Poll - Will Obama pull an LBJ and not run for a second term?

[grahamhgreen]

"Johnson's escalation of the Vietnam War ruined much of his credibility as President. Johnson was wary of potential political attacks from the right for losing a portion of the world to communism. Johnson believed that if Vietnam fell to the Communists, his presidency would be considered soft on communism, at the same time undermining his grand domestic agenda. Johnson began bombing North Vietnam in 1965 and it continued for the next 7 years through the Nixon Administration. Over time, Johnson escalated the number of troops and active military involvement in Vietnam. Soldier casualties were mounting and soon chants were heard, "Hey, Hey LBJ, How many boys did you kill today?" By the end of his presidency, Johnson turned into a recluse, rarely leaving the White House.<2>"

"Entering the 1968 election campaign, initially, no prominent Democratic candidate was prepared to run against a sitting president of the Democratic party. Only Senator Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota challenged Johnson as an anti-war candidate in the New Hampshire primary, hoping to pressure the Democrats to oppose the war. On March 12, McCarthy won 42% of the primary vote to Johnson's 49%, an amazingly strong showing for such a challenger. Four days later, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy of New York entered the race. Internal polling by Johnson's campaign in Wisconsin, the next state to hold a primary election, showed the President trailing badly. Johnson did not leave the White House to campaign.


Johnson had lost control of the Democratic Party, which was splitting into four factions, each of which despised the other three. The first consisted of Johnson (and Humphrey), labor unions, and local party bosses (led by Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley). The second group consisted of students and intellectuals who were vociferously against the war and rallied behind McCarthy. The third group were Catholics, Hispanics and African Americans, who rallied behind Robert Kennedy. The fourth group was traditional white Southerners, who rallied behind George C. Wallace and the American Independent Party. Vietnam was one of many issues that splintered the party, and Johnson could see no way to win Vietnam<50> and no way to unite the party long enough for him to win re-election.<66>

In addition, Johnson was concerned that he might not make it through another term. Therefore, at the end of a March 31 speech, he shocked the nation when he announced he would not run for re-election: "I shall not seek, nor will I accept the nomination of my party for another term as your President."<67> "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lbj

[jefferson_dem]

1. Ah...the first vote cast is "I don't know, but I'm not voting for him"...

This place is officially fucked.

[BeFree]

7. See the door? >>>>

You are free to leave, ya know?

I like all the back and forth, reminds of, um, lets see, freedom?

[jefferson_dem]

41. Right.

Trumpeting irrational bitterness and proclaiming how you'll not vote for the Democratic president for re-election on the Democratic Underground. If you consider that hearty "back and forth" ... more power to ya.

In the meantime, I recommend you consult the DU rules to see who really ought to be leaving.

[BeFree]

44. Ha!!

The freedom to piss you off is worth fighting for.

Yeah, freedom means: without over-arching control.
And here you are, arching.

Stick around, just reminded you you don't have to stay here and experience the freedom, That's all.

[jefferson_dem]

55. You are such a dreamy freedom-fighting keyboard warrior! Onward!

You don't piss me off. I think you're funny.

[BeFree]

83. Heh

Make fun of fighting for freedom all you want.
It just tells us more and more about you.

[Go2Peace]

64. They could have been saying they will not vote for obama and hope to vote for a democratic

challenger. I suspect that was what the votes are for.

[closeupready]

67. That's how I am reading that option.

n/t

[Go2Peace]

69. but "your not supporting democrats" if you prefer another democrat be president! ;)

[Thickasabrick]

76. Bullshit nt

[closeupready]

80. He was being sarcastic.

n/t

[Thickasabrick]

81. OOPS - thanks - I'm a little edgy today. nt

[closeupready]

85. And thick as a brick?

:rofl: :hi:

[Thickasabrick]

93. LOL...yea - that too. nt

:hi:

[AVID]

2. This is just rubbish. I mean-wishful thinking is fun, but totally unrealistic.

[chimpymustgo]

5. Not necessarily. TWO wars, high unemployment (jobs ain't coming back). All hell could break loose

in Afghanistan.

[tekisui]

3. No way. He is going to be the Democratic Nominee in 2012.

No doubt about it.

[JVS]

12. Unless a DLC "moderate" "hero" arises to "save" us from "bloated deficits"

Wait for it. He's climbed into bed with them and they're going to fuck him over.

[anonymous171]

4. In the name of bipartisanship he will run as a republican. nt

[elocs]

6. Well, if he doesn't some people might not like him. n/t

[theoldman]

8. 2012 is an eternity from now in political years.

[RKP5637]

11. +100, n/t

[JohnnyLib2]

27. For sure.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. Hopefully, a new Gene McCarthy will appear to challenge him.

And, win the nomination this time.

[chimpymustgo]

16. Who do you see as a viable alternative?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. Perhaps Feingold. But, I think any senator/governor who comes out strongly against the war

could make a serious dent in Obama's chances for reelection.

[chimpymustgo]

26. Has Feingold come out against the escalation? Have any Senators?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. Don't know. But, the anti-war left is growing and will attract some politicians.

McCarthy and RFK ran in response to an already formed base of support. Hopefully, a similar set of circumstances will provide a viable candidate.

[jefferson_dem]

42. The anti-war left is growing...

:rofl:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

49. In 1965 it was miniscule. Ask about LBJ's 2nd term.

Or, President Humphrey's first term.

[jefferson_dem]

52. Do you really not understand how vast the differences between 1968 and 2012?

Between Vietnam and Afghanistan? Between LBJ and Obama? Between then and now?

Granted, there is a strong level of war fatigue among the general public at the moment. But there is NO relevant anti-war left. People see pacifism for what it is - irrational extremism by another name. Given your avatar...I think you already know that.

[Thickasabrick]

54. Pacifists are irrational extremists? Really? Since when? nt

[jefferson_dem]

59. Since whenever...

The stench of wild-eyed dogmatism is as strong here as any day on FreeRepublic. Flip-sides of the same rusty coin. The wacko right and the loony left. I deplore them both equally.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

70. Do you deplore the looney leftists Gandhi and MLK?

The did soooo much damage to civilization. How about Jesus and Tolstoy? Dogmatic morons? Conscientious objectors?

[jefferson_dem]

102. You're delusion for the "glory days" if you really think today's "liberals" walk in those footseps.

Shame on you.

[Starry Messenger]

101. You have Bob Dylan as your avatar.

I just wanted to point that out.

[jefferson_dem]

103. Indeed, I do.

Dylan would surely scoff and smirk at much of the sham he sees paraded around this site.

Dylan: Well, you know what it's against and what it's for. I don't need to tell you you that. It's for, you know, it's for .... well, it's for ... well you know my songs are all mathematical songs. You know what that means so I'm not gonna have to go into that specifically here. It happens to be a protest song ... and it borders on the mathematical, you know, idea of things, and this one specifically happens to deal with a minority of, you know, cripples and orientals, and, uh, you know, and the world in which they live, you realize, you know, you understand, you know. It's sort of a North Mexican kind of a thing, uh, very protesty. Very very protesty. And, uh, one of the protestiest of all things I ever protested against in my protest years. But uh...

I: D'you really believe it?

Dylan: Do I believe it?

I: Yeah

Dylan: I don't have to believe it, I know it, I wrote it! I mean, I'm telling you I wrote it! I should know!

http://www.interferenza.com/bcs/interw/66-apr29.htm

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

56. 17% of Democrats support the escalation.

Pacifism is "extremism"?? Tell it to MLK and Gandhi. Those 2 "extremists" seemed to garner a lot of support.

I suppose waging a war for CYA politics is "moderate"? "liberal"?

[Drunken Irishman]

96. And how many of those Democrats voted for Obama knowing he'd live up to his campaign promise?

C'mon, you're smart. Only an idiot would be complaining NOW! haha

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

99. I would assume that all 17% now support his policies.

The question for Obama and his cronies is how many of the other 83% will vote for him in 2012. Or, will they vote 3rd party? Sit it out? Hold their noses?

[grahamhgreen]

73. They are the same. War for profit, little more, get a clue. Where is Osama? What is the mission?

[Generic Other]

97. Well this DU poll suggests anger against the war strategy is growing

or do you find the numbers meaningless? The number of people who feel disaffected is growing. It is not a laughing matter.

[grahamhgreen]

30. Sanders

Afghanistan Sen. Bernie Sanders asked who will pay the $30 billion or more in added Afghan war costs, The Washington Post, AP, The Washington Times, "The News Hour" on PBS, NPR, Fox News and Reuters reported. "Bernie isn't buying it," was The Burlington Free Press page-one headline. On WCAX, he asked: "Where is the rest of the world standing with us on this issue? Why is it just the taxpayers of this country and our very brave soldiers having to bear all of the burden?"

[grahamhgreen]

29. Fiengold, Sanders, possibly Kucinich, Grayson, Waters....?

[Drunken Irishman]

19. Yeah, because Pres. McCarthy was so...

Oh wait.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. You mean President Humphrey? Who lost the votes of the left?

[Drunken Irishman]

31. Or Pres. McGovern, who had the votes of the left...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. Or, president Gore who sought the votes of the right?

I guess it comes down to the voters. In this instance, with only 17% of Democrats supporting the escalation, Obama is beginning to look a lot like LBJ.

[Drunken Irishman]

88. Or Pres. Obama...

Who, you know, ran as a moderate liberal and campaigned on adding troops to Afghanistan.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

91. Yep. And, he will likely lose because of it. And, the "moderates" will, as always, blame the left.

[Drunken Irishman]

94. He'll win.

Unless the left are dumb. Because only an idiot would have voted for him in 2008 and not in 2012 - even though he lived up to his campaign promise when it came to Afghanistan.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

98. Maybe. I think the war and the economy may be big and deciding issues in 2012.

And, he's going to need every vote he can get. Even those of the left he has abandoned with the bailouts and the escalation.

He'll probably win the nomination, but if a left candidate challenges him and he has to defend his policies, it will deepen the already apparent rift between the left and right wing of the party.

See 1968 for what happens then.

[Freddie Stubbs]

68. So that we get another Richard Nixon?

Brilliant!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

72. Thanks to LBJ and Humphrey. You left that out.

[grahamhgreen]

74. Exactly - he is giving us Palin. nt

[leftstreet]

10. Look for it to be Hillary vs Palin

Yes, I'm serious

[tekisui]

13. Really?

You really think so, huh?

That is interesting. JVS just said upthread watch for a DLCer to come up.

[leftstreet]

18. Imagine the media spectacle!

How can either party follow Obama's powerful Hope and Change campaign?

Especially when people realize there wasn't any hop....er....


Get the voters to decide "which one is the better woman?" !!

WOOHOO!

[JVS]

33. Just think of the coalition that won him the primaries vs the coalition that opposed him.

The primaries were pretty close, and I suspect that he had to give a lot of influence to the opposing side when setting up his adminsitration. For example, Kerry and Kennedy didn't seem to be part of the "New Team", nor did Donna Brazile or Howard Dean, both of whom were being accused of jobbing the DNC for him, but Rahm Emmanuel and Hillary are now big wheels in the administration.

Here's the thing though, although he has appeased the right wing of the party, they still undermined him on HCR. So over the last year he has compromised the interests of his own coalition and hasn't seemed to please the conservative democrats. This is something that could hurt him badly if a right wing democratic challenger arises, because he won't get their base, and his is already demoralized.

[inna]

14. *Extremely* unlikely.

Either of those two would be extremely unlikely, but Hillary vs Palin in 2012(a combination of two extremely unlikely possibilities) is virtually impossible.

[Sebastian Doyle]

17. If that happens, then Nader or Ron Paul will win in a landslide.

Yes, I'm also serious.

[leftstreet]

20. First Woman President! Advertising time would be WAY valuable

From a marketing perspective, it'd be a win!

[Thickasabrick]

57. Do you really think Hillary would do that if Obama was running? nt

[leftstreet]

61. No, I don't think he'll run n/t

[closeupready]

84. I asked this question a couple weeks ago, based upon roundtable discussions on McLaughlin,

and the panel seemed to think it was a distinct possibility that she could resign over some unpopular policy position Obama takes with regard to foreign policy, and start a 2012 campaign at some point after that.

[dysfunctional press]

66. palin isn't going to be on the repug ticket in 2012.

it's a silly thing to even contemplate.

[leftstreet]

71. In 2005 did you think Obama would be on the 2008 Dem ticket?

:shrug:

[dysfunctional press]

77. what does that have to do with anything? obama is competent, palin isn't.

and the electorate knows it.
did you happen to notice what happened this past november to the repuke gubernatorial candidates that shunned palin, and the repuke congressional candidate in NY who didn't?
(the guvs won, the would-be conressional guy lost, in a district that's been repuke for over 100 years)

[monmouth]

15. There should be 13 less posters on DU according to that poll...n/t

[Sebastian Doyle]

21. not necessarily.

If there's a Democratic challenger in the 2012 primary, you couldn't be accused of "working for the defeat of a Democratic candidate".

And for the record, I didn't vote in this poll. And I have no idea how I will vote in 2012, but it will not be for any warmongers.

[Drunken Irishman]

32. The only Democratic challenger in 2012 will be some fringe dipshit.

[JVS]

35. Like Evan Bayh

[grahamhgreen]

39. Not if the war is a worse nightmare, & healthcare reform is an insurance give-away, and no jobs.nt

[Sebastian Doyle]

43. Was Ted Kennedy a "fringe dipshit"?

Jimmy Carter only had a bad economy and a Iranian hostage situation manipulated by the Bush Crime Family stacked against him in 1980. Obama is setting himself up for much worse than that.

[Drunken Irishman]

87. We're not talking about 1980.

We're talking about 2012.

Keep up.

[Sebastian Doyle]

90. We're talking about whether a Democrat would challenge a sitting President in a primary

And I believe it's entirely possible, if this disastrous course continues. (war/wall street enabling/no jobs, etc.)

[Drunken Irishman]

95. It's possible.

But unlike in 1980, it'll most likely be a crackpot no one cares about. You know, maybe Kucinich could run! YAY!

[JohnnyLib2]

24. Having lived through LBJ's term, I don't think ---

he had any inclination to pull out this far ahead of the election. He escalated; things got worse and worse and THEN he reached that decision.

Chilling memories.....

[Sebastian Doyle]

45. Well, I think that's the whole point of the thread.

I don't want to speak for the OP, but obviously LBJ pulled out of the 68 election because of the clusterfuck he brought upon himself by escalating Vietnam. Escalating Afghanistan cannot possibly end any better. Rather, the history of that country suggests it can only end worse.

[JohnnyLib2]

78. Yup.

Sigh deep sigh.

[Umbral]

25. That would depend on where there are any would-be Bobby Kennedy's out there.

I don't see any viable challenger. Feingold would be a possibility and he doesn't have a high enough profile or the broad-based backing necessary.

[Sebastian Doyle]

47. Howard Dean.

He's been correct about everything since 2003. And that's what he could run on, assuming Obama keeps doing the wrong thing in Afghanistan, health care, the economy, etc.

[Bertha Venation]

36. What the . . .

???

[JohnnyLib2]

37. Don't know, but my sense of deja vu is very strong today.

Having been in uniform, and hearing each escalation on the news in those years...........
Just can't shake the sense of history repeating itself.

[Wilber_Stool]

38. He'll run.

But I wish he'd pull an LBJ and start knocking some heads together.

[Blue_In_AK]

40. I have no idea.

Things didn't look so bad for LBJ in 1965.

[Bluebear]

46. I don't know, but I cannot support in Obama in 2012. I was told that here today.

Since I don't support escalating Afghanistan, and since I wasn't "listening" when he said he would do so during the campaign, I cannot in good conscience vote for him again. or at least those are the instructions from his PR department here.

[closeupready]

75. If that is so, then I guess half of DU can't either (judging by the current poll results).

n/t

[Mike Daniels]

48. My guess is it'll depend on the economy

He may run one way or another but if the economy and unemployment haven't improved by a measurable amount he won't make it through the primaries.

[Bumblebee]

50. Could we have a special place for stupid polls so that we all are not exposed to them?

Like a stupid poll lounge?

[old mark]

51. This is total bullshit. I am amazed at the level of fucking arrogant stupidity

on this forum.


mark

[jefferson_dem]

53. It is truly amazing.

The inmates have taken over the asylum.

It's a incredible sight to see... Like watching a train wreck. One wonders how long DU can sustain this level of bullshit?

[Arkana]

58. It's a good thing this community represents maybe 5% of the voting public.

[Thickasabrick]

60. Actually, the polls say 40% of dems will stay home. Which is why

I think we are seeing people saying they won't vote for him - they didn't say they would vote for someone else - they just won't vote.

[Arkana]

65. Yeah, cause polls 3 years out are a fantastic indicator of how

the next election will go.

Rudy vs. Hillary '08!

[Bluebear]

79. ?? You don't consider 2010 elections important?

[Arkana]

86. I do.

They're a year away.

Lots of things happen in a year.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

82. I think .5% is closer to the truth. (nt)

[graywarrior]

62. I'm becoming less and less amazed.

[dysfunctional press]

63. whether he runs or not, he won't be selected to a second term.

unless REAL unemployment is under 7% by 2012 and ALL the troops are back from afghanistan.

[Speck Tater]

89. This poll is completely bogus

The choices are not mutually exclusive so the outcome means nothing.

It's no better than a poll like this:

1. I will not vote for Obama.
2. I like chocolate milk.
3. I am married.
4. The Red Sox will win next year's world series.

Whatever number came up for question #1 would mean nothing because the questions did not properly characterize the decision space.

[Better Believe It]

92. Some Congressional Democrats are already making early moves to possibly run in 2012

even if President Obama seeks the nomination.

That's my reading on what some politicians are saying about Afghanistan and other issues. The Democratic break with President Obama on his policies is already beginning.

[TexasObserver]

100. He will seek the nomination. Whether he gets it is another issue.

Too soon to tell. If he continues on the path he's on, he'll probably lose the first few primaries and caucuses, however, and he may then choose the path LBJ did.

LBJ didn't "choose" that path until it was obvious he was not going to get the nomination, so it was a concession of the obvious.