47% of Democrats want Obama Challenged in Primary [Archive]

tallanvor

10-31-2010, 02:39 PM

Personally, I see no difference between Hillary and Obama, as far as effecting me. Where do the Dems on this board stand? Would you rather have Hillary?

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=213&sid=2099680

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.

pouhe

10-31-2010, 02:59 PM

Mr. Clutch

10-31-2010, 03:04 PM

Nader

tallanvor

10-31-2010, 03:42 PM

Hillary gets a six-figure salary to travel the world and visit heads of state. She's the only person in the entire cabinet that doesn't have to worry about health-care, budget deficits, or, with any real accountability, Iraq or Afghanistan (we don't spend half a trillion each year on laser-guided treaties). To think that she would give all of it up to elect Sarah Palin and answer 15 year old questions about the Rose Law firm and Vince Foster is idiotic.

She strikes me as power hungry. If she wanted a hedonistic/easy life-style why would she have run for president in the first place? I just don't know how jaded she is about what happened last time she ran.

pgabriel

10-31-2010, 03:44 PM

She strikes me as power hungry. If she wanted a hedonistic/easy life-style why would she have run for president in the first place? I just don't know how jaded she is about what happened last time she ran.

what would she be jaded about? she lost fair and square

mc mark

10-31-2010, 03:56 PM

LOL!!!!

tallanvor you let us know when the tea party comes up with a candidate to beat Mr Obama.

Johndoe804

10-31-2010, 08:45 PM

They should nominate Dennis Kucinich.

bigtexxx

10-31-2010, 09:01 PM

You mean many democrats don't want an arrogant bully who cannot work with the other side of the aisle to save his life as their candidate in 2012? Color me shocked.

BetterThanI

10-31-2010, 09:05 PM

You mean many democrats don't want an arrogant bully who cannot work with the other side of the aisle to save his life as their candidate in 2012?

Yes, that's right. They don't want you.

mateo

10-31-2010, 09:08 PM

its 2010.

I think at one point 80% of Americans actually bought into the joke that the UN was wrong and Sadaam had WMDs.

rockbox

10-31-2010, 09:08 PM

CometsWin

10-31-2010, 09:09 PM

You mean many democrats don't want an arrogant bully who cannot work with the other side of the aisle to save his life as their candidate in 2012? Color me shocked.

Nobody on Earth could work with the "other side" when they're determined not to work with you no matter what. The Republican do nothing Congress of Bush's tenure has morphed into the Republican stop all progress contingent of Obama's tenure. Republicans aren't interested in working with anyone on anything, they've made that clear since the election and you want to blame Obama for that? The stupidity continues...

thadeus

10-31-2010, 09:11 PM

They should nominate Dennis Kucinich.

The shame is that this guy would probably actually stand up for his ideals if he was in office... and that's precisely why he'll never get the party nomination.

bigtexxx

10-31-2010, 09:28 PM

its 2010.

I think at one point 80% of Americans actually bought into the joke that the UN was wrong and Sadaam had WMDs.

Saddam did have WMDs. He even used them on his own people.

DFWRocket

10-31-2010, 09:30 PM

I voted for Obama, and although I don't think he done a bad job, I don't think he has done a great job either. He has not inspired people people as the president like he did as a candidate. I thought Hillary would have been a better president and I still do.

Its easy to inspire people as a candidate...extremely difficult to do so as a President. the Oval Office is a tough, tough job.

Air Langhi

10-31-2010, 09:33 PM

Saddam did have WMDs. He even used them on his own people.

His people are in dark age. They will probably do the same thing if given the chance. Those people deserve saddam.

FranchiseBlade

10-31-2010, 11:19 PM

Saddam did have WMDs. He even used them on his own people.
Yes prior to the Bush Jr's claim that he had them that was true. By the time Bush Jr. was making the claim it was no longer correct.

babyicedog

10-31-2010, 11:35 PM

Personally, I see no difference between Hillary and Obama, as far as effecting me. Where do the Dems on this board stand? Would you rather have Hillary?

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=213&sid=2099680

Yes, and in 1982, Ronald Reagan's popularity was WORSE than Obama's. Anyone who thinks what is going on now is going to affect the 2012 election has a true lack of understanding regarding the history of elections and such. If anything, whatever happens between January and November of 2012 is going to have the only effect on the election. Don't believe me? Ask George Bush how he went from the highest approval rating in our history in 1991 to losing an election 9-10 months later.

B-Bob

10-31-2010, 11:51 PM

Gee whiz, there used to be this poster... what was his name?... he was really interested in starting mess about Hillary and Obama in an "internecine" battle that would destroy the democratic ticket...

He was called Mojo_Jorge or something like that. It was a long time ago -- I forget.

rimrocker

11-01-2010, 12:57 AM

Obama will not have a challenger.

pgabriel

11-01-2010, 09:29 AM

Saddam did have WMDs. He even used them on his own people.

lastly in 1991

tallanvor

11-01-2010, 09:34 AM

its 2010.

I think at one point 80% of Americans actually bought into the joke that the UN was wrong and Sadaam had WMDs.

Sadaam did have WMDs. tons.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/

But WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction.

FranchiseBlade

11-01-2010, 09:37 AM

Sadaam did have WMDs. tons.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/
Yes they found the ones that were expired and no longer a threat to cause anything other than minor skin irritation.

Those are weapons of minimal destruction.

juicystream

11-01-2010, 09:38 AM

I'm confident I'll be voting for the Republican ticket, but the last thing the Democrats need to do is create more division amongst themselves.

DonnyMost

11-01-2010, 09:39 AM

Thread title: Democrats want Obama Challenged in Primary

Thread discussion: DUBYA EM DEEs!!!!!111!

wtf yall?

tallanvor

11-01-2010, 09:40 AM

Yes they found the ones that were expired and no longer a threat to cause anything other than minor skin irritation.

Those are weapons of minimal destruction.

Incorrect. I suggest you read the article I posted.

GladiatoRowdy

11-01-2010, 09:45 AM

Saddam did have WMDs. He even used them on his own people, nearly 30 years ago.

Fixed that for you...

MiddleMan

11-01-2010, 10:02 AM

LOL!!!!

tallanvor you let us know when the tea party comes up with a candidate to beat Mr Obama.

Palin 2012!!!! Lol.

MiddleMan

11-01-2010, 10:03 AM

They should nominate Dennis Kucinich.

IIRC he is a very big union supporter.

FranchiseBlade

11-01-2010, 10:03 AM

Incorrect. I suggest you read the article I posted.
I saw nothing in that article to suggest otherwise. They mentioned finding weapons caches, experts, and missiles that had traces of Mustard Gas.

This is the same stuff that Eric Cantor had been bragging about at some point earlier that was found to be old and expired, and not really a threat.

MiddleMan

11-01-2010, 10:04 AM

MiddleMan

11-01-2010, 10:07 AM

Saddam did have WMDs. He even used them on his own people.

Also most of the WMD were transported to Syria.

glynch

11-01-2010, 10:45 AM

Obama will not have a challenger.

Nor should he. He should be pushed to start siding more with the people and less with Wall Street.

After getting 12 calls in one week from the Demcoratic Campaign Committee for donations I got a bit rude and told them I only donate money to progressives and that they had blown it. When he tried to speak back I hung up.

I regretted it, but later I had wished I would have told him to tell the Dems to get in from Geithner, Summers and their crowd. Very counterproductive, I know, but Obama needs to come down a bit from his elitist cloud.

On the positive side I think the campaign for 2012 begins November 3, and Obama in permanent campaign mode will eventually defeat the Grand Old Tea Party. As Abe Lincoln said: "You can fool some people, but you can't fool all the people all the time". This, I still have some hope is true, even in the age of Fox News and billionaire iniated Tea "parties" and libertarian think tanks. This coalition can be defeated if Obama and the Dems are willing to go real and not ersatz populist ala Tea Party.

DonnyMost

11-01-2010, 10:56 AM

Biden will step down due to undisclosed health issues and Hillary will hop on as VP to help close the enthusiasm gap.

glynch

11-01-2010, 11:03 AM

Biden will step down due to undisclosed health issues and Hillary will hop on as VP to help close the enthusiasm gap.

Maybe yes; maybe no. The enthusiasm gap will only be closed by Obama forsaking the Wall Street Crowd, the big insurance and big pharma crowd that has already forsaken him.

pgabriel

11-01-2010, 11:12 AM

I'm confident I'll be voting for the Republican ticket, but the last thing the Democrats need to do is create more division amongst themselves.

they're too stupid to follow that advice

glynch

11-01-2010, 11:27 AM

they're too stupid to follow that advice

Hopefully so, but if Obama keeps insisting on dissing his base it could happen.

This would be a disaster for about 50% of Americans. At about the $150 k family income it is relatively neutral short term, though a dirty environment, bad economy, having several billion people hating our imperialistic guts etc will catch up with them, too.

rocketsjudoka

11-01-2010, 11:29 AM

Obama will not have a challenger.

I am pretty sure he will and it will be someone far more to the left of him, probably Kucinich. Barring some huge scandal or unforeseen disaster Obama will win the nomination handily.

I was a Hillary Clinton supporter in the 2008 but I highly doubt she will run again especially against Obama. She is part of his Admin. and it will be hard for her to run against a record that she played a role in.

rocketsjudoka

11-01-2010, 11:32 AM

Yes, and in 1982, Ronald Reagan's popularity was WORSE than Obama's. Anyone who thinks what is going on now is going to affect the 2012 election has a true lack of understanding regarding the history of elections and such. If anything, whatever happens between January and November of 2012 is going to have the only effect on the election. Don't believe me? Ask George Bush how he went from the highest approval rating in our history in 1991 to losing an election 9-10 months later.

This is a great point. You don't even have to go back that far. Remember in 1994 people were saying that Bill Clinton's presidency was over.

LScolaDominates

11-01-2010, 11:44 AM

You mean many democrats don't want an arrogant bully who cannot work with the other side of the aisle to save his life as their candidate in 2012? Color me shocked.

The poll did not ask if Democrats would support particular challengers.

Not surprisingly, you fail at reading comprehension.

rimrocker

11-01-2010, 01:48 PM

I am pretty sure he will and it will be someone far more to the left of him, probably Kucinich. Barring some huge scandal or unforeseen disaster Obama will win the nomination handily.

I guess our definition of challenger is different.

I was thinking of a Ted Kennedy, not a Pat Paulson.

I will bet that he doesn't have a serious competitor.

thumbs

11-01-2010, 02:31 PM

Rashmon

11-01-2010, 02:37 PM

The thread is discussing the wrong Clinton. Bill is eligible because the law states a President cannot serve more than two consecutive terms. BC would now win handily in a race to unseat Obama and any Republican I can see on the horizon.

Incorrect.

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

thumbs

11-01-2010, 02:41 PM

Incorrect.

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

I stand corrected -- just trying to help.

Rashmon

11-01-2010, 02:52 PM

I stand corrected -- just trying to help.

I would love to see Bill elected again.

rimrocker

11-01-2010, 03:34 PM

So, the most anyone could serve as President is 10 years... elected VP, takes over after two years, wins two terms.

However, there is a dispute in legal circles as to whether a twice elected president could serve in a later administration as VP and then ascend to the presidency. Under this scenario, a person could be elected VP, takes over for two years, wins two terms, is elected again as VP, and then serves any amount of one term, so theoretically: 2+8+4 (Assuming a WH Harrison)= 14.

If this were allowed, I guess you could repeat it as often as you liked.

Sweet Lou 4 2

11-01-2010, 04:40 PM

I never understood term limits. If someone is constantly getting re-elected, shouldn't that be a great indicator that they are doing a good job and left to continue doing a good job?

Rocketman95

11-01-2010, 05:25 PM

I never understood term limits. If someone is constantly getting re-elected, shouldn't that be a great indicator that they are doing a good job and left to continue doing a good job?

i think term limits would be beneficial in that some congressman may actually vote the way they want to or they may be more willing to compromise for the sake of their constituents. instead, they're constantly running for re-election and have to worry about whether or not their vote will mean the end of their job because they're afraid to risk resources if they don't toe the party line. taxpayers are basically paying for them to be in a never-ending campaign.

i'm not 100% sold on term limits, but i'm leaning more towards them every single day.

rimrocker

11-01-2010, 05:42 PM

i think term limits would be beneficial in that some congressman may actually vote the way they want to or they may be more willing to compromise for the sake of their constituents.

Or, they could vote in a way that enriches themselves or friends knowing they wouldn't have to face voters.

Sweet Lou 4 2

11-01-2010, 06:21 PM

i think term limits would be beneficial in that some congressman may actually vote the way they want to or they may be more willing to compromise for the sake of their constituents. instead, they're constantly running for re-election and have to worry about whether or not their vote will mean the end of their job because they're afraid to risk resources if they don't toe the party line. taxpayers are basically paying for them to be in a never-ending campaign.

i'm not 100% sold on term limits, but i'm leaning more towards them every single day.

I think what would free that up more would be to find ways to get rid of special interest money. If politicians didn't have to worry about companies funding campaigns for or against them, they might really have more incentive to serve the public good instead of please lobbyists.

As it stands, it's not the fact they have to get re-elected which influences their vote as much as it is they need raise money to get re-elected, or elected in the first place.

Steve_Francis_rules

11-02-2010, 07:20 AM

Or, they could vote in a way that enriches themselves or friends knowing they wouldn't have to face voters.

That doesn't sound too different from what's going on now.

ArtV

11-02-2010, 08:21 AM

Don't think it will matter. As long as the Reps don't parade out Palin, Obama is 1 and done.

rocketsjudoka

11-02-2010, 09:25 AM

Don't think it will matter. As long as the Reps don't parade out Palin, Obama is 1 and done.

And can you tell me who is going to win the Superbowl in 2012?

The votes haven't even been counted today and you are saying that Obama is done. I presume you were saying the same thing about Clinton in 1994. A lot can happen between now and 2012.

ArtV

11-02-2010, 12:37 PM

And can you tell me who is going to win the Superbowl in 2012?

The votes haven't even been counted today and you are saying that Obama is done. I presume you were saying the same thing about Clinton in 1994. A lot can happen between now and 2012.

I can tell you who won't win the Superbowl in 2012. The BILLLLS (4 Ls for the 4 SB losses). Not saying they couldn't come back and turn around before Feb 2012 but it based on the path they are on, I can say you'd be a fool to put any money on that action.

And if Obama continues to stay on HIS path and we continue in this quagmire (which he didn't create but he's not doing anything to get us out) do you really think he'd get re-elected?

rocketsjudoka

11-02-2010, 12:44 PM

I can tell you who won't win the Superbowl in 2012. The BILLLLS (4 Ls for the 4 SB losses). Not saying they couldn't come back and turn around before Feb 2012 but it based on the path they are on, I can say you'd be a fool to put any money on that action.

I would say this prediction likely to come true than that Obama is one and done. That said with some good draft picks, a new coach and the overall parity of the NFL and a possible lockout in 2011, the Bills could take the league by surprise in 2012.

And if Obama continues to stay on HIS path and we continue in this quagmire (which he didn't create but he's not doing anything to get us out) do you really think he'd get re-elected?

If I had to bet on it I would say that Obama gets re-elected without having to do much more. I think you are misreading the public if you think overall the country is angry with Obama's policies because of ideology. Most of the country is angry about the economy.

Right now things are bad but they are getting less bad and if the trends hold it is very likely that the recovery will be more widespread by 2012. We are pulling out of Iraq and if things hold will probably pull out of Afghanistan in the next two years. If the economy is better Obama will win. For better or worse the President gets the credit for the economy whether they deserve it or not.

ArtV

11-02-2010, 01:04 PM

I would say this prediction likely to come true than that Obama is one and done. That said with some good draft picks, a new coach and the overall parity of the NFL and a possible lockout in 2011, the Bills could take the league by surprise in 2012.

If I had to bet on it I would say that Obama gets re-elected without having to do much more. I think you are misreading the public if you think overall the country is angry with Obama's policies because of ideology. Most of the country is angry about the economy.

Right now things are bad but they are getting less bad and if the trends hold it is very likely that the recovery will be more widespread by 2012. We are pulling out of Iraq and if things hold will probably pull out of Afghanistan in the next two years. If the economy is better Obama will win. For better or worse the President gets the credit for the economy whether they deserve it or not.

LOL - I'd love to see the guy at the counter's face when you make that bet! Just need a couple of rookie picks (and 31 plane crashes) and you'll be in the money! Ruxen is that you?

So let's just say that he doesn't do anything to help the economy (like he hasn't - going with a pattern here) and the economy is the same, do you really think he'll get re-elected. My dad has voted straight D ticket since WWII and he's about to break a pattern.

[Edit] Notice that means that he voted for a 2nd term of Jimmy.

rocketsjudoka

11-02-2010, 01:43 PM

LOL - I'd love to see the guy at the counter's face when you make that bet! Just need a couple of rookie picks (and 31 plane crashes) and you'll be in the money! Ruxen is that you?

Given the odds I might just put $10 bucks down as if it does pan out it would be huge. Anyway a few years ago who figured the Saints would be Superbowl champs?

So let's just say that he doesn't do anything to help the economy (like he hasn't - going with a pattern here) and the economy is the same, do you really think he'll get re-elected. My dad has voted straight D ticket since WWII and he's about to break a pattern.

Yes if the economy is int he same shape he probably will have a very tough time that said I doubt the economy come 2012 will be in the same shape. Bottom line two years is a long time in politics. two years ago the Republican party looked like it might be a permanent minority. Four years prior to that it looked like it might be a permanent majority.

CrazyDave

11-02-2010, 01:58 PM

LOL - I'd love to see the guy at the counter's face when you make that bet! Just need a couple of rookie picks (and 31 plane crashes) and you'll be in the money! Ruxen is that you?

So let's just say that he doesn't do anything to help the economy (like he hasn't - going with a pattern here) and the economy is the same, do you really think he'll get re-elected. My dad has voted straight D ticket since WWII and he's about to break a pattern.

[Edit] Notice that means that he voted for a 2nd term of Jimmy.

and if the GOP "Wave" sweeps the country and the second two years are evidence that they've got nothing to offer besides having 'just said no' to Democratic legislation initiatives, you think that anyone... ANYONE besides Palin wins? Keep drinkin' the tea, man, but there's alotta time between now and then for you change your mind.

Cannonball

11-02-2010, 02:55 PM

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_11/026432.php

HOPE AND CASH.... House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) apparently has a stump speech with a favorite quip.

At each stop he draws on nostalgia for the Republican glory days of the 1980s, by telling the same joke. "Remember when Ronald Reagan was president," he said. "We had Bob Hope. We had Johnny Cash. Think about where we are today. We have got President Obama. But we have no hope and we have no cash." It draws hoots of laughter and applause every time.

As it turns out, Johnny Cash's daughter, singer and author Rosanne Cash, finds it far less amusing.

"John Boehner: Stop using my dad's name as a punchline, you asshat."

The amusing qualities of the exchange notwithstanding, Boehner's little attempt at humor got me thinking. At the risk of taking a joke too seriously -- we might have more "cash" if Boehner, Bush, and their buddies hadn't failed so spectacularly -- I do, actually, "remember when Ronald Reagan was president."

In fact, at this point in Reagan's presidency, the then-president's approval rating had dropped to the low 40s, unemployment was nearly 11%, and Republicans were already talking publicly about pleading with Reagan not to seek a second term.

Steve Kornacki recently noted that after the '82 midterms, "some outspoken conservatives even demanded -- publicly -- that [Reagan] be challenged in the '84 primaries if he went ahead and ran." Then-Sen. Bob Packwood (R-Ore.) even went to New Hampshire in late '82 to dip his toe in the presidential primary waters. Congressional Republicans, who'd avoided Reagan during the midterms, "began charting a course independent of the Reagan White House."

"Remember when Ronald Reagan was president"? Sure. But does Boehner?

ArtV

11-02-2010, 05:59 PM

and if the GOP "Wave" sweeps the country and the second two years are evidence that they've got nothing to offer besides having 'just said no' to Democratic legislation initiatives, you think that anyone... ANYONE besides Palin wins? Keep drinkin' the tea, man, but there's alotta time between now and then for you change your mind.

Not a Dem. Not a Rep. Not a Lib. Not a tea bagger either - a smart person like you should have deduced that from my Palin comment. I'm a person who votes for who I think is best. The #1 priority is the economy. So what was Obama's push? Healthcare. Not saying that wasn't needed but...really...that is what you want to work on...right now...while the country's in this mess? My point is Obama hasn't done JACK for the ecomony. And you are right that there will most likely be a roadblock for the next 2 years. Maybe that's good maybe not. But unfortunately this country has become a 2 party system with minor splits. I just don't think he's heading for a round 2 because I don't see him changing. And I do hope the economy turns around but I really have no expectations that it will be because of something anyone does over the next 2 years.

ps -- My Palin comment was a generalization. I didn't mean that anyone beside Palin would beat Obama but if the Reps were smart, they'd pick a middle of the road Rep with a viable platform to get this country back on the road. And before you go off on tax breaks for the rich - I'm not for either. I do think it starts with housing and construction.

Depressio

11-02-2010, 06:40 PM

I couldn't really find a good thread for this, so I thought I'd clutter up this one.

Good website here (http://bit.ly/bvEVyU).

Raven

11-02-2010, 06:46 PM

Romney will win it all in two years.

:(

:(

mc mark

12-17-2010, 11:57 AM

Reports of the President’s demise are greatly exaggerated

Obama Way Ahead In Hypothetical 2012 NH Primary Matchups (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/poll-obama-way-ahead-in-hypothetical-2012-nh-primary.php)

Despite the recent chatter that Obama could face a primary challenge in 2012, a new poll of New Hampshire Democrats finds that those concerns are probably overblown.

The poll, conducted by Magellan Data and Mapping Strategies, matched Obama against three Democrats - Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT.) None of the races were even close.

Fifty-nine percent of respondents said they would vote for Obama if Clinton were to challenge him, while just 28% said they'd support Clinton. Against Dean, Obama held a staggering 68% lead, with 78% of respondents supporting him in that scenario versus 10% who supported Dean. With Sanders as a challenger, the gap was even larger, with Obama on top 79% to 8%.

Obama's apparent safety in the state is the result of his sterling approval and favorability ratings there. Seventy-seven percent of New Hampshire Democrats approve of the job he is doing as President, versus just 14% who disapprove, according to the poll. Obama's approval rating is even higher, with 84% of respondents in the poll viewing the President favorably, while only 13% viewed him unfavorably.