Would a primary challenge from the left serve any purpose for Democrats?

[Sarah G]

If Shrillary takes her testicles back from President Obama (they were loaned out evidently), she might reconsider her claim that her last public job is serving as Secretary of State and possibly, then, she could run against him.

She and Bubba know (as do we all) that he's a one-termer. He's ripe for the picking. Shrillary and Billary have enough political savvy to realize that the Republican nominee will win the White House if the Dems re-nominate President Obama. That leaves only the final calculation which is the key, naturally:

If Shrillary runs and knocks off the incumbent, can she follow it up with an Electoral win in November 2012? If team Clinton considers that prospect sufficiently "do-able," she would run. IF she suspects that she can't seize the Dim nomination OR that she would not be likely to win the General Dejection, then she will not run in 2012 and her political career will probably draw to a close.

Any idea who might take the WH away from Obama? Fred running again?

 

[Avatar4321]

Probably not. But it might help the country.

So it is unlikely to happen

 

[Liability]

If Shrillary takes her testicles back from President Obama (they were loaned out evidently), she might reconsider her claim that her last public job is serving as Secretary of State and possibly, then, she could run against him.

She and Bubba know (as do we all) that he's a one-termer. He's ripe for the picking. Shrillary and Billary have enough political savvy to realize that the Republican nominee will win the White House if the Dems re-nominate President Obama. That leaves only the final calculation which is the key, naturally:

If Shrillary runs and knocks off the incumbent, can she follow it up with an Electoral win in November 2012? If team Clinton considers that prospect sufficiently "do-able," she would run. IF she suspects that she can't seize the Dim nomination OR that she would not be likely to win the General Dejection, then she will not run in 2012 and her political career will probably draw to a close.

Any idea who might take the WH away from Obama? Fred running again?

LOL.

Fred would have made a great President. Sadly, he DID make a poor candidate. You got me there, Miss Conventionality.

A bowl of Guacamole could defeat the current infestation in the Oval Orifice.

And no, I do not know which prospective GOP opponent is most likely to take the nomination. Since Palin Derangement Syndrome is strong with you on the left, there would be some entertainment value in her candidacy. But she's not my preference.

For now, I am content to see how it all shakes out during the primary season. There's time.

 

[Synthaholic]

A primary challenge is not the solution. What's needed is to get more Liberal members of Congress. Every president knows how to count votes.

 

[Synthaholic]

If Shrillary takes her testicles back from President Obama (they were loaned out evidently), she might reconsider her claim that her last public job is serving as Secretary of State and possibly, then, she could run against him.

She and Bubba know (as do we all) that he's a one-termer. He's ripe for the picking. Shrillary and Billary have enough political savvy to realize that the Republican nominee will win the White House if the Dems re-nominate President Obama. That leaves only the final calculation which is the key, naturally:

If Shrillary runs and knocks off the incumbent, can she follow it up with an Electoral win in November 2012? If team Clinton considers that prospect sufficiently "do-able," she would run. IF she suspects that she can't seize the Dim nomination OR that she would not be likely to win the General Dejection, then she will not run in 2012 and her political career will probably draw to a close.

Any idea who might take the WH away from Obama? Fred running again?

Please don't phear me like that!

 

[Liability]

A primary challenge is not the solution. What's needed is to get more Liberal members of Congress. Every president knows how to count votes.

No. What's needed is to boot out the damn libs that are still there.

A conservative super-majority capable of overriding the liberal President's veto, at this very moment, would be a blessing

But, there ain't enough hashish on Earth for this particular pipe dream.

So, for now, I'll settle for GRIDLOCK.

 

[Avatar4321]

A primary challenge is not the solution. What's needed is to get more Liberal members of Congress. Every president knows how to count votes.

Because we clearly aren't spending enough.

 

[Sarah G]

If Shrillary takes her testicles back from President Obama (they were loaned out evidently), she might reconsider her claim that her last public job is serving as Secretary of State and possibly, then, she could run against him.

She and Bubba know (as do we all) that he's a one-termer. He's ripe for the picking. Shrillary and Billary have enough political savvy to realize that the Republican nominee will win the White House if the Dems re-nominate President Obama. That leaves only the final calculation which is the key, naturally:

If Shrillary runs and knocks off the incumbent, can she follow it up with an Electoral win in November 2012? If team Clinton considers that prospect sufficiently "do-able," she would run. IF she suspects that she can't seize the Dim nomination OR that she would not be likely to win the General Dejection, then she will not run in 2012 and her political career will probably draw to a close.

Any idea who might take the WH away from Obama? Fred running again?

Please don't phear me like that!

 

[Synthaholic]

A primary challenge is not the solution. What's needed is to get more Liberal members of Congress. Every president knows how to count votes.

No. What's needed is to boot out the damn libs that are still there.

A conservative super-majority capable of overriding the liberal President's veto, at this very moment, would be a blessing

But, there ain't enough hashish on Earth for this particular pipe dream.

So, for now, I'll settle for GRIDLOCK.

You shouldn't be having wet dreams in the middle of the workday, Liability.

The thread is about what would be the best way for the Liberals to get what they worked for, in electing Obama. It's not about your tired proclamations of Endless Wingnut Majorities™. We heard all about that when Rove was running the show and that wet dream turned out to be pissing in bed.

 

[georgephillip]

If Shrillary takes her testicles back from President Obama (they were loaned out evidently), she might reconsider her claim that her last public job is serving as Secretary of State and possibly, then, she could run against him.

She and Bubba know (as do we all) that he's a one-termer. He's ripe for the picking. Shrillary and Billary have enough political savvy to realize that the Republican nominee will win the White House if the Dems re-nominate President Obama. That leaves only the final calculation which is the key, naturally:

If Shrillary runs and knocks off the incumbent, can she follow it up with an Electoral win in November 2012? If team Clinton considers that prospect sufficiently "do-able," she would run. IF she suspects that she can't seize the Dim nomination OR that she would not be likely to win the General Dejection, then she will not run in 2012 and her political career will probably draw to a close.

Not only do we not all think he's a one-timer, but I'd like for someone that voted for him last time, to make a post stating that you think he is definitely a one-timer that will lose the next election.

All of the posts I read from people stating that, didn't vote for him last time and don't give any reason to back-up their claim.

He'll beat the GOP candidate in 2012 and I've explained why I believe so in multiple posts.

Hillary won't run in 2012 against Obama. That's absurd. If she ever runs for President again, it would be in 2016.

The only option I know of that could do him real harm within party is Russ Feingold. Dean won't run against Obama. Kucinich is too weak. And, if Bloomberg ran, it would be as an Independent. There might be someone else I haven't named, but it would not be Hillary.

What about an independent challenge from Russ Feingold/(Alan Grayson?) that was funded by George Soros in November 2012?

Run, Russ, Run

 

[Synthaholic]

A primary challenge is not the solution. What's needed is to get more Liberal members of Congress. Every president knows how to count votes.

Because we clearly aren't spending enough.

Your simpleton viewpoint only allows for Liberals=Spend.

 

[Synthaholic]

If Shrillary takes her testicles back from President Obama (they were loaned out evidently), she might reconsider her claim that her last public job is serving as Secretary of State and possibly, then, she could run against him.

She and Bubba know (as do we all) that he's a one-termer. He's ripe for the picking. Shrillary and Billary have enough political savvy to realize that the Republican nominee will win the White House if the Dems re-nominate President Obama. That leaves only the final calculation which is the key, naturally:

If Shrillary runs and knocks off the incumbent, can she follow it up with an Electoral win in November 2012? If team Clinton considers that prospect sufficiently "do-able," she would run. IF she suspects that she can't seize the Dim nomination OR that she would not be likely to win the General Dejection, then she will not run in 2012 and her political career will probably draw to a close.

Not only do we not all think he's a one-timer, but I'd like for someone that voted for him last time, to make a post stating that you think he is definitely a one-timer that will lose the next election.

All of the posts I read from people stating that, didn't vote for him last time and don't give any reason to back-up their claim.

He'll beat the GOP candidate in 2012 and I've explained why I believe so in multiple posts.

Hillary won't run in 2012 against Obama. That's absurd. If she ever runs for President again, it would be in 2016.

The only option I know of that could do him real harm within party is Russ Feingold. Dean won't run against Obama. Kucinich is too weak. And, if Bloomberg ran, it would be as an Independent. There might be someone else I haven't named, but it would not be Hillary.

What about an independent challenge from Russ Feingold/(Alan Grayson?) that was funded by George Soros in November 2012?

Run, Russ, Run

Nah, the first Jew president will be a Center-Right candidate.

Can you hear me, Michael Bloomberg?

 

[Liability]

Not only do we not all think he's a one-timer, but I'd like for someone that voted for him last time, to make a post stating that you think he is definitely a one-timer that will lose the next election.

All of the posts I read from people stating that, didn't vote for him last time and don't give any reason to back-up their claim.

He'll beat the GOP candidate in 2012 and I've explained why I believe so in multiple posts.

Hillary won't run in 2012 against Obama. That's absurd. If she ever runs for President again, it would be in 2016.

The only option I know of that could do him real harm within party is Russ Feingold. Dean won't run against Obama. Kucinich is too weak. And, if Bloomberg ran, it would be as an Independent. There might be someone else I haven't named, but it would not be Hillary.

What about an independent challenge from Russ Feingold/(Alan Grayson?) that was funded by George Soros in November 2012?

Run, Russ, Run

Nah, the first Jew president will be a Center-Right candidate.

Can you hear me, Michael Bloomberg?

Mike is not center-right, though.

He's just another lib. Re-packaged, but just a lib all the same.

Please, Mr. Mayor, may I have some more salt in my soup?

******* nanny state idiot.

 

[ElephantMcDonk]

If Shrillary takes her testicles back from President Obama (they were loaned out evidently), she might reconsider her claim that her last public job is serving as Secretary of State and possibly, then, she could run against him.

She and Bubba know (as do we all) that he's a one-termer. He's ripe for the picking. Shrillary and Billary have enough political savvy to realize that the Republican nominee will win the White House if the Dems re-nominate President Obama. That leaves only the final calculation which is the key, naturally:

If Shrillary runs and knocks off the incumbent, can she follow it up with an Electoral win in November 2012? If team Clinton considers that prospect sufficiently "do-able," she would run. IF she suspects that she can't seize the Dim nomination OR that she would not be likely to win the General Dejection, then she will not run in 2012 and her political career will probably draw to a close.

Not only do we not all think he's a one-timer, but I'd like for someone that voted for him last time, to make a post stating that you think he is definitely a one-timer that will lose the next election.

All of the posts I read from people stating that, didn't vote for him last time and don't give any reason to back-up their claim.

He'll beat the GOP candidate in 2012 and I've explained why I believe so in multiple posts.

Hillary won't run in 2012 against Obama. That's absurd. If she ever runs for President again, it would be in 2016.

The only option I know of that could do him real harm within party is Russ Feingold. Dean won't run against Obama. Kucinich is too weak. And, if Bloomberg ran, it would be as an Independent. There might be someone else I haven't named, but it would not be Hillary.

What about an independent challenge from Russ Feingold/(Alan Grayson?) that was funded by George Soros in November 2012?

Run, Russ, Run

This is the first time I've written any sentence in all caps, but I want someone to explain it to me if possible. Someone from the left, preferably this poster:

WHAT PURPOSE WOULD RUSS FEINGOLD SERVE IN A 2012 RUN?

He could only harm Obama's chances of winning reelection in 2012. Nader hurt Gore in 2000 in the general. Perot hurt Bush in 1992 in the general. Kennedy damaged Carter for th 1980 general. Running a guaranteed loser, whether in the primary or the general, only serves to damage the candidate they're most like.

Russ Feingold's chance of winning would be as close to zero as you get, so why run.

 

[ElephantMcDonk]

What about an independent challenge from Russ Feingold/(Alan Grayson?) that was funded by George Soros in November 2012?

Run, Russ, Run

Nah, the first Jew president will be a Center-Right candidate.

Can you hear me, Michael Bloomberg?

Mike is not center-right, though.

He's just another lib. Re-packaged, but just a lib all the same.

Please, Mr. Mayor, may I have some more salt in my soup?

******* nanny state idiot.

I think Michael Bloomberg is the biggest threat to Obama winning reelection. I hope he doesn't run. He's not center-right. He'd have almost no chance of winning. He could serve to be the polar opposite of Ross Perot 1992. Bill Clinton was a really good candidate, but he might have needed Perot to win. I don't think Bloomberg can win. If, as some people say, he feels his best chance to win is "wide goalposts". Meaning a weak Obama in 2012 and a far right GOP candidate, he'll have another problem on his hands. Does he want to be the king/queenmaker to an extreme righty becoming President? Surely not. The other thing is 2012 is going to be a crazy expensive Presidnetial race, given the last one and the new campaign finance rules or lack of rules. Does he really want to compete there. He's got a lot of money, but not Warren Buffett, Bill Gates type money. If he'd want to give himself the best chance of winning, he'd certainly have to spent $500 million plus. Does he really want to do that, when the most likely chance that he'd effect who became President would not be to get elected himself, but rather take it away from Obama and hand it to a far right GOP candidate. I have to doubt it.

 

[Synthaholic]

What about an independent challenge from Russ Feingold/(Alan Grayson?) that was funded by George Soros in November 2012?

Run, Russ, Run

Nah, the first Jew president will be a Center-Right candidate.

Can you hear me, Michael Bloomberg?

Mike is not center-right, though.

He's just another lib. Re-packaged, but just a lib all the same.

Please, Mr. Mayor, may I have some more salt in my soup?

******* nanny state idiot.

He has built up a multi-billion $$$ business from scratch, has executive experience, has been a Democrat and a Republican and an Independent, has managed NYC very well.

Seems like a no-brainer if you want competence. I still think that McCain/Bloomberg would have been a winning ticket: two old White guys, one a foreign policy expert, one a business expert.


ETA: Hey Liability - they don't have salt shakers at every table in the restaurants you go to? Then STFU.

 

[ElephantMcDonk]

He almost certainly wouldn't win as an Independent, but he might stop Obama from winning. Bloomberg is closer to being a Democrat than a Republican, though I know he ran as a Republican in New York. He wouldn't want to hand an election to a far right Republican.

He does have money to burn though. I think he's actually worth something like $20 billion. He might actually being willing to spend what it takes to give himself the best shot. He's getting too old to wait if that's his ambition.

Would he run if he felt like he had a 3% chance of winning, but a 25% chance of being the sole reason that a Sarah Palin type wins instead of Obama. That might be the equation he has to consider.

Even under the most extreme circumstances, where Obama is as weak politically as we could possibly envision in 2012 and the GOP throws up someone like Palin, Bloomberg's chances of actually winning would be very small. The electoral college is close to an absolute dealbreaker for a third party.

 

[georgephillip]

Not only do we not all think he's a one-timer, but I'd like for someone that voted for him last time, to make a post stating that you think he is definitely a one-timer that will lose the next election.

All of the posts I read from people stating that, didn't vote for him last time and don't give any reason to back-up their claim.

He'll beat the GOP candidate in 2012 and I've explained why I believe so in multiple posts.

Hillary won't run in 2012 against Obama. That's absurd. If she ever runs for President again, it would be in 2016.

The only option I know of that could do him real harm within party is Russ Feingold. Dean won't run against Obama. Kucinich is too weak. And, if Bloomberg ran, it would be as an Independent. There might be someone else I haven't named, but it would not be Hillary.

What about an independent challenge from Russ Feingold/(Alan Grayson?) that was funded by George Soros in November 2012?

Run, Russ, Run

This is the first time I've written any sentence in all caps, but I want someone to explain it to me if possible. Someone from the left, preferably this poster:

WHAT PURPOSE WOULD RUSS FEINGOLD SERVE IN A 2012 RUN?

He could only harm Obama's chances of winning reelection in 2012. Nader hurt Gore in 2000 in the general. Perot hurt Bush in 1992 in the general. Kennedy damaged Carter for th 1980 general. Running a guaranteed loser, whether in the primary or the general, only serves to damage the candidate they're most like.

Russ Feingold's chance of winning would be as close to zero as you get, so why run.

When I read the words "guaranteed loser" the first name that comes to my mind is Barack Obama. This president has never been concerned with the welfare of 99% of Americans judging by the number of Wall Street bankers currently serving jail time for stock or control fraud.

Or the "Closed" signs hanging on Gitmo.

I would argue that 6 more years of Obama losing battles he's afraid to fight would guarantee corporate control of US politics on a scale never seen before.

Which is probably exactly why Goldman Sachs anointed him in the first place.

As to what purpose Feingold would serve, Alexander Cockburn has the best reply I've seen:

"Why would he be running? Unlike Teddy Kennedy challenging Jimmy Carter in 1979, Feingold would have a swift answer.

"To fight against the Republicans and the White House in defense of the causes he has publicly supported across a lifetime.

"He has opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"His was the single Senate vote against the Patriot Act; his was a consistent vote against the constitutional abuses of both the Bush and Obama administrations.

"He opposed NAFTA and the bank bailouts. He is for economic justice and full employment. He is the implacable foe of corporate control of the electoral process.

"The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in January was aimed in part at his landmark campaign finance reform bill.

"A Wisconsin voter wrote me in the wake of the election, 'Feingold likely lost because his opponent’s ads, including billboards with pictures of him and Obama, as well as TV and radio ads, and last-minute phone bursts, convinced many voters that he has been a party-line Democratic insider all these years...'"

Run, Russ, Run

The short answer to your question is...Anyone BUT Obama in 2012.

 

[Avatar4321]

A primary challenge is not the solution. What's needed is to get more Liberal members of Congress. Every president knows how to count votes.

Because we clearly aren't spending enough.

Your simpleton viewpoint only allows for Liberals=Spend.

When the shoe fits....

 

[ElephantMcDonk]

What about an independent challenge from Russ Feingold/(Alan Grayson?) that was funded by George Soros in November 2012?

Run, Russ, Run

This is the first time I've written any sentence in all caps, but I want someone to explain it to me if possible. Someone from the left, preferably this poster:

WHAT PURPOSE WOULD RUSS FEINGOLD SERVE IN A 2012 RUN?

He could only harm Obama's chances of winning reelection in 2012. Nader hurt Gore in 2000 in the general. Perot hurt Bush in 1992 in the general. Kennedy damaged Carter for th 1980 general. Running a guaranteed loser, whether in the primary or the general, only serves to damage the candidate they're most like.

Russ Feingold's chance of winning would be as close to zero as you get, so why run.

When I read the words "guaranteed loser" the first name that comes to my mind is Barack Obama. This president has never been concerned with the welfare of 99% of Americans judging by the number of Wall Street bankers currently serving jail time for stock or control fraud.

Or the "Closed" signs hanging on Gitmo.

I would argue that 6 more years of Obama losing battles he's afraid to fight would guarantee corporate control of US politics on a scale never seen before.

Which is probably exactly why Goldman Sachs anointed him in the first place.

As to what purpose Feingold would serve, Alexander Cockburn has the best reply I've seen:

"Why would he be running? Unlike Teddy Kennedy challenging Jimmy Carter in 1979, Feingold would have a swift answer.

"To fight against the Republicans and the White House in defense of the causes he has publicly supported across a lifetime.

"He has opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"His was the single Senate vote against the Patriot Act; his was a consistent vote against the constitutional abuses of both the Bush and Obama administrations.

"He opposed NAFTA and the bank bailouts. He is for economic justice and full employment. He is the implacable foe of corporate control of the electoral process.

"The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in January was aimed in part at his landmark campaign finance reform bill.

"A Wisconsin voter wrote me in the wake of the election, 'Feingold likely lost because his opponent’s ads, including billboards with pictures of him and Obama, as well as TV and radio ads, and last-minute phone bursts, convinced many voters that he has been a party-line Democratic insider all these years...'"

Run, Russ, Run

The short answer to your question is...Anyone BUT Obama in 2012.

REALLY?! Is it against the rules of this message board to call someone an idiot?

How foolish can you be? If you have a hardcore left-wing liberal agenda, your best bet is to do everything in your power to get Obama to fight for it. Feingold will not beatOBama in 2012. If I were an oddsmaker, I'd say the odds are much less than 1000 to 1.

If you would prefer Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney fine, but I can guarantee you Obama will fight a lot more for a liberal agenda than they will. Russ Feingold not only lost, he didn't come close. He lost by 5% and over 100,000 votes to a weak GOP candidate. This is in a state that Obama easily won in 2008 by over 14% and 400,000 votes and will win again in 2012.

Russ Feingold wouldn't have a chance in hell against Obama or a GOP candidate. He would only serve to potentially harm Obama's chances in 2012. You're view is more nauseating than any Republican or Tea Partier on this board.