

Democrats saying Obama should face a primary challenge tend to be less educated, less liberal and likelier to have been 2008 Clinton backers.

Democratic activists say there are no signs of a serious primary challenge to Obama, though some speculate an effort could come from liberals who think he's drifted too far to the center.

Recent history shows presidents' early polling numbers mean little about their re-election prospects.

At this stage two years before their re-elections, Presidents Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan had approval ratings that were lower than Obama's now, according to the Gallup Poll; both men won a second term. The ratings for Presidents George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter were better than Obama's; both lost.

"Presidents Mondale, Dole and McCain all speak to the very substantial limits of off-year polling results," said Bill McInturff, McCain's 2008 pollster, as he named three politicians who fell short of the White House. Walter Mondale lost to Reagan in 1988 while Clinton defeated Bob Dole in 1996.

The AP-Knowledge Networks Poll was conducted from Sept. 17 to Oct. 7. The original panel of adults was randomly selected using traditional telephone polling methods, but interviews were conducted online. People without computers or Internet access were given that technology for free.

The margin of sampling error for all 1,254 adults is plus or minus 4.4 percentage points. It is plus or minus 6.5 points for the 571 Democrats, and 5.3 points for the 852 people who said on Election Day 2008 that they had voted.

___

Associated Press Polling Director Trevor Tompson, Deputy Polling Director Jennifer Agiesta, News Survey Specialist Dennis Junius and political writer Liz Sidoti contributed to this report.

___

Online:

http://surveys.ap.org

(Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

By ALAN FRAM
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic voters are closely divided over whether President Barack Obama should be challenged within the party for a second term in 2012, an Associated Press-Knowledge Networks Poll finds.

That glum assessment carries over into the nation at large, which is similarly divided over whether Obama should be a one-term president.

A real Democratic challenge to Obama seems unlikely at this stage and his re-election bid is a long way off. But the findings underscore how disenchanted his party has grown heading into the congressional elections Tuesday.

The AP-KN poll has tracked a group of people and their views since the beginning of the 2008 presidential campaign. Among all 2008 voters, 51 percent say he deserves to be defeated in November 2012 while 47 percent support his re-election _ essentially a tie.

Among Democrats, 47 percent say Obama should be challenged for the 2012 nomination and 51 percent say he should not be opposed. Those favoring a contest include most who backed Hillary Rodham Clinton's unsuccessful faceoff against Obama for the 2008 nomination. The poll did not ask if Democrats would support particular challengers.

Political operatives and polling experts caution that Obama's poll standings say more about people's frustrations today with the economy and other conditions than they do about his re-election prospects. With the next presidential election two years away _ an eon in politics _ the public's view of Obama could easily improve if the economy revives or if he outmaneuvers Republicans on Capitol Hill or in the presidential campaign.

"Democrats currently disappointed with Obama will likely be less disappointed if he spends the next two years fighting a GOP Congress" should Republicans do well on Election Day, said Charles Franklin, a University of Wisconsin political science professor and polling analyst.

Even so, the poll illustrates how Obama's reputation has frayed since 2008. It suggests lingering bad feelings from Democrats' bitter primary fight, when he and Clinton _ now his secretary of state _ roughly split the popular vote. Political professionals of both parties said the findings are a warning for the president, whose formal re-election effort is expected to begin stirring next year.

"It's an indicator of things he needs to address between now and then," said Kiki McLean, a Democratic strategist who worked in Clinton's 2008 campaign.

The White House declined comment on the results.

The 1,254 randomly chosen people in the survey are from a group that was polled 11 times during the 2008 campaign by AP, Knowledge Networks and Yahoo News. The poll finds that over that period, Obama has retained most supporters while seeing some erosion:

_Nearly 3 in 10, or 29 percent, of Democrats who said during the spring of 2008 that they were backing Obama for the Democratic nomination now say they want him to be challenged in 2012. Seven in 10 want him renominated.

_Sixty-one percent of Democrats who said in spring 2008 that they were backing Clinton now say Obama should face an opponent for the party's nomination.

_More than 8 in 10 overall who on Election Day 2008 said they'd voted for Obama want to re-elect him, though 1 in 7 say he should be defeated.

_More than 1 in 4 who said in October 2008 that Obama understands the problems of ordinary Americans now say he doesn't. The same is true for those who said he is innovative, cares about people like them and shares their values.

_Of those who said right after the 2008 election that they had a favorable opinion of Obama, nearly one-quarter now view him negatively.

"Nobody wants to work with this guy," said Steven Fagin, 45, of Cincinnati. A Democrat and 2008 Obama voter, he cited deep divisions between Democrats and Republicans. "We're never going to get anything done."

The survey found that those likeliest to oppose Obama's re-election include men, older people, those without college degrees and whites. Those groups mostly supported his 2008 Republican opponent, John McCain.

Three in four Democrats want Obama re-elected while nearly 9 in 10 Republicans oppose it. Independents lean slightly against Obama, 46 percent to 36 percent.

Democrats saying Obama should face a primary challenge tend to be less educated, less liberal and likelier to have been 2008 Clinton backers.

Democratic activists say there are no signs of a serious primary challenge to Obama, though some speculate an effort could come from liberals who think he's drifted too far to the center.

Recent history shows presidents' early polling numbers mean little about their re-election prospects.

At this stage two years before their re-elections, Presidents Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan had approval ratings that were lower than Obama's now, according to the Gallup Poll; both men won a second term. The ratings for Presidents George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter were better than Obama's; both lost.

"Presidents Mondale, Dole and McCain all speak to the very substantial limits of off-year polling results," said Bill McInturff, McCain's 2008 pollster, as he named three politicians who fell short of the White House. Walter Mondale lost to Reagan in 1988 while Clinton defeated Bob Dole in 1996.

The AP-Knowledge Networks Poll was conducted from Sept. 17 to Oct. 7. The original panel of adults was randomly selected using traditional telephone polling methods, but interviews were conducted online. People without computers or Internet access were given that technology for free.

The margin of sampling error for all 1,254 adults is plus or minus 4.4 percentage points. It is plus or minus 6.5 points for the 571 Democrats, and 5.3 points for the 852 people who said on Election Day 2008 that they had voted.

HonestChieffan
10-30-2010, 07:19 PM
Even a dem can see the wounds in this dude. Wait till he has to lead and govern with Pelosi and Reid no longer carrying the water for him....the dude as Stewart called him is done. Put a fork in him.

Chocolate Hog
10-31-2010, 12:35 AM
Yes his name is Mitt Romney.

Norman Einstein
10-31-2010, 06:22 AM
John Edwards in 2012!

Another case of damaged goods. BUT where do we find a candidate in either party these days that is no damaged goods? You can't fart in public without someone getting it on YouTube. With all of the video on any politician in public they can't even think of farting without it getting on YouTube. There will be trash on virtually every American wanting to run for office.

AND for the sake of argument if no trash can be found someone will make some up and the candidate in question would be trashed just the same.

Saul Good
11-01-2010, 08:33 PM
At least Hillary is standing by Obama on election day.


US mid-term elections 2010: Hillary Clinton stays away from mid-term elections
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/us-politics/8100557/US-mid-term-elections-2010-Hillary-Clinton-stays-away-from-mid-term-elections.html

CoMoChief
11-01-2010, 11:09 PM
The Democrats could necklace the entire NAACP in Times Square, and they'd still get 90% of the black vote. All the Republicans ever did was free the slaves, start affirmative action, and vote for the ERA.

Republicans then were MUCH MUCH different than the ones we have now.....philosophies etc.

Bewbies
11-01-2010, 11:15 PM
Republicans then were MUCH MUCH different than the ones we have now.....philosophies etc.

Now they're all racists and the democrats, the one's that used the KKK as it's militant arm, fought equal rights and freeing the slaves are all colorblind?

'Hamas' Jenkins
11-01-2010, 11:44 PM
Republicans then were MUCH MUCH different than the ones we have now.....philosophies etc.

This is correct.

Also, the Republican support for the ERA is more complicated than Saul posits, and his attempts to equate the Republicans of Lincoln to the modern day variety are outright dishonest.

The only similarity that the Republicans of the 1860s share with the Republicans of the 2010s is that they both are strong supporters of large businesses.

The Republicans haven't been the party of civil rights since Johnson signed the Civil Rights act in 1964 and all the pissed off white southerners defected from the Democratic Party in droves. LBJ didn't say "I just handed the south to the Republicans" for nothing.

As far as support of affirmative action goes among the Republican Party, it has been lukewarm at best. Most of the policies that established Affirmative Action weren't even up for votes, they were executive orders given by Democratic presidents--most notably Kennedy and LBJ. Nixon issued one executive order for a Minority Business Plan, and Carter another for a similar smaller program. Of course, vocal opposition to affirmative action has been most notable among the Republican Party, including prominent blacks within the party like Condoleezza Rice and Clarence Thomas.

The ERA was passed through Congress, but the Republicans did not officially support it until 1980, 8 years after it was passed, and three years after the last state attempts at ratification. The states that didn't pass the ERA also had, on the whole, more conservative politics. A grassroots attempt at ratification in Arkansas in 2009 was defeated, and pro-life organizations (and we know who they vote for), argued they were responsible for its defeat.

Bewbies
11-02-2010, 12:14 AM
This is correct.

Also, the Republican support for the ERA is more complicated than Saul posits, and his attempts to equate the Republicans of Lincoln to the modern day variety are outright dishonest.

The only similarity that the Republicans of the 1860s share with the Republicans of the 2010s is that they both are strong supporters of large businesses.

The Republicans haven't been the party of civil rights since Johnson signed the Civil Rights act in 1964 and all the pissed off white southerners defected from the Democratic Party in droves. LBJ didn't say "I just handed the south to the Republicans" for nothing.

As far as support of affirmative action goes among the Republican Party, it has been lukewarm at best. Most of the policies that established Affirmative Action weren't even up for votes, they were executive orders given by Democratic presidents--most notably Kennedy and LBJ. Nixon issued one executive order for a Minority Business Plan, and Carter another for a similar smaller program. Of course, vocal opposition to affirmative action has been most notable among the Republican Party, including prominent blacks within the party like Condoleezza Rice and Clarence Thomas.

The ERA was passed through Congress, but the Republicans did not officially support it until 1980, 8 years after it was passed, and three years after the last state attempts at ratification. The states that didn't pass the ERA also had, on the whole, more conservative politics. A grassroots attempt at ratification in Arkansas in 2009 was defeated, and pro-life organizations (and we know who they vote for), argued they were responsible for its defeat.

I don't think there's much support for affirmative action on the right today. Most view it as discrimination where people are no longer awarded something on merit. (when applied)

Direckshun
03-20-2011, 05:04 PM
I would like to bump this thread because, like most liberals, Libya has changed my mind on this issue.

I think Obama could very well face a major Democratic challenge now, if Libya continues for the rest of his first term.

alnorth
03-20-2011, 05:16 PM
I would like to bump this thread because, like most liberals, Libya has changed my mind on this issue.

I think Obama could very well face a major Democratic challenge now, if Libya continues for the rest of his first term.

You are completely out of your mind. There is no way in hell Obama faces a serious primary challenge. The democratic party is not going to seriously try to primary out the first black president in US history, thus cutting their throat for the next several election cycles, no matter what he does. They would be better off sticking with a sure loser if things looked grim in early 2012.

Will there be a fringey froot-loop like Kucinich? Sure, why not, but that would be a mostly-ignored clowncar.

Direckshun
03-20-2011, 05:21 PM
You are completely out of your mind. There is no way in hell Obama faces a serious primary challenge. The democratic party is not going to seriously try to primary out the first black president in US history, thus cutting their throat for the next several election cycles, no matter what he does. They would be better off sticking with a sure loser if things looked grim in early 2012.

Will there be a fringey froot-loop like Kucinich? Sure, why not, but that would be a mostly-ignored clowncar.

I think you underestimate the strength of the lunacy in the left wing base.

alnorth
03-20-2011, 05:36 PM
I think you underestimate the strength of the lunacy in the left wing base.

I sincerely hope that I am. Probably not, but it would be nice.

I can hear the protest marches led by Rev. Jackson and Sharpton now. :)

alnorth
03-20-2011, 05:53 PM
On another note, I wonder how meme feels about Hillary vs Obama now. You know, given that Obama was reluctant to get involved and it was apparently hawkish Hillary who pushed him to overrule his defense secretary and authorize an attack for the next couple weeks or so.

She got this much out of him, and she's still fed up enough to want to quit after 2012. If Hillary was president, we might be in the middle of a land invasion that began a week ago to "liberate Libya" for all we know.

Chocolate Hog
03-21-2011, 03:29 PM
Clinton has already said she won't be apart of Obamas team in 2012 so.....

alnorth
03-21-2011, 04:01 PM
Clinton has already said she won't be apart of Obamas team in 2012 so.....

She might run in 2016, but given what has come out about her and Libya, I bet she'll be screamed out of the primary by an angry base.

I think she's simply sick of working for Obama and wants out.

Chocolate Hog
03-21-2011, 04:05 PM
She might run in 2016, but given what has come out about her and Libya, I bet she'll be screamed out of the primary by an angry base.

I think she's simply sick of working for Obama and wants out.

I agree with this 2016 seems reasonable for Hillary. I'd imagine we'll see Kuchnich, Nader, and maybe someone like Bloomberg though he switches between Republican and Democrat. Like I said Obama will face another challenge from a Democrat his name is Mitt Romney. I have no doubt Romney wins the Republican nomination.

BucEyedPea
03-21-2011, 05:10 PM
This is correct.

Also, the Republican support for the ERA is more complicated than Saul posits, and his attempts to equate the Republicans of Lincoln to the modern day variety are outright dishonest.



Well now! That's sayin' somethin' since Dishonest Abe wasn't particularly honest.

BucEyedPea
03-21-2011, 05:10 PM
On another note, I wonder how meme feels about Hillary vs Obama now. You know, given that Obama was reluctant to get involved and it was apparently hawkish Hillary who pushed him to overrule his defense secretary and authorize an attack for the next couple weeks or so.

She got this much out of him, and she's still fed up enough to want to quit after 2012. If Hillary was president, we might be in the middle of a land invasion that began a week ago to "liberate Libya" for all we know.


In the meantime Bill Kristolnacht has already called for a land invasion.

RedDread
04-02-2011, 02:39 PM
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/zE9TmUTOezY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

MagicHef
04-02-2011, 05:15 PM
Swing and a miss. I haven't stopped posting, and I have no trouble with snide comments.

Tell you what -- I'll make a bet once again to prove here that no conservatives actually believe this will happen, but are instead just saying this because it's some dumb fad you've embraced.

If there is a "major Dem challenge" to Obama in 2012, I get control of your signature for the rest of the existence of ChiefsPlanet.

If there isn't such a thing, you get mine.

Or, really, any other bet you want to come up with. That's how stupid this conjecture is.

If somebody's actually interested in putting their money where their baseless rumor mills are, let me know.

But we both know there won't be.

I would like to bump this thread because, like most liberals, Libya has changed my mind on this issue.

I think Obama could very well face a major Democratic challenge now, if Libya continues for the rest of his first term.

Perhaps you two should get together on this sig bet.