Poll: 41% Of Dems Want Primary Opponent For Obama

[dennis4868]

While President Obama has fared well at the state level in early 2012 presidential election polls, a newly released national poll paints a more troublesome picture for the president's re-election bid.

The McClatchy-Marist survey finds 41% of Democrats are in favor of a challenge for the Democratic presidential nomination. When Democratic-leaning independents are included, 45% support a primary challenge, 46% don't, and 9% aren't sure.

A November 15 Quinnipiac poll showed much less support for a contested 2012 primary, with just 27% of Democrats and Democrat leaners saying they wanted a Dem besides Obama to run in 2012, while 64% didn't.

In the Marist poll, only 36% of respondents indicate that they would "definitely vote for him" in the general election, whereas 48% state they will "definitely vote against him."

Of course, a serious Democratic challenge to Obama in the 2012 primary seems unlikely -- and the chances of a successful challenge even less so. But of the Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who favor a challenge for the party's nomination, 39% say they'd like the primary challenge to come from the left, while 40% want the challenge to come from the right. As the pollster notes:


See the rest of the article here...http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/poll-dems-want-primary-opponent-for-obama.php?ref=fpb

This poll is very discouraging to me. I believe there will be a Dem challenging Obama, especially if the economy does not get much better in the next year. This would be very bad because the challenger would have no chance against Obama and the challenge itself would weaken Obama even further (Exhibit A - President Carter in 1980). A challenger would GUARANTEE a Repub will be in the WH in January of 2013. Dems are their own worste enemy!

[Sebass1271]

1. huh? who are these ppl??

i think once again this polling companies are lying to us.

[tomg]

19. Sorry, I know the Marist Poll,

the directors, how the staff are trained. In fact, I have known a number of the pollsters for it over the years. While, like any poll, it is going to have its accuracies and inaccuracies, it is anything but lying to us. A lot of things could be wrong with that poll ( although i don't think so), but its honesty is not one of them.

edit: typos

[Tesha]

25. Who are these people? These people include me!

I would strongly support a Democratic challenger from the
*DEMOCRATIC WING* of the Democratic Party, because the
current incumbent spends far too much of his time toadying
to the Republicans and totally failing at getting good policies
through even as he does so.

And in 2012? Well, at least here in New Hampshire Obama is
toast -- absolute f**king toast.

So since he's sure to lose this state, I will be voting for
someone to the left of Barrack Obama in 2012; all that
remains to be seen is whether they're running on the
Democratic ticket or not.

Tesha

[stevenleser]

28. You realize that more want a challenger from his right than his left, dont you? Is that who you are

including yourself with?

[Tesha]

33. I read that statistic but it was close enough to 50-50 that I'll disregard it for now.

But I assure you: Obama will *NOT* be the electoral winner
in New Hampshire in 2012.

Tesha

[golfguru]

[golfguru]

52. K&R

The corporate gift, HCR bill is but one example.

[Hawaii Hiker]

86. Obama is still rather popular in northeast and New England

if there is one place in thst geographic area he might not be is New Hampshire....That was the only state in the northeast/New England to vote for a rethug since 1992 (Bush won New Hampshire in 2000)....New Hampshire is a tough state to figure out, are they liberal there or more like libterian type republicans?...I don't think NH is a culturally conservative state, that's for sure....

[Tesha]

89. NH has all kinds of Republicans.

Kelly Ayotte, the woman we just sent to the US Senate, is from
the Talibornagain wing of the Republican Party and she will
absolutely positively vote for its socially-conservative agenda.

Charlie Bass, the man we returned to the US Congress, is from
the fiscally-conservative wing of the Republican Party. He's a
social moderate, but he'll do what he's told when the Republicans
need his vote.

And yes, we have Libertarian Republicans as well. Craig Benson,
a recent Governor, is one of those.

Tesha

[Tesha]

90. I don't think Obama is as popular as you think.

The Massachusetts special election that sent Scott Brown
to the U.S. Senate had a very large measure of "send Obama
a message" in it, and quite a few of the signatories to that
message were Democrats. The health care debate was still
going on hot-and-heavy and Democrats still thought they
might get the things they'd been promised (such as a
Public Option). They were being totally ignored, of course,
when they spoke through conventional means (such as
contacting their "representatives") so they spoke through
a less-conventional means.

Tesha

[Hawaii Hiker]

99. Maybe I am the optimist, but i think Obama will win MA. easily

in 2012, along w/all northeast/New England states...But i do think NH will be tough, then again, if the rethugs nominate Palin, he will win NH....If NH would vote for Palin, then Dartmouth should be removed from its foundation and the school be re-located to a true blue state...LOL

I also think w/a half decent challenger, Scott Brown's senate career should end after the 2012 elections....Brown and Ensign should be the Democrats #1 & #2 priorities as far as the senate goes in the next election...

[Honeycombe8]

102. A Democratic challenger means the Republicans win.

It weakens the view of the President (who will win any challenge, ultimately).

This will not happen, BTW. A challenge, I mean. The Democratic Party won't allow it.

It happened with Carter because the Democratic Party did not want Carter to run for re-election, but he defied them and ran anyway. So they didn't stand in the way of Teddy Kennedy, when he challenged, esp. since the party thought that Kennedy would stand a better chance of winning the election against the Republican (that was probably right). But even under those conditions, the challenger lost, despite his popularity. The Party and its members will in the end stand behind the leader of their party: the President.

[toppertwot]

119. ME TOO!!

This lifelong Texas Yeller Dog Democrat sees Obama as Bush Light! And Obama seems to care more about what the Republicans think than the Democrats that put him there. I can`t vote Republican, but I can go fishing instead of voting.

[woo me with science]

124. He lost me when he lined up Americans to have their crotches searched.

The last straw.

I will fight for and support a primary challenger who is on the side of the people, not on the side of corporations against them.

[CLANG]

31. Just teabaggers saying they're democrats

[Enthusiast]

79. I'm no Tea Bagger.

[Hawkowl]

77. Here I am!

Count me as wanting a primary opponent for Mr. Obama!

[molly77]

81. These people are still using land line telephones.

[Cobalt-60]

110. I will be one if he doesn't start acting like a Democrat

He's completely on the wrong side of the TSA crap.
He seems to be facilitating the institution of a police state rather than savagely opposing it the way a Democrat should.
He caves relentlessly to Republicans.
I've heard one excuse too many for the extension of the Bush* wars.
He's on the wrong side of shit sourcing out sourcing.
And he apparently isn't willing to fight for anyone but bankers.
Enough is enough!
Perhaps a challenger would force him to behave like a Democrat.

[Cant trust em]

2. What percent actually want a primary to unset Obama...

and what percent want one just to value the process?

[Ineeda]

3. Doubting this RW propaganda. n/t

[LawnLover]

4. I think I'll reserve judgment about any of this nonsense until

early 2012. Pollsters and the media said Reagan was doomed after the mid-terms. They said Clinton was doomed after the mid-terms.

None of us can predict a goddamned thing in this country.

[sweetapogee]

55. I can predict one thing

If the economy is still in the shit can this time next year, Nov. 2011, then come Jan. 2013 we will have a puke in the WH. Of this I'm certain. The President, if he wants to be reelected and if he wants the democratic party to survive, will focus on fixing the economy to the exclusion of all other things.

The pukes will not forget that Obama told us during the 2008 hunting season that he had a plan to fix the economy. They will use his own words and ask the question "what of this plan?" The economy, nothing else matters. If something, like a war crops up, it had better not get in the way of fixing the economy. If the house repigs start investigating the administration, the administration had better keep it's focus on the economy. It's that important.

[xchrom]

5. Very interesting but I doubt it will happen. Nt

[emulatorloo]

6. Obama Job approval among Democrats: 81% - Gallup Nov 15-21st

There is something fishy about that Marist Poll.

ON EDIT: link

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx

[Proud Liberal Dem]

11. I was wondering the same thing when I first saw this on TPM

One of these polls has to be mistaken. :shrug:

[rpannier]

100. Not necessarily

If you asked me the same question I would have said yes.
I happen to believe everyone running for office should have an opponent in the primary and GE
I wish this question had been included as a caveat, "Do you believe all politicians should have a primary opponent?"
It might have made for a clearer picture

[Arkana]

7. Sounds familiar. A President gets shellacked in the midterms,

and there are calls for a primary.

Said President rolls to reelection and everyone feels stupid.

[ProSense]

8. Here's how much this means:

In the fall of 1994, President Bill Clinton suffered similar numbers, with only 38 percent saying he deserved re-election and 57 percent saying he didn't. Clinton went on to win a second term in 1996.

And in early 1991, shortly after his first midterm congressional election, President George H.W. Bush had great numbers, with 56 percent saying he deserved re-election and 38 percent saying he didn't. He went on to lose in 1992.

Pew had 66 percent of Democrats wanting to primary Clinton.

[rpannier]

122. I want to add a thought that I've posted here many times

There are people, such as myself, who believe every politician should have a primary opponent (even the one's I like)
I'd be curious how many of those people polled are like me.
Wanting a primary opponent does not necessarily equate with unhappiness
I happen to think a vibrant primary forces people to take positions on important issues instead of being able to duck the issue.

[otohara]

9. Well It Ain't Gonna Happen, But thanks MSM

for stirring up more divisive shit - we American's aren't divided enough.

[jpgray]

10. Maybe if we just call them "fucking retarded" some more?

Of course this poll could mean any number of things, not all of which reflect badly on Obama. Given the information about where respondents want him to go, his at times wobbly centrism could be said to represent the party perfectly. Where's that Will Rogers quote?

[BeyondGeography]

12. Obama will come out strong after the Holidays and that number will be cut in half

[polichick]

63. Why wait until after the holidays??? nt

[BeyondGeography]

64. Mostly because he wants to get whatever he can out of the lame-duck session

Plus the country probably would penalize him for getting excessively political after the mid-terms, which featured more negative advertising than ever.

And, of course, it's the Holidays.

What could change things is the expiring tax cuts, but, even there, he can wait things out until after the new year if the IRS holds off on publishing new tax tables:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AM6JC20101123

[polichick]

74. He'd get more out of the lame duck session if he came out strong now! nt

[WI_DEM]

13. yeah, but they aren't going to get one.

Polls differ--other polls show much less and the president's approval rating overall while not strong is around 45% which is better than Reagan and Clinton and they didn't get primary opponents either. Also, Obama is doing well in various general election match-ups, so I take this with a piece of salt.

[impik]

14. Breaking: 41% of Democrars still didn't get over 2008 primaries!

[krabigirl]

24. Breaking:41% of Democrats want a Democrat for President.

[Tesha]

26. Precisely! (NT)

[stevenleser]

29. If you mean "more progressive" the poll did not say that.

More wanted someone more centrist than wanted someone more progressive.

[Fruittree]

44. Breaking! 59% of Democrats do not want a challenge to

Obama!!

[rury]

50. Breaking: 41% of Democrats

want a Repthuglikkkan to win in 2012!!!

[Enthusiast]

80. Zactly.

[d_b]

126. ^ this

[Forkboy]

91. Lazy copout, worthy of Sarah Palin, not you.

[Radical Activist]

15. I've written before that any credible primary challenge will be from the right.

This poll reinforces that belief. More of the people who want a challenge want someone more conservative.

[JamesA1102]

16. Or majority of Dems don't support primary challenge nt

[Mass]

17. Breaking. Early polls like that are meaningless.

[karynnj]

18. Here's some insight from a Senate race in 2008

In my state, They did the same poll with Lautenberg and his numbers were worse - but, when he was challenged by clearly "fast track" Congressman, who people thought would be the likely nominee if Lautenberg did not run, Lautenberg won very easily.

Here, the fact is that had they polled actual names, they would likely lose badly to Obama - as Clinton, clearly the one most likely to do well - did in a head to head poll with Democrats. In a real primary, if she ran against him - which she has said she won't many many times - I would think the fact that she is more hawkish would be a killer. The problem is that some saying yes are like many hear who want Kucinich, Franken, Feingold or Grayson. Any of them - or more reasonable choices to Obama's left (ie Kerry or Dean - neither of whom would challenge him) would likely do no better than Clinton and possible worse as they are closer to Obama - and he would get everyone to the right and most of the center.

Not to mention - this is 2010, right after a horrendous loss and likely Obama's low point. He has a higher approval rating than Clinton did at this point in time - and even with the Paula Jones story out there (dishonest as it was) which did disturb many independents who had voted for him - he was not challenged. He was to the right of Obama, so there was more "room" on the left for a challenge. Wellstone was said to have considered it. Obama has no such real personal scandal of that sort. There is less likelihood of a challenge to Obama than there was to Clinton.

As to Carter, he was to the very far right of the party, giving Kennedy more of a chance than a left wing competitor to Obama would have - and he failed.

It's very unlikely to happen.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

20. we just got an asswhooping, wait a few months and this will no longer be true

[RBInMaine]

21. A year from now the economy will be considerably better, and this sentiment will be ancient history.

[Phx_Dem]

22. Translated: 41% want a Republican President in 2012. n/t

[krabigirl]

23. Sounds good to me. nt

[stevenleser]

30. Really? You want a Democratic challenger that is more right wing?

That is what the poll said.

[RBInMaine]

27. Absolutely meaningless hogwash. A yearfrom now this will be history.

[rasputin1952]

32. 23.5 months to go...

this is incredibly meaningless...:eyes:

[Tesha]

34. Here in New Hampshire, things are already gearing up.

Don't forget that the New Hampshire Primary is set for
February 14, 2012. That's less than fifteen months away,
and at least the Republicans will start campaigning here
in the Granite State within the next few months.

Tesha

[rasputin1952]

35. Still...that's very distant and a whole fistfull of things can happen...

Polls are remarkably inaccurate the further out they are.

[Tesha]

39. What can happen? Are there still some groups of the Democratic base for Obama to alienate?

I thought just about all the main groups (women, gays, labor,
liberals, progressives, etc.) have all been tossed under the bus
by now.

Tesha

[rasputin1952]

41. Not really, PO has some pretty stuff under his belt already...

it's what is going to happen in the future that counts. None of us can tell what is in the future, and for all we know, even this Lame Duck congress may actually spine up and get more done before the real idiots take over the House.

[RBInMaine]

49. The Obama/Dem agenda is mostly completed, and the Pukes can't reverse ANY of it.

[Tesha]

66. Why would a Republican Congress actually *WANT* to reverse the Obama Agenda?

Oh, campaign against it, sure, 'cause it's got Obama's name on it
and he's hated by Republicans everywhere, but actually reverse it?
Don't be silly -- Everything it contains is steps down the road
they've been trying to travel all along!

Tesha

[RBInMaine]

82. Hyperbole. Pukes DON'T WANT more Wall St. regs. They DON'T WANT ANY regs. on their ins. co. friends.

They are against investment in green energy, and we've had the hugest in American history under Obama. They DON'T WANT investments in infrastructure nor education. They DON'T WANT the Lilly Leadbetter law. They DON'T WANT the fact that restrictions on choice and stem cells were removed by Obama. And the list goes on and on and on. This CRAZY notion that Obama has led like a conservative RePUKE is absolute hogwash by any fair measure. Sorry he hasn't been an ultra-liberal purist, but this is the real world and PROGRESS has most definitely been made on many fronts. The conditioned bailouts of GM and Chrysler, vehemently opposed by the pukes, saved those industries and hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs. Now those companies are charging back. Not "progressive"? My aching ass they aren't. You want ultra-left purity, and anything a tad short of that on any issue is "conservative Republicanism" in your extreme book. Kindly get real.

[Tesha]

92. No, I just wanted Obama to honor his campaign promises.

You know:

o Ending at least one war

o Ending DADT ("Fierce advocate" and all that)

o Passing health care with a strong public option (or hell,
*ANY PUBLIC OPTION* at all!)

But it was all just Obama's bullshit to get elected.

Tesha

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[political_Dem]

36. The POTUS can't even get a break on Thanksgiving.

Good will is definitely dead. I wonder what ill will occurs on Christmas Day.

[Milo_Bloom]

37. Isn't 41% a minority?

Except in the senate, I guess.

[Tesha]

38. A successful President wouldn't be facing 41% of the members of his own party...

...wanting someone else to replace him. The number would be
in the single digits.

Obama is being considered a vast failure even among Democrats.

Tesha

[Milo_Bloom]

40. I don't consider him successful at all.

That's why I added in the snarky senate comment ;)

I've lost nearly all faith in this president, but I also fear that any challenge will have to come from OUTSIDE the party. There are too many water bearers and those blinded by the (D) to have a successful challenge in the primary, (as evidenced by the nearly 60% who DON'T want a primary challenge) so all that would happen is a large amount of money would be wasted.

[dbmk]

45. Inside or outside

and succesful challenge or not - it will all result in a Republican president. You have to know this?

As a complete outsider (who is decidedly to the left of the the Democratic Party) I simply don't understand that kind of talk.

To run a primary challenge serves no purpose but to demonstrate you exist - and in the process almost assuredly guarantee that whoever is elected is not even close to caring about that fact - if not downright opposed to it.

As long as your system is a two party system, it seems horribly infantile to act like its not - given whats at stake. Unless you think a Republican president is a resonable cost for getting your point across, of course. Then its just horrible.

[Milo_Bloom]

59. It's all heading the same way.

Democrats are just taking longer.

We ALMOST got where we needed to go with bush... things almost got bad enough to force people to embrace, REAL substantive change. But, instead we got weak as water legislation that doesn't actually change anything.

[Tesha]

67. That's the real shame.

Obama and the Democrats arrived in Washington with the largest
mandate for REAL change that we've seen in ages. And they completely
squandered it, so now all the rubes believe that Democrats really are
COMPLETELY INEFFECTUAL at creating change, or even at governing
day-to-day.

The rubes won't be returning the Democrats to power for quite a
while now, but a lot of Democrats haven't yet woken up to that
sad fact.

Things are now on course to get *A WHOLE LOT* worse for most
of us while the oligarchy profits mightily.

Tesha

[RBInMaine]

47. Zero-reality hyperbolic nonsense.

[Number23]

57. whoops! wrong spot!

[Milo_Bloom]

58. Sure. Whatever.

[ProSense]

42. It's

irrelevant


Really irrelevant.

[Milo_Bloom]

60. The only thing irrelevant is the spin.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

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

[Tesha]

68. I have no idea if he'll "lose ... the entire galaxy"...

...but I think it unlikely since the entire galaxy probably
isn't voting.

But as you know, we actually run more than fifty separate
elections for President and for the election in the State of
New Hampshire, Obama will be a huge wipe-out. My vote
for or against Obama won't matter one whit, and so I won't
waste that vote trying to prop up the DLC idea that they
win when they run near-Republicans.

If Obama is replaced in the primary, I'll almost certainly
support the replacement and, who knows, they might even
win. But if the candidate is sure-loser-of-NH Barack Obama,
I'll be casting a vote that's for someone much farther to
the left.

Tesha

[Number23]

87. We'll see if your "predictions" come to be.

That the president will be a "huge wipe out" in the great state of New Hampshire. Considering Bush won there in 2000, it's entirely possible.

But considering a) you think the president a "near Republican" and b) you're pining away for a feasible challenger from the "left," I don't hold too much hope for your predictions.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

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

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

62. So who's your dream candidate to challenge Obama?

[Tesha]

71. That's an excellent question.

Who's the best Democrat to win in the future?

At this point, we need a nearly magical combination of factors:

o Good policies
o Great campaign skills
o A reasonable pre-existing political power base
o The ability to motivate the party faithful who do the work
of the campaign "ground game"

And finally:

o The ability to withstand the media's tidal wave of bullshit that
is automatically unleashed against any Democratic candidates.

Now personally, Howard Dean would be my choice, especially if the
rest of the party would (this time) come to his DEFENSE instead of
joining in the attack when the media unveils the 2012 version of
the media attack that became known as the ""Dean Scream".

But I'm still very persuadable. John Edwards has great policies,
but the media will attempt to assassinate him politically with
his affair. It's OK if Republicans screw around, but it's completely
unacceptable if Democrats screw around.

I've long felt that Gore should have run again, either in 2004 or
2008 as the political contrast of Gore (whom many Americans
believe was cheated out of the Presidency) against Bush or in
the immediate aftermath of the Bush presidency would have
been a VERY POWERFUL metaphor. Now? I don't know, maybe
that feeling is spent. But we've already seen the preemptive
smear that has followed his admission that he was wrong in
supporting ethanol subsidies so the media is gearing-up to
ensure Gore stays on the sidelines again.

Hillary is completely unacceptable to me; she and Barack were
nearly indistinguishable during the 2008 campaign and both were
at the bottom of my list of candidates.

Kucinich is probably unelectable, much to our disgrace.

Boxer? I'd support her in a heartbeat!

Feingold? Yes, absolutely.

Grayson? The Presidency would be too big a step in too short a
time (not unlike a certain former senator from Illinois), but I'd
certainly support him if he emerged as our candidate.

And there are doubtless many other possibilities I'm not thinking
of this morning -- thanks for asking!

Tesha

[craigmatic]

43. The only way to attack Obama is from the left but Kucinich isn't running.

[polichick]

128. A challenger could simply attack from the side of the people and Democratic principles...

It'll be interesting to see if anyone steps forward. My guess is we'll at least have a third party (populist?) candidate of some stature.

[MadMaddie]

46. Did anyone here get polled?

I have stopped paying attention to them.....Yawn!

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[Ter]

75. Many here would say yes I'd imagine

n/t

[quaker bill]

53. Here is the bottom line

If the economy is good, Obama will be unbeatable in both the primary and the general.

If the economy is poor, Obama could be challenged in a primary, but the general will be out of reach for any Democrat.

For a challenger to be viable, the political atmosphere will have to be so bad for Dems that the chance of a challenger, if successful, going on to become President will be nil.

Since it will be crazy stupid to challenge Obama, only the crazy stupid will. No one in their right mind who wants to ever be President will run against Obama in 2012. The smart ones will keep their powder dry until 2016. Win or lose, whatever the outcome of 2012, smart politicians will want Obama to own it and will stand well clear to let him do so.

[Teaser]

61. stop making sense

that isn't playing fair with this crowd.

[quaker bill]

65. Curious,

I have met alot of politicians in my line of work. For the most part, I would not credit them as deep thinkers. On the other hand, I am quite sure that the vast bulk of them have more sense than to even consider challenging Obama in 2012. Even serious republicans will duck the race, if the economy is good. If the economy remains sour, there will be quite a scrum for the top spot on the right. Otherwise we will get Palin or some other token effort to simply fill the ballot line.

[Tesha]

72. The economy probably won't be "good".

That calls for too much change in much too short a time; it took
us years to get this far down the toilet's u-bend.

The question really is "will the economy be 'not too bad'?" And I
don't know where that threshold is, but it probably also depends
a lot on the perceived "trajectory" of the economy: if it's rocketing
upwards, the absolute condition can be worse. But if it's just holding
steady, it will have to be in much better condition on absolute terms.

And, if the economy is better, the other, second-order question is:
Will the rubes buy the inevitable media spin that it's better because
of the Republican-controlled Congress? Because the media surely
won't give the credit to Obama and the Democrats.


> Since it will be crazy stupid to challenge Obama, only the crazy stupid
> will. No one in their right mind who wants to ever be President will run
> against Obama in 2012. The smart ones will keep their powder dry until
> 2016. Win or lose, whatever the outcome of 2012, smart politicians will
> want Obama to own it and will stand well clear to let him do so.

It sounds like we need someone who's more patriot than politician.

But the fault in your analysis is that by early 2012, it may be
apparent to everyone, even Obama, that Obama will lose the General
Election by historic numbers. At that point, your "would have to be
crazy" principle won't apply; the Democrats will be crying for some
poor sacrificial lamb to step forward, kind of like McCain did for the
Republicans in 2008.


Tesha

[Odin2005]

85. We are in a DEPRESSION. A poor economy is guaranteed.

[catgirl]

54. The poll included republicans

And Obama does better than Bill Clinton did after the midterm elections. Obama also beats
any possible republican opponent. In other words, this poll is useless.

[pinto]

70. History suggests that these numbers are a snapshot of sentiment today, not necessarily a prediction

History suggests that these numbers are a snapshot of sentiment today, and not necessarily a prediction of the next election.

In the fall of 1994, President Bill Clinton suffered similar numbers, with only 38 percent saying he deserved re-election and 57 percent saying he didn't. Clinton went on to win a second term in 1996.

And in early 1991, shortly after his first midterm congressional election, President George H.W. Bush had great numbers, with 56 percent saying he deserved re-election and 38 percent saying he didn't. He went on to lose in 1992.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/23/104202/poll-obamas-looking-weak-for-re.html#ixzz16OtF5By1

[slackmaster]

73. My feeling is that when you piss off the left and the right in about equal numbers...

...you must be doing something correctly.

[Tesha]

76. But who's left to "do the work"?

Running a modern campaign still requires quite a few "boots
on the ground" to run the ground game. The folks who did
this for Obama were the folks from the left; I know, I was
there heavily immersed in New Hampshire's "ground game"
for each of the last few election cycles.

One reason the Democrats got so badly blown out in NH
in 2010 (by a more than 3:1 ratio, FYI), was that many of the
hard-working lefties who helped elect Dems in 2008 stayed
away in 2010. And I don't see them coming back in 2012,
either. The DLC-loving centrists who run the state party and
many of the local organizations love to tell us what to do,
but when it comes to actually doing the work themselves,
they tend to take a pass on that.

Tesha

[DemocraticPilgrim]

78. Intelligent people won't run against him as far as I can see. He may not have the respect at home...

but the world would frown on an excercise that enabled Republicans to regain control.

[ellie]

83. Yea, ok.

[Odin2005]

84. We want a REAL DEMOCRAT! Not Puke-lite!

[polichick]

88. Who knows, both parties could have a hellava primary season...

...and still get their asses kicked by a populist independent - there's a lot of discontent out there!

[Creative]

93. I don't know about the "a serious Democratic challenge to Obama in the 2012 primary seems unlikely"

part.

On the other hand, Clinton was able to turn it around.

I'm just not sure if Obama is as shrewd and crafty as Clinton was.

[Forkboy]

94. If true (I doubt any and all polls) imagine what the numbers are for Independants.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

95. You seriously think there was a 20 point swing in a week? And they want a more RW president?

This is getting ridiculous. It polled 371 Democrats and Democratic leaning independents, mostly on landlines.

[Forkboy]

96. Nah, I doubt it.

As for what the people really want, your guess is better than mine. What sense do you make of Nov. 2nd?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

97. Combination of bad messaging by the Democratic Party and poor turnout by our base.

A large part of our base being under 30 and/or minority voters.

[Forkboy]

98. I think those are valid, but my gut tells me it's deeper than that.

My gut also puked last weekend, so take that for what's it's worth. ;)

[stevenleser]

101. Your gut? See this link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSE_saVX_2A

Starting 1 min in

[Forkboy]

103. My gut also tells me to avoid going on Fox News.

Funny clip though!

[stevenleser]

104. So don't go on. But people like me, Kucinich and Chomsky and others will... n/t

[Forkboy]

107. I'm killing myself as we speak.

[stevenleser]

108. Good. Your suicidal ideation and opinions of my activities out of the way, how about the OP? n/t

[Forkboy]

109. I answered that in my first fucking post.

Pay attention.

[stevenleser]

117. Sorry, we all forgot in the nonsense you posted afterwards where you made it all about you (and me)

[Forkboy]

118. Don't blame me if you're easily distracted.

Like the "we" part as well, as if you're talking for anyone but your own self. :crazy:

[stevenleser]

121. Says the person who stopped talking about the OP. LMAO n/t

[Forkboy]

123. If so, what does it say about you that you so easily came along for the ride?

:think:

[wisteria]

105. Any Dem who is pushing this idea is either ignorant or a closet Republican. n/t

[avaistheone1]

111. It doesn't matter.

If Obama wins the Democratic nomination, I don't believe he will gain the presidency. He has deeply disappointed many who voted for him the first term, and those folks like myself will not vote for him again. It's early but I do think it is over. Obama does not have a plan. He has waffled on too many issues. He said he was going to change, and shake things up in Washington, but it hasn't happened. The only shake up has been to move issues particularly issues regarding our civil liberties to the right. Outrageous.

Obama's recent repeated approval of the porno scanners and the genital gropings are uniting people across the political spectrum who believe that America is a very different place than Obama thinks it is. Obama will suffer terribly on this issue. The s*** hasn't even begun to hit the fan. And even when it all hits I doubt Obama will get it. He is tone deaf to the electorate.
He will have a lot to mull over when voters send him back to Chicago in 2012. mo

[JTFrog]

112. He'll win in a landslide.

Looking forward to your GBCW post in 2012.

[Tesha]

114. Darrell Issa, the incoming chair of the House's chief investigating committee, Oversight...

...and Government Reform, has announced that he will
be greatly stepping-up the investigation of the entire
Obama Administration. Combined with the megaphone
of Fox News and the general anti-Obama slant of all of
the rest of the "news" organizations, Obama will be
getting negative press 24x7.

His defeat is almost certainly assured at this point. I
wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't even stand for
election, rendering this whole thread moot.

Tesha

[JTFrog]

115. Your posts just keep getting funnier and funnier.

Maybe you should start a draft Gore movement.

[Tesha]

116. I wasn't aware that the upcoming tragedy was "funny".

This could have worked out so much differently.
It's sad, really.

Tesha

[Tesha]

113. Thanks -- I'll keep your opinion of me in mind later.

As I mentioned in Reply #25, I am one of these Democrats.

Tesha

[polichick]

129. Or just sick and tired of corporate sellouts. nt

[Orangepeel]

106. Quinnipiac polls are better than Marist polls

at least, they performed better in the last election

Quinnipiac was one of the best performing, with a republican bias of 0.7 points. Marist didn't do nearly as well, with a republican bias of 4.0.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/

[bigwillq]

120. I want a primary opponent

for all incumbents. May the best man/woman win.

[budkin]

125. Is anyone surprised?

[LisaL]

127. Count me in that 41 %.