I say 90% of the people here will vote for Obama in 2012.....

[KansasVoter]

5% will vote for someone else who might run against him in the primaries.

5% will vote for some independent candidate.

I cannot honestly see anyone voting for a GOP candidate. No one here is that stupid.

The biggest issue Obama will have it that he motivated hundreds of thousands of dems to donate time and money to him because he promised sweeping changes and maybe we got our expectations raised too high. But Obama went out of his way to raise them.

So his only issue in 2012 will be not having a motivated electorate like he had in 2008. Record amount of money raised. Record number of volunteers.

He has three years left to motivate them.

[ShortnFiery]

1. In you dreams! If we are still occupying two Muslim nations with our combat troops,

think LBJ ... think not only One Term Presidency but TAKEOVER of both our Legislative and Executive Branches by republicans NLT 2012.

And don't you DARE blame us liberal democrats who are telling you NOW that these Occupations will take down, not only President Obama but our entire party ... because they will.

Look in the mirror, hawkish democrats, when when our party suffers MASSIVE loses in 2010 and 2012 because YOU did not have the courage to MAKE OUR PRESIDENT SMART, i.e., continued occupation will make Americans LESS SAFE and independents will flock to the GOP. :(

[chelsea0011]

6. Same here. Bogged down with two occupations and not much

happening with economy and health care never accomplished...he will never get my vote.

[HughMoran]

7. "IF"

this place is mindless at times

[chelsea0011]

39. Mindless? He said he would get out of Iraq. He hasn't. He said he

would get health care reform. I seriously doubt it will ever happen. And wake me up when the economy turns around and unemployment isn't at a high level. Oh. Don't ask, don't tell? He can change that anytime and where is he on the referendums for gay marriage. Chirp Chirp. You are mindless. a true lemming.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

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

[chelsea0011]

63. freeper...LOL I guess being a lemming will work here.

[Yavin4]

66. Well, Since You've Declared That You Will Never Vote For Him...

That makes you a Freeeper.

[chelsea0011]

67. Uhmmm. I did vote for him and would do so today.

But three years from now as my post was alluding to? Mindless, indeed.

[Baltoman991]

17. Who else should

we blame it on? It will have been you and the likes of you who still can't get over the fact that he's doing exactly what he said he'd do in Afghanistan. Should you and those like you decide to stay home in 2012 then yes, it will be you and those like you who cost Obama re-election.

I'm a liberal and have been all my life. But I also understand that NO ONE in this world is perfect. If you choose to make 2012 about one issue then good luck when President Palin is sitting in the White House. I'm sure she'll push for all your progressive wants and needs.

[Garam_Masala]

19. What if Romney is the nominee, who actually delivered PO HCR

in Massachusetts? Would he draw dem voters to some extent?

[Walk away]

36. Romney didn't "deliver" HCR when he was Gov. He is now on record as against HCR.

Why would a Democrat vote for a Union busting oligarch and a member of a bizarre fundamentalist religion?

[Garam_Masala]

41. Well OK he helped pass and sign a HCR in MA

And I am aware he now flip-flopped and is against HCR before he was for it.

[karynnj]

53. He vetoed provisions of it, but was overturned

This was done by the Democratic legislature which could pass things over his vetoes.

[Bluenorthwest]

29. One isssue?

Equality. Jobs. Cheney walks free. Mandated purchases of private insurance products, the direct opposite of what he said he'd do. The opposite of what he said. He said he strongly opposed those mandates. Over and over again. In print, on TV, radio, in the debates. No mandates, no sir.
A man who talks a big game and then shrugs off the play has only himself and his need for self serving campaign lies to blame. He's the Fierce Advocate for GLBT people, who fires an average of 2 of us a day, from a volunteer military, while escalating the deployments of that military. Fierce!
Yeah, one issue only. Just the bloody havoc of war. Not the other dozen or so streams of bull hockey he pushed as his own thinking between begging for donations over a 2 year period of time.

[stevedeshazer]

18. So....you're voting Republican?

Right.

[Aramchek]

55. your estimation of the numbers of asshats here is grossly inflated

but I believe you when you say that you will go the way of the dodo

[Better Today]

2. I say . . . I "Hope for Change" has actually happened by then and that you are right.

But as of this week, I doubt it.

[lwcon]

3. And what will those who won't, or who might not, be called here? n/t

[ShortnFiery]

4. We'll be called "traitors" because we didn't follow our President into Hell instead

of DEMANDING that Congress do it's damn job and declare "war." If we actually DECLARE WAR, we can sacrifice and give it "all we got." Everybody - that includes a war tax and rationing.

But no, they'll blame us because we don't want to give another TRILLION of our hard earned tax dollars along with 34,000 of our youth to the MIC. :(

[lwcon]

34. Sounds good!

Looks like things will be much more peaceable here than last time around!

[Walk away]

37. They wouldn't be called anything here. This is a site for Democrats.

If Obama is our nominee then if you aren't voting for him then you belong someplace else.

[avaistheone1]

5. What are you smoking?

:crazy:

George HW Bush thought the same thing after his "success" with Gulf War 1. And voters were only too happy to show him the door. He lost his reelection bid.

Again you are building expectations too high for Obama. And you are forgetting the primary lesson on Vietnam that we should never go to war or escalate a conflict unless the nation is firmly united in doing so. Clearly we are a nation, and even a DU forum, divided on Afghanistan.

Obama is on very shaky perilous ground ratching the conflict up. I don't think it looks good for him in 2012 at all. Happy talk about what will be the outcome of Afghanistan is building more false expectations and disappointment for Obama in 2012.

[msallied]

13. LOL

Another poster who has forgotten the political eternity that is 3 years from now, and throwing in a post hoc argument to boot! Bonus!

[avaistheone1]

21. We will see who laughs last.

HINT: It won't be you.

[msallied]

8. Anybody who had their expectations raised so high they expected sweeping change

in the first year, or even the first TERM, deserves to be disappointed. And then tarred and feathered for good measure.

[Sebastian Doyle]

16. If a guy who ran on CHANGE doesn't CHANGE anything in his first term

how exactly will he get a second term?

And no, "Because Sarah Palin will scare the shit out of people" is not a valid answer.

Chimpy Bush's stupidity scared the shit out of me. But he stole the election anyway. It takes a massive turnout to override electoral fraud in this country, and Obama will not have that massive turnout in 2012, unless he delivers on something major. Granted, he's still got three years left to do it, but things aren't looking hopeful at the moment. Not in foreign policy. Not in economics. Not in health care (sorry, but mandatory corporate fellation is NOT improvement).

And while its true that Obama didn't create the situations, at the very least I expect him not to make them worse. Escalating Afghanistan IS worse. Mandatory corporate insurance IS worse. Timmy the Elf giving billions to Wall $treet while jobs continue to disappear IS worse.

Can he turn any of the above around in three years? I hope so, for this country's sake as well as my own jobless ass. But he's clearly getting bad advice on a number of fronts, and until that changes, I don't know how things will improve. :evilfrown:

[msallied]

23. I actually listened to his speeches and read his words. Not the least of which

was the speech he gave on the night he won the election, when he said that change wasn't going to happen immediately. That we had hard times ahead of us, and we needed to stick together. These times are likely the ones he was talking about.

The word "escalation" is very tricky in this sense. If he increases troop levels with an actual time table and exit strategy, then I will not have a reason to complain other than to say that war indeed sucks, and there is NO easy way out of this mess. The fact that he is increasing troop levels there is not at all surprising to me. He said from the beginning that we took our eye off the ball when we went to Iraq. The ball in that case was Afghanistan.

[polichick]

22. Anyone who runs on "change you can believe in" and then sucks up to Republicans...

...and corporate America deserves to be primaried.

[Martin Eden]

9. In the Democratic Primary?

Of course DUers aren't going to vote Republican, and 2000 was a hard lesson in 3rd-party voting.

Unless this president starts living up to the hopes and expectations of many of us here at DU, my guess is he'll get less than 50% of the DU vote in Dem primaries.

[polichick]

10. Forget donating time and money, the biggest problem will be voter turn-out. nt

[bajamary]

11. Not moi

I not only will not vote for Obama in 2012 I will not give him or the Dems one penny.

Unless Obama changes his support of Wall Street and really regulates these slimy bastards

Changes his sending more troops to Afghanistan

Actually supports real health care reform --- including a solid public health insurance and a total reversal of his closed door deal with the Drug Lords of Business

As I don't think any of the above will happen, I am looking for candidate to support in the Democratic primary for the 2012 presidential election. I will not support Obama.

Any suggestions?

[polichick]

25. I'd like to see Howard Dean run again. nt

[patrice]

32. 1+~~

[karynnj]

52. Maybe in 2016, but not 2012 Dean has never been enough of an outsider to challenge

a sitting President. In addition, it became clear that he really was not happy campaigning by around December 2003. In a debate around then, angered because everyone was running against him - the norm for a front runner - he complained that he didn't want to be a pin cushion.

2004 was an open nomination and he was for quite a while a front runner. He then imploded, getting just 18% of the Iowa vote. (BEFORE the scream). Winning then would be far easier than running against a sitting President. I doubt he would have the inclination to do it OR the ability to win.

[Aramchek]

56. haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!

[Yavin4]

62. Enjoy President Huckabee

You'll love his invasion of Iran.

[ruggerson]

12. The number one issue that dictates my presidential vote is the SC

More than likely, Obama will appoint better Justices than almost any Republican.

Having said that, a lot of people might just skip the presidential line and vote down ballot.

[msallied]

14. I'm going to make sure to save this thread.

So we can all have a great laugh about the doom and gloom histrionics 3 years down the line.

[rateyes]

15. If he doesn't get healthcare right and we're still in two goddamned wars

you can kiss the Democratic Party goodbye. Game.Over.

[stevedeshazer]

20. Dude.

Your only choice will be Obama vs. Palin or Romney or Tancredo or Huckabee or some third party candidate.

I'm not happy either, but this is how it is.

Love ya, man.

[patrice]

30. This is how it is for now.

If it's real change people are looking for, forcing it too early from the top, ANY top, down will only be a matter of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

Conditions have to be such that enough of the "opposition" recognizes the necessity of certain progressive policy-changes.

Yes there will always be pig-headed holdouts, but they CAN be separated from the others and thus reduced to their absolutely unavoidable minimum. Those who (more recently) recognize the necessity of policy change, joining Progressives who are already there, will become the critical mass necessary to make Progressive change sustainable and NOT just a matter of time until it is prematurely overthrown or bastardized by an opposition that is still to big.

It's probably optimistic to think anyone has the awareness or power to really engineer "conditions" this way, so I suspect the same old mistakes will be repeated again and again until it's too late.

[mike_c]

24. while I agree in principle, especially with the unlikelihood of many DUers...

...voting GOP, I think the actual numbers for alternative LIBERAL candidates might be quite a bit higher than five percent. Just my feeling-- and my hope, frankly.

[imdjh]

26. My expectations are reasonable, and my patience is thin. Moreover, I've seen the worst the GOP has..

... and survived it. My mother has survived it twice. This isn't something that wasn't done in the last two years or a four year failure as of 2012, this will be the failure to realize goals set long ago... and we have simply had enough. We can't keep rewarding Democratic candidates just so we can say "We won!!!!"

We haven't won. Voting GOP isn't an option, but voting DEM with diminishing returns means that you have to punish the party and hit it where it hurts. It's important to the party to win, just for winning's sake, and the only way we have of disciplining the party is to hand it a loss by staying home and keeping the purse closed.

[patrice]

31. The Democratic support that I propose should NEVER be passive, never blind.

WHATEVER Democrats run in 2010 we must be absolutely Proactive forever, even Aggressive, in what the price of our vote is.

[SPedigrees]

27. Your optimism is refreshing and I hope you are right. nt

[Ozymanithrax]

28. Are there any issues other than war for which you will vote.

What if health care passes? Is that change?
What about education?
What about Carbon emission and global warming?
What about our deteriorating infrastructure?

I am not a single issue voter, so the state of war in Iraq and Afghanistan alone will not determine my vote for or against a candidate.

But I know what I would get with Palin, Cheney, Huckabee or any other knuckle dragging chucklefuck.

[Bluenorthwest]

33. Why is our infrastructure deteriorating? And what about

education? We spend all our money on bombs and $400 a gallon Af-Pak gasoline. War is about destruction, not construction. As long as we are at war, the rest of those issue of yours are on hold. And bringing up the environment as if war is neutral in Carbon emissions is just amazing. How is war a single issue, when it will alter every issue you list as separate? Health care? You mean Insurance 'reform'? We can not afford the good stuff they say, because we have to buy $400 a gallon gas. For a single issue war. Might not determine your vote, but this war will determine the fate of all those other issues, and our national future.

[LWolf]

43. The big 3 issues that drive my vote:

1. The end of the war on terror. Not someday, but now, years too late already.
2. Health care, not health insurance. Single-payer, not-for-profit CARE.
3. Education: ending the war on public education and sending the privatizers, union-busters, and corporate stooges back home.

Let's see how Obama is doing with that:


1. Escalating the bogus war in Afghanistan. Promising that Iraq might be over by 2011, as he heads into a reelection campaign. At that point, it will be 2 years too late on Iraq, and the bogus war on terror will still be bankrupting the nation.
2. Health insurance companies driving health insurance reform that doesn't achieve the goals. Mandatory private insurance, but nothing to ensure that anyone who needs health care can get it affordably. Nothing to ensure that I can afford to pay copays and deductibles to get care after I'm done paying my premium.
3. Currently escalating the war on public education, making GWB look like an amateur privatizer.

I am not a single-issue voter, either. I have a bunch of issues that he's failing on.

Change is just change. I want POSITIVE change.

[seattle_blue]

35. Two options

You can support Obama and the Democrats, or you can place a republican in the White House through your lack of support.
I really don't have to think about it very much.
OBAMA 2012!
I could be mistaken,but I thought this was the DEMOCRATIC underground.

[polichick]

38. Unfortunately, many of our leaders seem to have forgotten that they are DEMOCRATS. nt

[LWolf]

44. That's bullshit.

I have never, and will never, in this lifetime, vote to put a Republican in the WH.

That doesn't mean the Democrat is the automatic default. My vote is earned.

The candidate is accountable for the loss of votes.

So are people who think that they can win votes by bullying people into them with faulty reasoning like that in your post.

You want Obama to win? Start pressuring him to earn the votes.

[krawhitham]

47. No you're BS, you either vote for the DEM or you are helping the repug

PERIOD, pissing your vote away on a 3rd party candidate helps the GOP. Open your damn eyes

[LWolf]

51. No. The Dem is responsible for earning the votes.

If the candidate can't earn them, then the candidate doesn't deserve them.

Voters don't owe candidates anything.

If you are concerned about losing votes to 3rd parties, or to people who sit out because there is no candidate that earns their vote, then work to nominate a candidate that can and will earn the votes.

When it comes to a re-election, hope that the candidates' records earn the votes. Or vote in some that will.

[ZombieHorde]

40. There are still a few years to go.

If we are out of Iraq, have repealed DADT, and the job situation is on the rise, President Obama will do fairly well with DUers.

HCR is going to play a big role, but we will have to see what we get.

[LWolf]

42. I won't be voting for a GOP candidate in this lifetime.

That doesn't mean Obama has my vote locked up.

At this point, he's guaranteed that he won't have it, either.

I don't vote for politicians who prosecute a war on public education.

I'll probably be one of both of your 5%.

[NYC Liberal]

45. Dennis Kucinich could be elected president and you'd probably have these same sort of threads

(posted by the same people who campaigned all they could for him.)

DU was started as an opposition forum, of sorts. I suspect a number of people who come to this forum will never be truly pleased with anyone who is president, given that the president actually has to consider a lot of people other than themselves, including people with whom they passionately disagree. This involves compromise and compromise is something that these DUers cannot stand. It is their way or nothing, and if it isn't "their way" then you as a politician, entertainer, etc. are cast out of DU's small circle of "darlings", attacked, and mocked. That is, until you say something or do something else that they agree with; then, you are a god again.

DU can be a very fickle place.

[krawhitham]

46. more than 10% of the people here are freepers

always trying to divide us, and it works most of the time

[ProSense]

48. Here's an idea:

Let's drop discussion of all the issues and focus on President Obama's re-election bid three years from now.

In fact, this is a good time to begin ramping up the campaigns of those who can't get 1 percent of the vote. With enough of these candidates, Obama may face a serious challenge. Some people's wish that he loses may even become a possibility.

Deal?

[Thickasabrick]

49. It doesn't matter who the Dems vote for or the Pukes - it's the independents

and we are losing them daily.

[saltpoint]

50. Obama seems likely to me to be in a very strong position for re-election.

In addition, the Puke field is very weak.

There is no rationale for a Democratic primary challenge narrative and very few people who would even consider it, as it would be a fool's errand.

Who would be the President's more forceful or persuasive challenger in the Republican Party -- Romney? Huckabee? Palin? Santorum? Gingrich? Jindal? Barbour?

George Pataki!?

[LittleBlue]

54. I doubt it. Nobody will be voting Palin, but a good deal will just stay home.

I know I will if we're still crusading in 4 years. If he chooses that path, he chooses to lose my vote.

[burning rain]

57. You probably have it about right.

The GOP presidential bench is so lackluster that despite any left-wing disillusionment over Afghanistan, I bet Barry 'll win reelection by a clear margin in 2012, though congressional Democrats, who don't benefit from a gaping charisma gap with the opposition as he does, could well suffer in 2010, 2012, and 2014 alike. Always worth remembering that for a good number of people, sheer charisma trumps all else. When was the last time a presidential candidate on the wrong side of a notable charisma gap won?

[old mark]

58. Anyone who is enough of an asshole to vote for a republican deserves to live under a republican

regime. I won't vote GOP ever, for any reason, and I despise any "leftist" here who actually would.

mark

[Cobalt-60]

59. What else but Democratic?

The Torture party is permanently off the menu for torture.
There is no cleanser that could ever remove the reek of torture from the Pukes.
A third party? and risk splitting the anti Torture vote? Not a chance.
I would spit my last breath into the Pukes faces before I voted for one.

[LiberalFighter]

60. 15% of the Republicans will be dead by 2012

and 10% won't bother to vote because they will be working 3 jobs

[sledgehammer]

64. There are a lot of people who might not vote at all.

That would be disastrous for Obama.

The high turnout and involvement, especially among young voters, was a huge reason for Obama's success. If many of them choose not to vote, or not to get involved, he will suffer.

That said, I give him a B-/C+ so far. Which is enough for me to vote for him again if he ran today. But don't know if I could be motivated to do as much as I did last year.

[Kitsune]

65. He will have to do some serious 180s if he wants to motivate me to do anything but primary him out.