Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Serious Question: What are the chances Obama will choose to not seek re-election?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
democrat2thecore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:12 PM
Original message
Serious Question: What are the chances Obama will choose to not seek re-election?
50/50? 25%? 1%? 0%? 75%? 95%?

I'm beginning to think that President Obama will not have the numbers to seek re-election even if he wanted to. I've thought this for awhile, but am beginning to truly believe the writing is on the wall. Maybe it's a perception from my thinking - but I just don't see the fight in his eyes.

The compromises on issue after issue has created a situation where trying to please everyone has created a situation where he's alienated too many.

He's in a lose-lose situation going into and coming out of the midterms. He will be blamed for the losses (and I am expecting large losses in the House). Few incumbents want him at their side. And the fact is, the day after midterms, the race for '12 is on. A primary challenge is pretty much written off because he'll have 90%+ of the black vote.

But the general is a different story and Barack Obama knows this.

What are the chances of Obama pulling an LBJ and simply bowing out? Democrats rally around another candidate or engage in another free-for-all like 2008 and we're off.

This is not a flamebait post. This is serious stuff. If anyone thinks it's not a possibility, they haven't studied history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MilesColtrane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:14 PM
Response to Original message
1.  it's a perception from your thinking
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democrat2thecore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. You didn't tell me your % guess.
My perception is only that I have read history and things are ripe for an LBJ scenario.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoPasaran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #3
29. I think it's in the low single digits
But regarding the "LBJ scenario", who do you see as a likely Gene McCarthy?

LBJ went into 1968 with serious opposition (mostly over the war) in the upper ranks of his own party. Even in 1980, when Kennedy challenged Carter (which I never for a moment thought had any chance of success) he had the Kennedy name brand to lend some weight to his candidacy. I simply cannot imagine any credible candidate from the ranks of leading Democrats challenging Obama from the left.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democrat2thecore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #29
33. I see no challenge
I don't see anyone challenging the president in the primaries. There is a unique set of circumstances with a candidate that goes into the primaries with 90%+ of the black vote. But one can look ahead at the general election - today - and easily see a 38-40 state loss. But I don't think anyone would challenge President Obama. I think he would look at the situation, the electoral map, the ability to raise (or not raise) 527 money and choose to step aside for an electable Democrat (and to avoid a very good possibility of a humiliating defeat). Like others have said though, things CAN change....but there's really NOT much time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Bacon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #33
42. This is 1978 again, but there is no Kennedy to challenge.
I'm talking from experience. I worked for Udall in 1976 and in 1979, I helped start the Draft Kennedy movement in Pennsylvania after getting completely pissed off at Carter's endless slide to the right.

Obama is following the same pattern as Carter did, moving further to the right as time goes on, and ignoring the base that elected him. Time and time again he trades orchards away to the Republicans and gets nothing back in return. Since the Democratic congress has also tacked right and ceded bargaining to the Republicans there is nobody who can mount any kind of credible Kennedy-type 1980 challenge.

I still remember the dirty campaign Carter's folks ran against Kennedy in Pennsylvania, passing out bumper stickers provided by the NRA which said "Kennedy: A Blonde in Every Pond" or "Have You Drowned A Polish GIrl Lately". Carter's folks made sure those bumper stickers were all over Western PA. And the media was squarely on Carter's side, playing up on Kennedy's marital problems. We managed to squeak by and beat Carter, but just barely but the nasty primary left wounds that didn't heal, including mine, since I went over to Anderson. And we all know the result. Me, I was so disgusted I walked away from politics. I still remember in 1984 when people backing Glenn, Mc Govern and Hart begged me to come work for them. I turned them all down because I gave up. And I stayed out of any activity for 28 years until I came back to do some work for Obama. Right now, I just feel so let down by Obama that I just feel like giving up again. BUT what scares me is that Palin is following the exact same game plan that Reagan followed in 1978. And the Media is treating her exactly the same way. I really fear her getting the GOP nomination then beating Obama the same way Reagan beat Carter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pisces Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:15 PM
Response to Original message
2. 100% he will run. DU is not the country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RandomThoughts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:17 PM
Response to Original message
4. Now that is something to rally the base with.
Get the Democrats elected, even when they are trying to lose.

Then you can both keep the Republicans out and have a great time with the Democrats trying to lose.

They taking a dive, and the base stands them up. LOL

That is so funny.


I don't know what I did to deserve such a great day. But these comments about progressives are funny.

Even if just a story, it is still great.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democrat2thecore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. I'm talking about the country
Do you think the distress with Obama, as shown in the polls, are just from the left and DU types? Hardly. That's the least of his worries. The independent vote that went with him in '08 looks lost. That's my concern.

I say it's 50/50.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #7
18.  I really have no idea. I think the numbers are worse than some think but conditions can change
rapidly. As you point out the Independents numbers are not only growing, they are troubling. The good news is, they are also troubling for the GOP. The New WSJ/ NBS Poll out today indicates most folks don't like anyone and 65% are disappointed in how the president handled the economy. We may be in for another "its the economy , stupid" type of campaign cycle. We have got to get in front of this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democrat2thecore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. Agree with every word you said. -nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ieoeja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #7
102. 70%: has met or exceeded expectations.

Overall approval is still over 50% (which means 20-points of that "met or exceeded" must be saying he met their *bad* expectations).

On some issues he has dipped slightly below 50% approval. But even on those he is ahead of Congressional Democrats and even further ahead of Congressional Republicans.

And since you like historical comparisons, may I recommend the approval numbers of the last two presidents at this point in their administrations? Obama is almost 20-points ahead of where Clinton and Bush were.

So if your theory is based on polls and historical precedence ... it appears to be in direct opposition to the preponderance of historical precedence.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
savalez Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:19 PM
Response to Original message
5. Zero
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jade Fox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:20 PM
Response to Original message
6. Serious answer: Oh, please!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democrat2thecore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Why is my question being ridiculed?
History has shown us that presidents, for one reason or another, sometimes choose not to seek re-election. There are so many parallels right now with LBJ. The war, the economy, the anger from the right and the left. You may think it's funny to ask the question - but history says it's a perfectly logical question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #9
19. Because it is too early for anyone to make a decision like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democrat2thecore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #19
26. But it's NOT "early"....Here's why
We are 90 days from midterms. Before January (5 months from now) at least 2 or 3 Republicans will be announcing presidential committees. Trips to Iowa are on, the president moves to "campaign mode." Has to. These things are looked at, and thought about, far, far out. I think it's 50/50.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #26
93. That would not apply to a sitting President.
First, he is not the quitter, Sarah Palin. Because only a quitter would start thinking about not running that soon.
Second, his focus is and should be on running the country.
Third, he doesn't have to start weighing whether to run or not until about July of 2011. Probably as late as the end of 2011.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
caledesi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #19
41. Agree LF. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rurallib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #9
24. May i step in to say that the parallels to LBJ are
overstated. My recollection is that beside the war - which the right wing loved and the left hated - Johnson's policies were fairly well likes by the left. The Great Society had some major successes. But he got bogged down in Nam. Even though some try, the Bush Wars seem only a blip in the MSM and the the public mind.

People may strongly disagree with this, but my theory is that Johnson would have been easily nominated by the Dems and probably would have won the election.

To his credit I believe Johnson stepped down so he could concentrate on his job for the final year. That plus he was really, really burned out.

Considering that Obama's problems are somewhat self-inflicted but also to a major degree a product of republican obstruction, I would bet he would see no reason to step down. Bor do I see anyone to his left ousting him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democrat2thecore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #24
30. The Johnson Tapes tell a different story
He said he knew as far back as '66, at the conclusion of midterms that his chances were not bright. The left was horrified at his policies in Vietnam. When he entered the primaries he was still hoping for lightening to strike. It did, in the way of Senator Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota who racked up 42% of the primary vote in New Hampshire (to Johnson's 49%). He quit the race. On the Johnson Tapes, he said that if he couldn't whoop a "dead fish" like McCarthy (he wasn't exactly charismatic), he would have no chance if Bobby got in the race, which he did in a week or so. LBJ said "I've known this for a long time - it's over." He went on television to give an address and shocked the nation by ending it with a HUGE 'by the way'. The rest is history. No way would LBJ have won re-election in 1968 and he knew it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gkhouston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 02:17 AM
Response to Reply #30
73. Afghanistan isn't Vietnam -- not yet, at least. The economy's a hell of a lot worse,
though. I don't see a more charismatic candidate than Obama on the near horizon. I can imagine Biden choosing to step down as VP for health reasons (not that I know of any health problems, but he's not a spring chicken), but I doubt Obama would choose not to run again.

I'd like to see Franken run someday, but that probably wouldn't be 'til 2016.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cosmocat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 06:49 AM
Response to Reply #9
85. There is ZERO comparison to LBJ ...
Iraq/Afganistan are not Vietnam politically, not even close ...

The media has all but forgot about them ...

And, BO is NOT Johnson ... Johnson had been in politics for YEARS, and took over the presidency after the JFK was killed, totallly different situtation ...

BO is what, 50 ... That else does the man have to do in life? Seriously, there is nothing else he can do to match being president ...

And, he is no fool, he knew he was going to get chewed up by the right wing/MSM once he got there, he knows the deal as a D how it works ... He knew it going in, and is not NEAR as soft as the right wing wants to delude itself into believing or lefties want to project on him ...

He will run, and if we don't have a major domestic terrorist attack or massive economic downturn he will win ...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whisp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:22 PM
Response to Original message
8. he has the numbers. Don't believe the MSM.
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 08:24 PM by Whisp
or the few squawkers here and there.

most of americans dont' give a shit what carville and some hack says. It's the obsessed here that think the sky is falling.

What Gibbs said yesterday, Stewart said a long time ago on Crossfire:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democrat2thecore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Who said anything about the pundits?
I don't think the American people are hung up on what the pundits are saying. Are you suggesting he doesn't have a problem from the right and the left? No matter what the pundits say?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whisp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. He has overwhelming support from Democrats.
from a recent poll.

the yappers and hackers want you to believe otherwise, and it seems to be working, but that's the way they operate.

too bad the media no one trusted while Bush was in office is suddenly all clean and honest (to a select handfull of large mouthed basses) when they diss Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democrat2thecore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Again, HISTORY. Remember, Democrats didn't elect Obama - INDEPENDENT voters did
So they go - so goes any hopes at re-election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whisp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #17
22. what will be will be.
what won't be is me kissing some malcontents ass to beg for votes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NanceGreggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #17
37. I have a problem with that premise ...
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 09:12 PM by NanceGreggs
To say that "Democrats didn't elect Obama - INDEPENDENT voters did" is to imply that Independents are solely responsible for Obama's election. They're not.

Obama was elected by a combination of Democrats, Independents, Greens who felt he was the better alternative for their goals than the GOP, and Republicans who didn't want to take a chance on McCain/Palin being another Bush/Cheney - or worse.

Votes for any candidate are a pool of voters of varying political stripes. And the make-up of that pool can vary from one election to another.

It would only be valid to say that "Independent voters elected Obama" if the Democrats, for the most part, did not vote for him - and that is clearly not the case.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democrat2thecore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #37
39. No, No, No...
He won the Democratic vote overwhelmingly. He lost the Republican vote overwhelmingly. The ever-growing portion of the electorate that is registered one way or the other and votes, "for the person and not the party," voted in much larger numbers for Obama than they did for Kerry in '04. It's the electoral demographic that tips the balance that gives a candidate a victory. This 'independent' or 'swing' voter won the election for Barack Obama. The Democrats were a given. This is basic stuff and you, of all the people here at DU, should know what I meant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NanceGreggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #39
44. I'm sorry if I misread you ...
... but your own words were: "Democrats didn't elect Obama - INDEPENDENT voters did."

The phrase "didn't elect" has meaning - and if I misread that meaning, I apologize.

It's just that I've seen this statement before, and it dismisses (perhaps inadvertently) the fact that the Independent vote IN ADDITION TO the Democratic vote, and the votes of others I have cited, is the more accurate frame.

That's also "basic stuff" that you should know ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democrat2thecore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. Fair enough. -nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NanceGreggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #45
56. Fair enough, both ways
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #16
23.  No . It might seem that way but having 75% of the democrats when you actually need almost a 100%
win ins'nt very good. If even 165 or so stay home, you are screwed. And for these midterms either apathy or overconfidence has led many Dems to say they aren't voting while ALL the GOP are saying they plan to vote. Add that to the Indies who aren't as supportive, and we have a lot of work to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whisp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. we will see if your wish comes true and Obama loses.
I doubt it very much, he is more loved that you want to accept.

But you have a couple years to wallow in your wanked out wishes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #25
28.  Contrary to what you think, I don't want Obama to "lose". You repeat that like a matra.
Everyone who crticizes the president doesn't want him to "lose". I want our nation to win.I have been disappointed in this president, it is true, but he can turn this around.I am hoping he does so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NanceGreggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #28
47. Really?
If that's true, saracat, that's great news!

I suppose the problem is that's not what you've been saying elsewhere - not by a long-shot.

Perhaps that's why people have a problem understanding what you really mean when you speak. Maybe you could clarify your position - just to clear up any misunderstandings that might exist, here and there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #47
57. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
NanceGreggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #57
59. The "Canadian" thing is passe ...
It didn't get any traction before - and that hasn't changed. You should read the memos.

The internetz, as you know, is more than just a series of tubes. People can read not only what posters say here, but what they say elsewhere. And when their statements in two places are completely at odds with each other, a bit of clarification might be in order.

You've said that "she speaks for herself".

So let her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NanceGreggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 01:15 AM
Response to Reply #57
68. And while we all await a response ...
... allow me to provide an appropriate musical interlude.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdD52DAaFRs

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #47
95.  Unlike you of course! You are such a bastian of clarity!
Edited on Thu Aug-12-10 02:42 PM by saracat
:sarcasm: I say exactly the same thing wherever I post. I have never posted anywhere that I want this president not to succeed. And I have always hoped he would turn things around. I have also expressed my disappointment. And I have been very clear he wasn't my 2008 Primary choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NanceGreggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #95
113. Yes, yes, of course ...
I note the use of the "sarcasm" thingy as you say, "I say exactly the same thing wherever I post."

A very apt use of that particular emoticon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flamingdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #16
60. Everywhere but here! DU seems a bit unbalanced lately hmm nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaxx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #8
27. OMG that was great.
I wish I could K&R your post. When he said they need to Stop!....he said it all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hansel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:25 PM
Response to Original message
10. 0 nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democrat2thecore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:27 PM
Response to Original message
12. I don't think I ever said - I think it's 50/50 right now -nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:28 PM
Response to Original message
13. zero
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PoiBoy Donating Member (842 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:29 PM
Response to Original message
14. 0%
n/t...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maccagirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:31 PM
Response to Original message
15. He'll seek re-election in 2012
But he'll wonder about his own sanity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bobbieo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:34 PM
Response to Original message
20. He won't run if he is impeached by a majority incoming Senate.
Keep that in mind, folks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democrat2thecore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #20
32. What will they say deserves impeachment? -nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bobbieo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #32
36. Don't fret. They will work something out, believe me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:12 PM
Response to Reply #20
52. There are a lot of Bagger nitwits slated for the November
ballot.

I think we turn back their bids and retain the Senate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bornskeptic Donating Member (951 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 06:16 AM
Response to Reply #20
82. Impeachment takes place in the House.
Impeachment would not stop him from running. Maybe you're talking about conviction in the Senate, after impeachment by the House. But that would require 67 votes, and if the Republicans won every Senate election they would only have 59.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:50 PM
Original message
nil nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:50 PM
Response to Original message
31. nil nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:04 PM
Response to Original message
34. Not good enough. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democrat2thecore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. The percentages aren't good enough? Not sure what you're saying, old mark. -nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. I'm saying Obama has been a great candidate and a poor president. I did vote for him
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 09:16 PM by old mark
and will again in '12, but he is a waste of time when the country needs someone so much better.

He speaks well, some good legislation has been passed under his watch, but he is just another politician, albeit a black one, and I don't feel the need to worship someone who has no use for my letist position. He is a moderate and seeks his support from them, relying on fear of the republicans to insure that the left votes for him.

I'd love to see him decline to run again and make room for a real liberal Democrat, but I am certain that won't happen.

I think he is a lousy president.
I think we should do better.

Fired Up? Not any more, BHO.

mark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NanceGreggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:20 PM
Response to Original message
40. If you don't believe that Obama ...
... "has the numbers", you have (and I hate to say this) been putting too much credence into what you read on this website.

As someone else said up-thread, DU is not the world - nor is it reflective of what is going on in the country.

In the past few months, I have seen many posts here about how Obama's numbers are falling - and yet, in the real world, his numbers have held steady.

It is unfortunate that there are people posting here, quite prolifically, who have an agenda of their own. And part of that agenda is spreading misinformation for their own purposes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democrat2thecore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #40
43. Nance
"It is unfortunate that there are people posting here, quite prolifically, who have an agenda of their own. And part of that agenda is spreading misinformation for their own purposes."

Nance, if you think that of me, you are very, very wrong.

As for the numbers, if they "hold steady" as they look today; remove the African-American vote (90%+ in most polls), you have an electoral defeat of landslide proportions.

By the way, I answered your other post up-thread as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NanceGreggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #43
46. And I appreciate your previous response ...
... and have just replied to it.

And, no, I wasn't thinking of you when I mentioned people who have an agenda of their own. They know who they are.

Are you suggesting that the African-American vote is in any way in jeopardy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Tiger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #43
61. The bigot vote always goes to the Republicans.
Obama didn't win the white vote in 2008 yet he still won in a landslide. In fact, I don't know the last time the Democratic candidate won the white vote. Clinton didn't. Carter didn't. The white vote, especially white men, always goes to the pukes...I mean, that is their base after all.

2012 is still a couple of years away, and in politics that's a lifetime, so anybody counting Obama out now might just be eating some crow in a few years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democrat2thecore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #61
64. And it works the other way, too
Obama has 90%+ in some polls of African-American support. Even with that, Obama loses if the swing vote in PA, OH, NY (take your pick of several combinations) does not go his way. Remember, in the end, it's all about the electoral map. Right now, it looks like a very rough road ahead electorally. I believe that's what they'll be looking at after the midterms. In all seriousness, I see a possibility that the determination is made that the president has no chance of winning in 2012 and the pressure for him to step aside will grow. Though I should say, I agree with some of the other posts in this thread saying that things could turn around. My point is that there is very little time for that to happen with our marathon campaigns in determining whether a 2012 run is a 'go' or a graceful exit would be in the best interest of the party and our chances in 2012.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 12:27 AM
Response to Reply #40
65. Y'all say it with the polls you brag on
What model are you using that Obama can win with less than 90% of the Democratic vote and with strong turnout?

Ross Perot ain't running.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NanceGreggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 12:34 AM
Response to Reply #65
66. What model are YOU using ...
Edited on Thu Aug-12-10 12:36 AM by NanceGreggs
... that says he doesn't have the numbers he needs?

(Please remember that information from certain "unreliable sources and/or websites" is not permitted to be posted here on the basis that it is laughable.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 02:06 AM
Response to Reply #66
71. I asked first but it doesn't take much to see he's toast much below 90% of Democrats
High seventies would mean a bloodbath.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NanceGreggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 02:28 AM
Response to Reply #71
74. Not for nuthin', my friend ...
... but you're spending way too much time in the shade.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShadowLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:56 PM
Response to Original message
48. Clinton is blamed for us losing congress in 1994, he easily won reelection two years later
Things can change with time. Clinton bounced back after his party lost congress.

Personally I think Obama's biggest problem is that as long as democrats control both houses of congress the focus is always going to be in the media/blogs "Obama's party has all the power yet he can't get anything done, he's disappointing his base on everything". If the GOP controlled say the house, then the focus would probably shift in the media/blogs to something more like "Obama is standing up to the radical republicans in the house and their radical right wing policies".

The fact is it's just the nature of how the legislative process works that things changes when congress debates it, Reagan's tax cuts got reduced to only 2/3's of the cut he promised when campaigning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smalll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 04:13 AM
Response to Reply #48
78. Ding ding ding, we have a winner!
You put your finger on it perfectly. Plus, when Obama gets to stand up as a President protecting us from a radical right Congress, rather than a Dem President signing Dem bills into law, which the right sees as socialism, and sane people see as weaksauce (viz, HCR) -- well, his popularity will rise across the board.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doc03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 08:08 AM
Response to Reply #48
111. By becoming a Republican ! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scurrilous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 09:58 PM
Response to Original message
49. Zero. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:05 PM
Response to Original message
50. My guess is that he and Michelle will sit down and
talk it through before any final decision is made.

I think he's very likely to seek re-election and will defeat the Pukes' nominee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Connie_Corleone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:06 PM
Response to Original message
51. Uh, wasn't Bill Clinton in the same situation in 1994?
Hate to burst teeny tiny bubbles on DU, but Obama ain't goin' nowhere. You're stuck with him for 2012 and he will win re-election despite some on the Left that walk around with a rain cloud over them all day dreaming of a day where Kucinich has a prayer of a chance of winning a primary, much less the Presidency.

:eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democrat2thecore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:54 PM
Response to Reply #51
62. No question about it
However, Bill Clinton enjoyed a booming economy. Clinton also appeased many corporate Democrats between '94 and '96. God knows we don't need any more of that from President Obama.

Just so you know, I certainly don't expect Dennis Kucinich to run or win anything. This thread has nothing to do with finding another candidate. That's for another day if, in fact, Obama were to bow out in '12. If anything, my guess would be that Secretary Clinton would waltz to the nomination. I guess my point is anything can happen - and it does happen. Things just line up right (or wrong) sometimes and we see history repeat itself (ala Johnson in 1968) but you're right in that things could turn around, the economy explodes and President Obama cruises to an easy re-election. Do things look that way now? Far from it. But, you could prove to be right. We'll have a better grasp on all this after the midterms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StevieM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:17 PM
Response to Original message
53. I see no reason why he won't run and I think it's extremely likely that he will handily win
re-election. Obviously, it's always possible that he'll choose not to run. But you can say that about any incumbent (Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr). They all run. Truman and LBJ were exceptions, but they were drowning in Korea and Vietnam, and no matter how many times the President's critics claim that Afghanistan is comparable to those conflicts, it just isn't IMO.

Steve
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:17 PM
Response to Original message
54. He'll run and he'll win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueIris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:25 PM
Response to Original message
55. High.
If I had to lay odds, I'd put it up there around 90%. Maybe more like 93%.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CakeGrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 10:44 PM
Response to Original message
58. A group of angry DUers is not representative of the nation
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 10:46 PM by CakeGrrl
There have been several polls posted that show he continues to have wide Democratic support nationwide.

There was an interesting post about how vilified FDR was by Democrats.

Just because a few hundred people on DU want him out on his ear doesn't mean the country feels the same way overall.

Will he run? Why not? And he should. He has no reason to step aside, not with the legislative record that he's built to date. To Gibbs' point, if people choose not to recognize ANY measure of progress, that's their problem.

If some passionately angry Progressives want him out, then let them organize and vote him out during the Primary.

If those who want a Primary challenger can muster THOSE numbers, they can also consider whether someone who could meet the stringent Progressive standards on DU could gain the mainstream appeal to win the GE. Because if they're aiming for the WH, they'd damn well better not miss.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democrat2thecore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #58
63. I've explained several times above why there won't be a primary challenge -nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CakeGrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 01:28 AM
Response to Reply #63
70. OK, then zero. Why SHOULD he bow out for the GE?
So that Repubs might consider crossing over for a different Dem candidate rather than him? Not likely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Safetykitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 12:35 AM
Response to Original message
67. Zero. Complete zero.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 01:20 AM
Response to Original message
69. On the question of how detached DU is from the reality of US politics

this stands as a prime example.

Today MSNBC is reporting that 58% of the country feels that the President is operating at the level they expected and 12% feel that he has exceeded their expectation.

The Republicans are in a bloody civil war, a real one not like our kerfuffle and have nobody that can have success on the electoral map.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 03:46 AM
Response to Reply #69
77. Amen
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gkhouston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 02:11 AM
Response to Original message
72. I'd be pretty surprised if he's not the Democratic nominee in 2012. Why even
ask the question at this point??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
impik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 02:43 AM
Response to Original message
75. 90% that he won't. The only thing that is more important
to him than the country it's his family. He will not make them suffer 4 more years of this crap.

And he shouldn't. This country does not deserve such president. It deserves Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cherokeeprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 02:45 AM
Response to Original message
76. Seriously? Seriously?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 04:15 AM
Response to Original message
79. Seriously?! This isn't the 60's. Afghanistan isn't Vietnam. Obama is NOT Lyndon Johnson.
Edited on Thu Aug-12-10 04:36 AM by Hekate
Where are the riots? Where are the bank burnings? Where are the young men burning their draft cards? Where are the hundreds and hundreds of Americans dying EACH WEEK?

Where are the crowds of young people chanting "Hey, hey LBJ! -- how many kids did you kill today?" Where's the tear gas and broken windows on our college campuses?

Discontent in the country is not agony. That was effing agony. I was there.

LBJ's own daughter asked him (as her husband shipped out) if he was really sure this war was right. He looked every day of his age and then some. By all accounts he was tormented. He had accomplished so much, and that goddamned war was bringing him down. He didn't survive his retirement very long.

Barack Obama is a young man who has a spring in his step. His numbers among Democrats are still very good indeed. He's getting a lot done. I'm sure he feels frustration that he's not getting everything done that he wants. He and Michelle are made of tough fiber, and I am quite sure they noticed before they moved to DC that bitching from the sidelines comes with the territory.

Chances of Obama not running for a second term? ZERO.

Ability to respond to your post? Priceless.

Hekate




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smalll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 04:34 AM
Response to Original message
80. We may know at the end of this year:
Edited on Thu Aug-12-10 04:35 AM by smalll
There's been a lot of buzz around about the possibility that if the Dems lose bad in the midterms, and Obama's approval ratings continue to trend downward, there will be some musical chairs at the top of the administration: Biden will resign from the Vice-Presidency, Obama will select Hillary to replace him, once she's confirmed, Obama will give Biden the S. of S. position (foreign policy has always been Joe's specialty) then resign: Hillary will ascend to the Presidency and have a good year and a half plus to settle herself in and then run with the power of incumbency in 2012. Hillary will also make Obama her Vice-President, which will set him up nicely to be able to run for another term as Presient after Hillary finishes up in 2018 -- America likes him, but may feel at this point that he still needs a little more apprenticeship before he takes on the top job. He's a brilliant young man, he just needs more seasoning, that's all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 04:48 AM
Response to Reply #80
81. I'm genuinely curious as to where this "buzz" has been published. Can you enlighten?
Absolutely no snark in my question -- I have never seen or heard this scenario anywhere. It's quite.... elaborate. Where is it being discussed and by whom? I'm not asking for links, just some clue that I can follow up on when I have the time.

Thanks,

Hekate

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JTFrog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 06:31 AM
Response to Reply #80
83. That's some wild fantasy there.
I'd also love to see where this kind of "buzz" is originating.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rasputin1952 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 07:45 AM
Response to Reply #80
88. Nortsure whom you are listening to, but that is some serious
Edited on Thu Aug-12-10 07:46 AM by rasputin1952
tinfoil hat stuff there. It's a complicated way to resign, and I can't see where it is Constitutionally feasible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #80
96. Where is this buzz coming from? Inside your own head?
Hillary's RETIRING in 2012--she said so herself a while back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoxFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #80
97. But first he carries out Order 66 and destroys the Jedi
Wipe them out. All of them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
POAS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #80
99. Thanks Smalllllll.....!!1!11!1!
Best laugh I've had all week. That is some really good satire!

:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
azmouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #80
100. Thankfully President Obama passed Health Care so
you can get that annoying buzz taken care of.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CBR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #80
103. ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tallahasseedem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #80
105. This has got to be...
one of the dumbest DU posts of all time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
POAS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 07:44 AM
Response to Reply #105
110. Your being too kind! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rasputin1952 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 06:46 AM
Response to Original message
84. Zero...
and judging by who is trying to align themselves for the GOP nomination, I'd say he'll get re-elected rather easily.

Most people who are finding fault haven't looked closely at the accomplishments this administration has under it's belt already. Naturally, we shall have to see what happens in the next 2 years, but I believe that we will actually gain seats in both houses. If I am right on that, things will move forward quickly. If I am wrong, the R's will toss more monkey wrenches into the fray. Honestly though, how can the GOP expect to gain seats with no plan, and an entire 2 year cycle of saying nothing bu "no"?

2 years in the political world is a lifetime. After the mid-term, things should get hopping.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bornskeptic Donating Member (951 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 07:31 AM
Response to Original message
86. If he wimps out we'll draft him. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 07:35 AM
Response to Original message
87. Clinton's poll numbers were pretty bat at this point in his first term
He ran and won.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donco6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 07:49 AM
Response to Original message
89. Not a chance in the world. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moksha Donating Member (345 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 08:26 AM
Response to Original message
90. Not a chance. He'll run.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aramchek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 11:30 AM
Response to Original message
91. 0% At this point I hope Obama runs again just to spite dimwits who post OPs like this
You better get used to Barack Obama, buddy.
He's in for the long haul.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcollins Donating Member (506 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 11:42 AM
Response to Original message
92. Not so sure.
Everything I've seen from the President is that he does have a fairly large ego. This isn't a slam as anyone who gets into politics 'professionally' has got to.

He doesn't seem to do well with negative commentary about the Administration and it's like he takes it personal. Of course he is the leader of the party and so could be seen to be responsible for all the actions of the party. I don't think we'll loose the house or senate in November, but we may loose a few seats. I think that President Obama will probably feel responsible for those losses, even though he clearly will not be. His administration will also take it personal and I think they will be driven to work harder for the 2012 election and not 'give up.'

IMHO, only.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DFLforever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 02:41 PM
Response to Original message
94. Zero.
He's an extremely determined man: unlike some us, he's not willng to give the Executive Branch away to the Republicans so they can undo everything he's achieved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 03:15 PM
Response to Original message
98. If Obama chose not to run again due to the harsh judgment of his own party,
Democrats can wave goodbye to ever being in power again.
The African-American vote may be small and meaningless to some,
but I would dare to wager that 80% would stay home if Obama wasn't
on that ballot in 2012....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #98
106. It'll depend on his poll numbers from all sides
Edited on Thu Aug-12-10 08:14 PM by depakid
and no, I don't buy into your racist theory that most African Americans would stay home if there was another nominee fighting for their interests.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 03:27 PM
Response to Original message
101. Extra Large Tinfoil Hat - Just $19.99. Call Now!
The preceding paid program does not represent the opinion of DU or its affiliates. We now return you to regular programming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigwillq Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 06:08 PM
Response to Original message
104. Obama will run
It'll take more than 4 years to see some of his projects through.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kind of Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 08:38 PM
Response to Original message
107. I don't agree that the writing is on the wall
and I certainly don't know what's on the President's mind, but at this point, according to the PPP:

"A month after President Barack Obama fell behind three of his main 2012 Republican rivals and tied another, he has now jumped back ahead of all four. Obama leads Mitt Romney, 45-42 (Romney led 46-43 in July); Mike Huckabee, 47-44 (Huckabee, 47-45); Sarah Palin, 49-43 (tied at 46); Newt Gingrich, 49-42 (Gingrich, 46-45); New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, 47-31; and failed Tennessee gubernatorial candidate and viral video sensation Basil Marceaux, 46-21.

Unlike last month, in every race except that versus Huckabee, Obama gets more of his partys support than the Republicans do of theirs. He also now leads all candidates with independents, when all beat him last month.

When Ron Paul is included as an independent against Romney, he gets 13% to Obamas 42% and Romneys 36%. Paul earns the vote of 16% of the Republicans and 21% of the independents. Obama gets 79% of Democrats to Romneys 68% of Republicans, thanks to Paul. Obama and Romney are tied at 33% among independents.

While Obama has become more popular, the Republicans generally have become less so. Huckabees personal favorability is down to 32-34 (37-28 last month), Gingrich 31-48(32-42), Palin 37-54 (37-52), and Romney 35-37 (32-33). The lesser-known candidates,Christie, Paul, and Marceaux, have 14-20, 23-34, and 3-16 grades, respectively."


http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_Nati...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bornskeptic Donating Member (951 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 09:53 PM
Response to Original message
108. Presidents do not choose to quit after serving one term.
Admittedly Polk and Hayes did so, but both of them had promised to serve only one term when originally elected. In addition Polk was extremely ill. He died a few months after his term ended. Buchanan did not make any effort to be renominated, nor did he explicitly indicate a desire not to be re-elected, so he can't be said to have chosen not to run. Truman and LBJ don't count, as both had already served more than a full term. Every other one-term president tried to be re-elected, and only Pierce failed to get his party's nomination. So based on history we would have to assume that, since Obama never promised to serve only one term, the chance he will choose not to run is zero.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 10:00 PM
Response to Original message
109. Pending anything involving a live boy or a dead girl between now & then...
0%
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
last_texas_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 08:29 AM
Response to Original message
112. I'd say maybe 2% or so
Anything's possible, but it seems pretty unlikely.

One-term presidents choosing not to seek another term happened occasionally in the nineteenth century, but in modern times it's been relatively rare. Even LBJ had technically served more than one term by finishing out JFK's. Had he run again and been reelected he'd have ended up serving an unusually long time and been the only president besides FDR to serve more than two terms.

More relevant to the current discussion, Obama's approval ratings aren't too hot, but they're also not remarkably low for someone in this stage of the presidency. He's about where Reagan and Clinton stood at this point, and they were both reelected. Add to it that he's relatively young. If we were talking about a President John McCain {shudder} at this stage of his tenure in office, I'd feel that a retirement after one term would be a little more likely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-14-10 09:05 AM
Response to Original message
114. Not a chance. His favorability ratings are higher than other presidents
at this point in their first term, and this includes Clinton and Reagan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Oct 24th 2014, 09:46 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC