Can't support Obama in 2012? OK. What's your plan, then?

[MineralMan]

Seriously. What can you have in mind? What will you support?

Or will you just sit back and watch the parade? What's this in aid of, really?

If you have a plan, let's hear it. Maybe we'll all see the wisdom in it and join you in whatever it is you're thinking about.

[treestar]

1. I'm wondering why they expect us to support the primary challenger

When he has not even started yet.

[MineralMan]

2. Well, there's obviously no primary challenger. All the likely possibilities

have said they're not interested. So that can't be it. Surely, though, there's a plan of some kind. I haven't seen it yet. Maybe it will be the berries. Maybe it will galvanize us all. I'm eager to hear it.

[democrat2thecore]

19. Let's be honest...... really.....

With approval numbers this low and the polarization what it is, if this were a white incumbent president we're talking about, many congressman and senators would be signaling that no way could they support re-election, as the top of the ticket will drag the party to record losses. However, because the President is black and polls consistently show an unprecedented automatic voting bloc of 90% plus of the black vote - a primary challenge would be doomed to fail. That's just the reality. Period.

Nobody wants to talk about this - but this is the ONLY reason there's not a primary challenge.

[MineralMan]

28. So, you think it's racially based? Really?

That's very interesting. I don't agree, but it's very interesting.

[democrat2thecore]

42. Absolutely

It's the great unspoken. Polls show the black vote is with Obama 90%+. In a Democratic primary - how do you run against that fact and have a chance in hell? So yes, this is the ONLY reason there's no primary challenger. Any potential challenger would look at the polls, the landscape the way it is going into '12 and not want to go through what it takes in a campaign with a pivotal voting bloc already decidedly against you in an almost assured two-man race for the nomination. It would be a suicide mission.

[MineralMan]

45. I simply have no words...

Sorry.

[democrat2thecore]

96. Oh, please. Read my post 93 just below this.

You would have thought I said something so totally untrue and racist(?). NOTHING that I wrote is anything more than a logistical look at the political situation as it really is. This phony dramatic righteous reaction is silly. What's the deal?

[Number23]

137. You need to read this. The author was talking about you

"We certainly do have a national religion—it’s just not Christianity. It’s Denialism.

Some branches of this religion deny the science documenting humans’ role in climate change. Others deny tax cuts’ connection to deficits and deregulation’s role in the recession. But regardless of the issue, Denialists all share a basic hostility to facts.

As this know-nothing theology expands, none of its denominations claims a bigger membership than the one obsessed with race. Today, many reject the fact that black people typically face bigger obstacles to economic and political success than whites. Instead, they insist that whites are oppressed.

...The late Democrat Geraldine Ferraro first floated this specific fable in 2008, when she said that Obama was “very lucky” to be black and that “if Obama was a white man, he would not be in (his) position.”

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/race_and_the_church_of_denialism_20110825/?ln

[democrat2thecore]

147. No, what I wrote is factual

It may not be PC and what you want to hear, but there's NOTHING you can really take issue with. What am I denying? What part of what I wrote isn't just truth and common sense? To me, your post to me is ironic in that you're not seeing what I am saying is where lies YOUR denial. Good, bad, or indifferent - what I wrote is just the way it is. We should be able to admit that and maybe ask, instead, why 90%+ of the black vote historically goes to black candidates in Democratic primaries, whether for president, the senate, congress, etc. when the other option(s) are white candidates?

Those blasting me seem to be blasting me for suggesting that what seems obvious (race-based voting in a one-way direction) is simply being talked about(!)

[Number23]

151. There is absolutely nothing factual about what you've written

I thought that sending you that article may help you understand that. That perhaps once you saw the similarities between what you'd written,

if this were a white incumbent president we're talking about, many congressman and senators would be signaling that no way could they support re-election,

and what Ferraro said “if Obama was a white man, he would not be in (his) position.”

But I see that was wishful thinking.

[democrat2thecore]

152. I don't buy what Ferraro was selling

It has nothing to do with what I was saying. My position is simply that Obama would have a primary challenger if he didn't have 90%+ of the black vote sewn up - and history has told us there's no changing that race-based voting by AAs in the near-term. A two-person race would be a joke because of the split white vote and the solid, immovable black vote for Obama. I'm not in denial about anything. I still argue that YOU are in denial of these basic logistical realities facing any kind of primary challenger to President Obama.

[Number23]

153. So black people only vote for other black people?

You just made Herman Cain one HAPPY assed man. :eyes:

When black people vote, do our ballots have a "B" or a little afro icon next to the candidate so that we know that this person is black?

Really, there is no point in talking with you. You have no idea what you're talking about and you are clinging belligerently to things are simply not true and are wildly ignorant. Good luck with that.

[democrat2thecore]

155. Hang on a minute, Number 23

Are you DENYING that 92% of the blacks voted for Jesse Jackson in the '84 primaries?
Are you DENYING that 93% of blacks say they intend to vote again for Obama?

That's all fact, I'm sorry you are in denial about that.

Yes, when blacks, in Democratic primaries, can vote for a black candidate - they overwhelmingly do so. That, is a fact.

You wrote:

"You have no idea what you're talking about and you are clinging belligerently to things are simply not true and are wildly ignorant."

Take a look in the mirror, my friend. YOU are the one not wanting to believe that this could possibly be true.

[foo_bar]

189. "That, is a fact"

Yes, when blacks, in Democratic primaries, can vote for a black candidate - they overwhelmingly do so. That, is a fact.

While this is often the case, calling this assumption a "fact" seems a bit unfair to the notion of factuality:

During the primary campaign, Davis downplayed matters of race and emphasized his independence from Democratic party orthodoxy. He caused controversy, including within his heavily minority congressional district, by voting against President Barack Obama's new health-care law—the only black Democrat in Congress to do so. He also refused to sit for the endorsement screenings of Alabama's black political groups, drawing criticism from some that he was an opportunist in search of white votes. As a result, he became described as "the first African-American candidate in a statewide Alabama race to lose the black vote."

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

Artur Davis was on track to be Alabama’s first African-American governor—till he took black voters for granted.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/06/04/fallen-star.html

A congressman seeking to become Alabama's first black governor lost Tuesday to a white Democratic primary opponent who had garnered support from the state's four major black political groups.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/01/artur-davis-faces-off-aga_n_597020.html

[Number23]

197. A valiant effort but I fear yout time is wasted

Anyone in 2011 and who wants to believe that black people only vote for other black people is simply not worth the time and effort it would take to tell them how ignorant they are. Two seconds of research on this topic would bring up the likes of Cynthia McKinney, Alan Keyes, Michael Steele and any number of black candidates who did not garner the black vote and certainly not in enough numbers to win whatever election they were pursuing.

Even Adrian Fenty, the Dem black mayor of DC, lost the black vote last year. Edit: and Corey Booker, also a Dem, came *this close* too as well in NJ.

I wasted five minutes responding to that person when I already knew it was a lost cause. Please save yourself the trouble even though I, for one, appreciate your effort.

[democrat2thecore]

200. How many times do I have to say "Democratic PRIMARIES?"

I never suggested that given the choice between a black or white candidate in a GENERAL election that blacks would just vote skin color.

"Wasted effort?" So...we all have to think like Number23?

Please. This is getting pathetic. You know what I mean, but it's much more fun to pretend that something, that is clearly true, is not. Even by changing the bar to General elections to further try to misrepresent what I have written.

[entanglement]

163. What you say is partly true, but overall it is whites who are pushing the country further

to the right. After all, which demographic dominates the Tea-party? Which demographic wants to "take back" America? Which demographic is most vested in Empire and endless cultural wars? Which demographic is most vested in the myths of "minimal government" or the supremacy of capitalism? I could go on and on with examples.

So I don't think you a racist, but if you want to apportion blame on a racial basis how can you ignore the pathological growth of right-wing sentiment in whites while blaming a minority (10 percent of the population) for your woes? How can you blame black people who vote for Obama while overlooking the whites who can (probably will) joyfully usher in a Perry or a Bachmann?

Here's another way to look at your argument: You seem annoyed at the influence black people have in the democratic primary and the loss of white dominance there. Fine. But would that be a problem at all, if more whites were left-leaning or progressive in the first place? No. If whites were mostly progressive or even democratic, you could have a white democratic candidate no matter how blacks felt about it, couldn't you? Unfortunately, your white progressive utopia doesn't exist and you'll have to tolerate black people having a say in the proceedings.

I admit I am being a bit un-PC here in running with your idea of race-based blame apportionment.
I should mention that my own political views are far to the left of the democrats, so I don't particularly care if a white or black person gets the nomination. Either one will carry out the dictates of big $$, but that's a debate for another day.

[Number23]

199. Please excuse my language

but fucking awesome post.

So I don't think you a racist, but if you want to apportion blame on a racial basis how can you ignore the pathological growth of right-wing sentiment in whites while blaming a minority (10 percent of the population) for your woes? How can you blame black people who vote for Obama while overlooking the whites who can (probably will) joyfully usher in a Perry or a Bachmann?

I've tried to make that point so many times. We see this even on DU, so many white people here so desperate to "teach Obama and the dems a lesson" that they are openly proud to admit that if Rick Perry becomes president, then so be it. I have no doubt that the reason so many here wanted to reach out to the Tea Party when they first rose to prominence was because they saw much of themselves in the tea party -- older, angry white people. If the Tea Party was a movement of mostly black or Arab or Hispanic people regardless of age, I don't many of these folks would have been nearly so generous.

[democrat2thecore]

201. No, no, no

"You seem annoyed at the influence black people have in the democratic primary and the loss of white dominance there."

I'm not the least "annoyed" at the influence of black people in the primaries. I was merely stating the facts of the matter and what a possible challenger to President Obama would have to consider. And the black vote (as shown in the polls at 93%) is one of those things. I'm just being realistic - I'm hardly suggesting there is too much "black influence."

Just wanted to clarify. I can hardly blame you for the confusion after Number23 has tried to misrepresent damn near everything I have written.

[Number23]

205. I haven't misrepresented a damn thing

Every single person on this damn board can see what you've written.

You are simply mad as hell that your bullshit is being called out on by damn near a dozen different posters. My first response to you was simply "Wow" and by then, you were already getting your ass handed to you.

You act as though having a black candidate in the Dem primaries has happened 100 times and that Obama's only getting support from black people because a tried and true precedent of black people voting for black candidates in presidential primaries has been set. Did you forget that Al Sharpton has run for president and has gotten probably five votes? He didn't even win freaking New York! His HOME STATE! Here is YET ANOTHER black candidate in a Dem primary that didn't get the black vote. Now, you can continue to act as though I'm twisting your words around or you can admit that you don't know what you are talking about.

How am I twisting your words when people are responding DIRECTLY to you? You have also ignored a post from someone that has refuted beyond all doubt that black people only support black candidates in the primaries and you have ignored the point that I raised that black candidates have lost or almost lost the black vote EVEN AS INCUMBENTS during elections.

Every single point you've made has been proven untrue. Like I said, you can keep acting as though your points are being "misrepresented" or you can finally admit that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Edit: Here, I found a very useful link for you. Social Studies for Kids, how many blacks have run for president. http://www.socialstudiesforkids.com/articles/ushistory/africanamericans_president.htm According to your logic, every single one of these people won the black vote.

[democrat2thecore]

207. You've done it again

Did I say that every black person to run for office should have received all the black vote? My "bullshit"? You're a nice one, I'll tell 'ya.

I haven't seen my "ass handed to me" at all. I think once there was that self-righteous "wow" that others joined in without thinking about what I was REALLY saying as opposed to what YOU have said I've been saying. It stopped didn't it? There hasn't been too much of that except you and your repeatedly misrepresenting what I have written. I can only guess you're purposely doing that in order to race-bait me into something. It won't work. Many people know that what I said was just an obvious and honest observation. Obvious except to people like you who want to twist things around to make it not just "about race" but "racist." That's wrong.

And by the way, my guess is there are plenty of people that might like to post an agreement with what I've written but fear posters, like you, that would twist their words to make them sound like David Duke by the time you're finished with them. You can be damn mean. Do you read your posts?

Social Studies For Kids? How insulting.

[Number23]

210. "purposely doing that in order to race-bait me into something."

Put yourself out of your misery and STOP POSTING. Just STOP.

Find another thread with a topic you are more knowledgeable/comfortable with. This one ain't it.

[Number23]

213. And if you took a second and calmed down, you'd see that I never called you or your posts racist

Other posters did that. Instead of getting defensive and calling me "mean" as if that will wipe the slate clean of what YOU posted that was construed by others as racist, perhaps you could spend a second trying to figure out why SO many people came to that conclusion based on what YOU wrote, no matter how hard you try to pretend that I "misrepresented" what you said.

For the record, I don't think your comments are racist. But they are deeply ignorant, which is what I first said to you. Your hyper-sensitivity to that does not change the fact that you honestly don't know what you're talking about. There is plenty of reading you can do on this topic if you are interested.

[democrat2thecore]

215. You mean,,,,,

I'm hyper-sensitive? Couldn't YOU have just stopped? You say I don't know what I'm talking about. I think you mean I don't think "correctly" about this issue in a way that makes Number23 happy.

We have what's called a difference of opinion. I don't need education or re-education or anything else. It should be okay to just disagree.

Regardless, Obama HAS to win in 2012. THAT'S what is important. See 'ya down the road...

[Number23]

216. You think whatever you want to think

And if you think that repeatedly saying things that have been proven wrong by at least 4 different posters with links, articles and documentation is just a "difference of opinion," well, you go with that.

Regardless, Obama HAS to win in 2012. THAT'S what is important. See 'ya down the road...

Fine.

[democrat2thecore]

217. Please...

Not only have you been rude to me, you fail to just let things be. I tried. It IS a difference of opinion on my original post that was misunderstood. Do you understand there are greys in political life? To you, it's clear: it's either this way or that way - it's all black and white. Sometimes we have to accept that even among our own troops there will be disagreements. You sound very authoritarian - not to mention unfriendly and militantly bombastic. I'm through with this.

[Number23]

218. Yes, you're "letting this be" which is why I guess you keep responding

You presented a set of ideas and have had every last one of them proven wrong. This is not about a difference of opinion.

And you love to toss around names, don't you? If I did the same, you'd be whining about how "mean" I am again. The names you've decided to call me mean absolutely nothing at all. But I guess if the facts elude you then name-calling is always a route for some to go.

[dionysus]

186. LOL

:spray:

[TransitJohn]

159. There's a first time for everything.

:evilgrin:

[bluestate10]

209. You got a dose of progressive logic from the far Left.

Race is just under the surface for them. When they can take advantage of race they take advantage. When race seems to be an impediment, they complain.

[Number23]

44. Wow

[Peacetrain]

73. Jaw Dropping..

Very rarely am I at a loss for words.. but you have succeeded..

[democrat2thecore]

93. Come on...what's with the dramatic reaction?

What did I write that is "jaw dropping" "wow" "no words" etc.? What part of what I wrote doesn't make complete sense? The fact that polls show the huge black vote for Obama holding steady? How could that NOT translate into no primary challenge?

Seriously - somebody help me here. That's why I called it the "great unspoken"...because so many fear just coming out and saying it. But, really, why can't we discuss this very rational, logistical (and widely-held) belief as to why a primary challenge would be doomed to fail?

What is it?

[Zorra]

196. I understand your reasoning and intent. I don't think your post is racist or out of line.

If a GLBT person ran for prez I'm sure a lot of apolitical LGBT folks would make an effort to vote. I'd be genuinely shocked if they didn't. You are making valid arguments, IMO.
:popcorn:

[treestar]

135. Racist

That's what your post is.

[Angry Dragon]

143. The post is not racist

they are not saying that they hate the president because he is black
they are just stating their reason why they feel there is no primary challenger

There are a lot of white people out there that do not like the way the President is
leading this country and it has nothing to do with the color of his skin

I am white, I do not like the way he is leading this country, does that make me a racist??

[democrat2thecore]

148. Shame on you, treestar

You call me a racist based on these posts about the reality of why there's no primary challenger? That word gets thrown around so easily here at DU that it ceases to have the power that it should. To so many here, every problem that a white Democrat has with this president MUST be because of his skin color. That's just ridiculous. With some white Democrats, I'm sure that's the case. How could it not be in a nation this size? BUT, it's no different than the many blacks who will vote FOR Obama simply because of his skin color. Or, would they be voting against a white candidate in a primary? See the slippery slope? Why do we have such a difficult time with these discussions? This is reality. This.is.just.the.way.it.is. But pointing it out as a matter of speculation as to what's kept Obama free from a primary challenger, is hardly racist.

[foo_bar]

146. "this is the ONLY reason there's not a primary challenge."

...yet Obama lost the primaries in CA, OH, NJ, and TX, but won overwhelmingly "white" enclaves such as Wyoming, Vermont, Wisconsin, Maine, Washington, Nebraska, Minnesota, Kansas, Utah, North Dakota, Idaho, Alaska and Iowa... this "ONLY reason" doesn't make sense when AfAmericans comprise less than 20% of Dem primary voters, although it certainly tips the scales in an otherwise close contest like 2008's. But the fact that he's an incumbent, given the last 30 years, seems like a more potent factor (or at least a cofactor) than his complexion; if anything, his skin tone might attract primary challengers who otherwise couldn't rely on a bloc of disaffected Geraldine Ferraro-ish white voters.

see also: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Jackson_presidential_campaign,_1988

#92% of Black Vote to Jackson
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/13/us/jackson-share-of-votes-by-whites-triples-in-88.html

[democrat2thecore]

150. Your other examples were not the same

That was the result in a wide field. In a two-way race, a white challenger to an incumbent black president, who begins with 90%+ of the black vote sewn up (so the polls tell us), puts them in a position of not being able to even seriously consider it. White Democrats would split votes with Obama and the challenger, but as your Jesse Jackson example shows - for whatever reason, blacks tend to vote overwhelmingly only for blacks against white candidates. Again, good/bad/indifferent, that's just the way it is. Hence, no way is there a primary challenge to President Obama in 2012.

[foo_bar]

190. "White Democrats would split votes with Obama and the challenger..."

but only if Obama enjoys widespread support from Democrats in a way that Jesse Jackson '88 didn't, even though Jackson won a similar share of African American voters. But you wrote:

However, because the President is black and polls consistently show an unprecedented automatic voting bloc of 90% plus of the black vote - a primary challenge would be doomed to fail... this is the ONLY reason there's not a primary challenge.

If this were "the ONLY reason", then Jackson would have beaten Dukakis, correct?

Is it safe to say that there might be other factors at play (for something that hasn't actually happened yet, namely Obama winning the nomination unopposed), for instance, Obama's support among the 80% of Dem primary voters who aren't AA? If you still believe the-only-reason hypothesis, why bring up Obama's incumbency as a point of departure from Jackson's "90% plus of the black vote"?

Your other examples were not the same... In a two-way race, a white challenger to an incumbent black president

[Proud Liberal Dem]

173. His poll numbers have plenty of time to recover

He still commands near-universal support from Democrats, he (and Democrats in general) are polling better than the Republicans, people don't like the teabaggers and don't seem to be jumping on their bandwagon. We also don't know who the Republican opponent is going to be (but I think most of us can agree it will have to be somebody batshit insane in order to win the GOP primary next year). I don't think that his defeat (or that of the Democratic Party) next year is necessarily a given IMHO and I don't think that there are many Democratic politicians whom have reason to believe that they need to get rid of President Obama. When I think about Bush (barely) eking out a win in 2004 despite all of the scandals, incompetence, bad decisions, etc., I don't feel quite so worried about President Obama. :shrug:

[cottonseed]

222. Stupid blacks.

I always had a feeling about some in the Democratic party. A lot of them post here.

[Fuddnik]

116. Run, Forrest, Run. I mean Run, Mineral Man, Run!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Pirate Smile]

3. From all the craziness I read here, it seems like the plan is to let the Republicans win.

Seems Brilliant.

[MineralMan]

6. That can't possibly be the plan. I mean, look at the GOP candidate

list. It's a fucking clown car full of elephant dung. So, they can't possibly be thinking of that. So, there must be some secret plan none of us knows about. I want to hear it. I'm already planning for the 2012 election and my work in it. It's time to make the plan public.

[Pirate Smile]

11. I don't know what the plan is. Seems like there is no plan. Which is why so much of what I read here

seems unbelievably counter-productive. It almost seems intentionally counter-productive which is why some people, like me, react so negatively to so much of it.

[Irishonly]

178. You are insulting elephant dung and clowns :)

The republican candidates are much worse. I can't think of what it could be right now but there has to be one.

[graywarrior]

4. Bookmarking

:evilgrin: :headbang:

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RoccoR5955]

7. I will not support him with time/money, but I will vote for him.

After all the energy I put into this guy, and what for? Sorry, I will vote for him, but I will not donate, or knock myself out for him.

[MineralMan]

9. How about working on legislative races, then. Can you do that?

I mean, sitting it out isn't going to produce the results you desire.

[RoccoR5955]

25. I ALWAYS work for my Congressman, Maurice Hinchey.

Check his record, and you will see. I have a friend who is running in a neighboring district, who will probably reel me into helping him too, but THAT'S IT!

I have written to Obama, been on his ass like a Klingon that can't be wiped off. Especially during the healthcare debacle. All I got was form letters from his staff. He said that when he was elected, that he wanted the people to keep on his tail, for him to do the job that we want him to do. Well I did that, and he did not act. Like I said, my days of working for Obama are over until he shows some results, and his support of the teabaggers does him great harm here.
Perhaps if he were to renounce Reagan, start prosecution hearings toward Bushco, Inc., remove teabagger justices from circuit courts, and start action on the card check law, I might just start to work for him again. I am only asking that he address some of the PEOPLE'S issues, and not those of corporations. If he was to march in a Labor Day Parade with unions, that might go a little way too, but he's been working for the RepubliCONs, and teabaggers, and NOT the Democrats and Liberals, who worked, donated, and voted for him.

[panader0]

8. The Obama bashers and the doomsday prophets

seem to want the worst possible person to be elected. I'm up in the air about which repub that would be.
But the bashers and prophets believe, as far as I can tell, that the worst president we could have would bring the "end times" quicker. The collapse of everything which would somehow speed up the rise of a better world.
I disagree. I will actively support Obama for re-election.

[MineralMan]

13. Thank you. I don't know what the people who are actively stating

their non-support have in mind. I can't believe that it's to get a Republican elected, so I'm asking them to step up and tell us their plan. If it's a good enough one and will produce actual results that will benefit the nation, then I'll join them in those plans. Lacking any plan at all, I'll be working to get every possible Democrat elected to every office. That's my plan.

[democrat2thecore]

34. It's to remind this president of his campaign of 2008

We had come to expect that 'elections matter'. In 2008, when we all thought it was truly a transformative new day in America, it turned out elections didn't really matter so much. Had the candidate Obama had become President Obama - the '08 election could have been the most important in history. Instead, President Obama doesn't even recognize his former campaign self. Sad.

[jaxx]

57. All of a sudden in 2008 some came to expect that elections matter?

This is getting stranger by the post. It's all the Black people's fault that there won't be a primary because they will vote for PBO? Anything else start in 2008?

[democrat2thecore]

99. "fault"? Come on people - this self-righteous stuff is silly

"Stranger by the post?" WHAT have I written that is soooo shocking that it has received so many one-word responses? Does REALITY not matter? Do the polls NOT show what I said? Would that NOT figure into any challengers plan? Please. Just stop with the hysteria and quit making it look like a rational discussion is "wrong" because I only stated what every poll shows! Of course it makes a HUGE difference. Good, bad, or indifferent - it's just the way it is.

edited to add question marks. Silly grammatical error.

[Sheepshank]

132. But what does that complaint have to do with the OP?

You completely bypassed the question to whine.

So getting back to the OP. Is it your plan to sit out, to vote for a Republican? WHAT is the plan since you are so fucking disappointed....what tangible thing are you going to do?

These types of posts ARE without a doubt the most frustrating ones of all. We've heard ad nauseum, the "I'm so pissed off, I didn't get my pony" meme. So WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO?

[Kahuna]

161. And then a funny thing happened on his way to the Oval Office... a little

thing called a "great recession," which could have been a depression had the president not acted to divert the imminent financial collapse of our country. Seems he was just a tad too busy to give you your pet desire because he was working on his HIGHEST priority.

[democrat2thecore]

194. By hiring the very people who caused the crisis? -nt

[muffin1]

176. I'm with you on "campaign Obama". People (53% of them) LIKED him.

Hell, they (like me and my family) LOVED him. Where did he go? WHY did he go? There was no reason to makeover his personality when that many people approved of him. He said he was a fighter. He said he was going to "Change (insert your state), change the country, and change the WORLD". We would do it together! Yea!

Once in office, he no longer wanted to fight. He conceded fights before they even began. He became stiff and dispassionate (and for people who will take this comment to the extreme, I KNOW he can't be *on* all the time, but now he is *on* none of the time). He is moving in the opposite direction of where he said he would move us.

I don't know this person. This is not the man who galvanized the country 2 1/2 years ago.

(By the way, I know you are citing facts with your theory regarding a primary opponent. Many here want to see racism where it doesn't exist. I'm sure you and the majority of DUers would concede that there is a lot of racism in the other party - and some in the Democratic Party even. But longtime Progressive DUers? Umm..I don't think so.)

[Angry Dragon]

145. Perhaps you could tell us what Obama has given the people

to work with.......

Has he said he is going to fight hard, get his hands bloody to get rid of the bus/obama tax cuts??
Has he said he is going to work hard to raise the top marginal tax rate to infuse the federal government money??
Has he said he is going to work hard to save SS, and M&M so people do not have to work their whole lives so they can retire at a decent age and have good health care so if they find they have a disease or injury they can afford it??
Has he said he is going to stop the wars we have and try to stay out of others??
Has he said he is going to stop going into other countries and trying change their governments??
Has he said he will keep all of his campaign promise?? A campaign promise is no different than putting information on a job application, because that is what it is, he is applying for a job.
Has he said he is going to protect the American people from bankers that commit fraud, break up monopolies that threaten the stability of this country because they are too big to fail??
Has he said that no one in this country is above the law and when someone breaks the law they should be arrested, including the President of the United States??
Has he listed the principles he is willing to fight for so we know when he stops doing that??

A Democrat that will not fight for Democratic principles is no better that a republican that has no principles............

[COLGATE4]

175. K&R

[Enthusiast]

177. PLUS ONE!.......nt

[Amonester]

59. Thank you.

Comforting to read.

Potential USSC nominations are important in the long run. At the very least, I don't see how pinching that nose should have to hurt someone so bad once in the ballot box. I really can't understand why. They can work on the state level and push that effin button anyway for crying out loud (I still hope it will not be diebolded, though).

Think USSC if you're so mad, and focus on your favorites for Congress. DUH.

[TheCowsCameHome]

10. It's far too early to tell.

A lot can happen in 15 months.

I'm not encouraged by what I see, however.

[BeFree]

12. Not support Obama?

They would have to be damn near crazy. Obama is gonna win and if we get a more progressive congress, we'll all be better off. If someone here claims to not support Obama's reelection they may not have much sense and should probably just be ignored. So what are ya doing riling them up with OPs like this?

[MineralMan]

16. I'm asking them if they have a plan.

If they do, I'd like to hear it. How could I have made myself more clear?

[BeFree]

26. right

You are just poking around looking for a fight.

What you could honestly do is make up your own plan.

Like: who do you think could beat Obama?

[MineralMan]

32. I don't want to beat Obama. I want to help him have a Congress

that will present him with legislation that matches my goals. I guarantee he'll sign it. That's my plan.

[whatchamacallit]

91. I don't think you realize who he is

he would squander a progressive congress.

[Pirate Smile]

115. That is f#$king ridiculous. He's never had one. Why not try and see what happens? No, let's give him

a crazy RW House and see what happens. Surprise! The legislation sucks.

I've said before that some people here have created as much of a fictional caricature of President Obama as the Teabaggers have and your comment just confirms it.

[Kahuna]

162. Utter nonsense. nt

[bluestate10]

211. President Obama signed every single piece of progressive legislation

that made it to his desk. Why do you traffic something that does not square with fact?

[SwampG8r]

138. i think people who would actually not vote or vote for a candidate with

little or no chance are few and far between
i will work downticket as hard as i can to get progressive democrats elected
i am in a super red district that has just been redrawn by the GOP

[Firebrand Gary]

14. If Huntsman becomes the nominee, Obama is a one termer.

Period. The Pipeline broke the camels back.

[scheming daemons]

20. I have as much of a chance of getting the GOP nomination as Huntsman does

[SwampG8r]

139. more than him

i havent figured this guy out yet but he puts my backhair up

[Kahuna]

164. That is probably true. But Huntsman has to get there first and

right now it doesn't seem likely.

[bluestate10]

212. Do really know what Huntsman is like?

Study Huntsman's record before shooting off again.

[Javaman]

15. Hobbsian choice. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

17. My plan is to treat Obama precisely how he treats me. nt

[scheming daemons]

23. And then you'll BOTH be out of work in January of 2013 and living under rightwing rule

That'll show him!

[MannyGoldstein]

71. If you think that's true, then you'd best tell him to shape up, no? nt

[Javaman]

191. So by your logic, you are agreeing that he's treating us badly. nt

[MineralMan]

24. Well, I'm not sure I know how I can help with that plan.

It's a little too vague for me, I'm afraid.

[jaxx]

61. He knows you personally?

How about that.

[MannyGoldstein]

69. That's irrelevent. nt

[jaxx]

No it isn't. For someone to take it personally must mean they

know each other. Either that or the victim is giving themselves airs.

[MannyGoldstein]

83. Again, you're reading too much into it.

If somebody helps me, I'm likely to support that person. If somebody harms me, I'm not likely to support that person.

It's pretty simple.

[jaxx]

86. How has PBO personally harmed you?

[MannyGoldstein]

118. Please clarify your question

It has multiple meanings.

[Kahuna]

166. +1000

:fistbump:

[handmade34]

18. I can and will

doesn't mean I'm not plenty disappointed... but I'm disappointed in plenty of people and things... The way I see it is a lot of us worked very, very hard to help get Barack Obama elected and then sat back to enjoy the view once the job was done (or so we thought). Mind you, I'm talking in general terms; I know many of us here continue to work at it and fight for what is right.

I believe most people didn't understand the severity of what Pres. Obama was up against (what Bush left him, hatred from the teabaggers, citizens united, right wing immoral behavior, etc...) and didn't think they needed to keep up the fight.

My plan; re-elect President Obama and fight to help him do the appropriate thing. We have much to gain (Supreme Court for one) and plenty to lose if he isn't re-elected.

[MineralMan]

36. I'm disappointed too in much of what has transpired. I can't

even express how disappointed I was after the 2010 election. That ruined all the hope I had for serious progressive legislation to be introduced, passed, and signed. Thanks!

[Kahuna]

167. They know what he was up against. But they unrealistically expect

him to be Superman. They take no responsibility for their own actions.

[JuniperLea]

21. You have to be in possession of a mind...

To have something on it. I think I've lost mine... nothing around here makes sense to me anymore.

[Taverner]

22. He gets my vote. Nothing else.

[scheming daemons]

27. So donate to progressives elsewhere on the ballot... THAT'S what he really needs for a second term

... a more progressive congress.

[Taverner]

30. That's what I'm doing

Donate locally

Don't expect anything from Obama, but make sure the Conservatives don't make it worse

[MineralMan]

38. Thanks for that. If you could help get Democratic legislators

elected, too, you'll have my undying gratitude, as well.

[itsallhappening]

40. I've never given a politician a penny and I never will.

[Taverner]

41. I've given Pete Stark my cash

Even when I was out of his district

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. I'll be voting for the most progressive, anti-war, candidate on the ballot.

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams

[ixion]

37. Yep, spot on.

I'm not voting for more BushCo policies and war crimes, I can tell you that.

Great Adams quote! :woohoo:

[dana_b]

102. I'm with you

whoever that may be.

[MissDeeds]

172. +1

That's what I'm doing.

:thumbsup:

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[MineralMan]

46. No, thanks.

[leftstreet]

33. If Obama can't support the left wing of the party, what's HIS plan?

:shrug:

[jaxx]

66. Maybe it's the attitudes?

[defendandprotect]

130. +1000% ---

:)

[Proud Liberal Dem]

174. The left wing doesn't own him

He owes his election in 2008 to all kinds of Democrats, independents, and, yes, even some Republicans as much as he owes it to the left-wing of the Democratic Party.

[itsallhappening]

35. I think this is the wrong approach to the issue.

If someone is on the fence about supporting Obama's reelection campaign, it seems to me that they're the ones who should be asking for a plan from the man seeking their support.

That's how it works.

I'm on the fence. So far, almost all I've heard in favor of supporting his reelection is that anyone else winning would be worse. That's a far cry from the platform he ran on in 2008 -- the one I proudly endorsed with my vote.

[MineralMan]

43. I'm really asking those who are actively opposed to President

Obama and who are public about it. I have a plan, and that's to work as hard as I can to elect a Congress and state legislators who will introduce and pass progressive legislation. That's my plan. So, I do have a plan. President Obama will sign that legislation, I guarantee.

[itsallhappening]

47. I'm asking: What's HIS plan?

I thought I was clear on his plan in 2008. Then we had the WH and both houses of Congress for two years.

How'd that work out?

Do you know what his agenda would be in a second term? I mean, really, clearly know what it is?

[MineralMan]

50. Right now, he sort of has his hands full trying to prevent an

economic collapse. I'm sure we'll hear his plan shortly. In the meantime, he's a busy guy, and it's still 2011. Conditions are very tenuous right now.

[leftstreet]

52. I thought bailing out Wall Street prevented the 'economic collapse'

No?

[MineralMan]

56. Not at all. It slowed the problem down a little. In case you haven't

noticed, things are still really screwed up out there. Just holding it together is going to be a big chore. If he can help do that, there's a chance the economy will finally start to recover visibly. Given the current Congress, that's a lot to hope for. My fingers are crossed. That's all I can do for now.

[leftstreet]

72. Maybe he should try bailing out Main Street this time. Good reelection strategy n/t

[Kahuna]

169. Wall St and Main St. are one. Just because Ed Shultz doesn't think

so, that doesn't make it true. When Wall St. sneezes, Main St. catches the flu. The problem with our economy right now is uncertainty. This is being fueled by the teabaggers in congress. Economic indicators were going in the right direction prior to those clowns gaining control of congress. Once they got control, the reversal began. That is not the president's fault. He warned voters to not give back control to those who drove us in the ditch in the first place. I place the responsibility for the current distress with the voters and non voters, not the President.

[mattclearing]

156. That's just not true.

The economy can't recover because there have been no consequences issued to the people who outsourced all the jobs, destroyed the environment, wrecked the economy, and robbed the treasury.

The idea that you can continue to allow unrepentant criminals to run things and expect that it won't get even worse is ludicrous.

Obama may not have the power to take on Wall Street or make serious changes to the power structure of America, but pretending that the economy gets better just because we print a lot of money, bail a lot of criminal bankers out and hope it works out is not a solution.

[Kahuna]

168. It didn't help? Did I miss something? Wall St. (businesses) did

recover, and that prevented the unemployment data from being double what it is now. I suspect that most of the people who are so opposed to those actions are people who were not seriously affected by the collapse. To suggest that we should have let businesses to fail is so unrealistic and simplistic. Is it true that we have not been rewarded by Wall St for the assistance we gave them? Yes, it's true, but that's a separate topic. But again, the damage to our country would be a lot worse off had we let Wall St. fail.

[itsallhappening]

54. I'm sure we'll hear the plan, too.

Eventually.

The question, then, will be: What has he done so far to give us confidence he'll fight for "the plan"?

Maybe I'm assuming too much here, but since you don't know the plan, aren't you pretty much agreeing with me that right now "the plan" is to hope enough people think a victory for the Repubs would be worse?

I believe it would be. I know you believe that, too.

But what about a plan to DO something? Right now I'm being asked to vote out of fear.

[MineralMan]

58. The election is still 15 months away.

Electing Republicans is not a plan, so I'm assuming that people don't have that in mind.

[itsallhappening]

65. Just so I'm clear, though...

You're not really voting for him to affirm anything. You're voting to prevent the WH from being won by someone you fear. Correct?

[MineralMan]

76. Not at all. I'm voting for a Democrat who will sign progressive

legislation and appoint SCOTUS justices who will be confirmed by a Democratic Senate. Beyond that, I don't expect much. I do know, however, what to expect if he is not re-elected, and I don't like that worth a damn.

[itsallhappening]

77. The choices really suck.

That's all I know for sure with regard to this topic.

[MineralMan]

78. Wrong Place

Sorry.

[SwampG8r]

141. i wish you had said in the op this was for those "actively opposed to President'

i responded up thread and this is not for me
i am critical of his administration on some policies and as a voter i reserve the right to criticize when and where i feel it appropriate.
this does not make me "actively opposed to President" which would be a clear violation of DU rules

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bluenorthwest]

48. Presidential campaigns are like New Year's Eve, a big draw for

those who only get out when there is a big, organized party going on. In general, they get lots of excited personality smitten volunteers who will, of course, vanish into thin air for the next 4 years. This is why it is always a better use of my time to work on and for other candidates and of course issues who have less resources and less hoopla. I'm sure that many others are planning ahead for what they 'will do' when of course, this is the day and it is here for the taking, right here, right now.

[pa28]

49. Maybe you can clarify before I answer.

I plan to vote for Obama in 2012 but I certainly won't be knocking on doors, donating money or making phone calls on his behalf. Activist Democrats like me usually would focus on presidential elections but 2012 will be different (for me at least). I'll be focusing on local issues and local elections.

Does that mean I'll be 'sitting back watching the parade' if I only offer my vote to the president?

[MineralMan]

53. Voting for him will do just fine, as far as I'm concerned.

If you can help a legislator or two, that'd be great, too. As long as your not working against things, I'm on your side. Everyone can do just what they can do.

[pa28]

134. I can do quite a bit for Democrats and always play my part.

I'm just glad we cleared up the confusion. I thought you might be blurring the lines between "can't support" and "won't vote for" in your OP. To me supporting means calling, canvassing and donating. There is a difference.

[LWolf]

51. Here's my plan:

1. I'll see what my choices are going to be on the actual ballot...

2. Then I'll make a plan.

3. That plan will include working for as many good local people as I can. Neither of my Senators are up this cycle, and replacing my Republican House Rep isn't in the cards, so I may work for whoever I think will be the best replacement for Wu; I haven't decided that yet.

4. As for the POTUS race, I won't be sharing that plan here. Compliance issues.

[MineralMan]

64. Uh-huh. OK.

Good for working on local elections. Thanks for that. Turning out people to vote for progressives will help, and most of those people will vote for Obama as well. What you will do with regard to the President is probably best, as you say, left unsaid here.

[mmonk]

55. I plan on voting as many progressives in and supporting them as much

as possible no matter which conservative gets the presidency.

[Red Mountain]

60. I'll work and vote for the best choice available.....

......who has a chance of winning.

Looks like Obama at this point.

So be it.

I'm not into the Ralph Nader tear it down and build it up again thing.

We have a lot to lose.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[jaxx]

74. Really? Vote for a different party over the Democratic nominee?

Did you read the DU rules?

[itsallhappening]

75. Is that why you say you'll vote for him?

LOL

[jaxx]

80. I will vote for him just like I did in 2004 and 2008.

It's a pleasure to vote for a man who cares for the people and the country.

You should try it.

[itsallhappening]

84. I voted for him in 2008.

I most likely will again.

Though this time around I won't have high expectations based on his rhetorical skills. I'll always be proud of my 2008 vote, but I regret letting myself get swept up in the emotion of thinking he was really going to make the country better. There will be enough of those who still willingly buy into this cult of personality b.s. in politics. That group doesn't need another member.

I hate to give in to fear, but it's really the only choice in 2012.

[jaxx]

90. HIs rhetorical skills are nice, but I voted for him because of his thinking.

He is trying to make the country better, but it isn't happening fast enough with the obstruction at every turn. I'm glad you will vote for PBO in 2012, there are many good things still to be done and if we can keep the senate and take back the house, the world is our oyster.

[ixion]

101. "He is trying to make the country better"... now watch this drive!

:rofl:

Yeah, right. :eyes:

[jaxx]

110. That was so funny.

But it was dubya who said that....a favorite of some I guess.

[ixion]

129. it applies to more than just Bush

it was a statement about what's wrong with government, or did you miss the fact that Obama suddenly loves golf?

[jaxx]

136. I like golf too.

Does that make me president?

[ixion]

158. hmmmm... no, but it does lean toward making my point.

thanks.

[itsallhappening]

103. I think it's great that some people still have high hopes.

The only problem is that you're going to have farther to fall when the reality hits.

Seriously. Try to do an objective analysis of whether his actions, efforts and results meet your expectations.

[TheKentuckian]

180. Duncan, Salazar, Geitner, and most of his appointments do not indicate

any actual desire to make this country better nor is pushing Republican rehash indicative of your faith.

Or if it is then his definition of better and mine and are nearly as at odds as my definition and the traditional Republican's.

[DFW]

181. He didn't cure cancer, stop poverty or bring world peace, and he's had 2½ years now

What has he been doing all this time, anyway?



:sarcasm:

[NorthCarolina]

87. Umm

Bernie caucuses with the Dems AND he's more of a Democrat than Obama ever has been, or ever will be.

[jaxx]

92. Umm Bernie is not a Democrat.

Your personal feelings on him do not matter one bit to me. He's a socialist who runs as an independent. Lieberman also caucuses with the Dems and I don't think anyone would assume he is a Democrat for doing so.

[NorthCarolina]

94. This may come as a surprise to you,

but your personal feelings on the issue don't matter one bit to me either. I don't support conservatives whether they call themselves a Democrat or not.

[jaxx]

100. What a shame you can't tell a Democrat from a conservative.

[NorthCarolina]

104. Oh,

but I can. What is really a shame are those that want to pretend he's progressive in order to push a conservative agenda on America.

[jaxx]

106. I didn't use the word 'progressive', I said Democrat.

Progressive is subjective. Conservative is creation and anti-abortion and anti-tax and anti-government and anti-workers etc. President Obama is none of those things.

[NorthCarolina]

109. Well, I see him personally insisting on cuts to the social safety net

and only offering lip service regarding taxing the rich. Hey, I have an idea though...how about you vote the way YOU want to vote, and I will do the same. Works out for everybody that way. I gave Obama my vote in 08, and he has not earned a second vote from me.

[SwampG8r]

142. the rules?

they may not say what you think they say here is rule 2 so next time you will actually know what they say
note the use of the word 'generally" and read carefully the last sentence this is not a soapbox for the democratic party uber alles


2. Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates.

[Telly Savalas]

127. "Let's try to give the job to someone that doesn't want it" is a principle?

[DCBob]

63. They are hoping their complaints and threats will force Obama to change into a hardcore progressive.

Fat chance of that happening.

[MineralMan]

68. No, that probably won't happen. He's not that. However,

if a progressive Congress sends him progressive bills, he'll sign them. Let's help them do that. I guarantee a Republican won't sign such bills. But you're right, President Obama is not one who tilts at windmills. He can't do that. He has a country to preside over. It's a tough, tough job. If he were actually a hard-core progressive, we'd have John McCain as President, with Sarah Palin panting behind him. Thank goodness that didn't happen.

[DCBob]

79. I totally agree. If he gets progressive legislation on his desk it gets signed.

Guaranteed.

[sabrina 1]

67. Lol! n/t

[MineralMan]

70. I'm glad you find some humor here.

It was not intended, but some can find humor almost anywhere. Thanks for the kick.

[MineralMan]

81. Thanks to everyone who posted. I have a very early call tomorrow,

so I'm calling it a night. I'll check in tomorrow and answer any questions and respond to replies. I appreciate your taking time to read the OP and post your replies.

[Raine]

82. What's Obama's plan to get my support? It's up to him. nt

[NNN0LHI]

97. Which one issue is most important and immediately effects you personally?

He has no chance of getting your support without knowing what you want.

What is it? Be specific.

Don

[Raine]

107. Environment, civil liberties and single payer nt

[sabrina 1]

85. You're welcome, here's another kick, I don't mind kicking

amusing posts! :-)

[Bake]

88. I'll vote for the Caver in Chief. But I won't be thrilled about it.

And I'll hold my nose when voting.

Bake

[southernyankeebelle]

89. I will not vote for a republican, period. I will vote for Obama. We have to vote. If

a republican gets in say good bye to all our benefits. We must change congress and the senate with majorities where republicans can't obstruct.

[pintobean]

95. Seriously my ass

It's just you being condescending to those you disagree with. How long before you break out the 'spite' accusation again?

[DevonRex]

111. The only accusation I've seen is yours.

Seems to me that MM asked a fair question considering this is a political discussion board and so many have stated they don't support Obama. Those folks say they want more progressive policies so it's logical to ask how they will get them. We can't count on taking back the House and we have Reid and Baucus in the Senate, so....

[pintobean]

113. So.....the status quo isn't a fucking plan either. n/t

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

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

[dana_b]

105. ...

:thumbsup:

[paulk]

108. I'll support the moderate Republican in the race

and since the Republicans are probably going to nominate some whack-job christo-fascist, my vote will go for Barrack Obama.

[Ishoutandscream2]

185. LOL! Brilliant

I'm right there with you.

[JI7]

112. make a thread on DU about how disappointed, angry outraged i am

and hope to get a bunch of kicks and recs and end up on greatest .

[Lucian]

114. I will not support Obama in 2012.

I will vote for him and that's the extent of it.

I will not give him money. I will not campaign for him. I will not volunteer for him.

[Bonobo]

117. None of your business. nt

[XemaSab]

119. I live in California

My vote doesn't matter. Seriously.

[Major Hogwash]

149. Ah-ha!

:rofl:

[Art_from_Ark]

157. I'm registered in Arkansas

My vote won't matter either. The state hasn't voted for a Democratic presidential candidate who wasn't or hadn't been a Southern governor since 1964 (1968 if you count Wallace)! Obama came to Arkansas and campaigned for Blanche Lincoln for US Senator, and Blanche went on to become the ONLY incumbent Democratic Senator from Arkansas ever to be beaten in the general election by a Republican challenger since the passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913! And she lost by a huge margin at that! Argh!

So next year in Arkansas, there is no gubernatorial election, there is no election for US Senator, and the Republicans will in all likelihood retain my district's Congressional seat that they've held constantly since 1967.

[DFW]

182. My vote in Texas won't matter either--this time

But some day it will, so I will keep voting.

[XemaSab]

192. Oh, I'm certainly going to vote

Just not for whatsisname.

[Major Hogwash]

204. Me too.

But it won't matter, my state won't be carried by a Democrat in any case.
I might as well live in Utah for all the good it will do me to vote for whashisname.

[XemaSab]

206. Idaho IS in the jello belt

:P

[bluestate10]

214. I am not sure your vote in Texas won't matter. Texas could be in play.

The large, increasing block of democratic leaning hispanic voters is changing dynamics. The republican platform is surely going to contain hostile language on hispanic immigration. Don't see democratic leaning hispanics voting for a republican, even a home state republican.

[DFW]

220. As they say in the Middle East,

From your lips to God's ears!!

[xiamiam]

120. what do we do is the dilemna..i have faith...that someone who represents the ideals

we believed obama had will step forward...i can't honestly support more of the same..i just can't..i won't vote for a republican either...and i will vote..its a rotten situation to be in..especially given the hopes i had for a new direction...we didn't get it...and while the best thing ever is that dick cheney is not in office...i'm not gonna vote for repub lite masquerading as a dem

[grahamhgreen]

121. I'm going to get him to radically alter his path from being Bush lite to FDR 2.0!

[B Calm]

122. The choice is a republican and a guy that acts like a republican

damn. . .

[unkachuck]

123. "If you have a plan, let's hear it."

....right now, it's a secret plan....we'll roll it out mid-October 2012....and you'll be highly impressed, guaranteed!

[pintobean]

124. Sounds like the jobs plan strategery.

Until then, more speeches.

[B Calm]

125. LOL. . probably be more tax cuts to businesses, whoopie. . .

[defendandprotect]

126. We need two strong anti-war candidates for 2012 ---

Two candidates strong on supporting universal health care --


My plan is to push the idea of a panel of liberals who would get feedback from

all of the liberal groups --

Primarily anti-war groups -- and those supporting universal health care --

but also liberal women's groups who support ERA and Roe vs Wade --

Labor and union groups -- Legal groups who have been working to restore our

Constitutional rights --

Environmental groups, of course -- Global Warming being the greatest threat to us all --

and the planet.



I've contacted various liberals -- from Bernie Sanders to Matt Damon -- and have no

response but keep hoping. I also understand that Ralph Nader is setting up a coalition

to seek candidates for 2012 - including for the presidency.


Granted, we may have in Obama a candidate who will be cemented in place by corporate money --

nonetheless, we should keep trying!!

[MilesColtrane]

128. The plan seems to be Nach Perry Uns.

The same strategy employed by Nader when he didn't drop out and throw his support to Gore despite the virtual tie shown by polls leading up to 2000.

It's the same old song, "It will take eight years of Bush/Perry destruction to really wake people up and vote in overwhelming liberal politicians".

[Chan790]

131. I'm probably repatriating to Spain.

Oddly, they're very glad to consider my application for permanent alien residency...and my Spanish is awful. That hard-up for people with college degrees and a willingness to work in the civil service field. All I have to do is agree to teach ESL for the first 3 years for a pittance.

[Name removed]

133. Deleted message

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

[BzaDem]

160. You are assuming you have the choice not to play the game. But that is a bogus assumption.

Sure, anyone can assert otherwise, but that doesn't mean they actually have the choice. You can not vote, as if that is somehow making a choice to not play the game, but that is simply an affirmative choice to benefit one side in the game at the expense of the other. One can vigorously deny this, but denying doesn't actually change reality. Anyone who doesn't vote (or votes for a non-viable candidate) isn't just enabling the corrupt system -- they are maximizing the corruption. That is the very definition of enabling.

The biggest misunderstanding is to assume that just because one wants X, that they are at some point in their life ever going to get X. Correcting for that false assumption, the more reasonable path is to minimize corruption (rather than to maximize it).

[pintobean]

195. What a boat load of bs.

Your 'reality' leaves out a 3rd choice. It changes the whole equation.

[BzaDem]

219. Why would anyone include a 3rd choice that in reality doesn't actually exist?

One needs an absolute majority to win the electoral college. The most any third party could do is force the election to go to the two-party House. But in reality, a third party candidate likely wouldn't get a single electoral vote. The choice doesn't exist, no matter how much some people wish it did.

[pintobean]

221. Your reality is nothing more than your opinion.

Stating your opinion as fact gives the appearance of arrogance. I understand that you think you are right, but that doesn't make it reality for anyone but you.

As to the third choice, I was referring to those who would vote republican. You left that out of your equation. THAT would be maximizing the corruption and, believe it or not, is being advocated.

[Name removed]

202. Deleted message

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

[dionysus]

187. ooh, you coined a new phrase.

[coalition_unwilling]

140. Here's my 'plan,' such as it is. I will support any credible

progressive primary opponent to Obama, should there be one. (Right now there are none, but the August unemployment numbers are due out on Friday and bad news might change things in a hurry.)

Should Obama win the nomination in 2012 (as all indications are that he will), I will probably be voting Democratic Socialist (and leaving DU for not being able to obey its rules).

[Angry Dragon]

144. Support for the man is different than voting against the republican

[Union Scribe]

154. Is your plan scolding DUers for the next year and change?

[rucky]

165. Do you fear Obama will lose from lack of support?

[leeroysphitz]

170. I don't give a shit. I'm not voting for reversable mittens OR Captain Compromise. n/t

[RetroLounge]

171. Gee, I don't know how to thionk

Perhaps I need more blue links

RL

[BzaDem]

184. All links are blue. I have never understood the antipathy to links. I thought we were supposed to at

least pretend to care about sources.

[RetroLounge]

198. Must have more bold blue links

and lots of circle-Ds.

Else I'll never know how to be a sheep.

RL

[CrispyQ]

179. My rep is fairly liberal, one senator ok & other not so much.

But neither senators are up for reelection this cycle. I will definitely work for & support a liberal challenger to the one in '16.

As for '12, I will send dollar support to liberal candidates in other states who need help & I'll walk my precinct for local candidates & issues. I've been doing this for several years & will continue to.

As for the Prez O, he gets no money from me. His Wall St. pals can pitch in my pittance. And my vote? I don't know yet. I would never vote republican & that's the issue I'm having with this prez.

[newspeak]

183. wow, it looks like a concerted campaign effort

more than one thread basically stating "where ya going to go?" The writing was on the wall for all to see when Obama chose his cabinet. Ya'll can talk about how he didn't have any support in congress, and didn't have that much support before 2010; but he has and had the power on who he chose for the cabinet. I just love those little boot's retreads and the same rhetoric that Clinton had on Iran-Contra-"we must look forward."

What you're basically telling me is there's no one left to vote for, I can be fekkin corporatized slowly or faster with a teabagging dominionist repug. We're already a banana republic, that with the bankrupted supremes decision on corporations-that global corporations, corruption and greed rule the hill.

What will I do? Well, I truly don't know what I'll do yet-the corporate MSM hasn't picked our two candidates yet, but, I'll get back to you on it.

[Morning Dew]

188. meh. I wouldn't worry too much about the left.

It's the squishy center you gotta watch out for.

They bought "hope and change" and if the economy doesn't improve, they'll buy a Republican promise of jobs.

They don't spend endless hours on politics.

Progressives know there's nowhere else to go.

[cherokeeprogressive]

193. My plan is to click my heels together three times and hope for a better person for the job.

When that plan fails to come to fruition, I will hold my nose and vote for Obama. Afterward I'll go get drunk.

[Name removed]

203. Deleted message

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

[TBF]

208. We don't need a plan. The campaigns are the ones that need plans.

Both parties will staff their campaigns and do their work to convince folks to vote. If you don't think you have the votes you need than you are the ones who need a plan, not me.