August 10, 201115 yr Is it time for the Democrats to start strongly considering running someone against Obama in a primary? If things don't change in a hurry I'm having a hard time seeing a realistic scenario where Obama can win in 2012. If the Dems want to keep the White House I think someone is going to have to step up and run against him in the spring.
August 10, 201115 yr No. He's the best choice for the Ds. He's unpopular in much of the country. Guess what? Those states are going to be carried by Rs. It really only matters in about 10 states. It's why the national polls tell us nothing. Tell me about the independents in those 10 states.
August 10, 201115 yr I agree with Clyde. Ohio Virginia Pennsylvania Florida Colorado New Mexico Missouri Michigan Indiana Those are the states that will determine the POTUS.
August 10, 201115 yr No. He's the best choice for the Ds. He's unpopular in much of the country. Guess what? Those states are going to be carried by Rs. It really only matters in about 10 states. It's why the national polls tell us nothing. Tell me about the independents in those 10 states. This might be appropriate for another thread, but is this all the Presidential election has come down to. A handful of states now? With the country so divided, the committed Red and Blue states are staying just as they are pretty much each election cycle. He is still the best choice for Dems I feel. If he were to win, it may be another 2000 scenario where he loses the popular vote. The best thing Obama has going for him is the lack of any kind of a formidable candidate.
August 10, 201115 yr I haven't seen a GOP candidate that I believe will beat him. Let alone a member of his own party. He is still the best choice for the Dems by quite a bit I feel.
August 10, 201115 yr I need a history lesson. Who was the last presidential incumbent beaten in primaries?
August 10, 201115 yr Franklin Pierce, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson and Chester A Arthur are the four sitting presidents to fail to get their own party's nomination for another term. Of those, Franklin Pierce was the only elected president to suffer that indignity.
August 10, 201115 yr Obama is their guy. I think it comes down to two things... 1. Who the Republicans run against him. 2. Who wins the media war about placing blame, i.e., do the key independents mentioned above believe that Obama or the Tea Party are more responsible for the credit downgrade? Of course, a new issue or question might be front-and-center by then, but that's how I see it. If the Republicans get a decent candidate and people see Obama as responsible and don't allow him to pass the buck, then I think he'll lose. He could lose anyway. It will be interesting, if you like this sort of thing.
August 10, 201115 yr I don't see any chance in hell of them putting forth another candidate to run against him. The only way I could see it was if it was a strategy to try to get more people out to support him early on and hope they stick with him throughout the entire campaign. Carter and Bush Seenior are the only 2 POTUS not to be re-elected in the past 50 years.
August 10, 201115 yr It doesn't matter who is in the White House. Most of this country's power and ability to get things done is in Congress.
August 10, 201115 yr It doesn't matter who is in the White House. Most of this country's power and ability to get things done is in Congress. Thank you!
August 10, 201115 yr Barring something radical changing I don't see any Democratic challenger for Obama. His numbers are higher than one would expect, all things considered, and they are about par for the course for a first term president. No scandals or large scale breakdowns. For Democratic challengers his only open flank is to his left and I can't imagine that would be sellable in this climate.
August 11, 201115 yr Carter and Bush Seenior are the only 2 POTUS not to be re-elected in the past 50 years. A fact often overlooked. I've said forever that Obama wins re-election & I don't see the D's putting anyone up against him. When it comes to the general election for President, America chooses style, regardless of the substance (or lack thereof) behind the style. Obama's substance is a subject we can debate all day long. His style is a different story & I don't think there's any Republican that can match him in that category. I also agree with Clyde, in that this comes down to a handful of states. The list UKMF provided is basically dead-on, though I think Missouri will be a Republican state & I think Indiana returns to its redness. Ohio and Florida are huge, but in particular for the Republicans. I don't see an R winning the White House without them both.
August 11, 201115 yr It sure seemed to matter when Bush was in the white house... It's like a coach. We hold them responsible.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.