Filing for the NH primary begins October 17th. When does the Dem challenger announce?

[Hart2008]

The filing period runs from October 17th to October 28th. So, a challenger has until the 28th to announce his/her candidacy. However, the exact date for the primary is still unresolved.

With unemployment stubbornly stuck at 9.1%, and the lack of any palpable economic improvement likely in the next year, President Obama's approval rating remains in a range extremely unlikely to result in his reelection. Obama's approval to disapproval rating has now increased to 41% approval to 51% disapproval.
http://pollingreport.com/obama_job1.htm
This doesn't augur well for retaining the Senate since Dems must defend 23 Senate seats versus only 10 for the Repukes. Considering that Obama has been unable to manage with Repukes controlling the House, what will he do without the Senate?

So then the big question in this context is when the Dem challenger will announce a challenge to Obama?

:popcorn:

There will be a Dem challenger!

[ProSense]

1. Damn, do I hate to disappoint you?

Hell no!

:rofl:

Schumer: Senate Democrats could 'pick up a seat or two' in 2012

[Hart2008]

4. Yes, losing the Senate in 1980 and 12 Senate seats was very disappointing for Dems.

The 1980 U.S. Senate elections coincided with Ronald Reagan's election to the Presidency. Reagan's large margin of victory over incumbent Jimmy Carter pulled in many Democratic voters and gave a huge boost to Republican senate candidates.

The Republicans gained a net of twelve seats from the Democrats, the largest swing since 1958, and gained control of the Senate, 53-46. Majority and minority leaders Robert Byrd and Howard Baker exchanged places. This marked the first time since 1954 that the Republican Party controlled one of the Houses of Congress.

Without losing any seats, the Republicans took open seats in Alabama, Alaska, and Florida, and defeated nine incumbents: Herman Talmadge (D-GA), Frank Church (D-ID), Birch E. Bayh II (D-IN), John Culver (D-IA), John A. Durkin (D-NH), Robert Morgan (D-NC), 1972 presidential nominee George S. McGovern (D-SD), Warren Magnuson (D-WA), and Gaylord Nelson (D-WI) (see Reagan's coattails).

United States Senate elections, 1980:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_1980

That is what happened the last time Dems nominated a President with such high negatives when the economy was bad.

[ProSense]

7. It's

"Yes, losing the Senate in 1980 and 12 Senate seats was very disappointing for Dems."

...not 1980, but enjoy your wishful thinking for the next couple of weeks.

Have you considered Bloomberg? (He's has as much chance of entering the race as Hart.)

:rofl:

[Hart2008]

9. "It's deja vu all over again"-Yogi Bera

There, I finished your quote for you.

[ProSense]

12. "That's all folks" - Porgy Pig n/t

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hart2008]

53. Was he in "Porgy and Bess"? NT

[newblewtoo]

67. complete with

young people fed up with the establishment and rioting in the streets.
Chicago '68 was the culmination of frustration over more than the just war.

[Hart2008]

68. As with '68, it is not the protesters rioting. It is police misconduct towards the protesters. NT

[MineralMan]

2. No doubt they'll be lining up outside the door to file.

You betcha. :rofl:

[Hart2008]

14. It will only take one challenger to deny an unpopular president renomination.

See Eugene McCarthy in 1968.

[MineralMan]

20. Not really. Only a very powerful challenger would affect

President Obama's nomination in any way. As for 1968, I was there. I watched it happen. It was an unmitigated disaster. The incumbent declined to run, the leading candidate was assassinated, and the Democratic Convention was in a state of confusion. The two situations are in no way similar.

[Hart2008]

22. Who thought Eugene McCarthy could knock out LBJ in 1968?

What some people still don't believe is that LBJ and Nixon had conspired together in November 1963 to start the Vietnam War, and then continue it.

[MineralMan]

25. LBJ chose not to run. He would have lost in the general

election, but probably would have won the nomination. He was not a factor at the Convention. Perhaps a little study would fill you in on the facts, or perhaps not.

[Hart2008]

28. Johnson bragged he had Humphrey's "pecker in my pocket" on the war, & aided Nixon.

From another DUer, Ken Burch:

Johnson wouldn't allow him to run that way (as a dove), and insisted on crushing the doves in Chicago on the war plank, when Humphrey was BEGGING LBJ to let him reach out to the "Dump Johnson" wing of the party.

And Johnson, in the fall, refused to go public with the proof he had that Nixon's campaign had intervened in the Paris Peace Talks to try to make sure there wouldn't be a peace deal before the election. All LBJ had to do was to make a nationally televised speech announcing that, and Nixon's support would have collapsed. But he wouldn't. Because LBJ was more loyal to the war than to his own party.

If Hubert Humphrey had been allowed to run as his own man in '68, Nixon would have got an ass-kicking in November.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x739102#745506

Perhaps you don't quite have all of your facts right?

[dflprincess]

104. Johnson chose not to run after the New Hampshire primary

and McCarthy's very close 2nd place finish.

Not being a fool, that was when LBJ figured out his renomination was in doubt - not to mention actually winning in November.

A lesser factor in Johnson's decision may also have been McCarthy's strong showing in the March 5 DFL caucuses - especially in the metro area though he made some good showings outstate as well. It had been expected that Humphrey would crusch McCarthy at them. The number of McCarthy supporters made it clear that, even in Humphrey's home state, the Democratic establishment was in big trouble.

[Hart2008]

105. But Johnson was still manipulating Humphrey behind the scenes to support the war.

Johnson guaranteed Humphrey's loss by threatening to have big donors withhold support if he came out against the war. Johnson also remained quiet when he knew that Nixon was negotiating with the Vietnamese without his consent. Johnson was still a player up to election day, and he supported the war more than his own party and VP.

[dflprincess]

106. Exactly

Though Humphrey should have figured out that breaking with Johnson was his only chance to win. While the results at the Minnesota caucuses didn't mean much to the rest of the country Hubert should have seen the writing on the wall. Yes, McCarthy was also from the state but he did not have the same standing or affection with rank & file DFLers that HHH did. When so many at the caucuses went with McCarthy, he should have realized that the war was the issue. After Johnson dropped out, the only reason McCarthy didn't have more Minnesota delegates was due to manuverings the state party did to protect Humphrey.

[bornskeptic]

109. Nonsense! Johnson was trying to end the war.

Nixon succeeded in sabotaging the Paris talks by persuading the South Vietnamese delegation to pull out. Otherwise Humphrey might well have won.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Chennault#Role_in_the_Nixon_campaign_sabotage_of_Paris_Peace_Accords
http://www.jahrbuch2001.studien-von-zeitfragen.net/Weltmacht/Secret_of__68/secret_of__68.html

[Proud Liberal Dem]

3. When are you announcing?

Are you running a draft campaign for somebody? :shrug:

As of 10/28/11, there will be only ONE Democratic candidate for POTUS in 2012: President Obama. Bookmarked.

[Hart2008]

11. Right after you, buddy!

There isn't much need to run a draft campaign if the candidate's family is already pushing him to run!

I'll be waiting here for you with a big plate of crow for you to eat.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[TheWraith]

15. If you really believe that nonsense you threw about in the OP, then I can't help you.

But in case you come to your senses, here's a few little factoids for you, based on simple observation of reality.

One: there will be no Democratic primary challenger. Particularly since just such a primary challenge was one of the reasons 1980 turned out so badly for us.

Two: Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee for President next year.

Three: Barack Obama is going to win reelection.

[Hart2008]

18. "Denial" is not a river in Africa.

Arguably, Ted Kennedy was the wrong primary challenger since he too had supported deregulation and did not have strong support from labor. I don't blame Teddy for what happened to Carter.

[BklnDem75]

23. Saying someone is in denial while trying to sell Gary Hart as a candidate...

It's like rain on your wedding day
It's a free ride when you've already paid...
It's the good advice that you just didn't take
Who would've thought... it figures

[Hart2008]

27. Obama will be challenged in the primary precisely because of the advice he didn't take.

Advice like bring in new people and don't recycle Geithner and Gates.

Advice like declaring victory and getting out of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Someone did give Obama that advice, and it wasn't taken.

For that advice and more, he will be challenged.

Deal with it.

[TheWraith]

35. So when there is no primary challenger, are you going to come back and apologize?

Or are you just going to move the goalposts to avoid admitting you were completely and totally wrong?

[Hart2008]

37. War and Peace are big issues. See 1968. When it affects the economy, something happens.

The economy and the military occupations are related.

When there is a serious primary challenger will you apologize?

:popcorn:

[TheWraith]

42. Easy promise for me to make, since there will be no serious primary challenger.

No more than there's a Santa Claus.

[Hart2008]

46. So even after the challenger declares you will claim he/she is not serious...

Obama will never be confused with Santa Clause.

Maybe, the Grinch who stole progressive economics?

[TheWraith]

51. Trying to move the goalpost already?

It's not my fault that only a kook or a lunatic would try to challenge Obama. Besides, I thought you were confident that said challenger would beat him? No question of being "serious" then.

[Hart2008]

55. With a sitting President, the game will go four quarters, even if he retires.

See LBJ's manipulations in the '68 election interfering with Humphrey's campaign.

But it is you who is trying to move the goal posts here.

As in '68, it requires a challenger with the courage of his convictions, like Eugene McCarthy had.

[TheWraith]

56. Your obfuscation aside, you still can't commit to one or the other.

Either Obama is incredibly weak and easily knocked off, or whether or not a primary challenger is "serious" is all in our heads. Which is it?

[Hart2008]

73. Uh, Randall Terry is not a serious primary challenger in the Democratic Party. NT

[SidDithers]

170. Neither is Darcy Richardson...nt

Sid

[BklnDem75]

66. LOL!!!

That yacht won't sail anymore. Deal with that.

[WI_DEM]

30. Of course President Clinton at one time in 1995 had a 36% approval rating and Mondale was

beating Reagan in 1983 polls, so far Obama is doing better than both of them.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[Hart2008]

34. At this point, Clinton's approval was 46%, and the economy was beter.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx

Unemployment wasn't at 9.1% in Clinton's third year.

Mondale never led Reagan in the polls 1984, but Gary Hart did.

The rest is history.

[ProSense]

45. Hate

"At this point, Clinton's approval was 46%, and the economy was beter."

...to burst your bubble: Gallup

In August 1995, Kansas Sen. Bob Dole was slightly ahead of President Bill Clinton in a Gallup poll, 48% to 46%. On Election Day 1996, Clinton beat Dole by eight points.

"Mondale never led Reagan in the polls 1984, but Gary Hart did."

:rofl:

[Hart2008]

57. Hate is ugly. We must not hate here, but Obama is very far from 46% approval. NT

[leftynyc]

65. How far is very far?

And what polls are you looking at? Cuz I'm looking at Real Clear Politics (a right leaning site) that averages out polls and has him at 42.7% (since you seem to be math challenged, that's 3.3% away from 46 and within the margin of error in most polls. Even right wing Rasmussen has him at 45%. So why lie?

[Hart2008]

70. So the Gallup poll is lying with 41% to 51% approval to disapproval +/- 3%??

And that is a week high, since he was down to 38% to 53% approval to disapproval October 4-6th:
http://pollingreport.com/obama_job1.htm

So the better question is, Why you are still in denial here?

[leftynyc]

78. You're looking at one poll

which is always a stupid idea. I'm looking at an average of several polls - including right leaning ones. I'm not in denial - I'm just smarter than you are.

[Hart2008]

79. Gallup is the oldest pollster with the best reputation. Using one pollster aides comparisons.

So when comparing Gallup polling of past presidents, it is wise to compare that with present Gallup polling, and not an amalgam of random polls. Otherwise, you have removed the standardization of the comparison.

Since you believe that you are so much smarter than others here, why do you bother to share your "genius" here?

:eyes:

[leftynyc]

81. Nope - just smarter than you

Let's take a trip down memory lane. The final percentages for the 2008 election were: 52.9 Obama vs 45.6 McCain. Gallup had them at 55 versus 44. Even fox news had a better record as did (as did 7 others). Read it and weep.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

[Hart2008]

85. Gallup was at their margin of error of +/- 2%. You need to learn MOE and statistical deviation.

Gallup has been accurate for a long time, not only one election. Hence their reputation is good and they are respected. The polling may have been accurate when the poll was taken two days before the election, but peoples' minds changed afterwards. Then there is the problems like in Florida in 2000 and the 1988 New Hampshire primary where the pollsters were more accurate than the doctored returns.

People who are truly intelligent are recognize by others. The self declared geniuses seldom are that. When you mature beyond the point where you think you know everything, you may become interesting...

[leftynyc]

87. Never said I was a genius

and I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. Just smarter than you and I stand by that. Keep relying on one poll since that seems all your brain can handle.

[Hart2008]

88. And you still don't recognize using one reference point for comparison.

Let others be the judge of your intelligence here.

:eyes:

[AtomicKitten]

8. On November 1st.

:P

[Hart2008]

10. Obama-Biden 2012 is scaring Dems this Halloween. NT

[ProSense]

33. The

"Obama-Biden 2012 is scaring Dems this Halloween."

...Republicans called, they want their fear mongering back!

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[Hart2008]

58. So why are the Repukes calling you? NT

[great white snark]

16. I'm writing in Mr. Monkey Business.

He's sure to get the infidelity vote.

[Hart2008]

17. Grocho Marx died a long time ago. NT

[JoePhilly]

19. That date will come and go and there will be no viable challanger.

[Hart2008]

21. Only 66% of dems want to renominate Obama in the latest polling.

And the campaigning hasn't even started yet.

http://pollingreport.com/wh12dem.htm

People are hurting out there, and we are still occupying Iraq and Afghanistan.

The challenger is coming, and the country is awaking.

[JoePhilly]

24. Show me a poll for your actual (MYTHICAL) candidate ... then we can have a discussion.

Again ... that date is going to come and go an no viable challenger will suddenly appear.

Its not happening.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

26. Better yet

We all really need to know WHO this actual (MYTHICAL) candidate is.

[great white snark]

36. A name? And have DU vet this person so thoroughly that the rampant hypocrisy is exposed?

We can only hope.

[WI_DEM]

31. I have a feeling you do these stupid posts just to get a rise out of

people here.

[Hart2008]

39. The point is that a challenger is coming. Deal with it. NT

[Tarheel_Dem]

52. And will be laughed off the stage.

:rofl:

[Tarheel_Dem]

61. Exactly. The screenname is a dead giveaway.

;)

[ProSense]

47. Well

"Only 66% of dems want to renominate Obama in the latest polling."

...that doesn't say much or bode well for an imaginary candidate.



Keep dope alive!

[Hart2008]

49. Apples and oranges. The election was in 1996 not 1994. Find the polls from 1995. NT

[ProSense]

54. Hmmm?

"Find the polls from 1995."

OK

:rofl:

[Hart2008]

76. Thank you for confirming that Obama hasn't had a 46 approval rating recently.

You proved the point that you are denying.

[Tarheel_Dem]

48. Which is still 10 pts. higher than Clinton's reelect numbers at this same time. (nt)

[Hart2008]

50. Comparing reelection numbers with renomination numbers is comparing apples and oranges. NT

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

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

[WI_DEM]

29. So when nobody challenges the president will you finally get serious and start working to make sure

that President Obama is re-elected or will you sit on your hands and dream of ways to draft Gary Hart as an Independent candidate and help allow one of the right wing nuts on the GOP side to win?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

40. Half past never.

[Hart2008]

41. Half past never is coming sooner than you thought. NT

[Starbucks Anarchist]

43. Is it right after Gary Hart gives you a free ride on Monkey Business?

:rofl:

[Tarheel_Dem]

44. Is that you Donna?

:rofl:

[Hart2008]

60. Ask Don Henley. She was his girlfriend, and had volunteered for fundraising. NT

[Tarheel_Dem]

62. >>>>

:spray:

[Hart2008]

75. There was nothing funny about the Dem front runner getting smeared so Poppy Bush could win in '88

I guess you thought it was funny when they did something similar to Edmund Muskie in '72?

[dionysus]

90. Gary. It's. Over. Get Over It.

:rofl:

[dionysus]

91. I know who we can run!

:rofl:

[CakeGrrl]

59. This post (and a chunk of others) will make for amusing reading come Halloween.

:rofl:

[Hart2008]

80. Just keep reading Obama's low poll numbers. Consider what that means in November 2012.NT

[Arkana]

99. And which of the Seven Dwarves on the GOP side beats him?

Surely your incisive political analysis can tell us.

[maddezmom]

63. You seem to have some sort of insider knowledge so why don't you tell us

:)

[Hart2008]

69. If I did know exactly when the announcement was coming, who would believe me?

:shrug:

I am certain that an announcement is coming before the October 28th deadline.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[SidDithers]

64. The dream dies hard with some people...

Edit: bookmarking for Oct 29.

Sid

[dionysus]

92. more like a crack pipe dream.

[Hart2008]

94. And you would know about that, right? NT

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

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

[Rosco T.]

72. Never, People have more common sense. n/m

[Number23]

74. The 48th of Junevember?

:shrug:

[frazzled]

77. Sextedi, 26 Vendémiaire!

I thought we're using the French Revolutionary calendar, adopted by the National Assembly in 1793.

[Arkana]

83. So when there is no challenger are you going to come back and do

a "I do not recall" for us?

Seriously, hitching your wagon to a guy that peaked 25 years ago reeks of desperation. Obama will not be challenged and you are grasping at some really ridiculous straws.

[MjolnirTime]

86. This doesn't seem very productive.

[Hart2008]

93. How is it productive to renominate a President with a 38% to 54% approval to disapproval rating?

http://pollingreport.com/obama_job1.htm

:think:

[dionysus]

89. thanks for the chucks.

:rofl:

[brooklynite]

95. And HERE they are...

Your announced challengers for the Democratic Presidential nomination:

Aaron Leon Ammann (Washington)
Warren Ashe (Virginia)
George Ballard III (Pennsylvania)
Sanderson Beck (California)
Jeff Boss (New Jersey)
Harry Braun (Arizona)
Willie Carter (Texas)
Alvin Greene (South Carolina)
Al Hamburg (Wyoming)
Patrice Hardcastle (Virginia)
Raphael Herman (Florida)
Robert Jordan (California)
Cody Judy (Utah)
Leah Lax (Pennsylvania)
Kip Lee (California)
Mark Levetin (Florida)
Kenneth Keith Litzinger (West Virginia)
Dave Montgomery (California)
Deonia "Dee" Neveu (Virginia)
Shawn O'Brien (Florida)
Dean Phillips (District of Columbia)
John Sawyer (Florida)
Gary Stephens (South Carolina)
Vermin Supreme (Massachusetts)
Randall Terry (New York)
George Washington Williams (Ohio)

http://politics1.com/p2012.htm

[Hart2008]

96. Let's see who files for New Hampshire!

The New Hampshire primary is where a serious challenger will start.

:beer:

[Arkana]

98. You're either a terrible troll or a guy on some serious hallucinogens

if you think that anyone is going to post a challenge to a President with a decent approval rating and a war chest the size of China.

Have fun with your delusions.

[watercolors]

97. Sorry it aint going to happen!!

[Umbral]

100. When? Well, in typical Democratic fashion....

It will happen a day late and a dollar short.



Real change will happen and it will come from outside of the system.

[SkyDaddy7]

101. YES, challenging OUR OWN has worked so well in the past!

It worked well for Reagan & it worked well for "W"! Although the latter was not a primary challenge it had the same result...A Republican victory!

HELL YES! The "Challenge Our Own" idea is batting a 1.000! Right?

[AlinPA]

102. Who are you supporting to run against the president?

[RBInMaine]

103. LOL On what planet do you spend most of your time?

[Douglas Carpenter]

107. maybe some mayor from some mid-size city or even a former congressman - but no one of significance

is going to challenge Obama. Right or wrong - good or bad - all of that aside - there will not be a credible challenger to President Obama for the Democratic nomination.

[NYC Liberal]

108. Keep this post kicked until the 28th.

I want this thread to be around when the deadline comes and goes with no serious (or without any) challenger having declared.

[totodeinhere]

113. Historically there have been several instances where a primary challenger announced after the

deadline for one or more early primaries had already passed. For instance, in 1976, Jerry Brown entered the race in March after the primary season had already begun. So theoretically it could still happen. After all, New Hampshire has a limited amount of delegates at the convention.

[Arkana]

110. Tick tock, buddy. Five days. Where's your serious challenger?

Surely he/she would have made themselves known by now, no?

[SidDithers]

111. Kick...

so, anyone signed up yet?

Sid

[dionysus]

112. kick for FAIL

[Tarheel_Dem]

114. Here, let me help you with that!

:kick:




:rofl:

[jenmito]

115. Let ME help, too!

:kick:

:rofl:

[Tarheel_Dem]

116. Hey jen, are you waiting with "bated breath" like the rest of us?

:rofl:

[jenmito]

117. I sure am!

I don't think my breath could get any more bated! :D

[SidDithers]

118. Tuesday morning kick...

Tick-tock.

Sid

[Tarheel_Dem]

119. Okay. Another day, no announcement. What's up with that?

:shrug:

[stevenleser]

120. At this point it is hard to fathom all of the fail in this OP

Never fear, you can vote for this guy in the primary http://www.blogtalkradio.com/mercerforpresident2012

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

121. Why is this thread still open? It's flamebait at its finest! n/t

[Arkana]

124. We want to see if our illustrious OP ever shows his face again

in this thread after the filing deadline passes.

He won't, but we want to see anyway.

[SidDithers]

122. Wednesday night.. Only 2 days to go...

"There will be a Dem challenger!"

Sid

[CakeGrrl]

125. Maybe I'll do the kick honors on Friday if someone doesn't get there first.

:evilgrin:

[Arkana]

123. Two days to go, old chum. I don't expect you'll be back

when no one declares, though.

[brooklynite]

126. The simple question that NOBODY will answer...

...what have YOU done to find a challenger?

Have you sent a letter to Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, Elizabeth Warren or some other preferred choice?

Have you send an email?

Have you picked up the phone and called someone's office to encourage them ton run?

Or are you simply going to sit behind your computer and grouse?

(nb 1- I'm fully maxed out to President Obama's re-election)

(nb 2 - I have my choice in mind for 2016 and fully plan to let him know my thoughts after the 2012 election is over)

[Tarheel_Dem]

127. "There will be a Dem challenger!" (???) One More Day!

:bounce:




:rofl:

[msanthrope]

128. I'm betting on 24 business hours, myself. nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

129. !

:rofl:




:thumbsup:

[great white snark]

130. Bwaha

Gawd what a bunch of witty and intelligent folks we have at DU.

:rofl:

[Arkana]

135. ONE MORE DAAAAAAWWWWWWWNNNNN

ONE MORE...DAAAAAYYYYYYYY

ONE....DAYYYY....MOOOOOORRRRREEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ikonoklast]

131. I just can't stand all the suspense! It's killing me!

I can hardly contain my exci.....Zzzzzzzzz.

[Tarheel_Dem]

132. Quit it you guys! This is serious.

:rofl:

[Ikonoklast]

133. I'm sorry, I apologize. I'll try to be serious about this....really.

[Tarheel_Dem]

134. Dayyuummm! How come that cat looks human? Is that what Bush called "human animal hybrids"?

:rofl:

[stevenleser]

137. Don't be serious, be series! It's much better!!!!!

:rofl:

[great white snark]

136. How 'bout some tunes for the eagerly awaiting?

http://youtu.be/URZe0y3fKrU

[stevenleser]

138. I prefer this song! :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0dMxqgS1-8

[great white snark]

141. Excelente cancion!

Gracias Estevan.

[onenote]

139. Since the OP is in hiding

I'll post this song on his/her behalf:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry8CpIg2fvU&feature=related

[frazzled]

140. I might as well throw in some lobby music for the OP, too

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMNQ3JCGddQ

[SidDithers]

142. October 28th kick!...

"The New Hampshire primary is where a serious challenger will start."

Sid

[great white snark]

143. They need more time! It's hard to find a nihilistic masochistic socialist who will run.

:P

[SidDithers]

145. I think this is one of my favourite DU threads in a long while...

:hi:

Sid

[great white snark]

146. Me too. Not "Oscar" material yet but it has potential.

Not that I was around back then to know about Oscar wink wink.

:hi:

[Tarheel_Dem]

147. !!!

:spray:

[opihimoimoi]

144. there won 't be a challenger....Obama too popular.... GOPers got shit...

[Tarheel_Dem]

148. Unless you're off filing papers today, you really should address this. Otherwise,

one might get the ideas about you. ;)

[Ikonoklast]

149. Oh Grand Prognosticator, Where Art Thou?

Where is the mythical Democratic Challenger?

Gary Hart out riding his pet unicorn?

Or up to other monkey business?

Too busy giving Smoove Johnny advice on his recent problems?

[golfguru]

150. Hillary leads all GOP candidates!

A new Time magazine poll shows Clinton easily defeating the major Republican candidates, were she somehow to become the 2012 Democratic nominee for president.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/10/hillary-leads-gop-presidential-candidiates-poll-says/1

[jenmito]

151. Of COURSE she does. If OBAMA had been HILLARY'S SoS, HER approval would be

much lower than his and HE would easily defeat all Repub. candidates. I don't remember polls like this being done on any other president, trying to divide the party.

[golfguru]

152. Aw comeon...

relax and enjoy the beautiful fall day! Enjoy the vibrant colors on trees..ignore all polls and politics! Election is a million years away (in political time clock).

[jenmito]

154. I can enjoy the day and enjoy posting about politics at the same time. n/t

[Tarheel_Dem]

153. We've never had the PUMA effect before, and people who simply can't/won't move on.

Some in the media have been trying to keep this Obama v. Hillary narrative alive since the primaries ended, and there are a few high profile PUMA's who give them an assist, at every turn. David Sirota, Tavis Smiley, Larry Johnson, Lady Lynn, James Carville, the "progressive" big money donors; just to name a few. Funny thing is, Hillary and Obama seem to think the whole thing is silly, and I can't help but agree with them. :hi:

[jenmito]

155. True...

good post. Probably because I totally agree with it. :hi:

[Sheepshank]

156. Almost wish I hadn't unrecced this thread in the early days...

...it has some serious entertainment value that is actually worthy of a rec :)

[Tarheel_Dem]

157. Ditto! It should be plastered on the front page, along with the conspicuous absence of the author.

:hi:

[stevenleser]

158. A link for the OP and those hoping for a primary challenger...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYNjL9_rCJc

[jenmito]

159. OK...

but is it OK to LAUGH out loud? Thanks for the laugh. :rofl:

[stevenleser]

160. 32 minutes and counting. No high profile challenger. So sowwy! nt

[stevenleser]

161. Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey hey, Goodbye!!!! No primary challenger!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_O0yXqxfMI

[SidDithers]

162. But will we ever see the OP again?...nt

Sid

[Tarheel_Dem]

163. "will we ever see the OP again?..." I'm gonna guess we will, once he thinks we've forgotten.

And I wish him Good Luck with that! :rofl:

[Arkana]

164. He's back--apparently Darcy Richardson is going to "save the party from ruin"

despite the fact that no one has ever heard of Darcy Richardson.

[stevenleser]

166. OP is trying to pretend that this Darcy character isn't one of several dozen no name losers that

are always around to register for presidential primaries. None of us are fooled. THere is no primary challenger.

[NYC Liberal]

171. And I'm sure the Repugs are cowering in fear at the thought of

what's-his-name in the White House! :rofl: Why, he'll just march into the White House, and on January 21, 2013, we'll have universal health care, world peace, no more poverty, a Constitutional amendment ensuring marriage equality for all, a minimum wage increase to $20 an hour.

Oh and Republicans will magically "see the light" and all turn into liberals thanks to the incredible powers of persuasion of this Darcy guy. :rofl:

[Tarheel_Dem]

167. I was gonna ask, WTF is Darcy Richardson?

A no name loser, is supposed to announce on the last day of registration, and be taken seriously by the Democratic Party? Can anyone say Republican Tea Party shit stirrer? :rofl:

[NYC Liberal]

172. How long do you think it'll be before we hear the predictable,

"It's the media's fault! People really want to vote for him, but the media is brainwashing them! Darcy would get 99.9% of the vote in the primaries and win 528 electoral votes in the general if not for the media!"

[CakeGrrl]

165. One last kick...

out the door for this idea.

:evilgrin:

[blkmusclmachine]

168. Not soon enough.

n/t

[SidDithers]

169. The ship has sailed...

no matter how much you may wish otherwise.

Sid

[DFLforever]

173. Poor Hart

Too bad you couldn't get your guy to run. :nopity:

He's a bit old (75?)for presidential primaries these days.