Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Apologies to Col Hogan, who initiated an excellent and almost identical thread entitled "Will the Dems Even Renominate Obama?"

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=19651" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But I wanted to change the question slightly and, of course, conduct a poll.

There's a gap between where Obama is and where the swing voters are that a more Centrist libby could step in and cause some damage.

Those saying yes are fools.

I don't see a serious challenge coming. There isn't anyone to the left of him who can even be considered serious (Bayh isn't going to get it done) and the only real serious contender would be Hillary and I just don't see her doing it. It would almost permanently distant her from some segments of the Democratic party (especially African Americans obviously) and even if she won, the country would have to be in pretty bad shape for Obama to be so vulnerable and if that was the case she wouldn't even be assured of winning the general election. And besides, I think she's really liking the SOS job - it's a pretty good gig, travel around the world, make pronouncements, but in the end not be on the hook for how it all works out. Being President is a lot more battering than that role is. So if Hillary isn't going to challenge, then there is no Democrat who would be a serious challenger.

GannonFan wrote:the only real serious contender would be Hillary and I just don't see her doing it. It would almost permanently distant her from some segments of the Democratic party (especially African Americans obviously) .

Yet, they wouldn't be considered racist for going against Hillary because she isn't black.


It really is sad that a person won't run against a black incumbent because they would lose the black vote which would doom them for the rest of their career

Quoting from an e-mail purportedly sent from a White House insider, posted on a donk blog site:

"...confirmed by two other sources Clinton people have been communicating regularly with Pelosi. Something very big is up w/that. I believe that something involves primary challenge against Obama. I have indicated that possibility to you before – this appears to once again confirm. Divide now between “Obama Democrats” and “Clinton Democrats”. More on this likely to come following Wednesday meeting. Basic question is now this: Do we try and save Obama or save the party? I of course suggest the latter and working to do just that. ..."

Read more: http://newsflavor.com/politics/world-po ... z14KrpvVI6" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

native wrote:"...confirmed by two other sources Clinton people have been communicating regularly with Pelosi.

PLEASE Lord, let Pelosi back Clinton and get the nomination.

Quoting from the same previously referenced e-mail:

"...The Wednesday meeting by Democratic Party leaders once again confirmed. White House members involved told to “sit down and shut up.” War within party totally engaged now...."

Read more: http://newsflavor.com/politics/world-po ... z14KusF9UQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Maybe the animosity between Pelosi and Obama is not the whole story. There are apparently a series of scandals brewing, fed not by Repubs, but by Dems who loathe Obama for blowing the Presidency.

Repubs, however, will know red meat and how to eat it when it is fed to them by the Democrat enemies of Obama, IF this source is legitimate. Quoted from another page from the same previously referenced "insider" source:

"...Go back to Chicago. That is the key. There is other crap around the White House, other things that could trip them up, but Chicago is where the real heavy deal is that could bring the administration down. Go back and review Blagojevich. Go back and review Rezko, Barton, Stern, Giordano, Carothers, Jarret. It’s one and the same. It’s all connected, and it’s big. And people know. The White House is -expletive- itself over this stuff. Pelosi has it. Clintons have it – more of it than they had in 2008. ..."

Read more: http://newsflavor.com/politics/us-polit ... z14KzcY81T" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"...I really believe the party needs to purge itself of this administration. And I think we will. November is a start in that direction. New leadership will emerge. The White House will be marginalized – perhaps so much so that there will be a Democrat challenger to Obama in 2012...."

Read more: http://newsflavor.com/politics/us-polit ... z14Kys1YlT" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

native wrote:Maybe the animosity between Pelosi and Obama is not the whole story. There are apparently a series of scandals brewing, fed not by Repubs, but by Dems who loathe Obama for blowing the Presidency.

Repubs, however, will know red meat and how to eat it when it is fed to them by the Democrat enemies of Obama, IF this source is legitimate. Quoted from another page from the same previously referenced "insider" source:

"...Go back to Chicago. That is the key. There is other crap around the White House, other things that could trip them up, but Chicago is where the real heavy deal is that could bring the administration down. Go back and review Blagojevich. Go back and review Rezko, Barton, Stern, Giordano, Carothers, Jarret. It’s one and the same. It’s all connected, and it’s big. And people know. The White House is -expletive- itself over this stuff. Pelosi has it. Clintons have it – more of it than they had in 2008. ..."

Chicago? Really? Whodathunkit? I aways thought Chicago was such a nice, clean politically correct town.

89 is right. the likelihood of a serious primary challenge is extremely low... regardless of what newsflavor.com wants to think.

Skjellyfetti wrote:89 is right. the likelihood of a serious primary challenge is extremely low... regardless of what newsflavor.com wants to think.

Define "serious".

AZGrizFan wrote:
Define "serious".

Where he would face some possibility of losing? Someone like Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, etc. would be serious. He'd win, imo... but, they'd be serious challenges.

Qualifying my statement by "serious" was just in case someone that had absolutely 0 chance of winning launched a primary "challenge"... that would just be a show and wouldn't even appear on any ballots... like Kucinich or Markos Moulitsas.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Define "serious".

Where he would face some possibility of losing? Someone like Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, etc. would be serious. He'd win, imo... but, they'd be serious challenges.

Qualifying my statement by "serious" was just in case someone that had absolutely 0 chance of winning launched a primary "challenge" Like Kucinich, Markos Moulitsas, or Travis.

Jelly and I agreeing on something. See! The bipartisanship has already started now that the House has gone Rep.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Define "serious".

Where he would face some possibility of losing? Someone like Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, etc. would be serious. He'd win, imo... but, they'd be serious challenges.

Qualifying my statement by "serious" was just in case someone that had absolutely 0 chance of winning launched a primary "challenge"... that would just be a show and wouldn't even appear on any ballots... like Kucinich or Markos Moulitsas.

But you do admit that there's enough dissention in the ranks that he might 'face a primary challenge", regardless of how "serious" it is?

When was the last time that happened to a sitting president?

AZGrizFan wrote:
But you do admit that there's enough dissention in the ranks that he might 'face a primary challenge", regardless of how "serious" it is?

When was the last time that happened to a sitting president?

No. I don't admit there's enough dissention in the ranks that he might face a primary challenge of any consequence. As in... getting a lot of votes at the Democratic Convention. Someone far, far to the left might launch a symbolic "challenge" that doesn't amount to anything.

The last time a sitting president had a significant primary challenge was Jimmy Carter. That was a serious primary challenge with 4 serious candidates. Ted Kennedy ended up getting over 1,000 votes at the Democratic Convention. I'm saying nothing remotely close to that is going to happen.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
Where he would face some possibility of losing? Someone like Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, etc. would be serious. He'd win, imo... but, they'd be serious challenges.

Qualifying my statement by "serious" was just in case someone that had absolutely 0 chance of winning launched a primary "challenge"... that would just be a show and wouldn't even appear on any ballots... like Kucinich or Markos Moulitsas.

But you do admit that there's enough dissention in the ranks that he might 'face a primary challenge", regardless of how "serious" it is?

When was the last time that happened to a sitting president?

1984, The Reagan Christ Child.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
But you do admit that there's enough dissention in the ranks that he might 'face a primary challenge", regardless of how "serious" it is?

When was the last time that happened to a sitting president?

No. I don't admit there's enough dissention in the ranks that he might face a primary challenge of any consequence. As in... actually appearing on ballots and getting votes at the Democratic Convention. Someone far, far to the left might launch a symbolic "challenge" that doesn't amount to anything.

The last time a sitting president had a primary challenge was Jimmy Carter. That was a serious primary challenge with 4 serious candidates. Ted Kennedy ended up getting over 1,000 votes at the Democratic Convention. I'm saying nothing remotely close to that is going to happen.

Interesting. I disagree.

But, there's a lot of politiking to go between now and the primary season. We shall see....

AZGrizFan wrote:Interesting. I disagree.

Now that Pelosi will no longer be the SOTH, Obama will be THE face of the Dem party. There's no way they throw him out in 2012.

Also, if Hillary were going to run... it would seem that she would need to step down as Secretary of State pretty soon. She's currently serving at the pleasure of the President. If she were to challenge her boss or to step down too close to announcing... it would look very, very bad... imo.

I think it's far more likely that she joins him on the ticket in 2012.

From the Boston Phoenix:

"... Even before the rout at the polls, Democrats were nervous about their President. The left felt sold out, and moderates were frightened. Now it's payback time. ..."

http://thephoenix.com/Boston/news/11094 ... nst-obama/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I've got a super sweet super top secret email that has Obama saying if he loses the nomination he will run on the nation of Islam ticket and move the whitehouse to the ground zero mosque...Chicago, Rezko, Ayers, Blago, Sharia...

89Hen wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:Interesting. I disagree.

Now that Pelosi will no longer be the SOTH, Obama will be THE face of the Dem party. There's no way they throw him out in 2012.

But "they" not throwing him out and him facing a legitimate primary challenge from some disenfrancised dem are two wholly different things.

AZGrizFan wrote:

89Hen wrote: Now that Pelosi will no longer be the SOTH, Obama will be THE face of the Dem party. There's no way they throw him out in 2012.

But "they" not throwing him out and him facing a legitimate primary challenge from some disenfrancised dem are two wholly different things.

Won't happen. The Conks are so focused on obstructionism for the next two years that they will get nothing done and show their ugliness to the American people in unprecedented ways (even for them!), guaranteeing Barry's second term, during which he will become America's second most admired president, behind Bill Clinton.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
But "they" not throwing him out and him facing a legitimate primary challenge from some disenfrancised dem are two wholly different things.

Won't happen. The Conks are so focused on obstructionism for the next two years that they will get nothing done and show their ugliness to the American people in unprecedented ways (even for them!), guaranteeing Barry's second term, during which he will become America's second most admired president, behind Bill Clinton.