Thoughts on Democrats-

[JEDIYoda]

So Democrats are all marching in lockstep behind Obama and the Democrats that were criticizing him just a few months ago for his corporatism, his delay in ending the wars, his lack of support for the environment, his failure on the carbon tax, his failure for not pushing for single payer health care, etc. are all now happy with him? So you admit the Democrats sold out for a better chance to win in November rather then get someone who upholds the left's values?

Regardless of the arguments you make against Obama the fact is he is a sitting president and there is NO better chance than Obama to win in November! It`s OK for democrats to disagree with each other. Families disagree with each other -- Get over it!!
You say the democrats sold out -- I say if you were a Democrat you would be using different words....so it`s all in the eyes of the beholder...sort of like one mans terrorist is the other mans freedom fighter.....

 

[JEDIYoda]

I shouldn't have to be the one saying this, i'm a right winger, but at least some of the left/liberal/progressives here should have the balls to say "yeah, we're not happy with Obama and we're running a candidate that is closer to our views and values", but it didn't happen. They stifled their objections, they compromised their values for a better chance at winning.

-- Umm earth to monovillage --- thats the way it usually works when a party has an incumbent president in the white house.
I am sure you can find examples that say not always but thats the way it is working this time!

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

This entire thread is completely silly. It's written based on the fallacious proposition that primaries to challenge a sitting President are commonplace, but that in this instance that instinct has been "stifled." In reality, nobody in either party has even attempted this in more than 30 years (when Ted Kennedy ran against Carter), and to my knowledge no challenger from within the President's own party has ever won the nomination, let alone the Presidency. It would be sheer stupidity for the Democratic party to support such a challenge in this particular election, when the GOP seems so hellbent on losing.

 

[Jaskalas]

Primary challengers would help keep incumbents acting in the manner by which they were elected. Betraying your values is so much easier when your vote is taken for granted and you either tow the party line or see it fall to the 'enemy' party.

For all of us, cleaning house in our own parties should be top priority.

 

[First]

Your post is garbage. No good POTUS is going to be ideal for every or even most constituents of a particular party, right or left. A good POTUS is middle of the road, implementing and using ideas from both sides with an obvious bent to either the right or left in terms of policy. That's how Americans Presidents have always been, the good, successful ones at least. To say it's about "winning" is just partisan obfuscation.

 

[fskimospy]

Primary challengers would help keep incumbents acting in the manner by which they were elected. Betraying your values is so much easier when your vote is taken for granted and you either tow the party line or see it fall to the 'enemy' party.

For all of us, cleaning house in our own parties should be top priority.

It never ceases to amaze me how in this forum I so often simultaneously see complaints of excessive partisanship and insufficient ideological purity.

 

[hal2kilo]

You honestly see a party not running a candidate against its own incumbent as some sort of conspiracy to stifle dissent instead of ....um.......a party trying to vote for its incumbent?

Really?

Seriously, have you never seen a presidential election before?

Edit: Back on topic: This will probably go on for quite a while.......The republican convention could be really interesting this year!

He's a political neophite. Why waste the power of the incumbency, and risk getting him beat-up with a pile of sound bites for the opposition to use in the general. He claims he's not for any party. Yuk, yuk.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Mew! It must be torture watching Repub hopefuls rip into each other, waste their resources & point out each others' flaws. None of them can resist putting their foot in their mouth, either.

At first, it was like a clown car, but now it's just the three stooges slapping each other around...

Let's see how the dems behave in 2016 when their field will be wide open, shall we?

 

[blankslate]

Anyone running against Obama as a Democrat in a primary right now would be out of their mind, not because "dissent is stifled", but because Obama, despite his faults, is too popular amongst Democrats. Democrats do not want to hurt their chances in the November elections, which the Republicans have all but assured that it will be a slam-dunk for the Dems.

^this remember that Jimmy Carter was primaried before he faced Reagan in 1980.

There is a good chance Reagan would have won any with the Iran hostage fiasco. However, being primaried surely didn't help his case either.

So way for the OP to bring up a strawman. Republicans rarely primary an incumbent president either fyi.

 

[fskimospy]

Let's see how the dems behave in 2016 when their field will be wide open, shall we?

The issue isn't with a contentious primary, it's that all of the Republican candidates are horrible. I personally believe it is due to the demands of the Republican base, forcing people to either believe manifestly stupid things, or at least act like they do.

 

[blankslate]

Let's see how the dems behave in 2016 when their field will be wide open, shall we?

It'll be the same the false assumption by both parties is that their politicians are more pure and more civilized on average than the other side's. They're not. It's whether we agree with their policies and we hope that they won't compromise too much for the campaign donations.

 

[Jaskalas]

The issue isn't with a contentious primary, it's that all of the Republican candidates are horrible. I personally believe it is due to the demands of the Republican base, forcing people to either believe manifestly stupid things, or at least act like they do.

A Democrat's descrption of freedom and liberty from federal collectivism, 'manifestly stupid things'. Then they go and complain when religious mandates are placed on them. Go figure.

You're damn straight I want purity in my candidate. If we both did the same the world would be a better place.

 

[fskimospy]

A Democrat's descrption of freedom and liberty from federal collectivism, 'manifestly stupid things'. Then they go and complain when religious mandates are placed on them. Go figure.

You're damn straight I want purity in my candidate. If we both did the same the world would be a better place.

Meh, I disagree. Ideological rigidity is most frequently a flaw, not a virtue.

I'm not talking about ideological differences, I'm talking about how every time one of the candidates tries to take a sensible position on say, the budget, they are crucified for it.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Your post is garbage. No good POTUS is going to be ideal for every or even most constituents of a particular party, right or left. A good POTUS is middle of the road, implementing and using ideas from both sides with an obvious bent to either the right or left in terms of policy. That's how Americans Presidents have always been, the good, successful ones at least. To say it's about "winning" is just partisan obfuscation.
__________________

I believe the Op admitting his thread was garbage......he just wants to have fun...so in reality this should be in off topic!

 

[Perknose]

This entire thread is completely silly. It's written based on the fallacious proposition that primaries to challenge a sitting President are commonplace, but that in this instance that instinct has been "stifled." In reality, nobody in either party has even attempted this in more than 30 years (when Ted Kennedy ran against Carter), and to my knowledge no challenger from within the President's own party has ever won the nomination, let alone the Presidency. It would be sheer stupidity for the Democratic party to support such a challenge in this particular election, when the GOP seems so hellbent on losing.

Exactly.

 

[dmcowen674]

Thoughts on Democrats

Garbage snipped

We love you too














Not

 

[woolfe9999]

So Democrats are all marching in lockstep behind Obama and the Democrats that were criticizing him just a few months ago for his corporatism, his delay in ending the wars, his lack of support for the environment, his failure on the carbon tax, his failure for not pushing for single payer health care, etc. are all now happy with him? So you admit the Democrats sold out for a better chance to win in November rather then get someone who upholds the left's values?

Seriously? How often does either party not "march in lockstep" with the incumbent? The last serious primary challenge to an incumbent POTUS I can recall was Ted Kennedy v. Jimmy Carter, and TK lost that one.