Obama waits for GOP race to end 'Survivor'-style

And, like Survivor, the decent, level-headed types don't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting through. (That would be Jon Huntsman -- a very popular governor of a very conservative state.)

I think you got democrats and republicans mixed up, because you just described the republicans to a T.

I agree that it's not really important. Whoever wins the GOP nomination will probably be the next President anyway. I can't see Obama holding on unless he does a miracle for the economy. And that isn't going to happen. Even if his jobs bill passed, it would be a drop in the bucket. The system needs structural change, a drastic reduction in spending, and a change of attitude from the top down.

Hate to rain on your suspense parade, but Romney is certain to be nominated. We'll have a few more "flavors of the month" between now and January, but it is too late for any "white knight" to enter, and current Republican insanity notwithstanding, I don't see the party crazy enough to go with any of the current candidates but him or the badly-trailing Huntsman.

So: for all the tea party rumpus and calls for revolution, the best the Republicans can offer up is the guy who lost to McCain last time around.

He decided himself, as Kennedy did in 1980 to take on the incumbent. It's not a "party" thing; it's a personal thing.

@yabits: That is my point. You mean to tell me that there is no one in the Dem party who would want to challenge the current president. It seems that they all are trying to avoid being seen with him when he makes visits.

Sure the guy who tried to challenge RR was a long shot, but at least he tried. Not seeing that from the Dems.

As for your comments on if I don't llike the rules change parties, I have. I just find it amazing that a party that supposedly speaks for the "working class" will nullify their vote (in the primaries) by nullifying their vote with a "superdelegate" whom they did vote to represent them, but decided by party bosses.

FYI, if I would have been posting here in 2004, I would have made the same comments about the GOP and them not putting up a candidate.

Cain would likely beat Obama because Obama and what's left of his followers would lose their well-worn race card.

RR

The reason you find it amazing is because you have extremely little knowledge about the process and its history. And that shows when you claim the super-delegates weren't voted for. Most are elected officials.

@yabits: I am well aware of the history and understand fully. If you can't get nominated from a "smoke filled room " (thank you anti-antismoking in public do gooders), then you need some way to stack the deck in your favor. Hencs the superdelegate. They may be elected officials, but what gives them the right to decide to cast an additional vote, after the supposed party caucuses have made their voce heard and send a delegate that is supposed to vote on what his caucus wanted. So under the Dem plan, as long as you have that extra delegate in your pocket that you paid for, you are guarenteed a nomination.

So you are telling me that is a good thing?

More than just the independant voters, even his own and closest supporters (now former) are leaving in droves. Like rats leaving a soon to be sinking ship.

You dont have to be DEM or REP to be pissed that you got dupped but you MUST admit it so you can make the necessary changes. If you just let it lie you deserve the outcome. As predicted, hope and change would rule. I for one HOPE FOR CHANGE, the sooner the better!!

yabits:"I'm sure bin Laden and Ghaddafy would agree with you..."

Really! And this would be because they both died during Obama's presidency?

"... Clearly, U.S. politics is not your area of expertise..."

Said by someone who knows what I said is true but won't admit it and proclaims I don't know what I'm talking about.

"...You may be at your best comenting on the pictures of young girls shown on JT. It's all downhill from there."

Said by someone who knows what I said is true but won't admit it and insults me. Pathetic.

After Obama's second term, will the U.S. be better off than now, or continue the downward slide?

I think it's funny you are so certain President Obama is going to lose the election molenir, but you don't have the courage to tell us who is going to win.

I already told you it will be whoever the Republicans nominate. What else do you want from me? It could be Cain, it could be Romney, hell it could even be Perry, Bachman, or Gingrich. Though I don't think any of them really have a shot now. Whoever it is that eventually gets it, will be the next President, replacing the failure we have currently.

You and arrestpaul default to "stray dog." I thought that wasn't inclusive of the tea party so I added the rabid and there you go, we have a consensus for a candidate.

Ah, so arrestpaul doesn't go along with you, so suddenly he's the enemy now?

Rabid Stray Dog 2012! Better than Romney. Better than Cain, Better than Perry. A Rabid Stray Dog!

Heh, not Rabid, otherwise I wouldn't keep him. And I wasn't the one who claimed he would be better then the other nominees, just better then Obama. Allow me to state it even more clearly. If the US hadn't had a President at all, for the last 3 years, that vacancy would have been superior to Obamas time in office. You need only think of all the idiotic things Obama has done which have dragged down the country. All the laws he signed, from the Porkulus bill, to the apology tour. To his constant vacations in the midst of crisis. No, its a sad thing to say about anyone, much less the current sitting President, but his has been a failed Presidency. Having no one as President, or my dog, would have been better then the mistake we have currently. Fortunately we will be rectifying that mistake in a year.

This president understands TV, and reality TV. He understands the world we live in.

I think you got democrats and republicans mixed up, because you just described the republicans to a T.

@hakuman: Are you referring to my post? If so, please provide me of an example where there has been national debate on the Dem side on going against the current Administration policies, and if those who so oppose have decided that they can do a better job, why haven't they decided to run? So, are the Dem voters going to only get one choice to nominate? Sound a lot like the old USSR.

You may not like the GOP, and whomever they nominate may not be able to beat Obama, but at least they are trying to have a debate on the issues, when they are not name calling each other. I would love to hear a voice in the Dems speak out on what they want to change. I can't believe that they are all in unison on the issues.

He doesn't need to pay any attention either way, for whomever wins the GOP nod, they are not worthy of the attention nor will they come even remotely close to challenging Obama next year.

Yeah. That explains really well why Obama was so desperate to ape Sarah Palin by touring key battleground states in a bus (though his was built in Canada). His magical misery tour was made a full 13 months before the next election. I guess if you are a progressive you just close your eyes and tell yourself it's gonna be ok. His 11th quarter poll ratings (Gallup)are lower than any post WW2 president - - except Jimmy Carter.

Steve Wynn, VERY LIBERAL, called him OUT

Steve Wynn a liberal? Since when? Says who?

He's not only not VERY liberal, he is more to the right of center.

First key question: Who did the Republicans put up to challenge Bush in 2004?

@yabits: Answer, no real challenger, and that was wrong for the GOP. They needed field a candidate just as much as the Dems do now. Funny, I seem to remember everyone decrying Bush then and how the GOP had no one person to challenge him. Many libs thought that was not right. I guess once they get into power, they can do as they wish.

Why is your brand of conservatism so blindly dumb and hypocritical?

Not being dumb, I see you managed to not answer my comments about the Dems having to use superdelgates in 2008 to ensure their annointed one actually gets the nomination. Instead of answering that you resort to petty name calling.

Who was the last person the Republicans put up to challenge a sitting Republican president?

1992: GHW Bush was faced against Buchaan, and Perot. 1984: Reagan was in competition against Harold Stassan 1976: Gearld Ford vs Ronald Reagan

Looking at the 1976 primary election, at least the GOP had a chance to get RR in the public eye to be seen more as future presidental material. Sure he was known for being the Gov of CA and a movie actor, but he wasn't taken as a serious presidental contender before that. I submit to you, if the Dems want to at least make an attempt to keep the White Hose in 2016 (if Obama actually wins in 2012), they had better get someone out there campaigning to make a name for themselves, otherwise a GOP candidate will get elected.

Funny thing the uber Liberal! So many on this site, always good for a laugh.

They always deem to be the minority in numbers but are so charged up (can you say Energizer Bunny, banging the drum) it LOOKS like they are the majority. When thisngs are relativly calm they can get in, when the perverbial "brown stuff" hits the fan they ALWAYS call on a REP to get the REAL job done!! Few slips over the years but the facts are clear!!

Steve Wynn a liberal? Since when? Says who?

Wynn is a liberal. He is on record saying so. Like the late Steve Jobs did though he has a very low opinion of Obama and his anti-business, wealth-destroying proclivities.

Any of the Republican candidates would be a far better president than what we have now.

Steve Jobs told Rupert Murdoch that Fox News was a terribly destructive force in American society. You going to take that to the bank too?

Have watched about a total of ten hours of Fox. Since it began. I'd buy what Jobs said about Fox, as I think you would admit he was right about Obama.

Any of the Republican candidates would be a far better president than what we have now.

I'm sure bin Laden and Ghaddafy would agree with you. Clearly, U.S. politics is not your area of expertise.

You may be at your best commenting on the pictures of young girls shown on JT. It's all downhill from there.

With his poll numbers sagging and enthusiasm among some of his supporters waning, the president reminded backers that his administration has had significant accomplishments, from overhauling health care to ending the military's ban on gay service members. But he acknowledged that change hasn't always been easy to come by.

"It's not as trendy to be an Obama supporter as it was back in 2008," he said. "We've had setbacks, we've had disappointments. I've made mistakes on occasion."

Independent voters have abandoned Obama in droves and nobody wins without the independents.

You seem so certain that President Obama is going to lose in 2012. What magic republican is going to show up between now and then that can beat him? Please enlighten us as to who the winner is going to be.

Please, my dog could get himself elected over Obama. The incompetent idiot is the biggest disaster since Carter. Not exactly the President to aspire to outdo. Whoever the Republicans eventually choose, will be the next President. Right now its looking like it will be either President Cain or Romney. Either one would be a welcome relief from the idiot we have in there now.

On another note, I was just reading the story how Obama is throwing the US into a lot of tiny conflicts in Africa and thinking, wow, if it was Bush doing this, the left would be frothing at the mouth. Heh, guess having that D by your name makes it all ok.

And it would be the best the GOP has to offer.

lol, and he would still be a better President then our current one.

After Obama's second term, will the U.S. be better off than now, or continue the downward slide?

About the only way Obama is going to get a second term, is if whoever the Republicans nominate, dies a month before the election. If he is facing an actual breathing human being, he'll lose That said, if the disaster that is Obama does manage to sucker enough people into voting for him, then yes, the US will be far worse off then they are now.

Taka313 - arrestpaul and I have already figured out who is going to be the GOP candidate in 2012.

Don't drag me down with you, you're on your own.

No more "dog" references please.

This time around, Obama gets to run on his own record as POTUS. A dismal record at best. He does get a small bounce in the polls everytime he has someone killed.

Voters in 50 States get to decide who the Electoral College will vote for in 2012. Many of the States that voted FOR Obama's hopey changey are no longer enamored with Obama's performance. Independents are running away from him and Democrats are disappointed. Republicans won't vote for socialism or wealth redistribution and RINO's just want to get themselves re-elected. The various Tea Party supporters want more jobs and a government that is more responsive to the people. The OWS movement will continue to steal each others shoes, defecate in the street, bang on plastic drums, and demand that "someone, anyone" take care of them. Since the OWS movement doesn't bother to vote, I can't see their efforts actually affecting the elections.

Jobs, jobs, jobs, or more precisely, the lack of them, will drive the voters to the voting booths and they won't be voting for the guy who can't seem to get the "job" done.

He doesn't need to pay any attention either way, for whomever wins the GOP nod, they are not worthy of the attention nor will they come even remotely close to challenging Obama next year.

Obama and the Dems don't evenwant a challenger from their own party to go against him in the primaries. Are they that afraid of someone in his own party bringing up failures. And having those same failures brougth up by whomever the GOP candidate will be. The silence is telling on the Dem side. At least in 2008, you kind of had a discussion between sides in the party as to what the issues were. I guess now we don't even have an honest bipartisan debate in one's own party.

Obama can't blame all the fault at the GOP not willing to work with him and come to a consensus. You can't even get an honest debate within his own party about the issues and the ways to fix them. This nomination by decree must be the wave of the future.

Obama: "I'm going to wait until everybody is voted off the island"

Har! Good one, Mr. President!

"his second stop on Jay Leno's show as sitting president"

And in his life, as far as I know. Good grief, are we going to have obligatory appearances on Jay Leno by sitting presidents from now on?

"with his poll numbers sagging"

How could this be? Isn't Obama a great president?

Answer: Well, Steve himself. He was one of the largest supporters of Harry Reid

Steve voted for McCain. He's never said he was a liberal. His support for Reid stems from the fact that they are both Nevada residents, and not because they share the same political philosophy. The simple fact of the matter is you've got a powerful Nevada casino-owner supporting a sitting, experienced Nevada senator who can get things done for him.

Dont take my word, take his.

I've seen both and neither is very intelligent or convincing.

Wynn is a liberal. He is on record saying so.

I wouldn't buy a used car from him. I'm a liberal, and we liberals know our own. Wynn is no liberal.

Like the late Steve Jobs did though...

Steve Jobs told Rupert Murdoch that Fox News was a terribly destructive force in American society. You going to take that to the bank too?

They may be elected officials, but what gives them the right to decide

Democratic Party rules. Don't like them? Tough.

I am well aware of the history and understand fully.

If you understand fully then you know the reasons why the Democrats enacted the rules. And, yes, I think under present times -- with the intelligence of so many Americans at such a low point as they would think that people like Palin, Bachmann, Perry, Trump, and Cain are actually presidential material -- the rules are necessary.

I'd buy what Jobs said about Fox, as I think you would admit he was right about Obama.

The destructive spawn of Fox News are creatures like Palin, Cain, and Bachmann. Steve Jobs would have jumped over a dozen lousy Republicans -- Huntsman excepted -- to cast another vote for Obama, who can be fairly criticized for a number of reasons.

The only advantage I can think of of a Romney presidency is they won't have to build a robot for the Hall of Presidents -- they can just use any of his videos -- a trait he shares with Al Gore.

Oh and one more thing. For any of you who are so enamoured with the Dems... go and watch the Steve Wynn interview. He lets the cat out of the bag when he tells all that the DEMS (Pelosi, Reid and Obama) threaten the other DEMS to make them do what they want. And what is that... wwwwwait for it.... Socialisim.

Said I would leave if Clinton got in, he did & I did. If there is not a big change there will be little to go back to.

And as to who will displace Obama; the stray dog next door could.

The Stray Dog.

Better than Romney. Better than Cain. Better than Bachmann.

Stray Dog 2012. Go GOP!

Taka

I have to refine my post to include the tea party.

Rabid Stray Dog 2012!

Taka

I think it's funny you are so certain President Obama is going to lose the election molenir, but you don't have the courage to tell us who is going to win.

You and arrestpaul default to "stray dog." I thought that wasn't inclusive of the tea party so I added the rabid and there you go, we have a consensus for a candidate.

Welcome to the platform molenir!

Rabid Stray Dog 2012! Better than Romney. Better than Cain, Better than Perry. A Rabid Stray Dog!

If I were you, my confidence would be brimming too. (snicker)

Taka

He doesn't need to pay any attention either way, for whomever wins the GOP nod, they are not worthy of the attention nor will they come even remotely close to challenging Obama next year.

You may not like any of the GOP candidates, but you have to admit at least they allow open discussion. I am sure that whomever they finally decide on based on primary elections results (and not needing any "super delegates") they will get behind and support for the general election in 2012.

I don't see that from the Dems. I am sure that there are those in the Dem party that have a different opinion on how things should be run, but for the party of liberalism, you are not seeing anyone being allowed to challenge the status quo. It's either you will accept the ticket or don't participate. A single vote doesn't matter, as long as they have "super delegates" at the convention to make sure you get the outcome that the partly leaders want. Where's the open discussion from the Dems? They are not all following the party line. If so, a few of the Dem Senators would have voted for the second stimulus bill, yet a some didn't.

The way they spin it in the news is that there weren't enough Dem votes to prevent a GOP filibuster, but the real issue is that some Dems in the Senate voted against it, so why don't we hear from them.

Alphaape: "Where's the open discussion from the Dems?"

You're being silly. They are allowing for open discussion and debate on the issues because they are RUNNING TO LEAD THE GOP TICKET! When GWB was president did they have similar open forums? The Dems don't need to have open debates to see who will lead the party because they already have a leader, who is also your president. When it comes to Congress, however, they don't really debate at all -- they just say 'no'.

I don't see that from the Dems. I am sure that there are those in the Dem party that have a different opinion on how things should be run, but for the party of liberalism,

First key question: Who did the Republicans put up to challenge Bush in 2004?

After his return to deficit spending, the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, his proposal to expand Medicare, etc., I am sure there were Republicans who had "a different opinion on how things should be run."

Why is your brand of conservatism so blindly dumb and hypocritical? Why do you pretend the Republicans are better than Democrats when they act the very same way? Who was the last person the Republicans put up to challenge a sitting Republican president?

Yeah. That explains really well why Obama was so desperate to ape Sarah Palin by touring key battleground states in a bus (though his was built in Canada).

Just as McCain's and Palin's buses were. More hypocrisy from the right-wing haters.

Just as McCain's and Palin's buses were.

We're talking about the buses used in McCain's campaign. The "Straight-Talk Express" was built by the same company that built Obama's bus.

And here I thought conservatives were for free trade and NAFTA.

Answer, no real challenger, and that was wrong for the GOP. They needed field a candidate just as much as the Dems do now.

So you are accusing the Dems of not doing the very same thing the Republicans did when they were in the same position. What is really screwy about it is how you praise the Republicans for getting in a race for an office they don't currently hold!! One writer described it as "silly." That's about the best that can be said for your claim here. Back in 2004, when Bush was the incumbent, the Democrats fielded a number of candidates just as the Republicans are doing now. So both parties act the same way depending on whether they are the "out party" or the "in party." Exactly the same way.

I see you managed to not answer my comments about the Dems having to use superdelgates in 2008 to ensure their annointed one actually gets the nomination.

What's to answer? The Democrats get to run their party according to their rules. Don't like it? Join another party. I see strong advantages to the super-delegate system, and I predict it won't be too long before Republicans adopt something like it. Especially if they put up another clunker of a candidate for president.

1992: GHW Bush was faced against Buchaan, and Perot.

Wrong. Perot was not put up by the Republican Party. He ran as a third party candidate, which anyone is free to do. Nor was Buchanan put up: He decided himself, as Kennedy did in 1980 to take on the incumbent. It's not a "party" thing; it's a personal thing.

There's nothing stopping any Democrat from challenging Obama, except the fact that he enjoys very high approval ratings from his fellow Democrats in office.

1984: Reagan was in competition against Harold Stassan

Are you actually serious?

Have watched about a total of ten hours of fox.

Yeah, but you're a fanboi of right wing bloggers who worship at the fox trough daily so it's a secondary fox conditioning.

And if you could get it in Western Japan, you would watch it.

Taka

Yeah, but you're a fanboi of right wing bloggers who worship at the fox trough daily

You've hit it right on. Breitbart is Fox News on steroids -- a faster way to kill off brain cells than glue sniffing.

It's all downhill from there.

"Exactly. Exactly."

Taka

Said by someone who knows what I said is true but won't admit it and insults me. Pathetic.

Demand an apology! You know you want to.

Taka

Please, my dog could get himself elected over Obama.

And it would be the best the GOP has to offer.

arrestpaul and I have already figured out who is going to be the GOP candidate in 2012.

Rabid Stray Dog 2012! The Bob Dole of 2012!

Yeah. That explains really well why Obama was so desperate to ape Sarah Palin by touring key battleground states in a bus

At least he's running for election. What's palin doing other than taking a ride around the country on other people's money. REAL CONSERVATIVE.

Taka

And lets recap;

LOWEST APPROVAL in modern history (only Carter can claim victory from him) Can only speak from cue cards or prompter AND BTW his joke, which I am sure got alot of laughs was made by Dennis Miller a few nights ago Mimicry is the HIGHEST form of Flattery so I guess Obama was complimenting Miller, one of the smartest guys (and conservative to boot) IS VERY SCARED FOR HIS JOB a. Steve Jobs just before his death told him that he was a 1 termer b. Steve Wynn, VERY LIBERAL, called him OUT c. Is losing support form his closest adn strongest allies, not a good sign (if you are a DEM) Doesnt exactly tell the truth (record speaks for itself) so keep telling the lies Is planning on using his Hope and Change line again because NOW EVERYBODY is HOPING FOR CHANGE CYA Mr. President, good riddance. Even my cats could do better!!

You mean to tell me that there is no one in the Dem party who would want to challenge the current president.

President Obama will have challengers from the left, a la Ralph Nader, but they can't expect any more support from the Democratic Party than Perot got from the Republican Party in '92.

Sure the guy who tried to challenge RR was a long shot, but at least he tried. Not seeing that from the Dems.

What a ridiculous statement. Harold Stassen was never considered a serious candidate since 1948. There was never any discussion or debate of the issues between Reagan and Stassen, mainly because he was considered a joke. So if your standard for a "challenge" is running a non-serious joke, that is something that is embarrassing to witness.

I just find it amazing that a party that supposedly speaks for the "working class" will nullify their vote (in the primaries) by nullifying their vote with a "superdelegate" whom they did [sic] vote to represent them, but decided by party bosses.

The reason you find it amazing is because you have extremely little knowledge about the process and its history. And that shows when you claim the super-delegates weren't voted for. Most are elected officials.

okimike,

You seem so certain that President Obama is going to lose in 2012. What magic republican is going to show up between now and then that can beat him? Please enlighten us as to who the winner is going to be.

Thank you.

Taka