Does anyone here actually believe that Obama would lose to a Primary challenger?

Does anyone actually believe that a Primary challenger from the left would force Obama to move left? Does anyone believe that even if his rhetoric moved left his actions would?

I just don't see the point. And I'm not sure I can even bring myself to vote for Obama again.

make the question relevant.

... the choice was between Obama and Romney, or Perry, or Bachmann? Really?

I wonder what aquart thinks.

though about Scott Brown.

would convince Obama not to run again. The far right has always hated his guts and he's alienated too many on the left. It's only low-information voters who don't pay much attention to politics who would vote for him. Could he win that way? Maybe. In an actual three-way race against a strong challenger from the left? Who knows?

... I also don't think the President's odds for prevailing in the general election diminish with each capitulation to the GOP. So, I'm not sure where that leaves us ...

I don't think that President Obama would lose the primaries. But he definitely risks losing the interestr and support of a segment of the Democratic Party at this time. I think that some primary debate/contest would be good for the Party.

a rift in the party. A challenger would be supported by white liberals and Obama would be supported by black Democrats, at least some of whom are rather conservative. If, by some chance, Obama lost the primaries, I think that black voters would sit out the election, thus making the new nominee's chances that much slimmer.

This is the time to start to get focused on keeping our democratic president, keeping the senate and pushing back in the House ...

Amazingly, half of democratic underground is focused on ...

Taking down the Democratic president ...

on preserving the Democratic platform. It just so happens that the "democratic" POTUS isn't interested in the same thing so therein lies the conflict.

to wake Obama up and to do the business of why we elected him!

A primary challenge is the appropriate way to be heard. It will not threaten a Democratic win as a 3rd party general election challenge would.

The axiom still holds true: Given the choice between a Republican and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, people will choose the Republican.

Hinges on as yet unknown variables: who the opponent is, how well financed, etc. As well as how bad the economy is, etc.

Will it force him to move left? Probably.


Actions? I'm hoping the primary challenge will KO him so that's a non-starter question w. me. Probably "no", if I MUST answer.

No point? It's the ONLY point. Why even bother having elections?

The only value I could see in a primary challenge is the hope that if it was a credible primary challenge - perhaps able to either win or come close or capture at least 40% of the vote in at least a few primaries - there might be a chance to articulate the progressive/populist left position on issues with the hope that the range of acceptable political discussion could be broadened. There is such an assumption by the political establishment and by the mainstream media that New Deal/Great Society liberalism is already dead and buried. It is assumed that what passes for rational discussion in mainstream political debate that positions such as single-payer universal health care, or significantly extending the economic safety net or fundamentally changing America's foreign policy are only the ravings of the out-of-touch with reality - left-wing fringe. Perhaps it could be argued that a primary campaign led by a credible progressive might broaden the range of discussion and influence public policy in the long term and perhaps even lay the foundations for a progressive movement that may eventually take power - not in November 2012 - but on some future bright November morning.

But if someone wants to waste money, have at it. There's one born every minute.

Obama will be the only thing standing between the us and insanity (that is, the destructive RWNJ teabagger agenda).

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

but do believe it will be successful and force him to retire.

I think the working class who pay attention will be so thrilled to have a real dem running, and defending them, it will more than make up for some who sit out, many of whom were not regular voters in the first place, and did not actually pay attention to current events.

Generally when there is a strong primary challenge of the incumbant the general election goes to the other party. As I have asked in the past, When has this ever worked? I have yet to get an answer.

since both the challenge and the general election loss maybe an indication of basic lack of popularity.

It a suicide mission, threatening us with a Republican president in 2012.

see above.

The carter/kennedy narrative is pure revisionism. Carter lost because of the Iran hostage crisis.

"I think the working class who pay attention will be so thrilled to have a real dem running, and defending them, it will more than make up for some who sit out, many of whom were not regular voters in the first place, and did not actually pay attention to current events. "

Working class Dems (by and large) do not defend the Democratic party as much as other groups within the party. They are, by and large, economic liberals and social conservatives (at least compared to other Democrats) and they will not be "thrilled" to have what you call a "real Dem" running. They are happy with Obama.

and the polls show working class voters are more unhappy with him than most, you do not make sense.

Carter lost because of Iran, the helicopters that crashed trying to rescue hostages, the deal Reagan cut with the kidnapers of the US Embassy employees, and of course the rampant inflation (17% or so) during the last year of his Presidency.

Can you stand another republican president? I hope you don't have kids.

..and that is to appear "moderate" and "centrist". It would have the opposite effect that we all would like. Instead of moving left he'd yammer on in his oh so reasonable tones about how he's taking on the special interests of both parties and isn't beholden to extremists (this being after he's given extremists on the other side almost everything they've asked for) and that we've got to get beyond our hard line ideology.

So I'm the same way. I'm not sure I can bring myself to vote for him again. But I don't think a primary challenger would do shit to make him move to the left. Nothing could do that.

.... he would.

Some of you are living in lala land

I remember how surprised I was that Bill Clinton came from the bottom of the heap in '92. Many of us share the opinion about how the Republicans are completely owned by the wealthy, and the Dems are following that direction. We don't really know if that's a common theme among the rest of us who don't like our rightward drift, and a primary will bring that out if it is strong enough.

and isn't really relevant here - there had to be a new Democrat chosen, and it ended up being Clinton. Primarying Obama would mean running against a sitting, still relatively popular Democrat who is also one of the best campaigners in the US now. I can't see that anyone would have a chance of success.

ultimate politician. But that's not making things any better for our population, except the millionaires and billionaires. And I'm really not that confident he can get the younger people and minorities to turn out like before. So, a test of that strength would be a good thing.

where reality does not apply. There anything can happen if you really wish and want it to happen.

If anyone truly believes that primarying Obama would move him to the left, and they also believe he has broken past promises, then why would they be stupid enough to think that he wouldn't just tell them what they wanted to hear again in order to get their votes? :bounce:

After all, DU had Kucinich nominated and elected president, and we all know everything posted here always becomes the absolute truth!

Like the one about every poster here being what they say they are.

since it is not restricted by reality.

If those who believe that Obama told us and promised us what was needed to get our votes and support, why wouldn't he do it again if he gets a primary opponent?

That's just the way it is.

either. (Fact is, LBJ did not 'lose' to Gene McCarthy in New Hampshire - LBJ eked out a narrow win. But McCarthy made it close enough that LBJ could read the writing on the wall.)

I always have maintained that if Russ Feingold made a serious effort, he could give Obama a serious run for his money. However, Feingold has disavowed any intention of running for Prez in 2012.

He had his speechwriters draft a version of the '68 State of the Union address, concluding with the announcement that he wouldn't run, two months before the New Hampshire primary.

All the polls at that time showed him trouncing McCarthy, so fear of losing had little effect on his decision to not seek reelection.

He walked away from a second full term because he was convinced he was going to die in office and because he wanted to find a way to conclude the war, which he didn't think was possible while running a campaign.

historians consider to be the process by which LBJ decided not to run for re-election. I have never read that LBJ's fear of death during a second term is what caused him to bow out. Do you have a source for that assertion? I'd love to read it to flesh out my understanding.

Lincoln had drafted the Emancipation Proclamation long before Antietam, but placed it in a desk drawer until such time as the Union could claim to have won a victory, at which point it was signed and became effective.

In like fashion, LBJ waited until after the results of New Hampshire primary were in and McCarthy was nipping at his heels, to announce that he would not run in '68. Again, LBJ did 'win' New Hampshire but the pallid endorsement he received from New Hampshire Dems convinced him he would have trouble prevailing in the General Election.

It may well be revisionism on his part, but he was in a position that few others were to evaluate the president's thinking on this.

Found a link here:

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/30/opinion/op-jones30

my understanding of the sequence of events.

I had never even heard of this guy James R. Jones before, so this account is entirely new to me. Before this, I had heard or read Bill Moyers' account about how LBJ let slip his intentions not to run rather obliquely to Moyers, prior to announcing it to the nation at large.. Moyers' account made it seem like it was all about Vietnam and McCarthy's challenge having done better than would normally have been expected. Moyers' interpretation is also supported by, IIRC, William Manchester's account in "The Glory and the Dream," among others.

Needless to say, I had no idea that LBJ had been so torn with indecisiona about whether to run again even before New Hampshire '68.

Again, thanks so much for this. Bookmarking your link for further study.

:hi:

to even his base.

It is a way to gain an easy attack line on someone who isn't that easy to attack.

Only "Nader supporter types" and RWers want to see a primary challenge in 2012.

it would do far more harm than good. It would divide the Democratic Party and virtually ensure a Teabagger White House, Congress, and Supreme Court (7-2 in favor of Repubs).

I support the president, and feel he's done a lot of good and is the most progressive president in decades, but in certain regards he has let me down. But, the idea of primarying him would do far more harm than good. The president is limited by Congress. We should focus on getting liberals to Congress in 2012, so the president can be able to sign more liberal legislation.

does not reflect how popular he still is with his base...despite the constant Obama bashing threads here, he enjoys wide support elsewhere

than is offered by neocons, neolibs, theocrats, corporatist, free traders, bankers, speculators, and greedy assholes of all strips.

Also, to avoid rubber stamping an entire direction in the name of scoring points in a game.

I think Obama is going down regardless of a primary challenge. Republicans have had, and will have, a field day with him. He's alienated too many voting blocks he needs to counteract that. While many will suck it up and vote for the lesser evil, there won't be the campaign $$, (at least from voters,) energy, or dedicated volunteerism that got him elected the first time.

Still, a challenge from the left might serve notice to other elected Democrats, and to the party as a whole, that dumping traditional constituencies has consequences.

It undermines democracy when they don't. Many times, politicians become entrenched in their positions (especially in the Senate) and people stop paying attention and pull the lever for the same person without thinking. Primary challenges encourage discourse. So, they are always a good things regardless of the results.

So while I don't see any primary contender set to go and kick his ass in the primaries, I think that it would behoove the party to have alternatives to Obama ready to go. And the reason for this is that Obama's presidency has run aground due to his attempts to try to find a "reasonable" middle ground with a bunch of loony teabaggers. He's tried to negotiate with them in good faith and they've eaten his lunch and now he no longer has any leverage and the economy is tanking again. 5 months from now it might be necessary for us to have someone else ready to go as nominee because we cannot afford to have a whole term of lame duck presidency. For this reason I hope there is at least one challenger.

as well as other candidates down ticket. Primary challenges against incumbents would become SOP and we very well could lose even some dem leaning seats to faux Democrats.
The damage done by blue dogs would be nothing compared to the disaster some actual impostors could do.

instead of someone who stabs me in the back every chance he gets, sells the constituencies of his own party out to corporate patrons and calls it reform, and most ably represents the views of the other party while stubbornly refusing to champion Democratic values.

And if I can't get that chance in the general, I'd like at least to have the chance during the primary season. Otherwise I'm not getting any meaningful vote at all. Trick me the first time with a Trojan horse candidate, deny me any say whatever four years later, and I'm liable to start viewing the Democratic Party itself as the real problem.

And I agree that there would no reason to believe Obama if he changed his tune during a primary season. He knows what he's doing, and he'll go right back to it as soon as he doesn't have to listen to Democratic voters anymore.

history is kidding themselves

Ask LBJ how still 'winning NH' worked out for him

prepare for 20....whatever.

And I'm gonna sleep fine after voting for him--especially knowing that I've averted more calamity by keeping a guy who's still sane at the helm.

In fact, lots of people here do. But I'm not one of them :-)

Someone NEEDS to challenge Obama's right of center actions, and force him to take a position adhering to Democratic Principles, IN PUBLIC!

America doe'snt need a fucking "blank slate". We need a leader with an actual CONVICTION. I want to hear whether Obama believes in ANYTHING!
!!
If he does'nt believe in anything progressive, he will kiss my vote goodbye.

the same starry-eyed idiots who foisted Obama on us will no doubt provide us the next one

Obama was elected to a 4-year term, not an 8-year one. Personally, I'd rather reaffirm that he's the best choice we have to put out there to represent what we want our Party to be.

now.