One in Four Democrats Want to Primary Obama

[SavWriter]

This news story http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/one-four-democrats-wants-dump-obama

States that one in four Democrats wants a choice other than President Obama in the Primary.

A new poll by CNN and ORC International finds that 27 percent of Democrats would like to see their party nominate a candidate other than Barack Obama for president in 2012.

In response to the question, "Do you think the Democratic party should renominate Barack Obama as the party's candidate for president in 2012, or do you think the Democratic party should nominate a different candidate for president in 2012?" -- 72 percent said they wanted to see Obama renominated. But 27 percent, slightly more than one in every four, said they wanted to see Democrats nominate a different candidate. One percent had no opinion.

I wondered how the people at DU felt about that.

Would you like to see someone else other than President Obama as the nominee? I guess this should be a two part poll. First, would you like to see someone other than President Obama, and then post your suggestion or wish or fondest fantasy in the replies. I/We can crank up a second poll if warranted on who we want.

[Beacool]

1. This is going to be good...............

:D



:popcorn:

[William769]

7. Want to share some of that popcorn with me?

:hi:

[Beacool]

107. Sure.........

Here, have some. There's plenty to go around.

:popcorn:




:hi:

[Crazy Dave]

2. Another

Dennis Kucinich

[Tuesday Afternoon]

3. where is That Jiffy-Pop

:popcorn:

[NOLALady]

4. Whatever.

They should get what they want. They should get what they deserve.

[TheBigotBasher]

69. Others face the consequences of that action then.

Reagan and Shrub both come to mind.

[CakeGrrl]

5. Again?

DU is skewed.

If you spend any amount of time here reading around, you'll see that a lot of people here want to primary Obama, but they can't seem to identify "the one" who can beat him.

This poll (one of many in a series) will probably favor a primary challenger. What does that tell you? That DU is not representative of the national average.

Example: Bernie Sanders is a prime favorite around here. A poll taken in his own state shows that Obama would handily defeat either him or Howard Dean, another favorite.

Reality check: Both candidates have said they won't challenge. Sanders has said, like many around DU, that someone SHOULD do it...it just won't be HIM.

Have fun!

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[CakeGrrl]

14. Cool. Who are they and when are they planning to get started?

No need to lash out with the "Apologist" jab. Sorry if you don't like the reality of the VT poll, but that actually has viable data unlike the DU poll of the moment. Sorry Bernie.

:hi:

[MrTriumph]

37. It is still early. Obama gets weaker everyday. The base is awakening to being flim-flammed.

x

[CakeGrrl]

41. Kewl. Keep that primary hope alive!

:hi:

[PragmaticLiberal]

108. Who is the "base?"

[Telly Savalas]

142. Early?

To defeat a sitting president when the first caucuses and primaries are in four and a half months?

Quite to the contrary, if anybody were considering a serious run with the objective of actually winning, they're running out of time.

[Tesha]

31. The question of whether any Democrat could defeat Obama in a primary battle...

...really has *NOTHING* to do with whether Democrats
wish another Democrat were our standard-bearer in 2012
or even whether Democrats *SHOULD* (for an optimum
outcome) run a different candidate in 2012.

And no matter how much many of us may wish for it,
we also realize the futility of the exercise. But
on Wednesday, November 8th, 2012 you may realize
the futility of having run Obama again, when his
"coat-tails" usher in Republican control of all
branches of government, Federal and state.

Tesha

[CakeGrrl]

51. So the President will be re-elected, but everything else will turn GOP in protest?

:crazy:

Not buying it. I know a lot of people around here don't much care for what they're saying in national polls, but I take stock in the feedback that people 1) did NOT like the political dicking around over the debt limit; and 2) are angrier at the GOP for their part in that than the President.

I don't know how you arrive at the conclusion that all this crap the Tea Party GOP is pulling translates into a voter backlash that puts the GOP in even further control.

[Tesha]

56. Obama is on track to easily be defeated.

In my own state of NH, unless a miracle occurs,
there's no doubt whatsoever. It doesn't matter
who I vote for; the Republican candidate will
win.

Tesha

[stevenleser]

126. If that is true. then no Democrat would win.

What are Kucinich or Sanders going to propose that the electorate would like more than what Obama has done?

Environmentalism? That has been successfully demonized during the last 4 years

Single payer healthcare? The Republicans have already demonized the idea of a "Government takeover of healthcare". That is a loser.

How about raising taxes on the wealthy? Obama is already suggesting we do that. No difference there.

We can go on with this.

If you are suggesting Democrats cannot win this time around, you might be right, but it doesnt have much to do with our standardbearer.

[Tesha]

130. It is possible that no Democrat could win at this point, but *THAT* has *EVERYTHING* to do with...

...our standardbearer; he blew an historic opportunity
that may not recur for several decades.

Tesha

[stevenleser]

131. We disagree about that, but the other point we agree on. The election chances dont depend on who is

our standard bearer at this point.

[Number23]

86. +100 Hit 'em with the truth, Cake

That DU is not representative of the national average.

That's a really nice way of putting it. :)

Bernie Sanders is a prime favorite around here. A poll taken in his own state shows that Obama would handily defeat either him or Howard Dean, another favorite.

Don't forget that was a poll taken in Bernie's own state. AMONG DEMOCRATS. Obama whipped him by almost 20 points. This should be remembered every single time you see someone here state Sanders is the one who should primary Obama. Anyone who thinks that a man who would lose to the president by almost 20 points in his OWN HOME STATE among DEMOCRATS should primary an incumbent president with 70+% approval from liberals and Dems is obviously not a friend to the Dem party.

[JoePhilly]

6. Generally speaking, I think you should never masturbate in public.

And this "primary Obama" nonsense, is basically a political form of masturbation.

It plays like this ...

Picture your dream candidate. There is no need to name that candidate. Just imagine them to be as you want them to be.

Then, imagine how good it feels when they win a primary against Obama.

And then, after this unnamed candidate dispatches Obama ... just imagine how great it will be when this unnamed person becomes President of the United States!!!

... get giddy imagining how this unnamed person circumvents Congress !!!!

... and then ... the joy and rapture of imagining your own "fondest fantasy" after.

And then, take a nap ... which is what follows most such fantasies.

[DFab420]

12. +1 couldn't have worded it better myself.

You left out the minor sense of shame right before the nap though :P

:rofl:

[JoePhilly]

22. LOL ... I get the sense the "Primary Obama" folks skip that and go right to the nap part.

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

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

[thelordofhell]

124. You forgot the reality step

... get indignant and angry when your dream President doesn't do every single thing you wanted. After all, you elected him/her, they should be just like you.

The amount of delusion in the "primary Obama" people is just sad.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

128. +1

:rofl:

[NorthCarolina]

134. Yes, you're right, we should just stick with the Turd Sandwich

and be happy because the alternative is a douche anyway. :eyes:

[Cali_Democrat]

8. How about a nice debate between Obama and a primary opponent

After that debate, people can determine for themselves if they want to support another candidate for the party's nomination.

It would be interesting to see Obama attempt to defend many of his policies...very interesting indeed.

[ZombieHorde]

10. I would love to see President Obama debate another Dem. nt

[CakeGrrl]

17. So, are you going to lobby any of your favorite "real" Dems to make the challenge?

[Cali_Democrat]

18. What do you mean by "real"?

[CakeGrrl]

23. So you think President Obama is a bona fide Dem, then?

I figured you were with the chorus who was singing the song that he isn't a real Dem.

[Cali_Democrat]

26. Of course he's a bona fide Dem

He's a conservative Dem, but a Dem nonetheless.

[jenmito]

32. If Obama is a Conservadem, why did his stump speeches before the tax cuts-extention always

talk about how the top 2% don't need an extension of the tax cuts and that they should "pay a little more"? But then, the Conservadems in Congress voted with the Repubs. to only extend ALL of the tax cuts? Obama NEVER really had a Dem.-controlled congress due to the Conservadems. Obama is NOT one of them.

[William769]

34. Why did he not Veto the Bill?

ON EDIT: "Obama is NOT one of them" :rofl:

[jenmito]

36. Because then the other 98% of us would've had our taxes increased. n/t

[William769]

42. The package, brokered by Obama and Republican leaders

in the wake of the November elections, angered many Democrats, who have long argued that the Bush tax cuts were skewed to benefit the wealthy. But their last-minute campaign to scale back the bill's benefits for taxpayers at the highest income levels failed, and the House passed the measure 277 to 148 Thursday night, with 112 Democrats and 36 Republicans voting "no."

Friday's signing ceremony at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building next to the White House was attended by the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell (Ky.), and the No. 2 Senate Democrat, Richard J. Durbin (Ill.). But notably absent were the top Democratic leaders of the House and Senate.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/16/AR2010121606200.html

[jenmito]

45. Yeah-that was the only deal he could get that would allow the rest of us to keep our tax cuts, AND

allow the Congress to move on to pass the START Treaty, the repeal of DADT, etc. Obama was and still IS against the tax cuts for the top 2%.

[William769]

48. Thats why I consider him a man that cannot lead.

We controlled both houses at the time. Leadership is everything! If he can't do then he needs to step aside and let a Democrat who can.

[jenmito]

52. He is NOT a man that cannot lead. He's a man without a liberal majority in congress.

The Conservadems care more about their donors/donations than anything else.

[William769]

54. You have a amazing capacity at self deception. How do you do that?

[jenmito]

55. You must be talking to yourself.

[William769]

57. I see, go ahead and take you ball & go home. Have a nice night.

[jenmito]

63. Right. Saying, "You have a amazing capacity at self deception. How do you do that?" was such a

serious comment.

[polmaven]

89. And allow 20,000,000

or so people to have an extension of UI benefits past the original 26 weeks.

[jenmito]

96. That's right. Thanks for adding that.

:hi:

[quakerboy]

154. False dichotomy

It was not "this or nothing". The R leadership had already let it be known that they were not willing to fall on their sword on that one. Obama negotiated with a side who had already shown their (losing) hand as if they were potentially holding 4 aces.

Instead of making the R's stand up as the party of tax cuts for the rich, and making them stand against tax cuts for the rest of us, he didn't. What would have been a Democratic tax cut for the working class instead became a R tax cut for everyone(mostly the rich, but arent you glad you got your little cut, you should thank a Republican today donchaknow).

[Lasher]

44. That figure is high but all of the Bush tax cuts should have expired in December.

Every part of them.

[jenmito]

46. I disagree as, I bet, does the majority of the "lower 98%" of us. n/t

[Lasher]

61. You are entitled to your own ridiculous opinion.

[jenmito]

67. As are you.

[Dawgs]

119. The rest of the 98% would rather have jobs than a meaningless tax cut. n/t

[bornskeptic]

116. And many of us would have been hurt more by our $1600 tax increase than the rich would

be hurt by their much larger one. My wife and I certainly would have. The millions of unemployed people who would have been deprived of extended unemployment benefits would have been hurt worse, and DADT would have remained on the books for years. Taking hundreds of billions out of the pockets of working class Americans, when combined with the other economic problems we,ve had to deal with this year, vetoing the deal would almost certainly have pushed us into another recession and driven the unemployment rate well into the double digits. In short, vetoing the deal might have been the stupidest economic move in American history.

[Dawgs]

120. Bullshit. People want jobs. These tax cuts have only extended the pain for years. n/t

[bornskeptic]

133. So your economic theory says taking money out of the pockets of working people creates jobs?

You'll have a hell of a time finding any economist, liberal or conservative, who would agree with you on that. Businesses aren't hiring because demand is inadequate. How on eart do you think that reducing consumer demand will create jobs?

[Cali_Democrat]

47. What about him seeking a record $708 billion defense budget?

Sure seems like a policy that a ConservaDem would support.

[jenmito]

58. What about you answering my post instead of changing the subject?

[Cali_Democrat]

60. What about Obama signing the extension of the Patriot Act?

Seems like a policy that a ConservaDem would support.

[lib2DaBone]

50. Obama says whatever people want to hear.. then does the opposite.

Obama has learned that all he has to do is make lip service.. and the people will expect little else.

Even if Obama loses.. he has a desk waiting at Goldman Sachs.. or a seat at the GOP table. He could care less.

[jenmito]

53. Link to your wild accusations about the "seats" he has "waiting" for him? TIA. n/t

[quakerboy]

155. To be fair, thats not entirely true

I was with you as far as he says what people want to hear.

But then he does what he sees as expedient.

Doing this, he has won a number of battles, but in the process has been losing the war.

[Cali_Democrat]

65. OK. I'll give you the tax cuts, but what about Obama's $700 billion defense budget?

Seems like a policy that a ConservaDem would support.

[Cali_Democrat]

66. What about Obama signing the extension of the Patriot Act?

Seems like a policy that a ConservaDem would support.

[Cali_Democrat]

68. What about Obama expanding the war in Afghanistan?

[jenmito]

73. That's what he campaigned on. Along with a timeline to get out.

[Cali_Democrat]

76. So he campaigned on a conservative position

[jenmito]

78. Nope. Afghanistan was the "good war" which the majority of Dems. agreed with-the war that

Bush ignored for his full presidency.

[Lasher]

92. He campaigned on getting out of Iraq too.

But after the Democratic nomination was assured, he changed his rhetoric to match the Bush deal to stay there until the end of this year. And guess what, he's doing his best to renege on that too, so that we'll be in Iraq forever just like Dick Cheney always intended.

[jenmito]

95. And he's KEEPING that promise. All combat troops are already out and the rest will

be out by the end of the year.

[Lasher]

99. You are promoting a man and not any principles.

Do you know how many US solders are still in Iraq today? Please let me know how it is that you know for a fact that all soldiers will be out by the end of this year. You won't because you don't. Do you know that there is no such thing as a noncombat soldier? Do you have any idea what Obama promised about Iraq during the Democratic Primary? Will you try to impersonate someone who has some sort of a clue instead of coming back with a childish 'neener neener' response?

[jenmito]

102. Read it and weep:

From Politifact:

"One of President Barack Obama's top promises during the 2008 campaign was to bring the war in Iraq to a close. A major step, he said, would be to get combat troops out of the country by about 16 months after taking office.

Obama went a few months over that 16-month timeline, but he accomplished the removal of combat brigades this week. Given the scope and complexity of the Iraq war, he's come close enough to fulfilling his promise that we're rating it a Promise Kept. Read the complete update for the history of Obama's promise to remove combat troops from Iraq."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/aug/20/obama-keeps-his-promise-getting-combat-troops-out-/

[Lasher]

109. Testing DU bug preventing reply

Bug reported to Elad

[Lasher]

115. PolitiFact is wrong.

A couple of months ago I challenged PolitiFact on their assessment of Obama's 'Promise Kept' regarding Iraq, and they didn't bother to reply. Tell me, what do they say about Obama's promise to renegotiate NAFTA? I'll give you a hint: They don't track it as a promise. And yet they cite Obama's campaign promise to get his daughters a dog as a 'Promise Kept.'

In Oct. 2007, Obama supported removing all combat troops from Iraq within 16 months, saying, “I will remove one or two brigades a month, and get all of our combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months. The only troops I will keep in Iraq will perform the limited missions of protecting our diplomats and carrying out targeted strikes on al Qaeda. And I will launch the diplomatic and humanitarian initiatives that are so badly needed. Let there be no doubt: I will end this war.”

http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/25-key-obama-promises-20080719

But during the debate with McCain, the withdrawal became a reduction when he said, “We should end this war responsibly. We should do it in phases. But in 16 months we should be able to reduce our combat troops, provide some relief to military families and our troops and bolster our efforts in Afghanistan so that we can capture and kill bin Laden and crush al Qaeda.”

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/26/debate.mississippi.transcript/

And then in February 2009 the 16 month deadline was extended for 3 more months and the number of troops to remain was defined as 30,000 to 50,000. This was when the August 31, 2010 deadline was established.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-02-26-obama-iraq_N.htm

If Obama would have stuck to his Primary campaign promise, our troops would have been out of Iraq by May 20, 2010 - 16 months after he was inaugurated. But at the end of June this year there were still 46,000 US soldiers in Iraq. They're being called 'noncombat' soldiers now, so that we can pretend they are not there.

If you agree with the PolitiFact article you cited, then you have to believe that these soldiers are currently doing nothing but performing "...the limited missions of protecting our diplomats and carrying out targeted strikes on al Qaeda." You don't really believe that, do you?

You probably do, since you declared without qualification that all the remaining soldiers would be out of Iraq by the end of this year, according to the deal Bush brokered before he left office. Maybe you've failed to notice that Obama's Secretary of Defense recently announced that US Forces are to to Stay in Iraq into 2012.

Panetta said, “We have begun the drawdown, and we will continue the drawdown and we will fulfill the commitment that we are going to take all the combat forces out of Iraq.” What, again? How can it be that we are now going to take all the combat forces out of Iraq when they were already out a year ago?

[quakerboy]

156. Thats a lie that should have died before you put it through the keyboard

I hope you feel shame for that one.

http://militarytimes.com/valor/army-spc-emilio-j-campo/6567787
"Sgt. Emilio Campo Jr. was killed in combat June 6, family members said. The Defense Department did not immediately release details of how he died. Campo's parents traveled to Dover Air Force Base, Del., for the return of his body."

"in combat"

[Cali_Democrat]

70. What about Obama failing to prosecute the Bush Administration war criminals?

Clear war crimes were perpetrated against prisoners at gitmo.

[jenmito]

77. He never said he would prosecute them. And Pelosi took impeachment off the table-Pelosi the

Conservadem.

[Cali_Democrat]

71. What about Obama appointing a JP Morgan Chase bankster to be his Chief of Staff?

[Cali_Democrat]

79. What about Obama forcing State Attorney Generals to accept the bank settlement?

Rather than prosecuting them for foreclosure/mortgage fraud?

[Cali_Democrat]

80. What about Obama signing a bill creating a formal system of indefinite detention?

[Cali_Democrat]

81. What about Obama supporting additional free trade agreements with more countries?

[Cali_Democrat]

82. What about Obama appointing a former health insurance executive to implement his health care law?

[Cali_Democrat]

83. What about Obama lifting the deep water drilling ban?

[jenmito]

85. I could write about way more posts than you can that prove he's a progressive.. n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

87. You think Obama is a Progressive?

[jenmito]

97. No-I KNOW he's a Progressive:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/10/965467/-Here-is-the-undeniable-evidence-that-proves-Obama-kept-his-progressive-promises

[tblue]

111. What is progressive about predator drones killing children?

Or letting torturers and war criminals off the hook? Or letting BP resume drilling in the Gulf? And what on that List could possibly make up for any of that?

[vroomvroom]

136. Are you Serious?? So when Obama openly said to Sanders:'That's the problem with YOU progressives'

and the rest of his staff shunning even talking to progressive wings that somehow means he is just being misconstrued and really isnt a center-right president?

[Cali_Democrat]

84. What about Obama backing immunity for the telecom companies?

[Lasher]

40. I asked Robert Reich to run.

He said he was going to keep his day job.

[JoePhilly]

28. There is no primary opponent ... There is no primary opponent ... There is no primary opponent

There is no primary opponent
There is no primary opponent
There is no primary opponent
There is no primary opponent
There is no primary opponent
There is no primary opponent


But maybe there will be one tomorrow!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Geeze.

[Cali_Democrat]

29. I understand your frustration and I can empathize

A lot of people are frustrated.

[JoePhilly]

30. You need to look up sarcasm in the dictionary.

[Cali_Democrat]

35. Your sarcasm appeared to be a sign of frustration

That's, in fact, what I was referring to.

[Rowdyboy]

33. But if there was one, I'll bet he'd be a real badass!

Flashing lightening from his enraged eyes and smiting Republicans left and right!

[Zorra]

110. Obama would be toast in the general election if that happened.

A liberal/progressive would roast him for corporate appeasement, among other things.

[frazzled]

9. A lot better than Clinton: In 1994, 2/3 of Democrats wanted to primary him

Yes, it's true: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/democrats-cool-to-a-primary-challenger-against-obama/2011/07/11/gIQANh2Y8I_blog.html

Obama is doing remarkably well by these standards. Of course, Clinton wasn't primaried, and won his 96 election handily.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

147. +1

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

148. deleted

[Pyrzqxgl]

13. Only if it's Bernie Sanders. Other than that it's Obama.

[CakeGrrl]

21. Well, guess it's going to be President Obama, then

because Sanders has already said that while SOMEONE should primary Obama, it won't be him since he's an Independent.

http://thinkprogress.org/special/2011/07/22/277124/bernie-sanders-primary-obama/

All the RW sites couldn't wait to report that tidbit - did you miss it?

[WhiteTara]

15. Great! Let's split the party! We need that

like another puke president.

[MrTriumph]

38. Obama is responsible for "splitting" our party. He has betrayed us.

x

[Sheepshank]

43. Us? you presume a little too much.

Wait...you presume way too much.

[Lasher]

72. Him + me = us.

I also feel betrayed by Obama.

[tblue]

112. + Me

I do not understand how people can vehemently oppose something when a (R) does it and make excuses for it when a (D) does it. :shrug:

Yes, we are divided as long as some of us put policy first and others put party or politician first.

[FrenchieCat]

64. Like playing the "I'm a victim" in the blame game means you'll get what you want!

Dream fuckin' on!

[treestar]

16. Too bad for them there is no one who wants to do it

How are we supposed to vote for this paragon? He is much like the "generic Republican candidate."

[GentryDixon]

19. Don't let the trolls win. n/t

[NYCGirl]

20. Nice right wing source you got there. Or did you know that?

The Examiner's editorial page is heavily conservative; it is headed by Mark Tapscott, with American Spectator senior editor Quin Hillyer serving as its associate editor. The paper's national political coverage, which also appears in Examiner papers in Baltimore and San Francisco, was previously headed by Bill Sammon, a former Washington Times reporter who has written several books praising George W. Bush. (Sammon is now the deputy managing editor for Fox News Channel's Washington bureau.<1>) Chris Stirewalt, who has been described as "a true conservative voice"<2>, is the Examiner's political editor. Mary Katherine Ham, former managing editor of the conservative Townhall.com, briefly served as the Examiner's online editor for a few months in 2008 <3> before joining the Weekly Standard.<4> Matthew Sheffield, executive editor of the Media Research Center blog NewsBusters, is in charge of the Examiner's website.<5> Byron York, formerly of National Review, joined the paper in February 2009.<6>


http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Washington_Examiner

[CakeGrrl]

24. You'd think that DUers would be more discerning about the source of the information

but when it comes to something that could mean trouble for the Obama administration, some people grab whatever they can from wherever they can as fast as they can.

[NYCGirl]

49. You'd think. But if it suits their agenda, anything goes! NT

[jefferson_dem]

25. Hey there. Welcome to DU!

Enjoy!

[jefferson_dem]

27. Byron York?

Why is his bullshittery dragged over to DU?

[CakeGrrl]

39. Apparently some Yorkies are doing their duty

it's over on LBN as well, with the oh-so-innocent 'I don't know if this is a good source, but who do you all think might be a good Progressive challenger to the President?'

;-)

[rury]

59. Ugh...unrec....An OP based on a

nonsense from a right-wing rag that would love nothing more than to see a (further) divided Democratic party.

There will be NO primary challenger....got that??

OBAMA 2012!!!!!!!!

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[ClassWarrior]

74. Are you asking if I want someone to primary Obama, or if I'd rather have a different nominee?

Two entirely different answers.

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

103. Or is it meant to be deliberately vague?

:shrug:

NGU.

[Lasher]

75. 27 percenter here.

I'm hoping somebody like Alan Grayson or Bernie will step up.

[jefferson_dem]

94. Alan Grayson?

Hahahahaha. :+

[Lasher]

98. Barack Obama?

Hahahahaha. :+

[polmaven]

88. Which means three in four

democrats don't want a to primary the president.

[Autumn]

90. 27% huh

:popcorn: I wouldn't mind a challenger against him, just for the debate. It would be very interesting to hear him justify some of the things he has done.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

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

[William769]

93. Self delete.

Not needed.

[boxman15]

100. You could also word that as 3 out of 4 Democrats do want to see Obama renominated.

A new candidate is not going to happen. Whether that's a good thing or not is up to you, but it's not happening. I think it would be disastrous and guarantee a President Perry/Bachmann/Romney in 2013, but that's just my opinion. Also, a lot of those who want a new candidate think he's too liberal. Conservative Democrats are a huge part of the Democratic Party, and other polls have shown Obama has very strong support among liberals, strong support among moderate Dems, but a lot weaker support among conservative Dems.

We need to stop with these pipe dreams though and focus on Congress, in my opinion. That's where things get done.

[vroomvroom]

104. If 1 out of 4 stay home i can assure you Obama will Lose re-election.

So look at it that way. 27% is a disaster! Obama is a center-right president and so he is going to have a tough time getting "real democrats" to vote for him

[FrenchieCat]

105. You are correct....27% will have the rest of us suffering......

Yeah! If you work on it some more, by election day, we can move that number
up to 30%! Yeah! :bounce:

Republicans say Yeah too! :bounce:

[NorthCarolina]

137. So, let me get this straight. Are you specifically stating that the Liberal/Progressive Base

is an important factor in the next election that can't be ignored?

[mkultra]

143. and you are saying the 3/4 of the part must bend to the will of the base or be tanked by them

[stevenleser]

129. More than that stay home every election from each party. Someone still wins. n/t

[stuckinarut]

101. I would write in "No confidence"

n/t

[Skittles]

106. change the word ANOTHER to "A"

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

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

[blkmusclmachine]

114. Obama is not a disease, he is a symptom:

The Party will continue to go Right. And we'll continue to be lied to, being told "it's the best you can expect."

DEM's 2012 slogan: We only gave the GOP 98% of everything they wanted.

[bornskeptic]

117. Every presidential election, about 10% of self-professed Democrats vote for the Republican.

Some states, such as West Virginia, are overwhelmingly Democratic in registration, and yet their electoral votes consistently go to the Republican. Probably only aound half of the people who want another choice are looking for somebody more "progressive".

[BklnDem75]

121. Compared to 28% 3 weeks ago

A big yawner

[LWolf]

122. It's telling that more want to primary him than not,

even here in General Discussion: Obama.

[mkultra]

144. to help you with math 3/4 is more than 1/4

[LWolf]

146. I don't need help, thanks.

55% is more than 45%.

[Name removed]

152. Deleted message

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

[LWolf]

153. Of course I mean the DU poll.

Why else would I post on the poll thread?

As for your remark about trolls? That sounds like a broad-brush attack to me.

[bigwillq]

123. I support primary challenges for all incumbents.

On the federal, state and local level. If someone feels they can do a better job, then I say run. It's what democracy is about.

[Blasphemer]

132. +1... My feeling exactly... nt

[Pirate Smile]

125. Shows how off DU is as a barometer.

[NorthCarolina]

138. Or strikingly accurate. nt

[mkultra]

145. or infested with trolls.

[Tarheel_Dem]

135. There I hope I helped you achieve the desired result. I voted "another Democrat"....

:rofl:

And this poll is meaningful, how? I just helped you achieve the result you're obviously looking for. Does that skew your poll results? :shrug:

It's the internet, Dude. Ron Paul could win a straw poll at DU. :rofl:

20% of the electorate call themselves "liberal". How about the other 80% of us? Don't we matter at all? Is there any wonder self professed liberals aren't taken seriously? That's your 1 in 4 from the left. :crazy:

3 out of 4, is still greater than 1 in 4. I did the math. Guess who wins. :rofl:

[Arkana]

139. Yawn.

[ecstatic]

140. That doesn't sound credible; but keep in mind half would want a primary challenger from the right;

the other half would want him to be challenged from the left.

[rasputin1952]

141. Not going to happen...

it would empower the GOP. The thought of another R pres is disastrous.

People are angry for various reasons, some valid, some not. The notion of a primary against PO is absurd, would divide the party, and any primary candidate would lose. It's a waste of time and effort.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

149. See Post 9 above:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=757393&mesg_id=757411

[McCamy Taylor]

150. 25% of any group in the US will always take a contrary position. 25% loved Cheney.

It is part of our rugged individualism, I think.

[yurbud]

151. I would propose a third option: a primary challenger who forces Obama to the left

or at least left enough to govern as a Democrat instead of a Republican without the religious nuts.