Question for the Democrats

[Bidin~Time]

It's March and the primaries are in a little over 2 months. And Perg's thread got me to wondering who my candidate choices will be come May. In the state of WV, in the primaries, you can only vote for a candidate running on the ticket of the party to which you are registered. In my case that would be the Democratic ticket.

I don't claim to be a political activist, but I do feel it's prudent to at least know who your choices are before you enter the polling booth; so, I began looking for a list of Democratic presidential candidates only to discover there aren't any. Really? Obama is running unopposed in the primaries? In all of D.C.(and the rest of the U.S.), there is not the first political ego in the democratic party who looked out and thought, "oh Hell, I could do better than THAT!" ? I was astounded.

As I thought about this, I had to wonder if we are, as a nation, that thoroughly screwed, that no one of consequence in the Democratic party wants the job? Further, no one of consequence in the Democratic party seems to think they can do a better job? No one has stepped forward; leaving Mr Obama in the position of a small town mayor who is re-elected term after term because the city council pats him on the back and says, 'Na Jerry, you're doing fine, you have the time, and really, we're too busy for all the day to day stuff, so we're backing you again."

With all the scrutinizing of the republican candidates in this year's election, I think we've missed an important question. If the Democrats are satisfied to run only one candidate, can it be inferred the party line is 'all's well'? Does it imply the party is content with the gridlock of the last months and years, and agree it's for the best? That that condition best serves the interest of our country and our people? Lots of talk from both sides but no action is how a successful country should be run? Or, have they thrown up their hands in dismay, and we, the people, have missed that display of disgust because we've all been so focused on who the Republicans are running?

I am admittedly not 178 yrs old, and I don't have every presidential election and the details committed to memory, however, I don't remember such a lop-sided presidential election year. You all feel free to correct me, 'cause we all know ya will. It's the GB, afterall.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Seriously? You don't know that the incumbent President is the leader of the party and the presumptive nominee for his second term? This is the first time this has occurred to you?

 

[Bidin~Time]

Seriously? You don't know that the incumbent President is the leader of the party and the presumptive nominee for his second term? This is the first time this has occurred to you?

I didn't say that, though, I can see where you would think that. What I'm saying is even when the incumbent is up for re-election I don't remember there NOT being someone within the same party declaring candidacy as well in the primaries. But, Randall Terry? on the ballot in only 5 states? really?

So help me out here sensei.

 

[Lord_Steve]

It's March and the primaries are in a little over 2 months. And Perg's thread got me to wondering who my candidate choices will be come May. In the state of WV, in the primaries, you can only vote for a candidate running on the ticket of the party to which you are registered. In my case that would be the Democratic ticket.

I don't claim to be a political activist, but I do feel it's prudent to at least know who your choices are before you enter the polling booth; so, I began looking for a list of Democratic presidential candidates only to discover there aren't any. Really? Obama is running unopposed in the primaries? In all of D.C.(and the rest of the U.S.), there is not the first political ego in the democratic party who looked out and thought, "oh Hell, I could do better than THAT!" ? I was astounded.

As I thought about this, I had to wonder if we are, as a nation, that thoroughly screwed, that no one of consequence in the Democratic party wants the job? Further, no one of consequence in the Democratic party seems to think they can do a better job? No one has stepped forward; leaving Mr Obama in the position of a small town mayor who is re-elected term after term because the city council pats him on the back and says, 'Na Jerry, you're doing fine, you have the time, and really, we're too busy for all the day to day stuff, so we're backing you again."

With all the scrutinizing of the republican candidates in this year's election, I think we've missed an important question. If the Democrats are satisfied to run only one candidate, can it be inferred the party line is 'all's well'? Does it imply the party is content with the gridlock of the last months and years, and agree it's for the best? That that condition best serves the interest of our country and our people? Lots of talk from both sides but no action is how a successful country should be run? Or, have they thrown up their hands in dismay, and we, the people, have missed that display of disgust because we've all been so focused on who the Republicans are running?

I am admittedly not 178 yrs old, and I don't have every presidential election and the details committed to memory, however, I don't remember such a lop-sided presidential election year. You all feel free to correct me, 'cause we all know ya will. It's the GB, afterall.

are you... seriously wondering why the democrats aren't running a candidate against their own incumbent guy?

according to good ol' wikipedia that hasn't happened since 1980

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

What I'm saying is even when the incumbent is up for re-election I don't remember there NOT being someone within the same party declaring candidacy as well in the primaries.

Name one.

A serious one.

 

[Wok]

Name one.

A serious one.

IIRC, Ford?

 

[rosco rathbone]

It's March and the primaries are in a little over 2 months. And Perg's thread got me to wondering who my candidate choices will be come May. In the state of WV, in the primaries, you can only vote for a candidate running on the ticket of the party to which you are registered. In my case that would be the Democratic ticket.

I don't claim to be a political activist, but I do feel it's prudent to at least know who your choices are before you enter the polling booth; so, I began looking for a list of Democratic presidential candidates only to discover there aren't any. Really? Obama is running unopposed in the primaries? In all of D.C.(and the rest of the U.S.), there is not the first political ego in the democratic party who looked out and thought, "oh Hell, I could do better than THAT!" ? I was astounded.

As I thought about this, I had to wonder if we are, as a nation, that thoroughly screwed, that no one of consequence in the Democratic party wants the job? Further, no one of consequence in the Democratic party seems to think they can do a better job? No one has stepped forward; leaving Mr Obama in the position of a small town mayor who is re-elected term after term because the city council pats him on the back and says, 'Na Jerry, you're doing fine, you have the time, and really, we're too busy for all the day to day stuff, so we're backing you again."

With all the scrutinizing of the republican candidates in this year's election, I think we've missed an important question. If the Democrats are satisfied to run only one candidate, can it be inferred the party line is 'all's well'? Does it imply the party is content with the gridlock of the last months and years, and agree it's for the best? That that condition best serves the interest of our country and our people? Lots of talk from both sides but no action is how a successful country should be run? Or, have they thrown up their hands in dismay, and we, the people, have missed that display of disgust because we've all been so focused on who the Republicans are running?

I am admittedly not 178 yrs old, and I don't have every presidential election and the details committed to memory, however, I don't remember such a lop-sided presidential election year. You all feel free to correct me, 'cause we all know ya will. It's the GB, afterall.

Obama's popularity ratings are about double what Carter's were when Kennedy challenged him in 1980.

 

[Wrong Element]

I am admittedly not 178 yrs old, and I don't have every presidential election and the details committed to memory, however, I don't remember such a lop-sided presidential election year. You all feel free to correct me, 'cause we all know ya will. It's the GB, afterall.

It's only been 8 years since the last time a president ran for re-election, and surely you remember than no one challenged Bush that year.

Incumbent presidents simply don't get significant challengers unless they are wildly unpopular, or unless they have done something specific to piss off an identifiable wing of the party.

I did think Obama would get a primary challenge on his left, because that's sort of what Democrats do, and I think he could have used one. Didn't happen, though.

 

[Liar]

I
I don't claim to be a political activist, but I do feel it's prudent to at least know who your choices are before you enter the polling booth; so, I began looking for a list of Democratic presidential candidates only to discover there aren't any. Really? Obama is running unopposed in the primaries? In all of D.C.(and the rest of the U.S.), there is not the first political ego in the democratic party who looked out and thought, "oh Hell, I could do better than THAT!" ? I was astounded.

Uh... I rechkon some whould think they would be better at the job than he is. But that's not the point. Anyone who thought it also thought "What would the outcome of a primary challenge be?"

Only two things: He'd lose to he President, and weaken the Democrats from state races to the White House coming in to the general election.

No Dem worth a damn was that dumb.