OH, NO! Not That!!!

Ain't gonna happen, as LadyLiberal said, such a challenge would weaken his chances to win and those chances are fairly weak as they are. The establishment in the DNC doesn't give a shit what the people want, they will do what they want and hope for the best.

Immie
 
LOL! You people are terrified of Obama.

Instead of obsessing about him, why not find a credible Republican candidate?

Oh, right, there aren't any.

yea those damn gallup respondents, they are just terrified of obama, and the media? damn they are working him over eh? :rolleyes:

Are you sayin' that Ravi is whistlin' past the graveyard..?
 
I see sheep PoliticalChic. Sheep as far as the eye can see.

I see bison....big, tough, iconic American bison.

A whole big ol' herd of 'em...and guess who they're chargin' right at?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp8OZC527_s]Bison or Buffalo Herd Stampede V02072.mpg - YouTube[/ame]
 
The assertion that primary challenges improve a party's chance of retaining the White House run counter to experience. Reagan's run against Ford, Ted Kennedy's against Carter, and Buchanan's against George H W Bush all merely weakened their party's nominee.

Suggesting that a primary challenge against Obama could help Democrats is particularly implausible, since Obama's personal approval rating runs well ahead of that of other Democrats. You can disagree with Obama's policies, but I have yet to see a plausible case made against his political viability relative to a Democratic challenger.

UPDATE: A further bit of context-- before Kennedy challenged Carter he was out-polling him by two to one. In contrast, 27% support for any challenger to Obama is quite anemic.

Obama will probably beat nearly anyone running for the GOP nomination now (the exception being Romney).

But if he legally could the best person to run would be Bill Clinton, the most popular politician in the nation today.

We need him back!!

America’s Most Popular Politician: Bill Clinton - TIME NewsFeed

.

.

I always liked this Coulter quote....how about you?

…every Democrat who voted for Bill Clinton feels the need to defend duplicity, adultery, lying about adultery, sexual harassment, rape, perjury, obstruction of justice, kicking the can of global Islamofascism down the road for eight years, and so on.
 
LOL! You people are terrified of Obama.

Instead of obsessing about him, why not find a credible Republican candidate?

Oh, right, there aren't any.

1. That is the best avi you've had in weeks!

2. The local community college has courses in reading comprehension...

a. The point of the OP is not that I am 'terrified of Obama' but rather that I am
terrified that you Lefties won't let him run and take the thrashing he so richly
deserves.

3. Remember the old days when you assured me that he was 'a shoe-in'?
Those were the days, huh?

No, I don't remember that. The only reason he won was because of bat-shit crazy Palin.

And so far, the Republicans have only put up slightly less bat shit crazy candidates.
 
LOL! You people are terrified of Obama.

Instead of obsessing about him, why not find a credible Republican candidate?

Oh, right, there aren't any.

1. That is the best avi you've had in weeks!

2. The local community college has courses in reading comprehension...

a. The point of the OP is not that I am 'terrified of Obama' but rather that I am
terrified that you Lefties won't let him run and take the thrashing he so richly
deserves.

3. Remember the old days when you assured me that he was 'a shoe-in'?
Those were the days, huh?

No, I don't remember that. The only reason he won was because of bat-shit crazy Palin.

And so far, the Republicans have only put up slightly less bat shit crazy candidates.

Hmmmmm.....

I sense a weakening of your enthrallment....down by about 27%.


BTW, let me assure you that you wrote exactly that: a 'shoe-in.'
Glad to see that you're not repeating same.
 
The assertion that primary challenges improve a party's chance of retaining the White House run counter to experience. Reagan's run against Ford, Ted Kennedy's against Carter, and Buchanan's against George H W Bush all merely weakened their party's nominee.

Suggesting that a primary challenge against Obama could help Democrats is particularly implausible, since Obama's personal approval rating runs well ahead of that of other Democrats. You can disagree with Obama's policies, but I have yet to see a plausible case made against his political viability relative to a Democratic challenger.

UPDATE: A further bit of context-- before Kennedy challenged Carter he was out-polling him by two to one. In contrast, 27% support for any challenger to Obama is quite anemic.

Agree.
And, of course, the loss of the black constituency would doom the Democrats for the foreseeable....

...but what if the eloquent one sees the same handwriting on the wall and uses the LBJ gambit....

He could deny the rest of us the smirk I'm practicing....

As the last constitutionally eligible incumbent to decline to run, LBJ certainly bears comparison. Still, I don't think Obama's situation is similar at all. Due to his association with the Vietnam War (among other things) LBJ was much *less* popular than a generic Democrat-- Obama is much more popular than a generic Democrat. More to the point, LBJ's decision was motivated largely by health concerns (Lyndon B. Johnson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). He felt that the stress of the job was killing him, and given that despite taking early retirement he died almost exactly four years after leaving office it seems unlikely that he would have survived another full term.

Another difference, of course, is that Obama definitely isn't going to decline to run-- he announced his reelection campaign some time ago.
 
The assertion that primary challenges improve a party's chance of retaining the White House run counter to experience. Reagan's run against Ford, Ted Kennedy's against Carter, and Buchanan's against George H W Bush all merely weakened their party's nominee.

Suggesting that a primary challenge against Obama could help Democrats is particularly implausible, since Obama's personal approval rating runs well ahead of that of other Democrats. You can disagree with Obama's policies, but I have yet to see a plausible case made against his political viability relative to a Democratic challenger.

UPDATE: A further bit of context-- before Kennedy challenged Carter he was out-polling him by two to one. In contrast, 27% support for any challenger to Obama is quite anemic.

Agree.
And, of course, the loss of the black constituency would doom the Democrats for the foreseeable....

...but what if the eloquent one sees the same handwriting on the wall and uses the LBJ gambit....

He could deny the rest of us the smirk I'm practicing....

As the last constitutionally eligible incumbent to decline to run, LBJ certainly bears comparison. Still, I don't think Obama's situation is similar at all. Due to his association with the Vietnam War (among other things) LBJ was much *less* popular than a generic Democrat-- Obama is much more popular than a generic Democrat. More to the point, LBJ's decision was motivated largely by health concerns (Lyndon B. Johnson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). He felt that the stress of the job was killing him, and given that despite taking early retirement he died almost exactly four years after leaving office it seems unlikely that he would have survived another full term.

Another difference, of course, is that Obama definitely isn't going to decline to run-- he announced his reelection campaign some time ago.

I'm going to judge you by those posts of yours that I have read...

.... you must know better than to take a politicians words at face value.

"Meanwhile, discontent and alienation among the young and racial minorities increased as the promises of the Great Society failed to materialize. By 1967 Johnson's popularity had declined steeply, and in early 1968 he announced that he would not seek reelection. He retired to his Texas ranch."

Read more: Lyndon B. Johnson: Biography from Answers.com

The comparison with Obama is dramatic and, largely, similar. And both will have left with a deep, deep injury to the fisc.
But, this fabricated politician is not the master manipulator that Johnson was.

It would be more than passing interesting to do a compare and contrast of the two.
 
Agree.
And, of course, the loss of the black constituency would doom the Democrats for the foreseeable....

...but what if the eloquent one sees the same handwriting on the wall and uses the LBJ gambit....

He could deny the rest of us the smirk I'm practicing....

As the last constitutionally eligible incumbent to decline to run, LBJ certainly bears comparison. Still, I don't think Obama's situation is similar at all. Due to his association with the Vietnam War (among other things) LBJ was much *less* popular than a generic Democrat-- Obama is much more popular than a generic Democrat. More to the point, LBJ's decision was motivated largely by health concerns (Lyndon B. Johnson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). He felt that the stress of the job was killing him, and given that despite taking early retirement he died almost exactly four years after leaving office it seems unlikely that he would have survived another full term.

Another difference, of course, is that Obama definitely isn't going to decline to run-- he announced his reelection campaign some time ago.

I'm going to judge you by those posts of yours that I have read...

.... you must know better than to take a politicians words at face value.

"Meanwhile, discontent and alienation among the young and racial minorities increased as the promises of the Great Society failed to materialize. By 1967 Johnson's popularity had declined steeply, and in early 1968 he announced that he would not seek reelection. He retired to his Texas ranch."

Read more: Lyndon B. Johnson: Biography from Answers.com

The comparison with Obama is dramatic and, largely, similar. And both will have left with a deep, deep injury to the fisc.
But, this fabricated politician is not the master manipulator that Johnson was.

It would be more than passing interesting to do a compare and contrast of the two.

I think I largely agree with you. Certainly, LBJ's unpopularity directly influenced his decision not to run. It also indirectly influenced it-- In Doris Kearns Goodwin's account (which I can't find online) it was the stress of his unpopularity contributed to LBJ's poor health (as did numerous bad habits and the stress inherent to the job). I certainly don't take politicians' statements at face value (and LBJ was a bigger liar than most), but LBJ didn't mention his health or unpopularity in his announcement not to seek reelection (President Lyndon B. Johnson's Address to the Nation March 31, 1968) instead claiming that he wanted to focus on Vietnam and not be distracted by campaigning.

I also agree that there are parallels between Obama and LBJ-- prosecuting long foreign wars, passing major healthcare legislation, etc. and that Obama is not the manipulator that LBJ was. Of course, after presidents like LBJ and Nixon abused the trust, both Congress and the public were less willing to allow Presidents to manipulate them.
 
a new poll by cnn and orc international finds that 27 percent of democrats would like to see their party nominate a candidate other than barack obama for president in 2012.

"in response to the question, "do you think the democratic party should renominate barack obama as the party's candidate for president in 2012, or do you think the democratic party should nominate a different candidate for president in 2012?" -- 72 percent said they wanted to see obama renominated. But 27 percent, slightly more than one in every four, said they wanted to see democrats nominate a different candidate. One percent had no opinion.

The poll was taken august 24-25. In a survey taken in early august, 28 percent of democrats said they wanted a different candidate. Polls taken in july and before showed obama in a stronger position, with no more than 22 percent saying they preferred a different candidate. The current poll is based on interviews with 463 democrats and has a margin of error of 4.5 percent.

The new poll is another indication of democratic unhappiness with the president,..."
a new poll by cnn and orc international finds that 27 percent of democrats would like to see their party nominate a candidate other than barack obama for president in 2012.

In response to the question, "do you think the democratic party should renominate barack obama as the party's candidate for president in 2012, or do you think the democratic party should nominate a different candidate for president in 2012?" -- 72 percent said they wanted to see obama renominated. But 27 percent, slightly more than one in every four, said they wanted to see democrats nominate a different candidate. One percent had no opinion.

The poll was taken august 24-25. In a survey taken in early august, 28 percent of democrats said they wanted a different candidate. Polls taken in july and before showed obama in a stronger position, with no more than 22 percent saying they preferred a different candidate. The current poll is based on interviews with 463 democrats and has a margin of error of 4.5 percent.

The new poll is another indication of democratic unhappiness with the president,
One in four Democrats wants to dump Obama | Campaign 2012

this is the worst news for those of us who want to run against this empty suit...no, this chalk outline!


Could the dems actually pull a franklin pierce, and not nominate this guy???

And...run a real candidate who might ......(gasp!) ....win???

We might have to run someone other than casey anthony or abdelbaset mohmed ali al-megrahi!

The horror.....the horror......
bwaaa haaa haaa !!!! Thats almost 1/3 of his voting base !!!!!!good by in 2013 obama!!!!
 
The assertion that primary challenges improve a party's chance of retaining the White House run counter to experience. Reagan's run against Ford, Ted Kennedy's against Carter, and Buchanan's against George H W Bush all merely weakened their party's nominee.

Suggesting that a primary challenge against Obama could help Democrats is particularly implausible, since Obama's personal approval rating runs well ahead of that of other Democrats. You can disagree with Obama's policies, but I have yet to see a plausible case made against his political viability relative to a Democratic challenger.

UPDATE: A further bit of context-- before Kennedy challenged Carter he was out-polling him by two to one. In contrast, 27% support for any challenger to Obama is quite anemic.
the Dems wouldn't dare anger their black voting base by running someone against Obama for the nomination!!!!BWAAA HAAA HAAAA .......Affirmative Action in politics!!!! THE DEMS ARE CAUGHT IN THEIR OWN TRAP !!!BWAAA HAAA HAAAAA ..................I LOVE IT!!!:lol::lol:
 
Last edited:
LOL! You people are terrified of Obama.

Instead of obsessing about him, why not find a credible Republican candidate?

Oh, right, there aren't any.
there is a difference between hate and fear!!nobody fears him or his constituents...we just hate his ideology ....
 
a new poll by cnn and orc international finds that 27 percent of democrats would like to see their party nominate a candidate other than barack obama for president in 2012.

"in response to the question, "do you think the democratic party should renominate barack obama as the party's candidate for president in 2012, or do you think the democratic party should nominate a different candidate for president in 2012?" -- 72 percent said they wanted to see obama renominated. But 27 percent, slightly more than one in every four, said they wanted to see democrats nominate a different candidate. One percent had no opinion.

The poll was taken august 24-25. In a survey taken in early august, 28 percent of democrats said they wanted a different candidate. Polls taken in july and before showed obama in a stronger position, with no more than 22 percent saying they preferred a different candidate. The current poll is based on interviews with 463 democrats and has a margin of error of 4.5 percent.

The new poll is another indication of democratic unhappiness with the president,..."
a new poll by cnn and orc international finds that 27 percent of democrats would like to see their party nominate a candidate other than barack obama for president in 2012.

In response to the question, "do you think the democratic party should renominate barack obama as the party's candidate for president in 2012, or do you think the democratic party should nominate a different candidate for president in 2012?" -- 72 percent said they wanted to see obama renominated. But 27 percent, slightly more than one in every four, said they wanted to see democrats nominate a different candidate. One percent had no opinion.

The poll was taken august 24-25. In a survey taken in early august, 28 percent of democrats said they wanted a different candidate. Polls taken in july and before showed obama in a stronger position, with no more than 22 percent saying they preferred a different candidate. The current poll is based on interviews with 463 democrats and has a margin of error of 4.5 percent.

The new poll is another indication of democratic unhappiness with the president,
One in four Democrats wants to dump Obama | Campaign 2012

this is the worst news for those of us who want to run against this empty suit...no, this chalk outline!


Could the dems actually pull a franklin pierce, and not nominate this guy???

And...run a real candidate who might ......(gasp!) ....win???

We might have to run someone other than casey anthony or abdelbaset mohmed ali al-megrahi!

The horror.....the horror......
bwaaa haaa haaa !!!! Thats almost 1/3 of his voting base !!!!!!good by in 2013 obama!!!!

It doesn't mean that, because the question is if there is no primary opponent, how many of those 27% will still vote for Obama in the general election? I would guess most of them will.

Immie
 
a new poll by cnn and orc international finds that 27 percent of democrats would like to see their party nominate a candidate other than barack obama for president in 2012.

"in response to the question, "do you think the democratic party should renominate barack obama as the party's candidate for president in 2012, or do you think the democratic party should nominate a different candidate for president in 2012?" -- 72 percent said they wanted to see obama renominated. But 27 percent, slightly more than one in every four, said they wanted to see democrats nominate a different candidate. One percent had no opinion.

The poll was taken august 24-25. In a survey taken in early august, 28 percent of democrats said they wanted a different candidate. Polls taken in july and before showed obama in a stronger position, with no more than 22 percent saying they preferred a different candidate. The current poll is based on interviews with 463 democrats and has a margin of error of 4.5 percent.

The new poll is another indication of democratic unhappiness with the president,..."
a new poll by cnn and orc international finds that 27 percent of democrats would like to see their party nominate a candidate other than barack obama for president in 2012.

In response to the question, "do you think the democratic party should renominate barack obama as the party's candidate for president in 2012, or do you think the democratic party should nominate a different candidate for president in 2012?" -- 72 percent said they wanted to see obama renominated. But 27 percent, slightly more than one in every four, said they wanted to see democrats nominate a different candidate. One percent had no opinion.

The poll was taken august 24-25. In a survey taken in early august, 28 percent of democrats said they wanted a different candidate. Polls taken in july and before showed obama in a stronger position, with no more than 22 percent saying they preferred a different candidate. The current poll is based on interviews with 463 democrats and has a margin of error of 4.5 percent.

The new poll is another indication of democratic unhappiness with the president,
One in four Democrats wants to dump Obama | Campaign 2012

this is the worst news for those of us who want to run against this empty suit...no, this chalk outline!


Could the dems actually pull a franklin pierce, and not nominate this guy???

And...run a real candidate who might ......(gasp!) ....win???

We might have to run someone other than casey anthony or abdelbaset mohmed ali al-megrahi!

The horror.....the horror......
bwaaa haaa haaa !!!! Thats almost 1/3 of his voting base !!!!!!good by in 2013 obama!!!!

It doesn't mean that, because the question is if there is no primary opponent, how many of those 27% will still vote for Obama in the general election? I would guess most of them will.

Immie
if he looses 10% of the votes he carried in 2008 he is finished!!and you know conservatives are going to turn out the vote in 2012 in historical #'s !!!and Obama is loosing moderate dems and independent votes faster than you can count!!!FACE IT THE LIBBS HAVE LOST!!! and with the socialist totalitarian agenda they pushed on Americans .....the damage they've done to their party has crippled them in the public arena for generations!!
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top