I, too, kind of wish that these revelations had taken place before the elections. Not that politicians promises mean anything, but a positive rhetoric is often the first step towards positive change.

I don't think that Obama should be impeached over this, though. These spying programs were started under the Bush White House, for one, and beyond that I don't think that impeachment is an appropriate response to this issue. The constant looming threat of privacy breaches is not something that can be corrected by assigning blame. Rather, we need broad laws to protect American citizens and corporations from being treated as potential terrorists.

> Too bad this didn't happen before the elections happened. Not that I wanted Romney to win, but at the very least it would've forced the Democratic party to offer some candidates, too, and with any luck, actual changes to NSA spying would've arrived earlier, if it would've been a major issue during the campaign, when everyone is watching the debates.

As a non-American, I don't see why the Republicans wouldn't do their best to pretend mass surveillance wasn't a problem, considering that they started it in the first place.

Is there precedent for a party to put up a different choice in the primary when there's a reigning incumbent?

I don't know the answer, but I'd be surprised if the party would do so. I think had they, it would guarantee a failed election.

It has happened four times (Franklin Pierce, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, and Chester A. Arthur), but three of them weren't elected president in the first place (got there via deaths) and all of them happened before party primaries were decided by voters.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Has_an_incumbent_president_ever_lo...

> Is there precedent for a party to put up a different choice in the primary when there's a reigning incumbent?

The parties elect their candidates in a primary before putting them on the ballot in the general election. But parties don't like primaries: You have two of your own candidates saying bad things about each other in public, taking specific stances necessary to win a primary that may be disadvantageous in the general election, and using campaign money that could otherwise have been used against the other party in the general election.

So the result is that if the incumbent wants to run again, generally no one from the same party will be willing to mount a primary challenge, and anyone who does will raise the ire of other party members for causing trouble and wasting money. Hence the absurdly high incumbency rate.

That's exactly what I would have expected, which is why, I suppose, that it hasn't ever happened since primary voting became open to full registered party members.

Joe Lieberman lost the Democratic Party's support in his 2006 senatorial race by not being a Democrat. He ran as an independent and won.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman#2006_Senate_elect...