Poll: Dems split over handing Obama '12 nomination

[rug]

WASHINGTON – 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.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101031/ap_on_el_pr/us_ap_poll_obama

[vaberella]

1. Huh...More MSM right wing rhetoric, posted here.

~sigh~ I have no need to watch Fox.

[rug]

4. Read it. It's a poll, not rhetoric. Ignorance is not bliss.

[vaberella]

16. Hence my point.

This entire thread and the MSM is full of bloody polls---projecting a bunch of lies and scenarios. The MSM has declared democratic failure this election by several polls. People say Obama's favorability is down, which makes no sense in relation to the mass number of people at his rallies this past month and last month. So yeah---I see it as rhetoric---and set up to further divide Dems. As though it's likely a new candidate will raise enough popularity when, and if Palin runs---she doesn't have a credible people would rather ignore.


All in all, I'm not wasting my time with polls to help a rhetoric that subtly ingrained in all right-wing talking points.

[Exilednight]

33. You can't take the number of people at a rally and say ...........

that a public opinion poll is out of whack because he draws 20,000 people to see him speak.


McCain wasn't drawing anywhere near the crowds that Obama was during the election, but McCain still managed to pull in nearly 60,000,000 votes to Obama's 69.5 million.

Don't get me wrong, nearly 10 million winning votes is pretty nice, but according to your logic it should of been a landslide of epic proportions with Obama beating McCain by a 3 to 1 margin.

[vaberella]

65. I can't say a public opinion poll is correct...when I know I didn't participate in it.

And that can be said about all the polls on this site. Look, you believe this poll and article because it fits what you want to believe. I'm sure for various reasons or b/c Obama doesn't have the support, or he should have been more progressive so he could maintain the democratic bid, or someone else should run against him and if he loses oh well--it's obvious by this poll he wouldn't have it, or whatever.

I'm not about to believe in a poll at all, because as I said this site is littered with them and they change by the second. Further more this is just another poll doing what all the other polls have been trying to do. Divide the Dems and we end up losing in the end. There's a gap, look the polls said so.

You want me to buy into some BS, and I think it's because it fits or you want it to fit your perception. You do you..however this poll is crap to me.

Edited since I added a phrase that is confusing in regards to the text as a whole.

[Exilednight]

69. Backpedal any faster and ...................

you'll end up on the opposite side of the world.

First you say, "This entire thread and the MSM is full of bloody polls---projecting a bunch of lies and scenarios".

Then you say, "I'm not claiming it's wrong, but there's cause for doubt."

So which is it, a bunch of lies, or is there cause for doubt?

If you believe it's lies, then you believe the poll can not be true.

If you believe it's cause for doubt, then it might be true.

[vaberella]

72. Fine, since it does seem like a backpedal.

"This entire thread and the MSM is full of bloody polls---projecting a bunch of lies and scenarios". <---It's definitely this and another poster sort of locked that this is an article pushing the PUMA position. So it's whatever. This poll is a crock, like the PBS-Polls and others. I'll even edit my post if I can in regards to that last part since it does add confusion.

[denimgirly]

5. Half of DU will agree with that Poll

And i would be one of them. For me i am divided as well. Seeing the Stewart interview it seems Obama is happy with Geitner and Summer and the lack of real price control on Health Insurers and to me this is disheartening. He even openly admitted that it wasnt about Change as it was just working the system. The sad thing though is that there is no other democrat that would stand a chance against Obama. I'd say Hilary but but even if she ran against him (and likely won) her stance on everything is even more conservative than Obama...but at least she'd fight for them.

Honestly, if a Weiner or Grayson or Feingold ran...even though they would stand little chance since they are real Progressives....i'd vote for them over Obama in a heartbeat.

So i think for our party the best thing we can do and hope for is that Obama wakes up and becomes a real Left fighter and we nominate that imaginary Obama for '12.
In reality though we will just have no choice but to vote him back in...the lesser of two evils.

[Kurovski]

10. And the poll is split almost in half as well

When you see the recc/unrecc percentages on obama threads here at DU, often the split is similar to the poll findings in the article, so your assessment is true to the mark.

[Exilednight]

20. I'd like to see Franken run, but I think his comedy career would hurt him ...............

On the other hand, this is a country who elected Reagan.............. twice.



My problem with Obama is that he doesn't even put up a fight. I wouldn't mind the compromise as long as he went down swinging.

[Tesha]

45. He loses because he doesn't even *COME OUT* swinging! (NT)

[creon]

54. two evils

A President is usually the lesser of two evils -- or more than one - and a sitting President usually disappoints or betrays someone sometime. It is the nature of the beast.

You make your argument, try to convince/show him that you are right on an issue. Just remember that you are competing with others who think that they have the answer as well as you. If he does not do what you want him to do, you have choices to make.

Including nominating someone else. If that other person wins - that person will, as surely as night follows day, disappoint or betray you just as Obama did. Politics is a tough trade; one of the toughest around.

[vi5]

60. Bingo....

I agree 100%. And glad to see someone else make the same point as I have about Hilary. People still want to fight that battle, which shows just how sad the country has become that our main choices are "conservative" or "more conservative".

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

91. It's BS. Hillary would have governed the same way. Stacked with Clintonistas!

Triangulation! Running to the right.

People who claim that Hillary is some liberal lion to the left of Obama is laughable.

More bullshit to divide the party.

[Kurovski]

13. We used to call FOX viewers "sheeple" for blindly following.

We would do well to practice vigilance all around.

[vaberella]

21. If I were following...I'd live for polls as some posters are pimping for this post.

I don't know why I'm expected to believe this poll and be seen as "sheeple" if I don't. Put you believe it if you want.

[Kurovski]

29. I'm following what happens here on DU and in my community.

I'm not sure what your point is.

I realize that polls are near to worthless on many counts. But i'm talking reality as it presents itself to me.

[vaberella]

75. My community then si completely different. But I'm from New York City---so that could be why.

It definitely doesn't reflect my community.

[rug]

38. "pimping for this post"? Do you mean discussing?

[vaberella]

74. Hardly...pimping---promoting of sorts---as though it's 100% factual. n/t

[rpannier]

2. I'm among those that want him to be challenged in the primary

But, I think everyone (at all levels) should have primary challenges.

[denimgirly]

7. +1

I just wish Obama was just a fighter for us. If he were i'd be enthusiastic in voting him back in. Right now, a challenge would prolly make him more awake to left issues instead of compromising them away at every chance.

[dennis4868]

80. No other president...

Was tough as Obama to get the HCR bill passed that gets rid of pre-existing conditions, can't be drooped from coverage if you get sick, everyone gets preventive care, kids stay on mom and dads plan until 27, etc. No other president was tough enough. Obama was!

[Kurovski]

11. Good point.

No one should take their position for granted. They are all remarkable privilages to serve.

[Blasphemer]

88. That is how I feel about primary challenges as well

Given that we are currently stuck in (in, not with) a two-party system, primary challenges are essential. Most politicians, on all levels, begin to feel a sense of entitlement. They are supposed to earn their positions, not be handed them.

[lamp_shade]

3. Oh big surprise... Yahoo... duh.

[rug]

6. Associated Press, duh.

[Pab Sungenis]

8. He deserves to be, and should be.

He himself invited us to hold his feet to the fire and force him to do what he promised. The least we can do is take him at his word.

[Kurovski]

14. Rahm did Obama no favors the way he interjected himself into the Health care debate

Obama had an actual mandate, and he let Mr.Corporate butt-tickler take over the momentum.

It was his first and most lasting--disaster--I think . Huge swaths of the public wanted a public option and other features that were thrown overboard. They took the people for granted, and then tried to tell us that a cowpie was a cookie.

Things like that truly matter, as we can see. And that despite the ridiculous arrogance of a Rahm Emmanuel.

It;s gross that he might be mayor of my beloved Chicago, but I'm sure as hell glad his ass is out of the White House.

[Teaser]

17. nobody besides us knew what a public option was

and stop deluding yourself that "huge swaths" of the public would have supported it. They answered a question on a poll that they didn't understand, and the moment the corporate media had decided a public option was likely to happen, the campaign would go into overdrive to make the public hate it.

The general public is a dumb and dangerous beast.

[vaberella]

22. Thank you. And this is reflected in our Congress--particularly Senate where Dems shot it down.

And threatened a no vote on the entire bill b/c of the PO. But people don't seem to get that.

[Kurovski]

30. self-delete

edited for pointlessness.

[Bluenorthwest]

51. June 20 '09 CBS Poll- 72% of Americans support Public Option

So calling Americans stupid and claiming only 'we' even knew about the public option is false as all hell. Full tilt false.
People don't 'seem to get that' because it is not true, what you are claiming. The President left 72% of Americans in the dust out of his fear of Tea Bag Republicans.
Deal with that facts. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/19/opinion/polls/main5098517.shtml

[vaberella]

70. You need to get real here. You do realize we don't deal with Legislation.

What is this nonsense that the president left us in the cold. You do realize the President doesn't vote on Legislation. He brought it up during the bid for health care. He discussed it religiously and he went to rallies mentioning the PO. I know, I watched everyone. To blame the President is absurd and just illogical. What do you think this country is? A monarchy? Really? Because that's the only way this blame can be put on the president. For decades we had shitty health care with women and children being discriminated against and so many millions with noting. He even closed the donut hole which was eating away at the Seniors. And because he wanted to get 85-90% of everything he asked for----and was willing to take the loss on 10%---->It's his fault. You do realize we'd have NO bill. Then he'd be seen as a bastard for not taking the aid that would help this nation economically.

You think he's afraid of teabag Republicans? That says to me you were not paying attention during the health care debate. There were Democrats in the Senate who clearly stated---3 or more ---Landrieu and Clinton being the firm two who said ---If you have the PO we're going to vote NO. So don't sit there and put this push on Obama when we have a problem in the Senate here. They are the biggest problem and always have been.


I'm tired of this blame not being projected properly. This is also the reason why I'm so concerned by State elections because I know it's these assholes who will fuck us over as they did with the PO. Not Obama. If you even listed a few of the things he did by executive order----99% if not all was Progressive. WE can see when he's given the freelance to do these things he goes progressive. The problem was he's not the legislative party. You sit there and type as though Obama would NEVER have voted for the PO if it he himself---If that were true I'd hold his feet to the fire. But when you have the people who voting who are part of your party telling you to fuck off and they'll vote no because of their loud angry constituents there is very little you can do as leader.

Lastly I shouldn't say American are stupid. They did vote for Obama after all. However, let's just say---there is a lot of misinformation and your statement in laying blame entirely on Obama is a perfect example.

[Bluenorthwest]

82. Lots of words. I did not lay the blame only on Obama

I just corrected your false statement that Stupid Americans did not even support the Public Option. One poster was saying only DU even knew what it was. You did this as a way to defend Obama, that is your issue. Everyone is stupid and the facts have to be made up.
You rage at me about proper dispersing of the 'blame' yet you foist false 'facts' and blame the People, you failed to address the 72% support the Public Option had, which you claim it did not have. So you lash out at me, Americans in general, and when confronted with some facts, you simply keep lashing out. He had the vast majority on board for the Public Option. That is a fact. We did not get one. Also a fact. Congress and the President did that.
The lecture on how legislation is passed in response to actual poll numbers showing the support you say was not there is just rude. Look down you nose at someone who has no facts, someone who actually lays it all on Obama, which I did not do. I simply did not.
72% support for the Public Option, from the American People whom you call stupid.

[Teaser]

135. Americans aren't ant stupider than the rest of humanity...

But I'm increasingly of the opinion that a brain optimized for a thirty year life span in a small band of hunter gatherers is not able to cope, by and large, with the complexities of the modern world.

[Hello_Kitty]

154. So sweet that you're worried about state elections from your vantage point in NY.

I'm in Arizona where Dems are facing a bloodbath up and down the ballot. We're not just poised to lose some Congressional seats, but also every statewide (Gov. on down) and quite a few lege seats. We're looking at a future with Jan Brewer as Governor and a veto-proof GOP majority in the state legislature. They are ALL running against Obama, no matter what podunk position they're seeking.

[Kurovski]

25. I don't agree that people are stupid, and that's where you've tripped yourself up;

promises are very easy to understand.

With health care the features were easy to figure.

You say "us"? I hadn't even been coming here on DU for two years, i was out there in the public. I was talking to people. People are NOT stupid about health care . It is something that families have to deal with ALL the time. They are not stupid about it. That is a fact. it's an enormous part of peoples lives, particularly older folks and people with children.

[vaberella]

71. Do you forget that the tea partiers are American's---which is what the poster was addressing?

They're not some removed part in a separate world. They are Americans and for all intents and purposes they are stupid about health care. Unless you think they're smart about it. Then that's all well and good.

[Kurovski]

77. again, i'm not sure what point you wish to make here.

Tea'ers are what? two percent of the population? One? And yes, even they will get their stuff together when dealing with matters of health. It's survival, it's a basic and most people prepare for health issues because at some point it's going to come up. It's on-going.

[vaberella]

141. They've been estimated at being a bit more of the population.

Main reason is because many teabaggers beat out incumbent politicians in many states. You can't discredit them by saying they're only 2 % of the population. If I'm to believe the Nevada race polls---Angle would not have had such a close or near close race as she has had.

"And you say they will get their stuff together when dealing with matters of health." <---We didn't see that during the healthcare debate and any discussion by naysayers on Obama health care who are part of the teaparty or shift that way STILL no nothing about what is going on. I believe Obama had a rally in one of these states ---the one before Virginia and this woman was told by a nurse her mother could expect several things because of Obamacare---death being one of them. And this is a year since passage. Clearly, there are a good number of Americans who have not "their stuff together".

[Bluenorthwest]

48. June 20 '09 CBS Poll- 72% of Americans support Public Option

That left that famous 28% that oppose everything. Only Baggers opposed it. Sticking your head in the sand and making shit up when there are facts and Google is a daft thing to do.
This is one of many polls from the time. Vast swaths, the huge majority, most Americans, almost everybody, put it how you will. 72%.
And you think no one but 'us' even knew what it was? The hubris in that is chilling. 72%.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/19/opinion/polls/main5098517.shtml

[Teaser]

132. Hubris is only a problem when one is wrong.

But I am not wrong.

Few of those respondents would have been able to explain what a public option is.

[Exilednight]

26. Good news for you, Rahm will not win the mayorship of Chicago ............

That town is run by the Daley family. Daley might publicly endorse him, but behind the scenes Daley will screw him.

[Kurovski]

31. well that's just thrilling news.

Thank you so much.

Emmanuel will be Daley without the love of theater and beauty.

So i'm back to square one. :)

[Exilednight]

35. Here's what I know about any Daley .........

they are corrupt as all hell, but they love Chicago and will do anything to protect it.

Personally, I think Daley is eyeing up the governors mansion.

[Kurovski]

39. He's eyeing his wife.

Whom he loves to desperation. It's trumping politics, at least for now.

[Kurovski]

9. Maybe that will put some lead in his pencil.

One can hope.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. Raw Oysters Will Do That

:D

[Kurovski]

32. ...and basketball playing.

Exercise in general boosts the blood flow. :)

[Kdillard]

12. Unbelievable stupidity but not surprising.

[Kurovski]

18. Unbelievable blindness, and I am truly surprised.

You don't promise things that you then turn around and say you are not going to do, and expect people to support you. Unless you're used to abuse.

--It's quite smart in reality to hold leaders accountable, and may have Obama saving his own presidency if he listens.

[dennis4868]

44. If you are talking about a promise for a public option....

I don't believe Obama ever promised that.....

[Exilednight]

47. Really? Here's a few quotes for you ............

– In the 2008 Obama-Biden health care plan on the campaign’s website, candidate Obama promised that “any American will have the opportunity to enroll in new public plan.” <2008>

– During a speech at the American Medical Association, President Obama told thousands of doctors that one of the plans included in the new health insurance exchanges “needs to be a public option that will give people a broader range of choices and inject competition into the health care market.” <6/15/09>

– While speaking to the nation during his weekly address, the President said that “any plan” he signs “must include…a public option.” <7/17/09>

[Kurovski]

57. You beat me to it.

And thanks for that.

[dennis4868]

79. Again....

During the campaign he never promised the public option that passed in the house. It is true that starting in a couple of years there will be an exchange that will provide insurance at more competitive and cheaper rates. This is what Obama was promising during the 2008 campaign.

[Exilednight]

83. From the Blueprint for Change ..............

Guarantee Affordable, Accessible Health Coverage for Every American
Barack Obama and Joe Biden’s health care plan both builds on and improves the current insurance system, and leaves Medicare intact for seniors. For all Americans who like their health insurance, nothing changes except that they will have lower costs — $2,500 for a typical family. For those who do not have health insurance, they will have a range of private insurance options — accessible through a new National Health Insurance
Exchange that is similar to what Members of Congress have — as well as a public plan.
The National Health Insurance Exchange will feature:
• Guaranteed Eligibility: No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions.
• Comprehensive Benefits: The benefit package will be similar to that offered through Federal Employees
Health Benefits Program, the plan members of Congress have. The plan will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity, and mental health care.

See the parts in bold? That's the public option. It's a government run option open to the public. He might not of given it the name "public option", but that was the promise - an option open to the public that is run by the federal government.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. President Obama Will Not Have A Credible Primary Challenge

And if he does it will mean he was so poilitically weakened the nomination is worthless anyway.

[Exilednight]

23. I wouldn't hold my breath on that prediction .............

I guarantee you that some Dem is sitting out there and looking at this poll and thinking they might have a shot. There's an old saying in Washington, every morning 100 Senators wake up, and when they look in the mirror they think they are seeing the next president.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. I Have Seen One Credible Party Challenge To An Incumbent President In My Life

And if Ted Kennedy with arguably the strongest brand name in Democratic politics couldn't beat Jimmy Carter I don't see any Democrat beating Barack Obama.

[rug]

40. Kennedy wasn't a credible challenge. On the other hand, NH 68 caused a sitting president to quit.

Over his wars.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. Not After He Was "Chappaquidicked"

However, if I remember he came into the convention with about forty percent of the delegates and big wins in states like California and New York.

And if you read the entire post I allow for the 68 scenario,ergo

"President Obama Will Not Have A Credible Primary Challenge. And if he does it will mean he was so poilitically weakened the nomination is worthless anyway."

Hello President Bush, Jeb that is.

[rug]

53. He was Chappaquiddicked 11 years earlier.

What really weakened the party for the general campaign was Kennedy's pouting all the way to the floor of the Convention. Humphrey, on the other hand, almost pulled it off despite massive dissension outside the party.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

66. Chappaquiddick Was The Incident

In retrospect the incident "disqualified" him from higher office. It was the exploiting of the incident by the Carter team (that's politics and maybe justified because it was a heck of an "incident") and the press that ruined his campaign.

I am a crude economic determinist. I believe economics drive everything. And no president is going to be re-elected with eighteen percent interest rates. And throw in three foreign/defense policy debacles and you have the recipe for a blowout.

[Exilednight]

43. Say what you want about Carter but ..............

He was actually a pretty popular president among Democrats (Ted only carried 12 states, Brown carried 1, and Carter carried 37), but Reagan used a divide and conquer strategy. Kennedy weakened Carter in the primary, and that allowed Reagan to win by a landslide.

Carter is also has the highest average of among any modern president for passing his legislative agenda. He even beats Obama. People like to run around on here and say "look at Obama's list of accomplishments compared to his campaign promises", and it's dishonest at best. Most of Obama's legislation has been watered-down when compared to his agenda.

Also, don't forget that Wallace was a third party candidate in 1980 and bled away 16% of the vote, and even though he was a Republican many Democrats supported him.

I will also point out that Ted didn't bring anything new to the table in terms of a platform.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

49. Wallace Was The Third Party Candidate In 68 Not 80

And I would argue that the fourteen percent of the vote he received came from Nixon as both he and Nixon were the right of center candidates with him of course being further to the right. This is demontrated by the fact that in 1972 with no right of center candidate to split the vote with Nixon he got 62% of the vote.

Even if Anderson hadn't run in 80 Carter would have still lost as Reagan got 51% of the vote. I would submit that a lot of the Anderson voters would have sat home in 80 anyway as while they couldn't cast a vote for Carter who was deemed, fairly or unfairly, as ineffective, they couldn't vote for someone as conservative as Reagan.

[Exilednight]

52. You're correct, it wasn't Wallace, it was Anderson who ran in 1980 ............

You forget that Anderson was endorsed by many liberal intellectuals. He also took away the liberal Republicans which was a key demographic for any Democrat to win during that time frame.

I will concede that Carter would of still lost even if he took every vote that Anderson had, but it would of been a lot closer.

[Smarmie Doofus]

59. Reagan nearly KO'd Ford in '76.

McCarthy chased LBJ out in '68.


It is MORE than possible.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

61. I Wish Folks Would Read The Entire Post

President Obama Will Not Have A Credible Primary Challenge And if he does it will mean he was so poilitically weakened the nomination is worthless anyway.

[Kurovski]

34. I'm guessing there's going to be a logjam broken,

and we're going to see progress in the next two years.

even if we lose a house to Publicans.

The white house has their own polls, way more accurate and if they want to remain in power, Obama will get moving.


I'm just playing wolf blitzer here, which really makes my stomach kinda queasy.

[democrank]

24. I`d like to see a challenger, someone

absolutely, positively willing to fight for REAL change. I`d like someone who would know when to compromise but someone whose decisions are not based on a burning need to be liked and validated by everyone in the room.

[great white snark]

56. "burning need to be liked and validated by everyone in the room"

Please tell me you're a psychologist privy to Obama's social desirability....not that you just pulled it from your ass.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

58. That's Not Unique To Obama

Everbody likes to be liked except sociopaths.

[great white snark]

64. Yes, I understand that.

But I see no inordinate need for this President to be liked, in fact he's pissed off a lot of people in the name of progress.

[vaberella]

76. He's pissed off both sides. But for some reason he's trying to be liked.

It doesn't make sense, does it?

[creon]

27. 2012

A Democratic politician is free to run for the nomination in 2012. If he finds it useful.

That would be interesting.

[Kurovski]

37. I agree that it would be interesting.

specifically in a debate.

Probably won't happen. But what you say is true.

It would be like Party self-examination done in public. If it was done well, anyway.

[creon]

46. perhaps

I would not rely upon it being well done.

It would be more useful if Democrats could actually work with Democrats. If that were true, the question would not exist.

[Kurovski]

55. Agreed, on all counts.

[TheCowsCameHome]

36. It all hinges on the economy

If it improves, he's golden. If not, well................

[Kurovski]

41. that's probably the truest statement in the entire thread thus far.

:)

[NYC Liberal]

50. Obama is running in 2012. He will easily receive the nomination, and

there will be no serious primary challenge, if any at all.

Oh, and for the delusional: no, Hillary will not be running.

Bookmark this post if you like.

[Kaleva]

62. "tend to be less educated, less liberal and likelier to have been 2008 Clinton backers. "

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101031/ap_on_el_pr/us_ap_poll_obama

[vaberella]

67. Ahhh...so it's an article pushed by PUMAs...good job. n/t

[rug]

92. Let's see, you call this article Fox, pimping and now PUMA driven.

You're flailing.

[vaberella]

140. PUMAs and Fox idiots are of equal measure to me.

As for pimping..I'm from New York...it's just a phrase I use. I'm sorry if you don't get the connotation. Pimping...is like selling a meme. To me it makes perfect sense.

[rug]

146. Oh, I was born and raised in Manhattan, I know what the P in GDP stands for.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vaberella]

68. It seems to be written in order to make it seem Obama wouldn't have the votes due to PUMAs

Right wing as ever.

[BrentWil]

73. I never understood why this was such a bad thing...

I like having a choice, but would properly vote for Obama in a Primary.

(I know, it hurts you in the General, so people say. Democracy can be worrisome)

[Proud Liberal Dem]

86. Not a bad idea to dumpt a "dead weight" sure loser candidate if necessary

However, I refuse to believe that it has really gotten THAT bad for him.......yet.

You're right. It is part of Democracy and anybody that wants to can certainly challenge him in 2012. However, this is as pertinent of topic now as it was last year when, almost right after getting inaugurated, people began suggesting a primary challenge. President Obama was elected to a four year term and he should have at least nearly that long to prove to us that he deserves re-nomination. If, by this time year, he hasn't, then if somebody has the cojones to challenge him for the nomination, they should do so and people will decide in 2012 if we want President Obama to run again (or not). I just hope that people- should they decide to vote for a hypothetical challenger- go into it with a clear understanding of what this individual is going to do differently from President Obama and that he/she has a plan to follow through with it- how they are going to handle Congress (both Democrats AND Republicans)- better than President Obama has in order to get what they want. :shrug:

[JNelson6563]

78. Pointing and laughing at reich wing idiocy.

Let's see, Obama beat the Clinton machine in the 08 primary and then raised a quarter of a billion dollars to win the WH.

While there is not shortage of delusion here at DU I doubt any Dem of high ranking in the real world is so delusional as to think they could beat this man.

Though you keep at it friend, maybe, if you can post enough winger nonsense, you may be able to peel a few votes away from Obama by '12. Maybe.

Julie

[rug]

95. Actually he raised a half billion. Perhaps you left out the corporate donations.

Speaking of delusions, have you noticed the wars, unemployment and pandering to Republicans in the last two years? If it looks like he will lose the general, you can be sure there will be pressure on him to quit or he will be primaried. They have invested too much in him to have him on the top of a losing ticket.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

81. *Yawn*

Wake me up in.....oh....say.....2012. If he's still doing THIS bad- assuming that this is even accurate- then I'd be worried if I were him. As it stands now, we don't know what the next two years might hold let alone what's REALLY going to happen this Tuesday, so I'm going to discount this as being too early of an indicator to gauge President Obama's prospects for a second term. It would be interesting to see who- if anybody- decides to present themselves as a viable alternative to President Obama and how they would propose to do things differently- and better- than he has done given the circumstances he has had to deal with. I'm not saying that he has not made any mistakes during the past 1-2 years- nobody is infallible, of course- but his record has hardly been one of failure. I don't think some people, however, appreciate the fact that nothing as bad as we had it when he first took office can get fixed overnight. I'm sure that it's easy to sit on the sidelines and critique and second-guess his every decision but it's not quite as easy, however, to be the one charged with actually trying to figure out all of the intricacies of the problems facing you and respond to them in an effective manner- it is even harder when you have even some members of your own party joining with the "loyal opposition" to try to "kneecap" you right out of the starting gate.

[rug]

96. 2012 starts Wednesday. I'll wake you up when we're near your stop.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

119. I guess we'll see if anybody decides to actually do it

soon enough. I'll be interested in seeing who it may be and what their plans for doing things differently/better are (as well as why he/she hasn't been trying to fill our supposed "leadership vacuum" already)

[saltpoint]

84. There could be a challenge to Obama, though whether

from the left of center or the right of center, or both, remains to be seen.

Evan Bayh doesn't seem to have very much to do these days. After Coats is sworn in to sit in Bayh's current Senate seat, Evan will have even less to do.

I guess he could put in a new deck out back or maybe, you know, run for president as an "Independent Democrat." Yuck.

On the left of Obama, keep in mind that the people who are impressive are impressive in part because they're perceptive, and at the moment, I don't see them as likely to consider Barack Obama vulnerable.

There were a lot of .300 hitters who couldn't do shit against Sandy Koufax and Bob Gibson.

[Phx_Dem]

85. The whiners are gonna do everything they can to make sure we lose the WH

in 2012. Assholes.

[CakeGrrl]

87. So WHO'S it gonna be?

Who do all these people who want him to be primaried want to be his challenger?

Or is it just some ideal unnamed, as-yet-unknown uber-Progressive who will say the things that they want to hear so they feel good about following challenger? Because if they haven't held the office of POTUS yet, no telling how reality will impact THEIR plans.

:eyes:

[suzie]

107. The article says they want Clinton, basically a do-over of '08.

[CakeGrrl]

113. Ah yes, another PUMA-fueled screed...just in time for the midterms!

Some of these "Dems" are slipping in their wish to get Obama out of Hillary's spot. I suppose crippling him with a partly Republican-controlled Congress could be considered a means to an end. Bleh.

[AspenRose]

136. Clinton and Obama are practically the same in political philosophy

Clinton a bit more hawkish

So I don't understand this "do-over" business :shrug:

At any rate, it won't happen

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

89. You have to read further down before the article admits that those who want Obama challenged...

...are disenchanted Hillary voters.

This article is a bunch of bullshit.

Yet another tactic to divide Democrats and demoralize voters so that they don't vote.

[ProSense]

90. Yup,

typical bullshit.

[rug]

97. Actually, if you in fact read it, these are the highlights:

_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.

That's 30% of Obama primary supporters.

_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.

That's 60% of Clinton supporters.

_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.

That's 15% of those who voted for him in the general.

_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.

That's 25% of his voters who say he doesn't get it.

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

Thats 25% of voters who have flipped their opinion.

Regardless of your spin, that's a significant hemorrhage across the board.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

134. MY spin??!?!?! 80% of Obama voters want Obama re-elected.

Considering the bullshit he's been through, I think that's pretty revealing, isn't it?

I think so, regarding of "spin."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x495829#496193

[rug]

147. And 30% want him primaried.

There's a difference between a primary and a general election.

Hold onto the wall until you recover your equilibrium.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

157. That's not a MAJORITY, or did you fail math, too?

Off to ignore. I don't have time or patience for the divisive shit!

Bye!

[DevonRex]

101. So it's the PUMAs who want him challenged? ROFLMAO!!!!

OMG. :rofl:

[Historic NY]

111. I said that yesterday...and some got all snarly.

[DevonRex]

128. Well, what's the use of having fangs and claws and stuff

if they never snarl, right?

Sure, nobody pays attention to them anymore but it doesn't keep 'em from trying.

:rofl:

[dionysus]

116. you dream crusher, you! why don't you have a truffle and relax. let them indulge in fantasies...

:hi:

[DevonRex]

125. And...

I crushed those dreams in 2008 and they still don't KNOW it! :rofl:

:hi:

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

123. Stop laughing and read the *entire* article!

A good number of those supporting a challenger voted for Hillary.

[ProSense]

93. "Deserves to be re-elected"

Deserves to be re-elected

2008 Obama voters: 83
2008 McCain voters: 10

Deserves to be voted out of office:

2008 Obama voters: 15
2008 McCain voters: 88


Barack Obama campaigned on a platform of “change.” So far, do you think Barack Obama is…

Living up to his promises to change the way

2008 Obama voters 30
2008 McCain voters: 15

Breaking his promises to change the way things work in Washington

2008 Obama voters 19
2008 McCain voters: 66

It is too soon to tell

2008 Obama voters 50
2008 McCain voters: 18


Thinking ahead to 2012, would you like to see Barack Obama face a serious challenge in the 2012
presidential primaries from another Democratic candidate, or not?

Yes
2008 Obama voters 36
2008 McCain voters: 87

No
2008 Obama voters 64
2008 McCain voters: 13


PDF

This poll shows President Obama in excellent standing given all the BS spin. Yeah, he's lost a little support among his voters, but he's converted a small number of McCain voters.

[rug]

98. 36% of Obama voters who now want him primaried is not losing "a little support".

Nice PDF by the way.

[ProSense]

103. 64-36 is not split.

83 percent say he deserves to be re-elected, which means that there are likely some among the 36 who don't have a problem with primary challenges.

AP's spin is a huge fail.

[Drunken Irishman]

105. Agreed...

This is why polling needs to be upfront and not infer the results.

They sit there and suggest because one person thinks this way, they can't think the other way.

So there might be Dems out there who wouldn't mind Obama getting a primary challenge - but that doesn't mean they don't want him to be POTUS come 2012.

[Drunken Irishman]

94. This thread is FULL of LOLz...

Seriously. You guys are fucking funny.

First, it's one poll. There is no other poll out there that backs up this one's claim.

Secondly, you all high fiving each other over the prospects of Obama getting primaried need a clue.

Did you actually read the poll? Those who want Obama primaried are more conservative in their leanings.

It's not the liberals who want Obama primaried - it's the damn right of the party!

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

You people need to realize that if Obama is primaried, it's coming from the right - not the left like in 1980 with Carter.

[rug]

100. If there's a primary, look to 1968, not 1980.

[Drunken Irishman]

104. If there is a primary, look for it to come from Sen. Nelson of Nebraska.

[emulatorloo]

109. "Those who want Obama primaried are more conservative in their leanings. " Agreed

That is pretty much what every poll I have read seems to indicate. (Job Approval #s). What I guess we used to call "The Reagan Democrats."

[CBR]

99. It would be really super smart to try to boot out the first black

president after one term. What a great country! That does not live up to the higher expectations standard at all... this is truly pathetic.

[CakeGrrl]

102. The Party that keeps shooting itself in the foot...why stop now? n/t

[Pirate Smile]

110. Oh, lordy, I hadn't even thought about the racial implications of primaring him.

Disaster.

It is ridiculous just because the incumbent POTUS wins the nomination but is much more likely to lose the General - add to that insulting the most loyal voting base of Democrats? Disaster is an understatement.

[CBR]

133. It seems that many just do not really give a shit about the racial

implications.... sigh...

[AspenRose]

137. They do that and they risk kissing the black electorate goodbye

which is a huge part of the democratic base. They won't vote republican; they'll just stay home.

Black voters haven't forgotten about that "hard-working white voters" comment made by the preferred PUMA candidate in 2008.

[CBR]

138. I completely get it. I just do not see why this is openly discussed on here.

Members of my family and my friends who are black are already pissed at the way the progressives are treating the president. I cannot even imagine if there was a primary.

I guess I cannot expect much from a website where members truly believe that white privilege does not exist.

[AspenRose]

139. Whatever you do, don't ever suggest that there may be a problem with racism

in the democratic party. For some reason they think only republicans can be racist.

LOL.

;-)

[ampad]

158. Yes the mythical white privilege

I watched an episode of the new adventures of old Christine last night. Christine repeated a line that sums up some on DU perfectly. "I'm not racist I drive a prius"

As you stated AA are paying attention to the way the president is being treated. More like comparing the way he is treated to the way Clinton was treated. It would be stunning if it were not so damn predictable.

[8 track mind]

106. Anything from yahoo

And I mean anything from yahoo news is horribly slanted. They have become much worse since Obama took office.

[JCMach1]

108. Not so shocking given the 2008 primaries...

[Aramchek]

112. Obama is our President until 2017. Whether you like it or not.

[rug]

124. Well, then, there's no need to vote in 2012.

[jenmito]

114. More attempts to divide our party. Did the MSM take polls on whether Bush should be primaried

less than two years after he got elected?

[rug]

118. Not only was there no talk of primarying him in 2003, but Congress was busy funding his wars

and passing the Patriot Act.

Different times, you see.

[jenmito]

120. That's right. n/t

[marlakay]

115. Obama is just fine

yes he is not perfect, yes he has made mistakes, but I happen to believe republicans taking the house will give him a kick in the ass he needs and having a new chief of staff will help to...

besides if we try for someone else what will that do? split the party and give the other side more ammo against us...

[creon]

126. agree

I have no problem with Obama.
As you said, he is not perfect. A new COS helps.

The composition of the Democrats in the House and Senate does not help. Those people are the real problem.

[jenmito]

117. "Those favoring a contest include most who backed Hillary Rodham Clinton's unsuccessful faceoff

Obama for the 2008 nomination." Surprise surprise! NOT!

[jenmito]

121. IF he is primaried, a Repub. will win. Hillary voters need to get over it. She didn't win in '08

and she won't run in '12.

[enough already 2]

122. This is why people despise the media.

This is invented 'news', nothing more. To label this the 'lowest form of journalism' would be incorrect because that would imply this is somehow 'journalism'.

[Arkana]

127. Who'd they poll, Dennis Kucinich's living room?

[Drunken Irishman]

130. More like Elm Street.

[rug]

131. Interesting. According to some responses here, you'd think they polled Hillary Clinton's staff.

[craigmatic]

129. This poll just reflects the bad mood of today. By '12 Obama will have improved his standing.

His job approval now is in the high 40's low 50's. Things will improve in the economy by 2012. Obama will be a 2 termer if he decides to run.

[impik]

144. It's the bad mood of the Pumas

[USArmyParatrooper]

142. It's the economy, Stupid

Absent from the OP from the same link:


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.

[impik]

143. Hopefully he won't run again

This country does not deserve this. Let's see the purists puts some pure in the White House. This should be fun. Obama should just take the family and leave this country with a president it deserve. Bush 3 or something.

[rug]

148. We are not worthy.

[ProSense]

150. Well, it would help not to become excited by AP spin

64/36 is not split. Reading before accepting would go a long way.

[rug]

151. No, 64 to 36 is not a split. It must be 65 to 35.

And 59 votes is not a majority.

[ProSense]

152. You know what else it's not

"Democratic voters are closely divided"

Face it, this is a huge AP fail.

[rug]

153. It's nice of you to admit the statistic.

Now face the conclusion.

[AtomicKitten]

145. The timing of the polling data and 'cosmic question' isn't a big surprise.

When yet another eruption of the various schemes to jam HClinton into the White House vis a vis bumping Joe Biden or the "switcheroo," Joe Biden knocked the life of that particular campaign by announcing that he, in fact, fully intended to run again with Pres Obama in 2012.

Cursory research on the internetz shows the PUMA websites advocating voting for Republicans until "the Democratic Party is brought to its knees" and the "rightful president" installed in the WH. Nothing has changed since the primaries in that regard. BClinton has been busy campaigning for/paying back those that supported his wife in 2008 and paving the way for another go just in case.

Whether they will give it a go in 2012 remains to be seen, but it is clear that's from where the loudest whispers advocating a 2012 challenge originate. Whether others jump on board remains to be seen.

[firedupdem]

149. +1 n/t

[CakeGrrl]

156. Validating my suspicions

Ridiculous.

[AspenRose]

160. So much for "getting over the primaries"

*sigh*

Punishing the Democratic party? "Brought to its knees," really? "Rightful president?"

This is ridiculous. I hope they DO vote republican; we don't need their crap in our party.

[JTFrog]

155. Fucking pure unadulterated bullshit.

It will be just as hilarious tho to watch the Obama Can Never Get Elected Bitterbunch hitch their wagons to every negative star printed over the next two years as it was in 2007 and 2008.

[ampad]

159. AP Yahoo News?

Enough said right there.