Who out there sees the DETRIMENT to Dems of a serious progressive presidential primary challenge?

It would increase interest in a moribund campaign, THE REPUBLICANS moribund campaign, and since CITIZENS UNITED, would aid to obliterate the issues we progressives strive to keep in the limelight -- eg, how 1% of top income earners have increased their share of the pie from 9% in 1979 to about 1/4 and rising today?

(That's trillions extra per year to a tiny group that were fine in 79 and could pay off Medicare, Social Sec, eco-industrialization, state and local budgets etc)

These issues will be swept under the rug for sure, if real progressives weaken this President with a primary challenge.

Besides that, why do the %^&(*^&^%#@!! work for them? We should work for a more progressive and better backboned Congress, and anyone really serious about legislative victory damn well knows it.

History shows us that very scenario!

K&R.

I did not support Obama in the primary until he was the nominee. Also, I was born during the day. It wasn't yesterday.

Geeez these people. I come here to escape that bullshit, not pile it on.

And I don't such a person exists right now. It would have to be some one "credible", and someone who would "pull" to the left without "breaking" the party. And really, in the end, it would probably have to be someone who ends up actually losing, and really by about March. Leaves plenty of time to restore Obama's candidacy.

I can't think of a single person who fits that bill. Dean is the closest, and he has said repeatedly he ain't gonna do it.

But as I say, it'd have to be the "perfect" candidate. The party can be bent without breaking. Which is why the candidate would have to be seen as pulling the party left, not fracturing the party in two. And it'd all have to be over in March so that the party could "regroup". Hillary and Obama went at it hard and still won in November, it can be done.

And what about the detriment to Dems if Obama pushes the worst of the cuts and is then the candidate in 2012? Among other things, it means a president would be elected next year without my vote.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Howard Dean: Obama primary challenge would be ‘a bad thing for the country’ (December 2010)


Not sure when Howard Dean, who supports the Libya mission because lives are being saved, charter schools and Medicaid block granting, became a "progressive luminary," but he doesn't support a primary challenge.

...'round DU.

K&R for logic!

Why do their work for them?

day and all of those arms they delivered.

Perhaps *you* should remember that before you go and make those *&&%$$#$#*)'s job easier for them.

or would you rather throw them all out on their asses and replace them with progressive firebrands?

Do you like the Party as it is or as you would have it be?

Not finger-wagging oligarchs who push through unwanted cuts to Social Security or Medicare on an "emergency" basis. They are putting together fundamental changes to bedrock social programs within a couple of WEEKS, in closed-door meetings from which the American people are excluded. And when they emerge, what they decide will be passed on an "emergency" basis without any input from the people whose lives will be affected in very painful ways.

Democrats who value the principles that have always defined this party are rightfully appalled by this whole stinking process. Yes, I am aghast at the attempts to defend this Trojan horse President and his Republican agenda.

Ask yourself, if you don't even respect the Democrats in office, do you really support the Party?
Or would you rather just supplant the Party as it exists with something else?

Notice how many of your sentences start this way? It is a cheap, third grade arguing technique. I explained what I meant very clearly, and if you are incapable of comprehending, that is your deficiency and not mine.

Keep trying to appeal to blind party loyalty. I grew up being taught that a party is supposed to stand for something. I expect my representatives to reflect the values that led me to choose the party I selected. When they stop doing that, I will let them know that they are on notice. Party loyalty only goes so far. Ask any German.

This conversation is a waste of time, obviously.

If the atmosphere is favorable to electing a Dem, then no one could remotely challenge this President. If the atmosphere allows a challenge of any sort to be taken seriously, then the Dem will lose in the general.

There is no prize worth the effort to obtain it. As a challenger, if you are bright enough to run the country, you have to know that the better your chances of challenging are, the less likely winning the general becomes. Politics works like that.

...your theorem holds true. Otherwise, all bets are off.

If the President becomes so unpopular that a challenge becomes viable, the Democratic Party brand goes down the tubes with it. At that point, going to battle to unseat a very well funded incumbent to get access to the Dem Party ballot line is worse than pointless, it would be a waste of resources.

If you were serious, really serious about becoming President under this scenario, where the President has become sufficiently unpopular to be truly challenged from the left (not a vanity challenge), then you would be better off using your resources to gain ballot access in all 50 states under a different party line. Wasting funds taking on a near billion dollar war chest and likely losing anyway, serves no purpose. Get on the ballot and keep whatever funds you can gather for the general...

The Congress is where the power lies. You can see it plainly with the way they have hamstrung President Obama at every turn.

...in which case we all bets are off.

It's an ego trip, not a good political move, and it might elect a Repuglican president in 2012.

In which case it becomes necessary. If Obama cuts Medicare/Medicaid or Social Security, Democrats will abandon him in droves and any hope of reelection will go down the drain.

I don't think so.

Obama will get just as many Democratic votes as any Democratic challenger... whom else would they vote for? The Republican????

But the challenger would lose out a significant number of independents, who usually decide the election.

It will be necessary to primary him, otherwise we lose the general election.

Nothing would favor the republican more than a primary challenge.

Ever heard of Kennedy's challenge of Carter in 1980? What did we get? Ronald Reagan.

Carter got a primary challenger because he was perceived as very weak, and in danger of losing the general election. He did lose the general election, despite winning the primary.

He got a "credible" challenger, because it was the party LEADERS that perceived him as weak.

You get a weak challenger because there is a significant portion of the population (determined mostly by polling) that has an unfavorable view of you. Many of them may be independents, libertarians, or hard leftists that often vote for candidates other than democrats.

A "useful" challenger in this situation would be someone who was running in order to move onto the national stage. Someone who probably has no real hope of defeating Obama. He'd be running predominately to set up his candidacy for 2016. He would ALSO be attempting to appeal to fairly consistent democratic voters. He has his eye on a future race where he will be seeking their votes again and doesn't want to be seen as the guy that "wrecked" the party.

And he'd be done by March.

Typically this would be some sort of govenor. I can't think of one right now that would fit that bill. Brown has sorta "been there done that". Ditto for Dean, who has also stated he won't do it. And these two really don't need to move onto the national stage, they're already there. Many other democrats in this position would actually be to the RIGHT of Obama in many ways. They wouldn't be running from the left at all. By the time the dust settles in Wisconsin, it will be too late. But it is that kind of political environment in which someone to the left of Obama could rise and move out onto the national stage, and pull the party back to the left (there's alot of room over there). Someone who makes their initial political career fighting for unions, or the middle class. And that kind of run, even a "losing" one, is how they could move out onto the national stage.

Kennedy's opportunism was the reason he ran against Carter. Look it up.

You can't define a trend from a single data point.

And you might want to study the logical fallacy of "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" as well, since we're "checking" and all.

You also might want to discuss the subject with Carter, who said Kennedy had nothing to do with his loss.

You also might want to consider that there was no "opportunism" in Kennedy, but in fact he was responding to the real calls from the party leaders to "step up" and try to save the party from what was seen as a "sure loser". He was one of the most "reluctant" candidates in history.

As you say, "look it up".

Its always harmed, and never helped.

Sorry.