In threads I’ve started in the past, half the posts seem to have been wasted on accusations that I’m somehow Betraying the Cause , so I thought I’d be explicit up front this time: I once liked Obama but now consider him a failed president, and for the good of the country I don’t wish to see him reelected. Also, I was a bit intrigued with Rick Perry at first, and though he’s said some things I think needed to be said on the GOP stage, like a lot of people I’ve now concluded he’s not ready for the nomination. There. If we’ve got that out of the way, let’s move on.
As in the past, I’m still interested in political strategerie of both sides, and it occurred to me that there’s only one scenario where I’d worry that Obama might still have a chance: by bringing Hillary on board at the top of the ticket. Yes, with Hillary running for president and with Obama as her vice president.
You may have read that Obama is now being characterized in WaPo and elsewhere as a friendless lone wolf who can’t count on support of Democratic congresspeople and senators at this point, and the Democratic establishment likely starting to ponder their alternatives. But Hillary has clearly said she doesn’t intend to run for elected office again, and I doubt if Vice President is much of a carrot for her especially if it looks like Obama’s heading for defeat. And a primary challenge would either leave Obama on the ticket but fatally weakened, or – if successful – split the party and cause black supporters to revolt.
So I’m wondering if the Democratic powers that be might enter some heavy negotiations with Obama vis-a-vis the above, and give him an offer he can’t refuse: You stay on the ticket, but in the Veep position, and in turn you’re promised a shot at the 2016 presidential nomination for a non-consecutive term. Hillary runs as the 2012 nominee for president, bringing back the old Clinton magic and all the support that Friends of Bill can bring, with the understanding that she’ll only serve one term. As frustrated as she might be with Obama and politics in general at this point, she might find this proposal irresistible.
In the end there might be grumbling among black voters but no real revolt, and the democratic base might be electrified by this sudden drama.
I think Romney could totally defuse this whole “Are Mormons really Christians?” thing by announcing his conversion to Secular Humanism. Then, he could run foursquare on his record–“Romenycare for everyone! What worked in Massachusetts will work for America!”–and beat Obama by outflanking him to the left.
What kind of “heavy negotiations” would convince a sitting president to take a step down - keeping in mind it’s never been done before.
And what does promised a shot at the 2016 nomination mean? Every registered Democrat can take a shot at the nomination, they’re essentially promising nothing.
Well, maybe he’s got tacit agreement from all the superdelegates to support him, provided that he can make his way to the convention floor in 2016. Or somehow rewriting the nomination rules in his favor.
As for what would enter into the heavy negotiations to convince him to step down, that’s where the gay bath house rumors come in . . .
I think you never voted for him, even at the height of your liking him.
I think you never approved of his Presidency, not for one part of one second, and never thought his election or re-election would be “good for the country.”
I think following any advice of yours would be the height of foolishness for Obama supporters.
I treated you like you were betraying the cause because I thought you were a liberal. It sure sounded like you were saying that you wanted someone further to the left. However, if you like Perry, then that obviously was not the direction you were going, as he was flat out courting the Tea Party, heavily emphasizing the issues of the religious right.
As for your question: do I really have to say that no, a conspiracy won’t work? Especially a conspiracy about a rumor that’s already in the press? If somehow it were possible that the gay rumors were true. the press would have equal access to the proof, and someone would out him. There is no way that could work.
Without that, there’s no incentive for Obama. He would not do better in 2016 after stepping down in 2012. There’s no incentive for Clinton, as, if she is elected, she’s going to want two terms. And the large majority that are down on Obama are down on Democrats in general, meaning that, if Obama wouldn’t win, then she wouldn’t either.
Furthermore, Obama stepping down is a big win for the Republican party. It would be the Democrats admitting defeat. They chose Obama, so they are responsible if he leaves as a failure. I see no conceivable way Obama can step down and that not hurt the Democratic party. So even if Clinton pulls more people in, she’s starting from a large deficit. Combine it with the number of Black people who only voted for Obama because he was Black, and I still say you wind up with, at best, the same amount of support.
I think Obama has been weak and done a terrible job.
Now, having said that, I’ll bet our OP $100 that Obama wins. I’ll even give him a free out in the event that the ticket changes to a Barack-Hillary ticket.
Practically free money since I’m giving the OP a chance to cancel the bet in the event that the “only one that would worry” him.
What do you say, OP? Or will that just put too much a crimp in your concern trolling?
Not interested in betting, but I’d welcome a debate without ad hominems. Why are you confident Obama will win at this point, absent some kind of Hail Mary gamble?
I don’t see it happening. Why would Obama accept a deal that’s essentially saying he’s unelectable in 2012 but he’ll have the party’s support in 2016? If he’s unelectable now, why will he be electable in four years? One of his biggest strengths now is his incumbency and he’d be losing that.
I also think the OP is missing a major factor - this election is not just a referendum on Obama. It’s a contest between Obama and the other guy (whoever that ends up being). The Republican strategy seems to be that everyone who is unhappy with Obama is obligated to vote for the Republican candidate. But the reality may end up seeing voters unhappy with Obama and appalled by the Republican candidate - and therefore re-electing Obama as the lesser of two evils.
I was being facetious. I don’t know what kind of leverage they might apply: but if there is any sort of leverage that can possibly be applied against their party leader, I imagine they’re going to want to apply it. But maybe you’re right, and there isn’t any such thing – which would explain how things are going for them up to now, I guess.
Ah, now that looks like the central question to me. Hillary still has favorable marks and independent appeal. And it’s just my feeling, but I think there are a lot of people out there who would like to vote Democratic, or at least aren’t ready to return to the Republicans, if it weren’t for Obama. What I’m reading into pieces like these is a narrative that the problems we’re seeing are Obama’s personal problems, not the party’s.
Yeah, I was thinking it’d be a huge gamble and a bit of a move of desperation – but between Solyndra, Fast & Furious and a possible double dip recession evolving over the next six months, could the Democrats get to that point of desperation? Maybe it’s not a sure thing that they would, but if so I’m thinking that they may get to the point where they’ve got nothing to lose in trying out more innovative measures. Anyway, I just thought it was an interesting thing to speculate on.
There is zero chance this could happen. It’s like the theories about Bush replacing Cheney or Obama replacing Biden. Even if there were something in it for the political parties and agendas - which is extremely doubtful on its own - there is nothing in it for the individuals, and that’s who makes the decisions.
I don’t think the GOP will press the Fast and Furious situation very far. Since it is law enforcement, it is too similar in subject matter to an active foreign policy, which the GOP does not want to remind voters of, since it has been far more successful under Obama than before.
I know it’s a fanciful notion. But . . . maaaybe it would be a way to spin things to cater to Obama’s narcissism, if even he sees the writing on the wall going into the summer, where he’s still (undoubtedly) assured of his own greatness but can blame the circumstances of this particular election season. Sort of a “you’ve been a prophet before your time” appeal. And as opposed to kicking him off the ticket altogether, he might still preserve some sort of pseudo-incumbency as Veep.
I dunno. Romney’s got good hair and seems to be able to hold his own in a debate. I doubt that swing voters would be appalled. But I disagree about the referendum thing – it should be fairly easy for the Republicans to follow Reagan’s “Are you better off than you were four years ago,” and Clinton 92’s simple query of “So, how you doin’?”
It’s not fanciful, it’s fictional. It’s not going to happen. I’m sorry, but nothing you’ve said so far has been remotely plausible.
It depends on whether or not swing voters think Medicare is unconstitutional and how they feel about the Ryan plan, not to mention how much they trust Romney. But at least those are real issues. A Hillary-Obama ticket isn’t.
, so I thought I’d be explicit up front this time: I once liked Obama but now consider him a failed president, and for the good of the country I don’t wish to see him reelected. Also, I was a bit intrigued with Rick Perry at first, and though he’s said some things I think needed to be said on the GOP stage, like a lot of people I’ve now concluded he’s not ready for the nomination. There. If we’ve got that out of the way, let’s move on.