Home› A Moving Train

Does the Incumbent automatically get to run for re-election?

BinauralJamBinauralJam Posts: 14,158
edited October 2011 in A Moving Train
There's not a single Republican running, maybe Ron Paul, that i would vote for. But Obama's a fucking trainwreck, cant some other Democrat run against Obama?
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    someone can run, but it is typically not done because it would divide the party that holds the white house. the president is the leader of that party and typically that party falls in line behind the president.

    personally i would like to see a serious primary challenge from someone like kucinich. hell he is going to lose his seat if the ohio redistricting plan goes ahead as planned, so he would have nothing to lose by mounting a primary challenge.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • pandorapandora Posts: 21,855
    wouldn't that only be done if the President in office did something really scandalous
    or impeachable or something

    Obama isn't that bad ... really

    he's grown on me as of late.. gives an awesome speech
  • BinauralJamBinauralJam Posts: 14,158
    pandora wrote:
    wouldn't that only be done if the President in office did something really scandalous
    or impeachable or something

    Obama isn't that bad ... really

    he's grown on me as of late.. gives an awesome speech


    that seems to be all he does well, i.m.o.
  • pjhawkspjhawks Posts: 12,594
    sure someone could run but historically sitting presidents almost always win re-election even in the general election.
  • pandorapandora Posts: 21,855
    BinauralJam wrote:
    pandora wrote:
    wouldn't that only be done if the President in office did something really scandalous
    or impeachable or something

    Obama isn't that bad ... really

    he's grown on me as of late.. gives an awesome speech


    that seems to be all he does well, i.m.o.
    not sure what else they really do ;);)
  • tybirdtybird Posts: 17,388
    pjhawks wrote:
    sure someone could run but historically sitting presidents almost always win re-election even in the general election.
    Not quite true....Bush Sr, Ford, Carter and Hoover all spring to mind...LBJ withdrew after his first full term.

    The problem running against an incumbent of the same party is getting the money needed for a realistic campaign. The party generally does not come to your aid when you run against a like incumbent.
    All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
  • Cliffy6745Cliffy6745 Posts: 33,897
    He kills terrorists pretty well. If he were a Republican, he would be their most popular president ever for that reason alone.
  • BinauralJamBinauralJam Posts: 14,158
    Cliffy6745 wrote:
    He kills terrorists pretty well. If he were a Republican, he would be their most popular president ever for that reason alone.


    not sure what else they really do ;);) -Pandora

    Good Points 8-)
  • Cliffy6745Cliffy6745 Posts: 33,897
    BinauralJam wrote:
    Cliffy6745 wrote:
    He kills terrorists pretty well. If he were a Republican, he would be their most popular president ever for that reason alone.


    not sure what else they really do ;);) -Pandora

    Good Points 8-)

    Here is a good write up. All may not agree with everything in here but this is a pretty solid recap.

    http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com ... ecord.html
  • BinauralJamBinauralJam Posts: 14,158
    Cliffy6745 wrote:
    Here is a good write up. All may not agree with everything in here but this is a pretty solid recap.

    http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com ... ecord.html

    That's a Good Summery, i like this website : http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/
    Shows a lot of the good he's done, but man does he need Home Run.
  • JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
    You guys are all wrong about Obama. He's a scapegoat for a corrupt system, and you Obama haters believe that he's responsible, when he's just the guy that was meant to take the fall for the entire system. Widen your angle and realize that it's a systematic problem, a much bigger problem, with no solution other than to overhaul the whole thing, rather than focus on getting another scapegoat in office to blame things on.
  • Monster RainMonster Rain Posts: 1,415
    He was "meant to take the fall?" Are you suggesting that some group got him the job just so he can take the blame for "the system?" If so, who is that group? If that's not what you meant, then what do you mean?

    If you don't believe that he bears any responsibility for our economy, do you also believe that about Bush? If you don't feel that way about Bush, too, then why?
    Jeanwah wrote:
    You guys are all wrong about Obama. He's a scapegoat for a corrupt system, and you Obama haters believe that he's responsible, when he's just the guy that was meant to take the fall for the entire system. Widen your angle and realize that it's a systematic problem, a much bigger problem, with no solution other than to overhaul the whole thing, rather than focus on getting another scapegoat in office to blame things on.
  • JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
    Monster Rain wrote:
    He was "meant to take the fall?" Are you suggesting that some group got him the job just so he can take the blame for "the system?" If so, who is that group? If that's not what you meant, then what do you mean?

    If you don't believe that he bears any responsibility for our economy, do you also believe that about Bush? If you don't feel that way about Bush, too, then why?
    Jeanwah wrote:
    You guys are all wrong about Obama. He's a scapegoat for a corrupt system, and you Obama haters believe that he's responsible, when he's just the guy that was meant to take the fall for the entire system. Widen your angle and realize that it's a systematic problem, a much bigger problem, with no solution other than to overhaul the whole thing, rather than focus on getting another scapegoat in office to blame things on.

    You've seen that Obama tries and tries again to get something passed only to have Congress vote it down (if you're paying attention). REPEATEDLY. He's not the one in power here, it's Congress, an entire group of corrupt politicians who are not interested in working for the people but for special interest groups with lobbyists who ensure that govt leans their way by paying said corrupt politicians lots of money. You guys see one guy at the top and assume that he makes the decisions. What a joke. George Bush was the same thing: a puppet for an even more corrupt administration. And the people of this country are stupid enough to believe that it's all the guy at the top's fault; the president. It's certainly not Obama's fault about the economy, it's the ENTIRE SYSTEM, how can you NOT see this??
  • Monster RainMonster Rain Posts: 1,415
    Here's the problem with what you're saying: Obama is a Democrat and his party had control of both houses of Congress until the 2010 election. He had about 2 years of the Democrats controlling the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives and he wasn't able to get his ideas through? That's poor leadership. Also, he DID get 2 bills passed that were supposed to create jobs but didn't. He got $787 billion and then another $150 billion in 2009. The first bill alone was supposed to create 4 million jobs. It hasn't come close to acheiving that. He got his way and it didn't work. How is none of that his fault when it was his plan?
    Jeanwah wrote:
    Monster Rain wrote:
    He was "meant to take the fall?" Are you suggesting that some group got him the job just so he can take the blame for "the system?" If so, who is that group? If that's not what you meant, then what do you mean?

    If you don't believe that he bears any responsibility for our economy, do you also believe that about Bush? If you don't feel that way about Bush, too, then why?
    Jeanwah wrote:
    You guys are all wrong about Obama. He's a scapegoat for a corrupt system, and you Obama haters believe that he's responsible, when he's just the guy that was meant to take the fall for the entire system. Widen your angle and realize that it's a systematic problem, a much bigger problem, with no solution other than to overhaul the whole thing, rather than focus on getting another scapegoat in office to blame things on.

    You've seen that Obama tries and tries again to get something passed only to have Congress vote it down (if you're paying attention). REPEATEDLY. He's not the one in power here, it's Congress, an entire group of corrupt politicians who are not interested in working for the people but for special interest groups with lobbyists who ensure that govt leans their way by paying said corrupt politicians lots of money. You guys see one guy at the top and assume that he makes the decisions. What a joke. George Bush was the same thing: a puppet for an even more corrupt administration. And the people of this country are stupid enough to believe that it's all the guy at the top's fault; the president. It's certainly not Obama's fault about the economy, it's the ENTIRE SYSTEM, how can you NOT see this??
  • tybirdtybird Posts: 17,388
    Jeanwah wrote:
    You guys are all wrong about Obama. He's a scapegoat for a corrupt system, and you Obama haters believe that he's responsible, when he's just the guy that was meant to take the fall for the entire system. Widen your angle and realize that it's a systematic problem, a much bigger problem, with no solution other than to overhaul the whole thing, rather than focus on getting another scapegoat in office to blame things on.
    Happened to Herbert Hoover and to some extent the Senior George Bush....they were in the wrong place at the wrong time
    All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
  • JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
    Monster Rain wrote:
    Here's the problem with what you're saying: Obama is a Democrat and his party had control of both houses of Congress until the 2010 election. He had about 2 years of the Democrats controlling the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives and he wasn't able to get his ideas through? That's poor leadership. Also, he DID get 2 bills passed that were supposed to create jobs but didn't. He got $787 billion and then another $150 billion in 2009. The first bill alone was supposed to create 4 million jobs. It hasn't come close to acheiving that. He got his way and it didn't work. How is none of that his fault when it was his plan?
    Jeanwah wrote:
    Monster Rain wrote:
    He was "meant to take the fall?" Are you suggesting that some group got him the job just so he can take the blame for "the system?" If so, who is that group? If that's not what you meant, then what do you mean?

    If you don't believe that he bears any responsibility for our economy, do you also believe that about Bush? If you don't feel that way about Bush, too, then why?

    You've seen that Obama tries and tries again to get something passed only to have Congress vote it down (if you're paying attention). REPEATEDLY. He's not the one in power here, it's Congress, an entire group of corrupt politicians who are not interested in working for the people but for special interest groups with lobbyists who ensure that govt leans their way by paying said corrupt politicians lots of money. You guys see one guy at the top and assume that he makes the decisions. What a joke. George Bush was the same thing: a puppet for an even more corrupt administration. And the people of this country are stupid enough to believe that it's all the guy at the top's fault; the president. It's certainly not Obama's fault about the economy, it's the ENTIRE SYSTEM, how can you NOT see this??

    YOU are not listening. It's a FACT that Republicans unitedly hate Obama and deliberately vote bills down that he wants passed for the pure sake of spiting him. You are completely unconvincing when it is a SYSTEMATIC problem.
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    Jeanwah wrote:
    YOU are not listening. It's a FACT that Republicans unitedly hate Obama and deliberately vote bills down that he wants passed for the pure sake of spiting him. You are completely unconvincing when it is a SYSTEMATIC problem.
    yes you are right. i 100% agree.

    the one thing that republicans in this congress have perfected is the art of being a dick.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Monster RainMonster Rain Posts: 1,415
    Of course Republicans vote against things a Democrat wants. If they agreed with him, they'd be Democrats, too. When Republicans want to pass somethine, Democrats vote against it. It's very rare that both parties agree on big issues. This is nothing new. Despite this, other Presidents have been able to accomplish things.

    My point is that Obama had 2 years of the Democrats having a majority in BOTH houses on Congress and he still wasn't able to get things done and the things he got passed didn't work. It had nothing to do with Republicans because he couldn't even convince enough members of his own party to go along with him. Did they disagree with him out of spite, too? If every Republican voted against everything he wanted it wouldn't have mattered as long as every Democrat voted the way he wanted, so that can't be blamed on the Republicans being out to get him. The 2nd stimulus bill of 2009 just barely passed in the House of Representatives despite the Democrats having control. I believe there were something like 38 Democrats who didn't vote for the bill and it only passed because they didnt stop until they had pressured enough of them to change their votes and many of them stood their ground anyway but it eventually passed by 5 votes.

    By the way, what you stated is your opinion, not a fact.
    Jeanwah wrote:
    YOU are not listening. It's a FACT that Republicans unitedly hate Obama and deliberately vote bills down that he wants passed for the pure sake of spiting him. You are completely unconvincing when it is a SYSTEMATIC problem.
Sign In or Register to comment.