Lets Primary President Obama with Bernie Sanders.

[Peacetrain]

President Obama.. Democratic President with an 85% approval from Democrats..

Bernie Sanders not a Democrat..

I don't think so.

I love Bernie, but to think that a non-Democrat is going to swoop down and primary a Democrat who is as popular with registered Democrats as the President is..

well

That is funny

[tallahasseedem]

1. I was coming in to rip you...

LOL!

[Peacetrain]

2. VIKES..

:rofl:...

[vaberella]

3. You're approach was far simpler and more succinct than mine.

But definitely the point. :D

[Peacetrain]

5. I just posted in yours

:hi:... we must have been reading the same things at the same time.



Just call mine the twitter version!

[DCBob]

4. Absurd isnt it. Many on this board appear to have gone off the deep end.

Hopefully they will soon realize their folly.

[Peacetrain]

6. That is the first thing that comes to mind..

is HUH?

85% of the registered Democrats are quite happy with their standard bearer.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[Inuca]

17. I dared reply sarcastically

to a post that was suggesting a Sanders/Grayson combiantion and calling it a "winning ticket". I got clubbered :-). This being said, I do respect Senator Sanders and the role he is playing in our politics.

[ProSense]

7. Wait

didn't Bernie Sanders vote for

health care reform
Wall Street reform
co-sponsor a bill calling for a no-fly zone over Libya.

Besides, he's not a Democrat.

People seem to believe that anyone who has the opportunity to criticize the President should primary him. In that world, the mythical candidate would ride into Washington and the Republicans would automatically endorse every progressive legislation or at the very least lose every obstructionist battle and nothing would get done, proving that the mythical President doesn't take shit from anyone.

It's not only laughable, it's absurd.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[Peacetrain]

9. It does not make any sense

and Bernie co-sponsored on the the no fly zone?.. hmmmm did not know that.

[ProSense]

10. Here

SENATE RESOLUTION 85--STRONGLY CONDEMNING THE GROSS AND SYSTEMATIC VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN LIBYA, INCLUDING VIOLENT ATTACKS ON PROTESTERS DEMANDING DEMOCRATIC REFORMS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES -- (Senate - March 01, 2011)(PDF)

Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mr. KIRK, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. DURBIN, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. CASEY, Mr. WYDEN, and Mr. CARDIN) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to:

<...>

Resolved, That the Senate--

(1) applauds the courage of the Libyan people in standing up against the brutal dictatorship of Muammar Gadhafi and for demanding democratic reforms, transparent governance, and respect for basic human and civil rights;

(2) strongly condemns the gross and systematic violations of human rights in Libya, including violent attacks on protesters demanding democratic reforms;

(3) calls on Muammar Gadhafi to desist from further violence, recognize the Libyan people's demand for democratic change, resign his position and permit a peaceful transition to democracy governed by respect for human and civil rights and the right of the people to choose their government in free and fair elections;

(4) calls on the Gadhafi regime to immediately release persons that have been arbitrarily detained, to cease the intimidation, harassment and detention of peaceful protestors, human rights defenders and journalists, to ensure civilian safety, and to guarantee access to human rights and humanitarian organizations;

(5) welcomes the unanimous vote of the United Nations Security Council on resolution 1970 referring the situation in Libya to the International Criminal Court, imposing an arms embargo on the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, freezing the assets of Gadhafi and family members, and banning international travel by Gadhafi, members of his family, and senior advisors;

(6) urges the Gadhafi regime to abide by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970 and ensure the safety of foreign nationals and their assets, and to facilitate the departure of those wishing to leave the country as well as the safe passage of humanitarian and medical supplies, humanitarian agencies and workers, into Libya in order to assist the Libyan people;

(7) urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory;

(8) welcomes the African Union's condemnation of the ``disproportionate use of force in Libya'' and urges the Union to take action to address the human rights crisis in Libya and to ensure that member states, particularly those bordering Libya, are in full compliance with the arms embargo imposed by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970 against the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including the ban on the provision of armed mercenary personnel;

(9) welcomes the decision of the United Nations Human Rights Council to recommend Libya's suspension from the Council and urges the United Nations General Assembly to vote to suspend Libya's rights of membership in the Council;

(10) welcomes the attendance of Secretary of State Clinton at the United Nations Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva and 1) urges the Council's assumption of a country mandate for Libya that employs a Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Libya and 2) urges the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations to advocate for improving United Nations Human Rights Council membership criteria at the next United Nations General Assembly in New York City to exclude gross and systematic violators of human rights; and

(11) welcomes the outreach that has begun by the United States Government to Libyan opposition figures and supports an orderly, irreversible transition to a legitimate democratic government in Libya.

Muammar Gadhafi is a "brutal" dictator, who knew?

[treestar]

19. Exactly!

They are stuck in an all powerful Presidency. Bernie would soon "betray" and "disappoint" them, having to get something done, he could not have what he wants at all. These people are not going to work hard to get progressive Democrats into Congress, so how would they do that to get Socialists into Congress?

In essence these people wish there was no Congress or that it was just a rubber stamp body, made of weaklings who cave to any President - the Founders would be appalled.

[Hand_With_Eyes]

22. You dont get it, do you?

It's about standing up for the elderly, the poor, the children and the middle class who are repeatedly laid out as sacrificial lambs by the Obama administration.

It's about balancing the budget by ending the Bush tax cuts, which the CBO says are almost 100% of the problem. It's about DEMOCRATIC solutions, not handing the GOP every wet dream they have ever had for little in return.

In the world of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

[Recursion]

50. And a Sanders Presidency, even if it were to happen, would get that through Congress by...

...?

?

?

Anyone?

Bueller?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

11. Actively campaigning against a Democratic Party candidate!

I am amazed that the Moderators are allowing all these anti-Obama, anti-Democratic Party/pro-Third Party candidate to stand. I love Bernie but he is not a Democrat. Why are the Mods NOT cracking down on these threads?!?

[Bluenorthwest]

13. When did we have a nominating convention? Must have missed

that during the many months of enduring the Crist pushers, those who promoted Third Party Candidate and recent Republican reject Charlie Crist over the actual Democratic nominee in an actual general election for the US Senate. For months they openly opposed the Democrat and supported the recent Republican reject. Crist was not a Democrat, and Meek, his opponent was the Democratic nominee.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

23. I know! It's baffling why those threads are allowed to stay open

[Kahuna]

12. Bernie would have to run as third party. He could do some damage

if he does that.

[totodeinhere]

32. No he would not. He could change his registration to Democrat at any time.

But you are right that a third party challenge to Obama from his left would do some damage and probably hand the election to the GOP.

[Kahuna]

38. Really, Mr. Obvious? Tell us all something we don't already know..

:eyes:

[totodeinhere]

40. No offense, but you said "Bernie would have to run as third party."

But now you admit that obviously he would not have to.

[Kahuna]

45. Stop the nonsense. I don't have time for childish games. nt

[flamingdem]

14. I think that Montpelier, Vermont should be the capital of the United States! nt

[EffieBlack]

15. Let's not . . .

and win in 2012.

[rucky]

16. Then why do so many people feel threatened by him trying?

No I don't think Bernie would have a chance. But I'm puzzled by the number of outspoken people who fail to see the value of this.

If you're a centrist, you should be relieved by the distance this would create between Obama and the "far left"

If you're a republican, it would screw up your strategy of painting Obama as a radical socialist who hates America.

If you're a progressive, you should see this as an opportunity to influence things in a leftward direction - or at least get some new ideas on the table.

I'm not seeing the downside, here.

[BklnDem75]

27. Do you know a single primary...

where the incumbent came out stronger after said primary? Do we have history of a victory after a primary challenge?

[rucky]

29. Chicken/Egg

If the incumbent is viable, there won't be a viable challenge.
If he isn't, then he probably would've lost the general anyway.

Incumbents lose without challengers, too. The correlation is spurious, at best. It's just superstition.

You're not suggesting that Kennedy sank Carter's re-election - independent of the October Surprise, inflation, the oil crisis and the economy.

[BklnDem75]

31. You're not suggesting the primary helped Carter in any way, are you?

How about LBJ? Was he not viable before the primary challenges?

[rucky]

33. LBJ didn't even make it to the GE

and neither did his challenger.

And let's just skip over that extremely unpopular war.

Read my original response again, and tell me how my logic is flawed IN CONTEXT of the current political climate.

And in light of our conversation, I have another one to add:

Fierce Obama supporters would have someone else to blame if he loses in the GE.

[BklnDem75]

34. I'm not talking about the GE

You said 'If the incumbent is viable, there won't be a viable challenge.' Was LBJ not viable before his primary? That's where your flaw is.

[rucky]

35. Unpopular war. Failing health. Approval ratings below 50%

If you're looking for a correlation, it's the approval ratings trend from 18 months to the election...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/8608/reflections-presidential-job-approval-reelection-odds.aspx

Safe(r) to say that if Obama stays above 50%, he's in.

[BklnDem75]

37. The link you provided doesn't mention 68.

The primaries fractured the Democratic party. Johnson resigned because the damage was already done. There's no record of a beneficial primary of any incumbent.

[Fearless]

42. Do we have a history of primary challengers to a STRONGLY ELECTABLE president?

Nope. Because they're strongly electable. That is why primaries "appear" to harm incumbents. Because they wouldn't happen or have an impact if the candidate was strong.

[BklnDem75]

44. I see...

Because I keep hearing how successful LBJ was at his job. It's hard to keep up with 'LBJ good/LBJ bad.'

[Fearless]

47. What does LBJ have to do with this exactly?

[BklnDem75]

49. Well according to you, LBJ wasn't strongly electable

since he had 2 primary challengers. Isn't that what you just said?

[libmom74]

30. I agree. It sounds like a

case of "the lady doth protest too much". If Obama truly has a billion % approval rating among Democrats and Liberals then Sanders primarying him or running as an Independant would not be worthy of extensive comment or the subject of many posts. If people actually had a chance to listen to him debate and look at his solid voting record I think he stands a very good chance, considering both the R's and D's are ignoring the will of the vast majority of the American people.

[cottonseed]

36. I don't feel threatened when someone shits in the conference room.

I just think it stinks and takes forever to cleanup.

[Fearless]

41. +1

[treestar]

18. Even in the unlikely event he won the Presidency

How would he get anything from Congress?

[Hand_With_Eyes]

25. He wouldn't do it the way Obama does it

No deal is better than a bad deal. Republicans would fold on everything if only someone CALLED THEM ON IT!!!

[totodeinhere]

48. Hopefully the wave of popular support that got him elected would also get some

progressive members of Congress elected.

[snot]

20. K&R'd.

[Hand_With_Eyes]

24. You should revise your poll numbers

The one you cite is months old and obsolete, Obama's star is dropping rapidly.

A CNN/ORC International Poll released Friday (7/22) showed Obama’s job approval rating down to 45 percent, in part a result of a decline in liberal support. The president’s approval rating among liberals dropped to 71 percent, a low for his presidency, the poll found. Another data point: 1 in 4 Americans who disapprove of his job performance say he has not been liberal enough.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/22/cnn-poll-drop-in-liberal-support-pushes-obama-approval-rating-down/

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[BklnDem75]

28. I suggest you check the methodology of the poll you're citing

Question 43

Do you think the Democratic party should renominate Barack Obama as the party's candidate for president in 2012, or do you think the Democratic party should nominate a different candidate for president in 2012?

Democrats:

Democrat 81%
Liberal 84%
Moderate 76%

And that 71% people keep citing is for all Liberals. Not just Liberal Democrats, but Greens, Socialists, etc. It also has a margin of error of +/- 7% which is terribad on a poll of +1000 people.

What's next? Rassmussen?

[thelordofhell]

39. And some DUers think 85% of the Democratic party is full of shit

Fanatics are bad on both sides of the equation.

[Fearless]

43. More than 50% of the country is entirely full of shit, why not partly 85% of Dems?

:rofl:

[Tarheel_Dem]

46. You got me!

:rofl:



:thumbsup:

[boxman15]

51. Bernie is a great Senator and a great voice of reason in the Senate.

I'd like to see him stay there, at least until 2016. Having him go up against Obama would guarantee a Teabagged White House, and with this proposed Super Congress, that could be a terrifying thing.

Obama 2012. Sanders 2016. How about that?

[Tiggeroshii]

52. If we rely on "Democrat" as defined by name and the actions of this president, then he is not...

However, if we rely on the label "Democrat" as defined by the policies that are most respected and prided as "Democratic policies(Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, etc)," and staying in the tradition of the people who made them, then whether he calls himself that by name or not: He is far more of a Democrat and democrat than any president we've had since FDR and many past Obama supporters -myself included, may very well consider this if Sanders indeed, primaries Obama.

[KelleyKramer]

53. And it's dropping like a rock, down 14 points in last month alone

He is down to 71%, the lowest since becoming president.

And that was BEFORE he said he wanted to cut SS and Medicare.

http://www.americablog.com/search?updated-max=2011-07-23T23%3A55%3A00-04%3A00&max-results=12