Well your assumption is flat-out absurd, as far as I’m concerned. I agree with Frothengray-however the hell you say it.
Hardly anything going on today will effect the 2012 presidential race. The major issues will be:
1-10. The Economy
11. Obama wuz bern in Keenyuh
12. Dey dook urr jobs
This. Unless he steps down it’s a given. He has the support of both parties to run again.
What do you mean will be? And it could be a net positive anyway. If they could make it all the way to the floor by 2016 they’d help distract attention from her cankles.
Ted Kennedy did it Carter.
But if we are to assume, per the OP, that Obama is significantly down in the polls vs his GOP rival, the only person I see being able to take on Obama in a Democratic primary is HRC, and I really don’t think she will do it. Gavin Newsom has a few more years to go before he’s ready. (How do you like that little prediction slipped in there oh so innocently…)
TP-backed candidates also upset the “establishment” GOP U.S. Senate candidates in the Kentucky and Alaska primaries (in the latter case, defeating the incumbent Republican, who just conceded a day or two ago).
Obama would have to have become much, much more unpopular among Dems - either due to a major scandal, very serious economic setbacks, or a terrible bungle in, say, responding to a terrorist attack - before he would draw a primary opponent. Even then, I don’t see who in the party would have a realistic shot at taking the 2012 nomination from him. HRC has said repeatedly that she has run her last White House campaign. She could always change her mind, to be sure, but I really doubt that will happen.
Overall I agree with Fotheringay-Phipps’s analysis of Obama’s prospects in two years… but that’s an eternity in politics, and you never can tell. I like his chances but his reelection is by no means in the bag.
Obama is easily the country’s most popular democrat. He remains well ahead of the democrats as a whole and just because the democrats are likely to lose a lot of seats in November doesn’t mean he is destined to lose. It would be silly to replace him with anyone else even if was doable.
Quartz, I think you may not really understand how automatic the re-nomination is for an incumbent President in the US. There typically are no challenges at all, or only symbolic ones. It’s very rare for a sitting Prez to get primaried. As a matter of fact, I don’t think it’s ever happened, at least not in modern history. LBJ chose not to run for (his second) reelection in 1968, but no sitting President ever fails to get re-nominated or even faces a serious challenge. This is true even for bad or unpopular presidents, much less Presidents as popular and effective as Obama has been. Barring some massive scandal, there is no chance – none – that Obama won’t be the nominee in 2012, or that he’ll even be seriously challenged. That just doesn’t happen in US politics.
Well, I can think of three serious primary challenges to incumbent Presidents in the relatively recent past. Ronald Reagan ran against Gerald Ford in 1976 and was a major threat. Ted Kennedy took on Jimmy Carter in 1980, damaging his already-dim prospects for November, and Pat Buchanan gave GHWB a serious run for his money in 1992.
I wouldn’t have called any of those very serious. None of the challengers came close to winning. I still can’t think of any that have ever been successful.
Obama is not the kind of incumbent who even attracts those kinds of symbolic, nuisance challenges. My guess is that he will not be opposed at all.
If he stands. But will he? The question for this thread is at what point will the powerbrokers of the Democrats choose to have - or choose to not have - a quiet word with him to not stand.
Specifically, it’s hard to see a challenge to Obama except from the left; insurgents don’t challenge incumbents from the center. And it’s very hard to see anyone building a base on the left of the Democratic party that does not include black people. And it’s very hard to see anyone building a base among black Democrats to oust the first black president.
Anything severe enough to fuel a significant primary challenge would probably end in Obama’s resignation first.
Usually powerbrokers aren’t stupid. You are going to have to show some evidence that they should have a word with him.
TP candidates have won quite a lot of primaries. I was talking of instances in which the TP victory changed the likely outcome of the general election. (The context was whether the Repubs would select a TP-oriented candidate in 2012 and hand the election of Obama.)
Agree absolutely. My point here was that you can’t decide what will happen in two years by assessing the state of affairs now.
That’s a very good point.
Not only won’t black people support ousting Obama, but they will be very ticked off if others do it. This is a very good reason why it can’t happen (not that it would happen anyway).
There are no powerbrokers.
Okay, that’s probably overstating it a little. But nobody has the ability to stop him from running if he wants to run. It’s not impossible that he would choose not to run if he is extremely unpopular, but it’s highly unlikely. You appear to be assuming that the DNC is a very powerful organization that has influence over all Democrats, even the president. The truth is that the national committees don’t have that kind of power, and when Obama became president, he chose the head of the DNC - Tim Kaine, who was his second choice for VP. Who do you think is going to tell the president what to do?
Remember when Larry Craig got caught playing footsie in a men’s room? The Republicans wanted him to leave the Senate, but he said no. They couldn’t do anything and he served out his term. David Vitter is still around, too. The so-called power brokers - the national committees and such - do not own the politicians. They might recruit someone as a candidate, but they can’t tell them what to do. It’s possible they can talk someone into resigning or something if they can make it worth his while, but if Obama wants to run, he is going to run. And at this point he clearly wants to.
What, precisely, are you getting at? Are you buying into some Tea Party “worst president ever” hype?
Of course.
He IS the power of the Democratic party, and there is no reason at all that anyone in the party would try to submarine his reelection. He is by far the most popular member the party and probably still the most popular politician in the US. Why would they mess with that? Are you under the impression that Obama is somehow failing in office or sgnificantly declining in approval? He isn’t. His approval ratings are currently better than Reagan’s were at this same point in his presidency. He’s fine. There are no potential Republican candidates who can come within a mile of him. He’ll be reelected in a walk in 2012.
Or the economy will tank, and he’ll lose. But it wouldn’t be because the republican candidate is better; it’d be because the republican candidate is “not the current guy”.
Reagans challenge was quite serious. He won about 46% of the popular vote, took almost half the states, and came within 117 delegates of the nomination.
That still added up to a comfortable win for Ford, and that was right in the wake of Watergate and Nixon’s resignation. That’s best case scenario for challenging an incumbant and it was still never really threatening.