No one is going to mount a primary challenge to President Obama

[ProSense]

No one wants to run against his record.

[Modern_Matthew]

1. How unfortunate. We deserve a Democratic President with the courage of the WI 14. nt

[Tunkamerica]

2. maybe you should mount a campaign.

I'm sure you have the courage

[rdking647]

4. name me one other dem who would have a shot of beating teh repukes in 2012

[Name removed]

9. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Skip Intro]

46. Hillary.

[ProSense]

47. Nice

animation.

[JTFrog]

65. Nice

GOP astroturf corporation logo you got there.

[villager]

5. +1 -- Yes, courage of one's convictions

n/t

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[rdking647]

11. so would you vote for teh GOP?

or stay home. that worked so well in 2010.
nothing like handing the presidency to the GOP on a silver platter.

better 70% democrat than 100% GOP

but of course some people believe it has to be 100% their way or nothing.. But that isnt realistic in 2011 america

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[rdking647]

23. thats the same as staying home

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

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

[northernlights]

98. wow. no personal attack made

no names called. no threats. no cussing. no incitement of violence. Just telling my personal truth, and it's deleted within 10 minutes or so. I guess some just can't handle my truth, eh? :shrug:

[ProSense]

12. They likely all support the President n/t

[eilen]

71. He's managed to stay out of Madison as long as they have.

I don't know that I'd call that courage..... maybe in oppositeland.

[LWolf]

100. + 1,000,000 nt

[txlibdem]

111. The pessimists and un-motivators are out in full force - I think they're all wet

Facts will take a toll on the current President's chances of winning the nomination. That is why I periodically email him to ask that he resign, for the sake of the party and the sake of the nation.

The thought that nobody can unseat a President who promised he'd let tax cuts for the rich expire on schedule... but then caved to the opposition and extended them for another 2 years (right into election season again) is just not facing the truth.

This President has given trillions of dollars (thousands of billions that is) to big corporations and the rich... while letting middle class families get thrown out of their homes.

This President has sided with right wing lobbyists on too many issues to count.
Big banksters have not been brought to justice for destroying the economy
Fraudulent mortgage brokers have not been brought to justice
CEOs are still rampaging on their class warfare against the poor and middle class -- unhindered by the administration
"Reforms" have been put into place that do not stop or slow any of the terrible practices that ran the economy into the ground
Like the credit card "reforms" that place no limits on interest rates and fees, they just need to notify you of your impending reaming by them
etc.
etc.
ect.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

[pnwmom]

3. And no real Democrat wants to force Obama into wasting his campaign

time and money fighting another Democrat before the general election.

[Dystopian]

6. Same as bush

No one wanted to run against his record.


peace~

[Tatiana]

7. True. Shooting ourselves in the face wouldn't be helpful at this point.

It would be like Ted Kennedy challenging Carter. It was a costly mistake, though everyone could see why Kennedy felt compelled to mount the challenge. Unity was required to defeat the Republicans, as it is now.

That doesn't mean President Obama has some sort of phenomenal record. It's decent, it's what I would expect of a moderate Republican such as a George H.W. Bush. Even Nixon gave us the EPA and I would say compiled a decent legislative record.

I'd say the President's main problem is his lack of clear, decisive leadership and poor negotiation skills. He also continues to push an education policy that is detrimental to public education and not founded in any sort of substantive research.

I thought I was voting and working for a transformational President. Instead, we got so-so. At least under Clinton, we had a booming economy. The harder this President tries to reach across the aisle, the more union-busting, women-attacking, disrespectful responses we get from the Republicans.

Obama is too smart for this. The only conclusion I can come to is that he actually believes Republican ideas are good for the country. I disagree.

It's too bad we don't have a center-LEFT candidate who could ask the important question, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" I don't see Obama asking the public this question in the midst of his re-election campaign.

[dameocrat67]

51. revisionism

carter lost because the iran hostage crisis. It had nothing to do with ted.

[txlibdem]

101. Also Carter lost because he told us the (hard) truth, Raygun blew smoke up all our asses, won

It's easier to win if all you do is to say BS one-liners, versus a responsible President who would have had us off of all foreign energy sources by the year 2000 (but we'd have to make some sacrifices along the way).

[Tx4obama]

10. The only bad thing is ....

Obama will get less TV coverage if there isn't a primary fight going on (like there was with Hillary)
and no one to debate with until the GOP has a nominee.

[leftstreet]

43. Good point

Clinton vs Obama was a major M$M storm

LOL poor McCain really got shoved aside

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

14. You mean

he's still really popular? Observant!

[rug]

16. No, I mean

he's got no reason to fear losing these donors. (Scroll down for blue link.)


http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=n00009638

[ProSense]

18. Hmmmm?

This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

And he didn't accept PAC money.

:rofl:

[rug]

20. Yes, corporations hate Obama.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/business/economy/24econ.html

BTW, you left out bundlers.

"Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization's members or employees (and their families). The organization may support one candidate, or hedge its bets by supporting multiple candidates. Groups with national networks of donors - like EMILY's List and Club for Growth - make for particularly big bundlers."

Do you have a blue link indicating he's not taking bundled funds?

[ProSense]

21. Hmmm?

"BTW, you left out bundlers."

"Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization's members or employees (and their families).

Individual contributions.

"Yes, corporations hate Obama."

I thought that the going consensus was that no matter what he does, they're going to hate him.

They're trying to kill Wall Street reform and sabotage the economy because they love him?

[rug]

25. Here, let me help you.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/bundlers.php?id=N00009638

I guess he can kiss that Wall Street cash goodbye.

"They're trying to kill Wall Street reform and sabotage the economy because they love him?"

Really, how stupid do you think people are? Millionaires are becoming billionaires on this "Wall Street reform".

[ProSense]

27. "Really, how stupid do you think people are? "

S.E.C. Proposes Crackdown on Wall Street Bonuses

No comment.

[rug]

28. You will pardon me if my blue link leads to the proposed rule and not one of your posts?

http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2011/2011-57.htm

This is the salient point: "Prohibition on Encouraging Inappropriate Risk"

Hardly a "crackdown".

[ProSense]

29. Well, if you're

going to quote the release, at least quote it accurately.

Washington, D.C., March 2, 2011 – The Securities and Exchange Commission today proposed a rule that would require certain financial institutions to disclose the structure of their incentive-based compensation practices, and prohibit such institutions from maintaining compensation arrangements that encourage inappropriate risks.

The proposed rule stems from Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which requires the SEC and several other agencies to jointly write rules and guidelines in this regard. The SEC-regulated financial institutions affected by the rulemaking include broker-dealers and investment advisers with $1 billion or more in assets.

“Our staff has worked closely with other federal regulators and the proposal reflects a series of carefully considered compromises,” said SEC Chairman Mary L. Schapiro. “As with any such undertaking, there’s a challenge in finding common means to appropriately address Congress’s mandate, so we look forward to hearing public comment on the proposed rules.”

The SEC’s proposed rules for certain financial institutions would:

• Require reports related to incentive-based compensation that they would file annually with SEC.
  
  
• Prohibit incentive-based compensation arrangements that encourage inappropriate risk-taking by providing excessive compensation or that could lead to material financial loss to the firm.
  
  
• Provide additional requirements for financial institutions with $50 billion or more in assets, including deferral of incentive-based compensation of executive officers and approval of compensation for people whose job functions give them the ability to expose the firm to a substantial amount of risk.
  
  
• Require them to develop policies and procedures that ensure and monitor compliance with requirements related to incentive-based compensation.

[rug]

30. Correct. And it is not a "crackdown".

Nor is a proposed SEC rule part of a presidential record.

[ProSense]

32. Hmmmm?

"Nor is a proposed SEC rule part of a presidential record."

:rofl:

Reading the entire release would help.

<...>

Incentive-Based Compensation Arrangements
Background

In 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act mandated that financial regulators jointly develop rules or guidelines governing incentive-based compensation practices at certain financial institutions with total assets of $1 billion or more.

In particular, the Act requires the SEC, the Federal Reserve, OCC, FDIC, OTS, FHFA, and the NCUA, to jointly write rules or guidelines that:

• Require these “covered financial institutions” to disclose to their appropriate federal regulator the structure of their incentive-based compensation arrangements so the regulator can determine whether such compensation is excessive or could lead to material financial loss to the firm.
  
  
• Prohibit any type of incentive-based compensation that the regulators determine encourages inappropriate risks by providing excessive compensation or that could lead to material financial loss to the covered firm.

The proposed rule, which is substantially similar from agency to agency, contains technical differences to account for the different entities that the various agencies regulate. Each agency must individually review and approve the proposed rule for public comment before jointly publishing the proposal in the Federal Register.

<...>

[rug]

33. And?

Shall I read it a third time? Will the crackdown driving Wall Sreet money from the reelection coffers suddenly appear? Will the latent presidential strategy become overt?

:eyes:

[ProSense]

34. .

:rofl:

[rug]

40. . .

:boring:

[MannyGoldstein]

49. Let me guess....

Kenneth "sure, pay 'em anything " Feinberg will be said Regulator.

[quaker bill]

58. Rules are adoped by the executive branch

sorry that is just the way the feds work..

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[Tx4obama]

19. WOW, look at these numbers

Full page of poll results

Obama vs several different republicans

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html

p.s. Makes ya wonder what republican will actually want to run against Obama ;)

[Tunkamerica]

26. a republican to be named later

[Armstead]

22. Probably not -- But it would sure be good if someone dod something to...

..Shake him up and wake him out of his assumption that being "not a republican" is not a sufficient form of leadership.

Alas, since he seems to be following the Bill Clinton political playbill, the next election will likely be once again fought on meaningless micro issues like school uniforms and Vchips.

[ProSense]

24. "he seems to be following the Bill Clinton political playbill"

Actually, he's undoing Clinton's worst policies, and adding a few good ones of his own.

Wall Street reform: S.E.C. Proposes Crackdown on Wall Street Bonuses and the first-ever CFPB

Health care reform: California and Vermont

[Marr]

69. You keep citing that Wall Street Bonuses item as proof of financial reform.

It really underlies a previous posters' claim about the White House apparently assuming we're all morons.

Bonuses are a tiny flea on the elephant of Wall Street corruption. The corruption is systemic and going untreated, apparently because it's making a lot of money for the right people. The public understands bonuses, however, and so that's what the administration is willing talk about. As usual, we get a PR victory that can make for lots of pretty blue links, and almost completely irrelevant policy.

[upi402]

31. may as well delete my message now

:argh:

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

37. It's really interesting

that people are declaring they're not going to vote for the best President in at least five decades.

Oh well.

Reminds me of the 2010 declarations, and the President wasn't even on the ballot, as is clearly evident now.

[MannyGoldstein]

36. He'll put on his comfortable shoes...

And run on the republicans being even further right then he is.

"The worst economic recovery in more than 100 years could have been worse. Now let's see some more shared sacrifice, suckers. "

[ProSense]

38. Hasn't

that been explored?

[MannyGoldstein]

41. Yes, and unemployment halved in FDR's first term

Then increased again when FDR turned to "shared sacrifice " mode. Under Obama, job loss has been unrelenting if one uses uncooked numbers. We're getting the shared sacrifice savagery without first getting job creation

[namahage]

72. You keep saying unemployment halved in FDR's first term.

Mind showing your work, with "uncooked" numbers?

[MannyGoldstein]

84. Sure - Prosense pointed to a very nice chart above

Here it is again, below. Note that FDR became a "shared sacrifice" deficit hawk in 1937, and unemployment increased again. This time we get the "shared sacrifice" nonsense but without first reducing unemployment.

[coalition_unwilling]

102. OT, but man that chart really sanitizes a brutal truth. In 1933 when

FDR took office, the national unemployment rate was around 25%. Think about that. 1 out of 4 working adults was not working. Un-friggin-believable. And the 25% figure was the national average. Some areas saw percentages far higher than that.

Imagine what America today would be like were the unemployment rate anywhere close to 25%. I can hardly imagine it (and I've been unemployed since October 2010).

[MannyGoldstein]

107. Measured the same way, we're at about 20 percent now

Clinton changed the way we measure unemployment.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[jaxx]

42. No one in the Democratic Party would run against PBO.

According to what I've read in this thread people are still trying to equate him to the repubs. That's kind of strange....no, it's very strange. President Obama is doing what needs to be done to move this country forward after the years of backtracking on policy. It looks like, as usual, it's just not good enough for those who oppose him.

Fast forward to March 2011.....yes, what he has done is good enough. If it can be improved on, it will be. He is open to change for the better. Really I think 8 years of republican ruin has made people think a president with the in your face, jump first and find out the details later is the norm. Part of the Bush Legacy?

Again, the I won't vote and I wanna 3rd party while calling the President a republican.....all by the "base" mind you!! 87% of Democrats say differently.

ps...K&R but the count is 0

[apocalypsehow]

44. Kick, Rec. n/t.

[Skip Intro]

45. I wouldn't be so sure of that. nt

[JonLP24]

48. So you have nothing to worry about then

[aquart]

50. His record.

Yeah. His record.

[cliffordu]

52. I'll be surprised if the fucking Republicant's field anyone.

[NeoConsSuck]

53. And the purpose of your post is what??

[mmonk]

62. We all know.

[sufrommich]

76. What is the purpose of any of the "The president should be

primaried" threads? Why is every pro Obama thread on DU questioned as if it's working for the enemy? Obama is a very popular democratic president,amazing that so many on DU have a problem with pointing that out.

[madmax]

54. Agree with ProSense or not

She's a dedicated champion who can duke it out with the best. Always a good rebutal.

:applause: :applause: :applause:

And she does it all with CLASS.

I get angry with President Obama but, everyone agrees he inherited the biggest mess of any President in the history of the country.

[Sheepshank]

94. And it's exactly that legacy

that very few will have the balls to actually want to acquire that inheritance.

Dems don't think they can do any different, and with only one other/final term available, Obama has nothing to lose in making big decisions. Reps have no ability to deal with this kind of economy. They have to wait for tangible and obvious growth and public acknowledgemnt and confidence before they are willing to make a strong declaration for the WH.

[coalition_unwilling]

104. This mess was not as bad as the one FDR inherited in 1933 or the

one Abraham Lincoln inherited in 1861.

[madrchsod]

55. he`s better than any of the whack job republicans.

if there were a moderate republican running against him it would be a toss-up. but never fear moderate republicans became extinct around the year 2000

[Scuba]

56. How about someone who supports the majority....

...of the people? Right now we have the far right and the far, far right.

Seems if we had a Dennis K. or someone else who was willing to step to the left, that person could win.

Obama seems to think that if he steps further right he will pick up a vote or two. Well, how about stepping left and picking up millions?

[quaker bill]

57. Some Republicans are passing as well

No one serious about this thinks unseating President Obama will be anything short of nearly impossible at this point. If gas prices cause another economic dip things could get interesting, but the alternative energy plan he has been pushing, and republicans have been stalling, might still win the day.

[tekisui]

59. That's too bad, really. It'd be good for him to get pushed to the left.

[rampart]

60. no one,? really?, how about sen gravel?

http://www.mikegravel.us/

the president NEEDS a primary. he has not earned the support of several key constituancies, and needs to meet and beat candidates representing those constituancies in order to earn their support.

UNIONS? has he been anywhere near madison?

ANTI WAR? the pubs will paint him as weak anyway, why not end a war or two?

ENVIRONMENTALISTS? BP?

Education? touring florida schools with his republican opponent, talking about what a great job jeb did as governor should play well on tv.

etc etc etc

[mmonk]

61. You're making an assumption.

[TBF]

63. Why did you bring this to gd? Flamebait? nt

[Marr]

67. *edit*

[Marr]

64. More like people realize he's earned a staggering amount of corporate campaign cash.

I've little doubt that Obama will be reelected. His cynical, "where else are they gonna go?" approach to governing may be sickening, but I expect it will be effective again. No one ever said he wasn't a good politician. But that's not the same as being a good advocate.

[SidDithers]

66. Yup, Tim Kaine was right...

the only challenge will come from the fringe.

Sid

[Safetykitten]

68. And sadly, his record will present us with a republican president.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[dionysus]

73. .

:rofl:

[sufrommich]

78. "Obama has turned out to be one of the worst Presidents in history"

Good Lord, DU has gone round the bend.:puke:

[ScreamingMeemie]

80. While he certainly isn't one of the worst Presidents in history, he isn't

someone I'm proud of. He is an illustration of what is wrong with our country. Simply winning a football game (D v. R) isn't enough for me. It never will be. I am not one to blindly support. I made fun of Republican Bush lovers when they did that. I stop short of snorting at this very same behavior from Democrats.

[BlueIris]

74. Heh. Bookmarking. nt

[Pisces]

75. You are right Pro and no one should try and implode the dem party.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

103. It has already morphed into something else so implosion isn't possible. This is not the Democratic

party I grew up with or the Democratic party that my parents worked for and were proud members of for all of their lives. Thank goodness they are not alive to see what has become of it.

Perhaps you're too young to know. I find that frequently here at DU. Members that grew up during or after Reagan's reign haven't a clue after our party was bullied to the right and then people who claimed to be Democrats joined the ranks..... It's heartbreaking to me.

[VoteProgressive]

77. Obama has been a disappointment at times, but there is no one better who can win.

[ScreamingMeemie]

79. Sorry, I threw my chessboard away in 2004. Just because it gets rammed

in our heads ("no one better who can win") doesn't make it so.

[VoteProgressive]

99. Who could win the primary and get elected. I would love......

Frankin or Bernie but no way they can beat Obama and win the general.

We are stuck with Obama, good or bad.

[Little Star]

81. I agree with you in part but not due to his record......

I can't see any Dem willing to primary our first black president.

I wish someone who was way to his left and electable would though! His record sucks imho.

[ProSense]

82. "I can't see any Dem willing to primary our first black president. "

"I wish someone who was way to his left and electable would though! His record sucks imho."

That person would still have to run against the "first black" President's record.

[WillyT]

83. And That's A Shame...

We won't have anybody to pull him back from the Right.

More walks on the beach with Jeb Bush and the Ghost of Reagan, I suppose...

:shrug:

[Radical Activist]

85. He might get a challenge from the right because corporations are unhappy with his record.

Any primary challenge will likely be from a centrist or conservative Democrat with backing from corporate donors.

[Lasher]

86. Guess I'll have to write somebody in then.

But I'll tell you one thing for certain: I won't be supporting Obama again in the primary.

[Inuca]

88. May I suggest Nader?

It worked so well in 2000.

PS: there WON'T be a primary to vote in, unless you intend to vote in a R primary.

[ReggieVeggie]

89. was Nader seeking the Democratic nomination in 2000?

[Inuca]

95. Irrelevant n/t

[Lasher]

92. He couldn't be worse. I wonder where he stands on pimping Jeb Bush at Democratic fundraisers.

I like to know where a candidate stands on the issues.

[Inuca]

96. Irrelevant as well

The point, as I am sure you understood, was that because of Nader we got President Bush instead of President Gore. And the world will be for ever in his debt. Equally in debt to those who voted for him because he seemed more "pure" than Gore.

[ReggieVeggie]

106. I know this is an old argument but that's nonsense

The people responsible for the loss of the presidency in 2000 are the same people still in control of the party. Remember, Joe Lieberman was the vaunted choice for vice president at the time.

[TheKentuckian]

110. Fuckin A. If nobody runs then a write in campaign will have to do.

Demanding fealty and that incumbents must run unopposed in primaries is inherently anti-democratic regardless of intentions.

Folks that don't feel represented by the President should oppose him in a primary to move him where he needs to be or to get someone who will. That is the system

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

87. That's what LBJ said.

[Rex]

91. Wrong.

[Scurrilous]

93. K & R

:thumbsup:

[VoteProgressive]

97. I agree!

[Initech]

105. But the nice thing is that the teabaggers dont stand a chance.

Who are they gonna run? Talibangelicals like Huckabee? Palin? Jeb Bush? Not a single one is electable.

[NillaWafers]

108. Agreed. n/t

[Zax2me]

109. No, they won't.

He will likely get re-elected which is the primary Dem goal, so, no, a serious challenge is not forthcoming.

[Bobbie Jo]

112. K&R

:kick: