BREAKING: Obama clinches Democratic nomination
Source: CNN
(CNN) President Barack Obama clinched the Democratic presidential nomination on Tuesday by winning primaries in the District of Columbia and Maryland, CNN projects.
He has now surpassed the 2,778 delegate-threshold needed to secure his party's nod. <SNIP>
Read more: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/03/breaking-obama-clinches-democratic-nomination/
Congratulations President Obama
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)alp227
(32,062 posts)But seriously, primary challengers only end up hurting the party in the end, see Reagan '76, Kennedy '80, and Buchanan '92. After Pat Buchanan challenged George H.W. Bush in 1992 with about 20% of the popular primary vote, never again did any incumbent president Dem or Rep ever get a serious challenge.
Believe it or not, some counties in Oklahoma went for the challenger candidates like anti-abortion fanatic Randall Terry in Oklahoma or Tom Coburn's 2010 Democratic challenger Jim Rogers.
caseymoz
(5,763 posts). . . doesn't it mean our elections are rigged, then? And not just by Diebold.
We should just cancel the primaries and go back to having candidates selected behind the scenes.
But why are we even bothering with elections now?
I'm afraid to say, for his deplorable record on transparency, rights, and extending presidential power, Obama should have been challenged. It's amazing to me how the so-called Democratic Party refuses to even look at it. He has the power to listen in on us, arrest us, and never bring us to trial. He's taken what the Bush Administration gave him and he's pushed it farther.
The smiles Obama's supporters keep on their face when conversation turns to these topics reminds me of George W. Bush supporters. Except they don't have to look as painful, because this President halted the tradition of the gaffe a day.
alp227
(32,062 posts)Can you imagine what a president Romney or Santorum would do to the economy, social programs, education, civil rights, justice, etc.?
Also, either of them would make up for Reagan's failed confirmation of Robert Bork...maybe twice, since there's a chance that either Justices Ginsburg or Kennedy will retire or pass away within the next 5 years.
Yes, I know about Obama caving on single payer health insurance or putting indefinite detention in the books or keeping the PATRIOT Act or not following all his promises. Thing is, not enough average Americans (unlike you or I or those who listen to Thom Hartmann or read ThinkProgress) even care about justice system because they feel as law abiding citizens that it's not a big deal.
You're definitely right about "the smiles" since this kind of attitude confirms Jason Mattera's theory about "Obama Zombies". Those kind of people ain't any better than the Bush Zombies of the early 2000s or the evangelical Christian zombies who voted for Santorum.
treestar
(82,383 posts)a socialist paradise via the bully pulpit dkjlfskjowiejf sljaf;lsjfoweiajl
I think I'll go take and aspirin.
If I had time I would love to dig up old threads and news articles talking about the Prez being primaried.
Gloom and doom and wrong, wrong, wrong.
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)Over before we're told about it? Isn't this about how USSR elections were done?
No, I'm not a Republican troll, I'm just saying, you'd probably laugh a little less, or a lot more bitterly, if you thought about that.
emulatorloo
(44,187 posts)caseymoz
(5,763 posts)The Economist had an article looking at the turnover of incumbents in the House of Representatives and called their article "Pyongyang on the Potomac." So, you see, I'm not the only one who said this, and The Economist is a rather conservative British Magazine uninvolved in the political haggling on progressive sites.
The US election system is broken so many ways (and if you want, I can list the problems), and this has sway over the candidate selection process. Really, when Barrack Obama has gone so far astray from principles like Separation of Powers, Habeus Corpus, and has taken upon his office the right to assassinate people, it's common sense that replacing him should be considered.
oldtime dfl_er
(6,931 posts)but Ive forgotten how. LOL.
Anyway, I am going to be so PROUD to vote for Barack Obama again in November.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)I'm not sending money until he reviews that approval and says no.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)oldtime dfl_er
(6,931 posts)thanks!!
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,719 posts)unkachuck
(6,295 posts)....boy, that was close, a real squeaker....
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)there for awhile.
RedCloud
(9,230 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)Skinner
(63,645 posts)I knew he could do it! Yes we can!
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)alp227
(32,062 posts)because history reminds both parties: primary challengers are just as bad as not campaigning (think about the 1980 election with Kennedy challenging Pres. Carter, or 1976 with Reagan against Pres. Ford, or 1992 Buchanan vs. Pres. Bush).
Fearless
(18,421 posts)Pro-liberal, pro-gay, pro-union, pro-woman, anti-death penalty, pro-workers rights, pro-single payer health care policies would be reason enough not to criticize... Unless of course you think that Carter would actually have beaten Reagan...
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)joshcryer
(62,276 posts)denem
(11,045 posts)(sigh) NOT.
VWolf
(3,944 posts)Someone shake Pres Obama's Etch-a-Sketch.
Guy Whitey Corngood
(26,505 posts)Enrique
(27,461 posts)Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)Pledged*: 2160
Superdelegates*: 694
Total: 2854
Delegates Needed to Win: 2,778
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/candidates/1918
BumRushDaShow
(129,554 posts)nxylas
(6,440 posts)Since every Teabagger I've come across on the Interwebs assured me she'd be mounting a primary challenge.