The vultures are starting to circle.

Moby Grape · **Joined:** Sun Nov 12, 2006 12:19 pm **Posts:** 13802

Quote:

Democratic Pollsters: Obama Should
Abandon Run for Second Term
National Journal, by Michael Catalini

President Obama should abandon his run for a second term and turn over the reins of the Democratic Party to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, two one-time Democratic pollsters wrote in Monday's Wall Street Journal, which appeared online Sunday.

Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen argued that just as Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson decided not to pursue additional runs though they could have, Obama should do the same.

(RELATED: Romney's Team: Obama's the Real Flip-Flopper)

â€œHe should abandon his candidacy for re-election in favor of a clear alternative, one capable not only of saving the Democratic Party, but more important, of governing effectively and in a way that preserves the most important of the president's accomplishments. He should step aside for the one candidate who would become, by acclamation, the nominee of the Democratic Party: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,â€Caddell and Schoen wrote.

Caddell, who worked as a pollster for President Jimmy Carter, and Schoen, who was a pollster for President Bill Clinton, argue that Obama will inevitably have to run a negative campaign in order to win reelection, the negative consequences of which will make it difficult for him to govern effectively.

http://nationaljournal.com/2012-preside ... m-20111120

Regionite · **Joined:** Tue Sep 14, 2010 4:06 am **Posts:** 698

Caddell, who worked as a pollster for President Jimmy Carter, and Schoen, who was a pollster for President Bill Clinton, argue that Obama will inevitably have to run a negative campaign in order to win reelection, the negative consequences of which will make it difficult for him to govern effectively.

He started on that a while ago. Only reason he hasn't done more is he doesn't know who to target outside of Cain. I wonder when Obama is gonna unveil his 6-6-6 plan??

chuckmo48 · **Posted:** Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:47 pm

Yep...they are circling and when more of the facts come out...good will triumph!

So who gets the blame for the super committee's inaction?

Quote:

"Neither party comes out very popular, but the approval rating of the GOP leadership in Congress has fallen further, and harder, than the same measure for congressional Democrats," says Holland.

In March, both parties' congressional leadership had the backing of about a third of the public. Now, the GOP leadership's rating has fallen 13 points, to just 21%.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/21/cnn-poll-partisan-divides-explain-super-committee-failure/

r11 · **Joined:** Wed Jun 29, 2011 2:32 pm **Posts:** 394

chuckmo48 wrote:

..good will triumph! [/color]

In the eyes of stupid, "good" means to confiscate the wealth of those who earned it and give it to those who had no part in earning it...guys like him.

r11 · **Joined:** Wed Jun 29, 2011 2:32 pm **Posts:** 394

chuckmo48 wrote:

So who gets the blame for the super committee's inaction?

The Democrats...thanks for asking.

chuckmo48 · **Posted:** Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:56 pm

r11 wrote:

chuckmo48 wrote:

So who gets the blame for the super committee's inaction?

The Democrats...thanks for asking.

Sorry I will print it larger for the hard of hearing...

Quote:

"Neither party comes out very popular, but the approval rating of the GOP leadership in Congress has fallen further, and harder, than the same measure for congressional Democrats," says Holland.

r11 · **Joined:** Wed Jun 29, 2011 2:32 pm **Posts:** 394

chuckmo48 wrote:

r11 wrote:

So who gets the blame for the super committee's inaction?

The Democrats...thanks for asking.

Dear Stupid..you asked a question on a message board. You don't get to dictate the answer...no matter how big you print your silly drive-by quote.

Moby Grape · **Joined:** Sun Nov 12, 2006 12:19 pm **Posts:** 13802

Quote:

The 'Dump Obama' movement has begun;
Guess who'd replace him?
Investors.com, by Andrew Malcolm

Faced with peanut-sized Jimmy Carter poll numbers, disturbing big-donor reluctance, unacceptable unemployment and depressing economic forecasts, President Obama heads back on the road tomorrow to do what he always does when in trouble:

Call again for someone to do something about new jobs.

He's just back from eight days in Hawaii and Australia and Bali.

Now, he's off to palm-tree-free New Hampshire, where as expected Republicans have been plotting for months to oust him next Nov. 6.

Recent polls have Obama's disapproval around 50% and his approval 6-10 points lower, worse for his handling of the economy. That's the reverse of what it should be now for a good reelection shot. Nearly three-quarters of Americans feel the country is on the wrong track under his leadership.

But who thought the real emerging danger for the incumbent Democrat would be friendly fire from within his own party?

http://news.investors.com/Article/59231 ... linton.htm

chuckmo48 · **Posted:** Tue Nov 22, 2011 12:30 pm

r11 wrote:

chuckmo48 wrote:

r11 wrote:

So who gets the blame for the super committee's inaction?

The Democrats...thanks for asking.

Dear Stupid..you asked a question on a message board. You don't get to dictate the answer...no matter how big you print your silly drive-by quote.

chuckmo48 wrote:

Yep...they are circling and when more of the facts come out...good will triumph!

So who gets the blame for the super committee's inaction?

Quote:

"Neither party comes out very popular, but the approval rating of the GOP leadership in Congress has fallen further, and harder, than the same measure for congressional Democrats," says Holland.

In March, both parties' congressional leadership had the backing of about a third of the public. Now, the GOP leadership's rating has fallen 13 points, to just 21%.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/21/cnn-poll-partisan-divides-explain-super-committee-failure/

Dear MOST Stupid: If you had read carefully (Geez sounds like I'm back in 3rd grade)...the question came from the article I posted...along with the URL

r11 · **Joined:** Wed Jun 29, 2011 2:32 pm **Posts:** 394

chuckmo48 wrote:

If you had read carefully

To read your drive-by crap "carefully" would entail that I even begin to read it in the first place...and I don't. Open one of your left-wing drive-by links?? Now you're really delirious, or stoned. I thought we covered this ground.

r11 · **Joined:** Wed Jun 29, 2011 2:32 pm **Posts:** 394

chuckmo48 wrote:

(Geez sounds like I'm back in 3rd grade)...

It most always does chuckslow.

chuckmo48 · **Posted:** Tue Nov 22, 2011 1:09 pm

r11 wrote:

chuckmo48 wrote:

If you had read carefully

To read your drive-by crap "carefully" would entail that I even begin to read it in the first place...and I don't. Open one of your left-wing drive-by links?? Now you're really delirious, or stoned. I thought we covered this ground.

...and that is why you talk like a man with a paper assh*le...

r11 · **Joined:** Wed Jun 29, 2011 2:32 pm **Posts:** 394

chuckmo48 wrote:

r11 wrote:

To read your drive-by crap "carefully" would entail that I even begin to read it in the first place...and I don't. Open one of your left-wing drive-by links?? Now you're really delirious, or stoned. I thought we covered this ground.

...and that is why you talk like a man with a paper assh*le...

Why? Because I don't read the drive-by nonsense of a washed-up, draft-dodging old hippie? Or because I don't open the links of said washed-up, draft dodging old hippie? And besides, your old lady said it didn't taste like paper.

Moby Grape · **Joined:** Sun Nov 12, 2006 12:19 pm **Posts:** 13802

Quote:

Voters Flee Democratic Party
in Key Swing States
ABC News, by Amy Bingham

President Obamaâ€™s uphill battle to re-election is getting steeper.

A report released today by the centrist think-tank Third Way showed that more than 825,000 voters in eight key battleground states have fled the Democratic Party since Obama won election in 2008.

â€œThe numbers show that Democratsâ€™ path to victory just got harder,â€ said Lanae Erickson, the reportâ€™s co-author. â€œWe are seeing both an increase in independents and a decrease in Democrats and that means the coalition they have to assemble is going to rely even more on independents in 2012 than it did in 2008.â€

Amid frustrating partisan gridlock and unprecedentedly low party-approval ratings, the number of voters registering under a major party is falling fast, but it is also falling disproportionately.

In eight states that will be must-wins in 2012 â€“ Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina and Pennsylvania â€“ Democrats lost 5.4 percent of their registered voters while Republicans lost 3.1 percent. The number of independent voters in those states jumped 3.4 percent.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... ng-states/

Moby Grape · **Joined:** Sun Nov 12, 2006 12:19 pm **Posts:** 13802

Quote:

Newsweek Begins Listing 'Post-POTUS'
Jobs for Obama If He Loses In 2012
NewsBusters, by Tim Graham

Tina Brown and Newsweek will probably stir up trouble among their liberal base with an article in this week's issue on now that "his re-election is down to a coin toss," they have "eight ideas for Obama's post-POTUS career."

Nick Summers and McKay Coppins began: "At the risk of getting ahead of ourselves: Barack Obama would make a pretty damn good ex-president. We're not saying he should become an ex-president after just four years in officeâ€”only that this line of thinking isn't premature." He could be Carteresque, and they mean that in a nice way:

So it's worth considering: what would his next act look like? If defeated, Obama would become, at 51, the youngest former president in more than a century. (Only Teddy Roosevelt was younger: he was 50 when he left office in 1909.) With strong health and an agile mind--and no shortage of ways to make staggering sums of money--Obama would have the time and skills to mount one of the most impressive ex-presidencies on record.

And if history is a guide, the worse Obama fares as commander in chief, the better he might shine as ex-commander in chief. "It may sound whimsical, but it's true," says historian Richard Norton Smith. An administration that ends badly creates an equal and opposite zeal for rehabilitating a legacy, says Smith.

Example A is Jimmy Carter. Fired after four years of stagflation and malaise, the former peanut farmer reinvented the office of the ex-presidency, thrusting himself into world diplomacy, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize.

Obama might burn over losing,

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham ... z1gWSjsSbF

Northwest Indiana Discussion

The vultures are starting to circle.

Who is online