Is Obama done?

[PhoenixAsh]

xXBiWLfsNaswatch the clip.

Debate question: will "progressive democrats" turn on Obama? What are the alternatives within the democratic party fo Obama in the next elections?

[gorillafuck]

I think there's a good chance he won't get re-elected.

[The Man]

Yeah.. He's done. I even have an Obama Count-Down clock in my room. It says Hoax on the back of his figure. And below it counts down the time until he gets booted. :D

[Magón]

You have to put the video code in , not quotes.

Also, I think Obama will run again for a second term, because with all the other candidates (including Republicans), he looks to be the Dems only star, even if he hasn't lived up to his campaign rally speeches and mottos, he'll run again.

[danyboy27]

he will be re-elected.

The right winger are so disorganised, this is embarassing.

[Sasha]

He will run and unless the GOP can pull an sudden acceptable rabbit out of its hat he is going to win too.
His competition for now seem to be "death warmed up" newt gingrich, Mormon and "obama stole the idea for the healthcare law from him" mitt romney, "frothy mix of lube and fecal matter" santorum and "polling below charly sheen under independents" Sarah palin.
The republicans lost contact with the center in such a tremendous way that if he would run "most hated man by the midle class" Scot walker would win the primarys.
Obama will win, but that says more about his competition than about him.

[RGacky3]

Weiner has always been a strong progressive as has Devazio and Kucinich (although hes a little cooky).

There won't be a contendor for the presidency, since Clinton the democratic contenders have been selected by Wallstreet (who prefer democrats because they arn't as insane), the monied interests will always pick the weak pragmatic democrat hte "centrist" and thats where the money will go.

I would generally say Obama lost this one (He's lost most progressive in the country) and voter turnout will be really low which is gold for republicans. But since 2010 the republicans have been such clowns and so disorganized they are shooting themselves in the foot.

Wall street will back Obama, he certainly delivered, the Chamber of Commerce will hedge their bets. Voter turnout will be low.

The progressive uprising simple has'nt hit washington yet.

It takes 10 buisinessmen to ***** to shake up all of washington, 100,000 workers is still not enough though.

[Nolan]

He will run and unless the GOP can pull an sudden acceptable rabbit out of its hat he is going to win too.
His competition for now seem to be "death warmed up" newt gingrich, Mormon and "obama stole the idea for the healthcare law from him" mitt romney, "frothy mix of lube and fecal matter" santorum and "polling below charly sheen under independents" Sarah palin.
The republicans lost contact with the center in such a tremendous way that if he would run "most hated man by the midle class" Scot walker would win the primarys.
Obama will win, but that says more about his competition than about him.

Isn't Ron Paul in the race? He has a shot even with liberals in the US.

Is rick santorum really running? Hahaa.

[Agent Ducky]

Obama hasn't delivered AT ALL but I think he's gonna get re-elected because of the disorganized failing opposition.

I still think one of the really progressive people like Kucinich should be president.

[NGNM85]

Not only will he get the Democratic party nomination, he's going to win the election. Incumbents have a significant advantage, I think that especially applies to Presidents. His approval ratings are nowehere near low enough, he hasn't had any gaffes or crisis remotely severe enough to warrant a one-term presidency. Also, the GOP frontliners are just a pack of jokers, (Huckabee? Palin? Gingrich? Romney? Give me a break.) and even if they have a rockstar, an MVP (If this person exists, I haven't seen him.) the Republican party at least has enough sense to save him for 2016, when he could, y'know, actually conceivably win.

[Agent Ducky]

Also, even if progressive Democrats WANT to turn against him, what are they gonna do? Dividing the party just helps the other side win, and that's even worse for progressive Democrats. O_O.

[wunderbar]

Also, even if progressive Democrats WANT to turn against him, what are they gonna do? Dividing the party just helps the other side win, and that's even worse for progressive Democrats. O_O.

Some progressives will probably vote Green or Ralph Nader IF he runs (right now he says he'd like someone else to run instead of him, but he hasn't completely ruled out running). Ever since the 2000 election, the Democrats have done a hell of a job scaring their voting base into submission that voting third party will "spoil" the election, as arrogant a statement as I've ever heard.

[MarxSchmarx]

This whole idea that (white and hispanic) progressive americans are deserting obama - I don't think that's true. the polls don't show it, there is a lot of disillusionment but that doesn't translate into votes for anyone else, and with the modern GOP it doesn't take much to scare pro-choice and pro-immigrant rights liberals enough to get them to show up at the polls for neoliberals. So if Obama does not get reelected it won't be because he betrayed the "progressives". Those people have no where else to go.

[NGNM85]

Some progressives will probably vote Green or Ralph Nader IF he runs (right now he says he'd like someone else to run instead of him, but he hasn't completely ruled out running). Ever since the 2000 election, the Democrats have done a hell of a job scaring their voting base into submission that voting third party will "spoil" the election, as arrogant a statement as I've ever heard.

Well, unfortunately, given the structure of our electoral system that's actually a sensible point. It is incredibly difficult for Third Parties to win anything, especially when it comes to the Presidency. In most cases it does essentially amount to throwing away your vote. (Which is a great argument for comprehensive election reform.) An excellent example is the 2000 election. If even half of the people who voted for Nader had voted for Gore, we'd be in a very different situation right now. Now, I'm not necessarily blaming Nader, entirely, but it certainly didn't help.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

1) It's just not normal anymore in American politics for a president to run one term and either be booted out or step down. Being beaten in the primaries was more common back in the day, but I think the parties have gained this "it's all or nothing, let's keep the momentum" kind of attitude, where they're afraid of new faces and already booting a given seat. "If he won last time, he still has a chance..."

2) Obama is considered the king of the left of the Democratic Party. Is he? No. People like Kucinich are definitely more left, but he's ran twice and barely won any support. Even Fox News correspondonts were surprised he wasn't winning because he encompassed all liberal stances: pro-gay, pro-universal healthcare, anti-wars, anti-NATO, etc. Obama is essentially a centrist in the party, but if they ran someone who was left of Obama, I'm pretty sure republicans would take to the streets armed. I mean, look at how they act with a guy who's friendly to wall street and big business... The Democratic leadership rather have a middle-of-the-road person, it's always been their style.

3) It really depends on who gains momentum in the GOP race. I think it'll turn out either way:
- Obama wins because GOP chooses epicly stupid and disorganized candidate
- Obama loses because progressives are disappointed and he doesn't have momentum, and the GOP has a heyday with cringe-worthy propaganda
If he wins, it won't be by much (3-5%). If he loses, it'll be pretty large margin (10-12%)

[RGacky3]

Isn't Ron Paul in the race? He has a shot even with liberals in the US.


He won't win, he does'nt have the buisiness community behind him.



Obama hasn't delivered AT ALL but I think he's gonna get re-elected because of the disorganized failing opposition.

I still think one of the really progressive people like Kucinich should be president.


If Russ Feingold runs I'd be excited, Kucinich is a bit of a clown, he's got good ideals, but he's kind of goofy, Russ has been right on just about EVERYTHING, he lost the last election but it did'nt suprise me, way way way outspent, national democrats screwed him and so on.



This whole idea that (white and hispanic) progressive americans are deserting obama - I don't think that's true. the polls don't show it, there is a lot of disillusionment but that doesn't translate into votes for anyone else, and with the modern GOP it doesn't take much to scare pro-choice and pro-immigrant rights liberals enough to get them to show up at the polls for neoliberals. So if Obama does not get reelected it won't be because he betrayed the "progressives". Those people have no where else to go.


That could very well be true, but look at 2010, no one voted, no one cared, it was going to shit anyway, it was corporatist anyway.



Also, even if progressive Democrats WANT to turn against him, what are they gonna do? Dividing the party just helps the other side win, and that's even worse for progressive Democrats. O_O.


Loosing the presidency imo won't be so bad, infact obama being in is worse for progressives, because they have 2 battles, the corporatist whitehouse and the republicans, there is almost no opposition, the democrats that play team-democrat will just go along with the president, no matter how far right he goes.

But just watch Obama get into campain mode, suddely start talking to unions, suddenly start acting progressive, at the same time going to buisiness men and kissing their ass, what a *****.



Some progressives will probably vote Green or Ralph Nader IF he runs (right now he says he'd like someone else to run instead of him, but he hasn't completely ruled out running). Ever since the 2000 election, the Democrats have done a hell of a job scaring their voting base into submission that voting third party will "spoil" the election, as arrogant a statement as I've ever heard.


I'd rather have the republicans in with a strong progressive opposition, than corporatist democrats in with a weakened opposition.

Third parties might get some though, they obvoiusly won't win, but it might scare some democrats.

[RGacky3]

Obama is essentially a centrist in the party, but if they ran someone who was left of Obama, I'm pretty sure republicans would take to the streets armed. I mean, look at how they act with a guy who's friendly to wall street and big business... The Democratic leadership rather have a middle-of-the-road person, it's always been their style.



THey arn't worried about that, it will be the same response no matter how left he is (its just politics, its not genuine), the real worry is the monied interests. Centrists are the worst, if republicans say black people should'nt count as humans Obama would say black people count has half.

I am really not worried about Obama loosing the whitehouse, the right are actually USING him as a weapon against progressives sayin "look even your president supports this" he's an embarrasment, as much as a corporate shill as reagan.

[wunderbar]

An excellent example is the 2000 election. If even half of the people who voted for Nader had voted for Gore, we'd be in a very different situation right now. Now, I'm not necessarily blaming Nader, entirely, but it certainly didn't help.

If you ever want evidence that the Democrats will do anything they can to discredit opposition from parties to the left of them, look no further to the fact that Ralph Nader got 24,000 votes from Democrats in Florida (which forms the basis of their OMG DON'T VOTE THIRD PARTY strategy), a number that's a drop in the bucket when you realize that over 300,000 Florida Democrats voted for George W. Bush (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/feature/2000/11/27/hightower). It's also worth noting that Ross Perot almost certainly "spoiled" the 1992 election, but Democrats don't care about that since it probably tilted the election in their favor, plus they probably consider him to be a more "legitimate" candidate since he's a billionaire.

[Sasha]

Is rick santorum really running? Hahaa.

with enough lube in the mix Santorum (http://www.spreadingsantorum.com/) is always running ;)

[RGacky3]

honestly at this point I would support people voting green, the democrats loosing, so long as it pulls them left and the greens and progressive democrats can make a real opposition.

Corporatist democrats in power with a right wing opposition is worse than a right wing in power with a progressive opposition.

[Hoplite]

If the Republicans can pull a decent candidate out by the election, Obama will have trouble.

The problem now for the Republicans is they have no solid candidates and a pack of drooling idiots that try very hard to disavow the title of "Teabagger"

[PhoenixAsh]

As I heard....Donald "one of the good things about me is that I am very rich" - Trump is running :D


I s there a valid counter candidate for the primaries in the democratic party?

[RGacky3]

I would love if Russ Feingold ran, but he already said he won't, people are talking about primaries, recently Sanders said there should be one (he's not running either), I don't see anyone out there running from the progressive view, I wish there was, not that they would win perse, but just to shake things up, not make it the corporatist vrs the blatent corporatist.

As far as Donald, it makes me laugh that he's running, also about him being rich, almost all his buisiness endevors failed, (including buying up projects, evicting poor people and trying to resell the property as high end, classy guy Trump), he made most of his money from reality TV, he's not even a good capitalist,

[NoOneIsIllegal]

honestly at this point I would support people voting green, the democrats loosing, so long as it pulls them left and the greens and progressive democrats can make a real opposition.

Corporatist democrats in power with a right wing opposition is worse than a right wing in power with a progressive opposition.
Errrggghhh... The Greens have always proven that they are frustrated, grassroots-orientated Democrats without corporate-funding. They'll always step aside for a democrat if it compromises an "important election." A nice example of this is the Maine Green Independent Party, which has a registered list of over 32,000 people in the party (and continues to grow since 1998). For being a third party in a very low-population state, this is very high membership. However, they've stepped aside in elections whenever there's a risk that a progressive liberal (sometimes not even a liberal) will lose to a republican.

I've tried working with the Greens, and they really do stick to their case. At their worst, they're democrats cloaked in green. At their best, they're social-democrats.

[The Red Next Door]

yep, that cracker out of here.

[RGacky3]

I've tried working with the Greens, and they really do stick to their case. At their worst, they're democrats cloaked in green. At their best, they're social-democrats.

That kind of happened the last 2 elections, although this cycle is a little different, considering the democratic establishment is being dropped by a lot of progressives, who have no where to go, even moderate progressives (not socialists or socia-democrats) are calling for a primary.

I don't care if its the Greens or the progressive wing of the democrats, or the democratic socialists of america (yeah right), if Obama wins with no challenge from the left, watch his next 4 years go EVEN FURTHER corporatist and watch working Americans get more of the crap they've been getting.

[RGacky3]

BTW, if by some freak happening Donald Trump becomes commander in chief of the United States, I'm immediately getting my whole damn family and as many of my friends as I can the hell out of that country.

[Sasha]

yep, that cracker out of here.

you know what, i had it up to here with you trying to make every topic an racial one.
Infracted

[brigadista]

i will accept criticism of this as I am not in the US but it looks like hilary clinton is running things....

[RGacky3]

How so ...? She's not.

[empiredestoryer]

who cares if hes voted in again lets face it anyone who sits in the white house is simply the leader of one of the worst terrorist nations in modern history

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

i will accept criticism of this as I am not in the US but it looks like hilary clinton is running things....

Not at all. Of course she is an important figure though. At least tied with Gates for the second most powerful person in the administration.

You probably think this because she is obviously more involved in foreign policy, and as a non-American you see the foreign policy side more.


Obama will probably get reelected, and the Left feel too bad because the main opposition figure, ie Santorum, Newt G, Sarah P, Huckabee, are all dangerous, often for the same reasons. For example, Huckabee even said there should be no palestinian state ... imagine if that were the official policy of the US administration? Not to mention, his reasoning isn't even based in rational world power interest, he bases it in his Christian Zionism.

[danyboy27]

Well, he just passed the rite of passage, he bombed another arab country.

So my guess is, its gonna play in his favor.

[RGacky3]

who cares if hes voted in again lets face it anyone who sits in the white house is simply the leader of one of the worst terrorist nations in modern history


WHich is absolutely why you should care.

[NGNM85]

Not at all. Of course she is an important figure though. At least tied with Gates for the second most powerful person in the administration.

What's interesting is she recently said she won't stick around for his second term. I predict she'll run again in 2016.

[RGacky3]

I predict she'll run again in 2016.

doubt it.

[RadioRaheem84]

Obama will probably get reelected, and the Left feel too bad because the main opposition figure, ie Santorum, Newt G, Sarah P, Huckabee, are all dangerous, often for the same reasons. For example, Huckabee even said there should be no palestinian state ... imagine if that were the official policy of the US administration? Not to mention, his reasoning isn't even based in rational world power interest, he bases it in his Christian Zionism.



Why do you guys act as though if a Fox News Republican gets elected that they will try to bring about the second coming with a Meggido style war?

Most of the inane crap they say is usually pandering to a radical right base, but once in office, they tend to moderate their tone.

Chomsky, once greatly pointed out, that we should be thankful that most of the people on the right are simply hucksters that do not believe what they really but mostly pander to a base. It's watching out for the true believer that's important.

Now why is that we know that a Democrat won't be as left s he claims to be but we fall head over heels for the idiotic media portrayal of extreme right wing zealots. That is all or mostly PR fluff.

When it comes to the two parties, in the end, once in office at that high of a level, there is no major difference. None of which is helpful to the working class. Both parties are bought and paid for by corporate America and they're both brands for different bases.

Simple as that.

[Bud Struggle]

Obama is a typical American President. Certainly not as bad as Bush, but nothing exceptional either.

[Le Libérer]

Obama is a typical American President. Certainly not as bad as Bush, but nothing exceptional either.

Frankly I see very little differences between the 2 if you are looking at policy or the lack of change.

[RadioRaheem84]

By all accounts so far, isn't Obama worse than Bush at this point?

[RGacky3]

Depends what you mean, he's not neccessarily worse in the sense that he tries for worse policies (wars), but he's worse in that he as a democrat silences the opposition, and agrees with the republicans, with Bush he could'nt do a lot because the democrats would try attack it (he wanted to privatize social security), but with Obama the republicans can get their policies WITH the democratic leaders concent, meaning the dissenters that do exist (real progressives) have to fight the republicans AND their own party, in that sense he's worse for the country.

[RadioRaheem84]

Bingo.

[Bud Struggle]

Obama IS what the Left looks like in America. He's no different than Clinton or Carter or Pelosi or Ried or Gore or Kerry or any of them. He is the kind of person people vote for when they want a "Progressive."

There is no real Left of any consequence in America. Sure in an Enquirer or Vanity Fair poll they may say they want things a bit more liberal here or there--but when the rubber meats the road--they vote for these kind of guys over and over and over again.

There are other people like Ralph Nader to vote for--but in the realpolitik world of elections, he's just a footnote.

[Dimentio]

Obama IS what the Left looks like in America. He's no different than Clinton or Carter or Pelosi or Ried or Gore or Kerry or any of them. He is the kind of person people vote for when they want a "Progressive."

There is no real Left of any consequence in America. Sure in an Enquirer or Vanity Fair poll they may say they want things a bit more liberal here or there--but when the rubber meats the road--they vote for these kind of guys over and over and over again.

There are other people like Ralph Nader to vote for--but in the realpolitik world of elections, he's just a footnote.

The problem with the Democrats is that they have a "European" mentality. They think that by trying to compromise and make everyone happy, they would appear as strong. The truth is that they only appear as weak in the United States.

In most European countries, a talkshow host yelling at their guests, even when disagreeing, would immediately lose any respect with the viewers. In the USA, you could win respect by yelling at people.

I think that the European differences have something to do with the pseudo-aristocratic pre-1945 "politeness" culture in Europe ("Please dear mr shopkeeper, may I have a little white bread?"), and the post-1945 conflict frightfulness.

If Democrats would want to win support, they would need to become loud-mouthed populists who rail against bankers and businessmen, and try to get some popular general with progressive views on the ballot.

Americans don't distrust Democrats because they are perceived as liberal, but because they are perceived as "weak".

[Ele'ill]

Obama IS what the Left looks like in America. He's no different than Clinton or Carter or Pelosi or Ried or Gore or Kerry or any of them. He is the kind of person people vote for when they want a "Progressive."

You mean 'liberal', Right? There are many liberals unhappy with what he has done as well.


There is no real Left of any consequence in America.

When the first signs of revolution start to beautifully waft you're going to realize it was those agitators and organizers who played a big part in bringing it to be. This is not an immediate process- it's not about sending earth through a portal into the future- it's not a capitalist snap of the fingers with an already existing infrastructure- It literally has to be built. And we're doing it right now.

[hardlinecommunist]

I think there's a good chance he won't get re-elected. Why do you think that Obama will not be re-elected

[Dimentio]

Why do you think that Obama will not be re-elected

He is perceived as weak.

[Hexen]

I think there's a good chance he won't get re-elected.

And things get much worse when a Republican (or even much worse a Tea-Party member) gets elected in there.

Get's to show how truly screwed we are with this two party (in realty one party) system we have here. The game is once again rigged.

[Robespierre Richard]

Obama is so freaking useless, like he hasn't done anything. At least Bush had the Iraq War and the Ownershit Society. Obama has "I made sure to not keep any promises and bend over backwards when I tried to fulfill them." Like he basically made it pointless for himself to stay president because he's just a technocrat* and a bad one at that. I wouldn't be surprised if he lost to someone with more charisma. Hell, Trump wouldn't be half-bad, because of at least the entertainment value, and that he's better at understanding economics than most of these "Masters of Public Administration."

*Thorstein Veblen's term for a career politician from the strata of "qualified professionals" who has no goals besides keeping the state machine running.

[NGNM85]

doubt it.

I see no reason why not. She clearly wants the job. She was Obama's strongest competitor for the Democratic nomination. By 2016 she'll be well placed to be the Democratic candidate.

[Dimentio]

I see no reason why not. She clearly wants the job. She was Obama's strongest competitor for the Democratic nomination. By 2016 she'll be well placed to be the Democratic candidate.

Too old. Too disliked.

Someone who is younger, and is a white male most likely.

I am sure we would see Chelsea run one day though.

[NGNM85]

Too old.

Bob Dole was older when he ran in '96. Truman was about her age, when he became president in '45. It's borderline. Especially with today's medicine and life expectency. I wouldn't rule it out.


Too disliked.

I will agree she drives the American right a special kind of crazy. Of course, so does Obama. Also, this didn't seem to be the impasse I would;'ve thought it would be. Leading up to the Democratic nomination she seemed to be doing alright. Certainly, better than I thought. It was kind of interesting to see who would break throgh the ceiling first; the black man, or the white woman.


Someone who is younger, and is a white male most likely.

Most nominees for either party are white males.


I am sure we would see Chelsea run one day though.

I just checked and she has degrees in history, and international relations, so it's a possibility, in a few years.

[RadioRaheem84]

I just checked and she has degrees in history, and international relations, so it's a possibility, in a few years.


What does her having a degree in those fields have to do with her running?

[Lt. Ferret]

Those are degrees that political candidates tend to pursue.

[NGNM85]

What does her having a degree in those fields have to do with her running?

It shows a serious interest in politics. Also, many politicians have degrees in History, Law, Political Science, etc. (Her father has a Law degree, and a degree in Foreign Service, her mother has a Law degree, and a degree in Political Science.)

[RGacky3]

I see no reason why not. She clearly wants the job. She was Obama's strongest competitor for the Democratic nomination. By 2016 she'll be well placed to be the Democratic candidate.


I doubt it, she ran against obama and lost, by 2016 she'd be up in years, and, although its rediculous, the democratic party might have a hard time putting an older woman up (they care about image a lot), plus if you look at what she's been up too, not really vocal on things.

But who knows, a lot can change in 5 years, but I seriously doubt it.


Obama IS what the Left looks like in America. He's no different than Clinton or Carter or Pelosi or Ried or Gore or Kerry or any of them. He is the kind of person people vote for when they want a "Progressive."


Candidate Obama is what the left looks like, President Obama is not, just look at what progressives actually want and what Obama did, thats why progressives don't like him, FDR was what the left looked like in America.

maybe Pelosi not at all Ried, more like Anthony Weiner, Sanders, Defazio and so on, Clinton was the right wing of the democratic party.


There is no real Left of any consequence in America. Sure in an Enquirer or Vanity Fair poll they may say they want things a bit more liberal here or there--but when the rubber meats the road--they vote for these kind of guys over and over and over again.

There are other people like Ralph Nader to vote for--but in the realpolitik world of elections, he's just a footnote.

Did you notice wisconsin? Or any of the other Labor protests? Your trying to evaluate the country based on elections, which is stupid, because elections are way more about who pays who.