Some senior democrats are discussing Obama not running for reelection in 2012. They apparently see him for the indefensible failure he is.
Democrats pressing Obama not to run again
Democrats pressing Obama not to run again
Dems tell Obama don't run in 2012
- Thread starter LDB
- Start date
Obama will do ANYTHING to hold on to power. He is there to RULE. He will FIGHT to hold on to power even IF he loses in 2012.
letzrockexpress
Veteran Expediter
O.K. I'll bite...what kind of power will he have if he loses in 2012?? I hope he chooses not to run..Hillary in 2012 will be awesome!
chefdennis
Veteran Expediter
I'd love to see it. I mean he is a failure and most that are willing to admit it can see it. But, the last sentence of the article sayes it all:
Yeap, his ego is too big to walk away....
Yeap, his ego is too big to walk away....
I trust NO leftist extremist OR right wing extremist. I would put NOTHING past an extremist. Force, murder etc. would EVER surprise me. I am not surprised you would like an admitted felon like Hillary!! The law means NOTHING to a Clinton or their supporters. I seem to remember her claiming PROUDLY that she committed felonies while her lying hubby was in office. You remember, reading CLASSIFIED documents? Or was SHE lying about that? Either a felon or a liar. What a GOOD choice.
chefdennis
Veteran Expediter
Then we have this from the AP:
Poll: Dems split over handing Obama '12 nomination
October 30, 2010 - 10:51pm
Poll: Dems split over handing Obama '12 nomination - wtop.com
By ALAN FRAM
Associated Press
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.
Poll: Dems split over handing Obama '12 nomination
October 30, 2010 - 10:51pm
Poll: Dems split over handing Obama '12 nomination - wtop.com
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 Stevenin, 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 1984 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.
The Dumb-O-Crats don't need to worry TOO much. At least for now the ReBumLiCans have NO good candidate. What a joke our two parties have become. The ONLY thing that is funnier is that some STILL back EITHER of those two criminal organizations. Weak minds will follow anyone.
He probably won't walk away,but I could see it. He won't be able to implement anything else of his agenda. It will drive him bonkers not being able to push more of his radical stuff through so he will take his basketball and go home .
You mean awesomely nauseas adnauseum.
chefdennis
Veteran Expediter
I don't see hillary running in 2012....she won't play 2nd fiddle to a republican house who controls the spending and especially if the repulicans pick up anything close in the senate....
And her desire for Hillarycare would be dead too, after the people have gotten a taste of barrycare, and if it is rolledback or even not funded, she'd have no chance of getting her program through...
Then if she is a grandma by then, wgo knows she might just retire to take care of the kiddies...
And her desire for Hillarycare would be dead too, after the people have gotten a taste of barrycare, and if it is rolledback or even not funded, she'd have no chance of getting her program through...
Then if she is a grandma by then, wgo knows she might just retire to take care of the kiddies...
Well, let me ask you this... Would you rather be the everyday shortstop for the Toledo Mudhens, or playing 2nd fiddle as the backup shortstop for the Detroit Tigers?
I can't imagine anyone who wants to be president, Hillary especially, declining the position out of fear they might not have their party also controlling the House and Senate. If someone who wants to be president has a reasonable shot at becoming the president, they'll take it, and won't give the constitution of the Congress a second's thought.
I don't think she'll run in 2012, unless Obama up and walks away and they don't have anyone better.
It would be better to be a back up with the Tigers IF it paid more that being a starter with Toledo.
Hillary, McCain, Obama, Romny, etc. All losers, all retreads. Nothing new, no fresh ideas. Just power hungry ego maniacs. We always seem to be pulling up the sludge from the bottom of the barrel.
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
Agreed. A Hillary presidency would be awesome, like so:
awe·some
[aw-suh
—Usage note
See awful.
aw·ful
[aw-fuh
–adjective1.extremely bad; unpleasant; ugly: awful paintings; an awful job.
...
5.extremely dangerous, risky, injurious, etc.: That was an awful fall she had. He took an awful chance by driving here so fast.
World English Dictionary
awful (ˈɔːfʊl)
—adj 1. very bad; unpleasant
witness23
Veteran Expediter
Agreed. A Hillary presidency would be awesome, like so:
awe·some
[aw-suhm]
—Usage note
See awful.
aw·ful
[aw-fuhl]
–adjective1.extremely bad; unpleasant; ugly: awful paintings; an awful job.
...
5.extremely dangerous, risky, injurious, etc.: That was an awful fall she had. He took an awful chance by driving here so fast.
World English Dictionary
awful (ˈɔːfʊl)
I think you might have some Christians disagreeing with your definition of Awesome. Not only Christians but anyone that has the smallest grasp of the english language.
OK, you lost me. Why would a Christian in particular disagree with that? There is more than one definition for awesome. Please explain. NOT being a smarteepants, I just don't understand.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
He will run in 2012 unless the country goes into the crapper and gets flushed.
The problem is the dems are not in control of their own party, the present group who think it is alright to start looking for someone else forgets what he has brought to the party in support and votes. Even if they lose in congress, the presidency is still a strong and viable office for them to hold on to.
The problem is the dems are not in control of their own party, the present group who think it is alright to start looking for someone else forgets what he has brought to the party in support and votes. Even if they lose in congress, the presidency is still a strong and viable office for them to hold on to.
witness23
Veteran Expediter
The word Awesome in the Bible means: amazing, characterized by reverential fear. Throughout the Bible it is used to describe God. I am not saying you shouldn't use the wordawesome I am mereley pointing out that some may argue or take offense to that word being used other than describing God. Think of it like, when people say you should not use the Lords name in vain. Some people are offende when other do that.
My point was that the word awesome being turned into a word that means the total opposite, bad, unpleasant, ugly, some might not agree.
That's all.
Doggie Daddy
Veteran Expediter
That sludge in the barrel is a lot deeper than most people think, I believe the barrel is all sludge except maybe the last 1/2" or so.
Oh, it pays more. Professional baseball mirrors the haves and have-nots of American that the liberals are always whining about.
For Major League Baseball, the league minimum salary is $400,000, up from $336,000 last year. The average salary is $3.2 million.
For the Minor Leagues, the first contract season minimum is $1100 a month, for however many months the season is (Rookie League ball is short season 3 months, the others are 5 months). Beginning with the second season, it's negotiable, but it doesn't go up much. In AAA, like the Mud Hens, most are making the AAA minimum of $2150 a month, $10,750 a year, but a few are making 2 or 3 times that, like the coveted 6-year Minor League free agents and AAAA guys who bounce back and forth between the majors and minors. Those guys can earn anywhere from $25,000 a year to upwards of $200,000 if they're at the MLB level a lot.
But the biggest thing about being in the minors, even a bench player, is just like the President, someone else carries your bags, you don't have to ride the bus between towns, and you stay in really nice hotels and get lots of free stuff.
Hillary would most definitely play 2nd fiddle to a Republican Congress in order to be President.
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
Awesome and awful can be interchangeable in that regard, as can other words, like terrible. There are high-church prayers that begin, "O great and terrible God..."
see Deut. 3:21--Thou shalt not be affrighted at them; for the Lord thy God is among you, a mighty God and terrible.
1. Adapted or likely to excite terror, awe, or dread; dreadful; formidable. [1913 Webster]