So Who Else Could The Democrats Put Up In 2012..

.....If Obama is unable to find enough funds and support to run and sustain a campaign in 2012.... We know who the repebliCONS are going to put up already....

I don't believe Obama is going for a second term....actions tell all.

...will be 'unable to find enough funds and support to run and sustain a campaign' in 2012, or in any year, is just risible.

Discontent on DU does not a failure make.

(This post was edited to remove a joke about "2008" now that the OP has been edited.)

and i can't unsee it

spot on, however, edit or no edit

Unfortunately.

Still, he is going to win reelection in 2012.

But he'll have to do it without labor.

And I'm talking about the big unions: AFL-CIO, SEIU, AFSCME, you-name-it.

We're having problems finding members to work on Democratic campaigns. Rank and file are not happy. This is the worst I've seen in 30 years.

The party and the president have a lot of backside kissin to do in the next two years. EFCA would help.

I don't think it's impossible and I'm actually looking forward to being the recipient of some of that backside kissin :)

Obama knows that he needs to get people on board. And he will do what he needs to do, before it is too late.

I mean if doing what he needs to get people on board means working for labor and worker friendly policies. I'm assuming that is what you expect will happen.

How in the world will it pass when there are even less after the November elections?

and I bet we will see someone else run in the primaries against Obama. That thing with Lincoln down in Arkansas was a first salvo, even though it wasn't successful. Don't believe the White House would relish a fight with the teachers unions among others in 2012.

and work for him. They have had differences but overall labor is much happier with Obama than they would be with any GOP president.

Not strongly.

Those folks don't just do as they are told. I think the tin ear/blind eye to the teachers is batshit insane. They ain't happy at all and are damn likely to sit on their hands for Obama and be will o wind down ballot.

These are millions of underpaid people with advanced degrees that put in long hours and take money out of their own pockets for their classes.

No, getting the heads onboard is beside the point. The thinking better be what is going to be done that those leaders can take to their people that is going to mend fences and buy loyalty.
The old Boogieman pitch doesn't work with the blue collar guys at all and if teachers see they+e been kicked to the curb then they'll be the same way.

There is about nothing to do policy wise that is going to give Obama a 70 or 80 percent win, there is no reason to strive for it. Keep what you have, continue to recruit new voters, and attract more of the hispanic vote and it's an automatic win.

Trying for a middle that doesn't exist when you already have the math is goofy.

Get those fucking unions happy and grow their numbers. Be tight with hispanics. Engage the kids and it's gravy.

Replaying the 90's is bush league and visionless.

that's probably not true. Even though the Repug alternative will be disgraceful as ever, surely Obama will have to "labor" to win re-election (which he will do).

to the cracks in the facade.

The President's approval rating is hovering around 50 percent. That is tremendous support given the difficulties of the day. In times of lesser crises, Presidents like Clinton and Reagan saw their support drop to about 45 percent.

Obama not so much.

This could change in 2 years. And I certainly hope it does. But if the election was today, a good chunk of the party would have a hard time voting for him again.

Their poll numbers dropped to 45 percent or lower because they had solid support within their party?

"Obama not so much."

The President's job approval among Democrats is about 80 percent.

His favorability is around 90 percent.

85-90% or more. You are looking at the far left who aren't necessarily Dems.

Saying it on the internet means its true.

a lot of support within the Party here in New York.

LOL.

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

If Obama can't come up with the fucking funds? Obama already leads every legitimate and imaginary repuke challenger polled.

This gets my vote for the most vapid post of the day and it's not even 10:00 AM in the East.

or impeached by Republicans should they retake the house, he will be run.

Yes, Kucinich might decide to run in the primary, but he won't even win his own state in a primary, and could not even beat Palin in a General. Maybe Nader will get up the energy to make one more attempt at putting a Republican in office.

And there is no Republican on earth that I would vote prefer to have in the office.

and what makes you think he won't run? It'll take more than 4 years, more than 8, to fix the mess this country is in. I think he will run again because he will want to try and fix the mess.

Either because Alvin is before Barack, or because he support of voting machine hackers.

But it does feel kinda sick to laugh at that. There's a bit of truth in your statement.

So Kucinich is the answer -- now what was the question?

I suspect this guy is from another planet.

:rofl:

over his chances at winning the nomination, IMO.

Heflin cut quite a swath through the upper chamber. Whether or not George Romero can be brought in on a consult to raise Howell zombie-like from the beyond and below, it's my guess that Barack Obama will be the party's nominee in 2012.

I see no one challenging him from the left, including Kucinich, who IMO would draw even fewer votes in a third presidential run than in either of the first two, and no one from the party's right, such as Evan Bayh for example, who has a buck or two stashed away but little appeal beyond the Hoosier State line. Kucinich at least sings well. Bayh can hardly talk. He's one of the dullest souls to ever open his mouth in any venue.

The Pukes are in a muddle. They are more or less leaderless, and their front-runner in Iowa is a Mormon. Second runner up in Iowa is a half-term half-wit ex-Governor. Whoever wins their nomination is likely to be a far-Right kook pandering to Bagger-types who show up in droves for Puke primaries.

The most disturbing potentiality out there is one in which Michael Bloomberg decides he will convert his considerable piggy bank to fuel his ascent as a political power-broker, choosing a ticket and then financing its independent presidential campaign. He's uniquely positioned to instigate just such mischief and as I've posted before, the poor fool doesn't have anything else to do anyway.

they'll be spending on the 2012 presidential campaign will be totally wasted. Both parties. They might as well flush it down the toilet. Nobody can beat Obama.

He'll have strong backing in all significant quarters and is positioned for a historic victory.

It would be just fine with me if we had a total of 8 years of judicial appointments by Barack Obama.

I doubt he can be beaten in the General. It depends on the jobs numbers and who the repukes put up.

clearly believe they are better qualified to be president than he is.

Obama is actually in a better position now than Bill Clinton was in 1994--and what happened? Clinton won a big re-election victory. Obama is actually in a better position than Ronald Reagan was in January of 1983 (according to polls) and Reagan creamed Mondale.

You think Obama won't raise money? That is silly. You think he's unpopular with Democrats who will be the ones who vote in primaries? Look at all the polls and Obama has large approval ratings with democrats.

You just look at what is happening today without a thought about what will be the case a year or two from now. The economy still sucks for many, but it has improved under Obama and will continue to improve and by 2012 he will have a stronger economy to run on than he inherited.

He will win easily in 2012.

Please tell me. I don't know. Honestly. I can't see a single candidate they have who would have a prayer of winning, or whom a majority of them would truly want to nominate.

Please don't tell me the "obvious" answer is Palin. I would put her on the bottom of the list, and so would they. She's not controllable at all, and more than anything else the GOP needs a controllable candidate.

Go away.

:crazy:

I'm really, really going to enjoy watching you and your ilk squirming between now and 2016 when Obama leaves the White House.

NO ONE.

He'll probably will win too. Then again, that's not necessarily saying much since Bush also won reelection.

:D

:rofl:

You're funny. (and obvious, but still funny!)

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:

Since they all know what he should have done and are ready to get rid of him, I propose they run for office in 2012.

:dunce:

...will run and he will win and in eight years in office he will, in his own time and own way have fixed everything that needs fixing and we will be changing the constitution to allow for a third presidential term....he will run and he will win.....

And the complainers will continue to complain.

So, what "actions" make you think Obama won't run again?

WHY wouldn't he run again? Just because there's a bunch of bitching in the blogosphere? Because the MSM is spinning like tops to make another Dem President look bad?

Sustain a campaign? What the huh?

I think some people are watching too much punditry.

op I've seen in ages.

Clear he's not running? In what universe? It's clear he is running and no it's not clear who will be the repuke candidate.

Carter faced a primary challenger. It's not unheard of.

I could even see Obama deciding not to run for a second term for a number of reasons.

Nothing wrong with hypothesizing. We did a ton of it during the bush years. It isn't blasphemy to do it now.