Which Democrat would you want to see run against Obama in 2012

Dean? then who...?

Dennis Kucinich too.

No more corporatists.

If the Democratic party will not support it's base then we have to find someone who will.

he collapsed at a speech a couple of years ago and he has no desire to run.

More seriously, I just don't see anyone with a snowball's chance of defeating him, at this point.

On edit, yes, Sanders, as the previous poster stated.

The Rightwing Koch Bros. Funded the DLC --

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

If you knew, why didn't you tell us?

If you didn't know, pass it along!

:)

republican or worse yet a t-partier in office.

didn't it?

An event which more than likely was set up and controlled by Nixon's

plumbers to ensure that Ted could never run for the presidency ...

Considerable evidence of that, in fact -- !!

You're expecting blind and total allegiance to a leader you consider indispensable.

Ain't happening, so get used to it.

Obama will paint the REps as crazy and going to far too fast. The state cuts will be kicking in and prices will be up. A republican winning will mean things are really bad. The election should be clear cut. Obama has to come out to eliminate the tax cuts. If he wavers on that he is finished. It is all about the independents and moderate Republicans. Democrats hardly matter.

If Sarah Palin got elected we'd have that now mythical "change we can believe in" real quick.

The storming of the Bastille would look like a Saturday at the mall compared to what roving bipartisan bands of starving, furious, outraged citizens would do to DC to get to Palin and put her on trial for treason and crimes against humanity.
:P

for it.

well except maybe few of the worst of course.. baccus, feinstein ect. but at this point maybe even them

He could weaken Obama, pushing him to the left (not a bad thing), and then depressing the activist base when he failed to topple Obama. I mean it'd be hard to support Obama after campaigning for "Liberal Lion."

Bryant

Ike had a lot of good things to say about Social Security and didn't want to cut it.

Bring back the marginal tax rates with him..

Obama for it not happening.

No one you can name, from the left, or the right.

pre-owned by corporations --





The Rightwing Koch Bros. Funded the DLC --

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

If you knew, why didn't you tell us?

If you didn't know, pass it along!

:)

will never vote for him. Those who voted for him in 2008 will stay home, I'm afraid

Stupid ass question

If DU is "here" ... then you might be correct.

Outside DU, well, not so much.

party unity and widespread support for all Democratic candidates, from local and state to national. We need to take back control of every legislative body in the country. President Obama enjoys broad support. Let's look at all the other races to be run in 2012 and work together to undo 2010 and make further gains.

Change I can believe in ~ Let's primary him with someone who wont beat him and wont win the Presidency. Brilliant!'

Good Luck, My Friend. :D

I don't rely on luck. I work to get Democrats to the polls. 60% turnout in my precinct in 2010, with a 60% vote for Democrats on the ballot. Activism on the individual, neighborhood level works. It's that simple.

Anyone who is actually from what the late Paul Wellstone called the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party. I will NOT vote for this corporate sheep in sheep's clothing again in the general no matter what.

I want the primaries to be a place for us to be able to vote our preferences and let the party know how we feel. I'd like to see ultra-far left to DINOs. We can all let our voices be heard before the general election and Obama and the party can create a general campaign around what we want. Without a real primary competitor we don't get to vote our preference and the party doesn't know our feelings. I don't like that as a general policy and I really don't like it when many people may decide they'll let the party know their feelings in the general election since they didn't get to in the primary.

I'm going to focus on replacing Republicans with Democrats, not on bringing down one of the few people who actually IS on our side. Obama is far from perfect, but we're seeing in Wisconsin (and Ohio, and Michigan, and...) what the alternatives could be.

Or maybe Joe Lieberman

;)

We'd damned well better stick together. There are a couple of people I might consider voting for in the primary, but WHOEVER the party nominates is getting my full support in November. We can't survive another Publican in the White House.

I know many are mad at Obama...but he will be our cndidate and unless we want a republicn in the WH we best get on the Obama band wagon.....

maybe you should do a little reading.

Watch a little Fox.

A couple of the local radio talking heads were running down the list a few days ago comparing Obama's positions since he's been in office with Romney's positions (both those he held in office, and those he stated on the campaign trail). The two were strikingly similar. Everything from entitlement reductions, to tax breaks for the rich, to their positions on Guantanamo and the wars are functionally the same. Heck, Obama even used Romneycare as his model for health care reform.

They pointed out, correctly IMHO, that Obama would be in great danger if he were to square off against Romney again in 2012, because Romney could simply run with the slogan, "Same Platform, Half The Conflict!" That would be a huge appeal to the moderates, as they generally approve of the way Obama is running things, but tend to vote for people who will get along with each other. We would also have to overcome a huge perception problem, because everyone from CNN to the RNC consistently call him a "moderate Republican", and Faux has gone even further and calls him a "liberal Republican" from time to time. From the perception of the mainstream-news-consuming-average-American, the choice will be between two moderates, and it will be a hard fight to overcome that perception. Even worse, a lot of Democrats will simply stay home if that's the choice.

In a way, we almost NEED the Republicans to nominate a teabagger, because that's what it will take to get the Democratic base fired up, and to keep the moderates from switching sides.

will probably write in my vote for somebody good. Not playing the whole "binary" game that the DLC and the corporatists use to swindle us out of our rights and wealth.

the strategy is just that. Keep Obama cause anything will be worse. That may work but the realities on the ground may force some changes. More important may be the House and Senate being Democrat. Things are not going to stay the same, one way or another. There is going to a shift in direction. Probably a few in the coming years

might be nice.

:shrug: I think we are stuck with Republican Policy for at least the next six years...

will be campaigning in the next cycle.

Republicans.

You can help Republicans win in 2012 by undermining Obama's reelection and, yeah, that would be a much bigger assist to Republicans then Obama.

Let's remember 2010 - Hey, who cares if Republicans win the Governorships and state legislatures, it can't be any worse then the Democrats. Teach those Democrats a lesson. Oh, really, we see how minor a change that can be in Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio.

That is the same as - hey, how can a Republican winning be any worse then Obama. Really. How delusional can people be. I can not believe people are out pushing this crap.

Third Way and traditional are too far apart to create consensus. This renders the party weak against the onslaught from the right.

other than Obama then that name gets my vote.

I have been disabused of Obama's change. I am still waiting for some change I can believe in from WDC.

...switch parties.

are you suggesting that being less than delighted with Obama and wanting a Dem alternative in a Dem primary makes me a troll or a Repuke? That is certainly the impression I get from your commentary.

What a small little world you live in. Welcome to my frickin ignore list.

It was just a suggestion. I'm so crushed you've put me on "ignore". To get you back I'm closing my eyes and sticking my fingers in my ears and..."LALALALALALALALA!!! I can't HEAR you or SEE you!!!"

:P

never discussed the mechanics of open primaries......

I have a driver's license in a state where I can show up at the poll where I am registered to vote and request a primary ballot from either political party - without being a registered member of either party.

That said, I am registered as a member of the Democratic Party. I've never failed to vote in a Dem primary.

However, even in that case, why change parties? Is Obama the Democratic Party? That was my point.

I am a Dem.

That does not mean that I have to be delighted with Obama.

That does not mean that I cannot hope for another Dem to successfully chanllenge him in the Dem primaries.

Doing so does not make me any less a Dem.

It's the only option we have to drag him left, really.

because he'd lose and we could put the rest the notion that there are all these people who are aching to vote for him (until people started blaming the media for his loss).

:rofl:

:applause:

Al Gore would not have ignored the PDB.


Iraq and Afghan wars might have been prevented.

Except more so.

Duh.

If Nader posed no threat, Gore should have won handily by charming all the Dems and Moderates into voting for him and dismissed the left.

Oh, wait, he did dismiss the left.

DLC leadership -- and cut his populist messages --

but don't trust Gore anymore than I would trust Lieberman!!





The Rightwing Koch Bros. Funded the DLC --

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

If you knew, why didn't you tell us?

If you didn't know, pass it along!

:)

to a 3rd party.


This is not really difficult to understand.

If he failed to get their votes, whose fault is that?

:shrug:

If, as the "practical" folks say, the left is merely a fringe, then all he would have had to do was ignore the left (as he did) and pursue the legendary middle that "wins" elections (which he did). But...he lost.

Perhaps, there is something wrong with the formula?

It is very, very simple. Divide and conquer!

He didn't. And, he can't whine about not getting their votes because he didn't.

It's very, very, simple. If you want votes you have to convince people to vote for you.

Or at least 538 of them.

He certainly did court them.

Where even though folks are registered as Democrats (for local elections) they vote Republican in national elections.

Look at "Democratic" West Virginia. When was the last time we got that one? '96?

You can't have it both ways. You need the votes then you have to go after them. Not ignore them. The Democrats want the votes of the left they have to take leftist positions...and stick to them. Rather than whine about the left not voting for them try to figure out a way to win their votes. Clue: "Not as bad" doesn't cut it.

That most resembles your views. You don't punt.

I vote for the best candidate on the ballot..or write one in. I have the archaic notion that my vote is mine and not to be wasted on candidates I disagree with on issues I hold to be important.

BTW I voted for Gore. Obama was a different matter.

:shrug:

And would have won the State if not for teh stupid.

Yet you ask, "Does it matter?" :shrug: Ooooookay.

Than the flawed LePore ballot.

So would trying to bring Nader into the fold rather than shutting him out.
So would pursuing election/ballot discrepancies, rather than simply paying lip service.
So would campaigning for the repeal of NAFTA.
So would choosing someone (anyone!) other than Lieberman as a running mate.
So would running a more youth-friendly campaign.

Yet you want to place the lion's share of the blame on a third party candidate and a few celebrities?

:shrug:

And as we all know, Election Day can only occur on one day, so the whole ballot thing would not have mattered.

Please clarify? :shrug:

Buchanan received 3,407 votes in PB county. That's 0.8% compared to his state-wide 0.29% showing. Even Buchanan himself admits that "95-98%" of those votes were meant for Gore.

Resolving even 20% of that idiocy would have put us over the finish line.

If your point was that if it had been designed better then we would have won for sure, you are correct.

Sadly--just like the massive (almost 100k!) voter disenfranchisement efforts against African-American voters in Florida--both Gore and the national party were disinclined to pursue these avenues.

Yet you want to place blame solely on Nader and a couple of celebrities? :shrug:

Again, 500 votes lost to Nader shouldn't have mattered, and they needn't have mattered if Dems had bothered to fight back hard against these very real vote-stealing/vote-canceling efforts.

That is the Constitution. A "re-vote" would have been illegal and wrong.

Manual recounts were underway--and would have resulted in victory--but were suspended thanks to SCOTUS. Why blame Nader more than SCOTUS?

:shrug:

But if you're focusing on pre-election activities rather than post-voting ones, I point again to the massive (and massively successful :( ) AA disenfranchisement practiced under the watchful eye of Katherine Harris. The national party could have fought that disenfranchisement (and/or Harris' obvious conflicts of interest as both SoS and Bush campaigner) before the election, but didn't bother to put serious weight behind that effort.

Again, when you're talking about 100k votes vs. 500 votes, I think the former is a better place to look if you want to place blame.

An individual or 538 of them could control their ballots, Harris' scrub lists could not directly be controlled by the individual (or not in time to matter).

But I certainly wouldn't have felt so empowered in a swing state. :scared: I thought the risk of Gore losing CA was so low that my vote was better spent helping the Greens get closer to 5%--and even then, I waited until late in the day to vote, after watching early exit polls.

So I agree that individual voters need to weigh their choices against the common good, but I still think it was Gore's election to lose.

of citizens/voters -- !!

Did you happen to ever read the platform that Nader ran on in 2000!!

I was crying while I was reading it --

What we need most of all in the White House and all thru government is a humanist!!

A whole bunch of them!!

I'll take Bernie Sanders -- he's a better dem than most Dems!! And he could run on

a Dem ticket.

How about Tom Hayden for VP -- we need two strong anti-war candidates!!

My conscience will not permit me to vote for Obama this time around!!



The Rightwing Koch Bros. Funded the DLC --

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

If you knew, why didn't you tell us?

If you didn't know, pass it along!

:)

supported lifelong by the oil industry -- ???

Would have been a better President than Bush?

pushed into war if they had succeeded in pulling off 9/11 -- no.

PLUS you had the trojan horse of Liebermann --

Who knows if Gore would have survived to run the country!?

Differences between the two parties are FADING FAST --

and the masks are coming off -- Obama has not only reversed himself, he's

turned himself inside out!!

I swear this is like playing:

What you're talking about is right wing crime and corruption --

but it isn't only in the Republican Party -- !!

See Wm. Greider -- "Who Will Tell the People?" --

and you won't find him in board games!

And Gore actually had a plan to save SS.

It as often as necessary also increases FICA rates by very small amounts --

and increases income ceiling by small amounts --

Yes, Bush stole the surplus -- but many argue it was Social Security $$ since

Social Security runs a surplus of more than $250 BILLION every year!!


And I would suggest, if you don't want your ignorance to be pointed out to you --

refrain from personal insultsl -- !!




The Rightwing Koch Bros. Funded the DLC --

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

If you knew, why didn't you tell us?

If you didn't know, pass it along!

:)

On a day-to-day basis needs to end.

Protect the funds for future generations. Remember "lockbox"?

because 'NATIONAL SECURITY STATE' will always trump any lock box!!

Where have you been?

Honesty will protect the funds -- this is simply theft --

GAO might be able to provide a few suggestions to those writing the law.

take it from Social Security -- as long as we run a surplus --

Social Security was never intended to run a surplus -- for those very reasons!

It was a pay-as-you-to system until the right wing dreamed up the "baby boomber"

gap and hugely increased FICA taxes which burdened the poor and the middle class

because they did not at the same time hugely increase the earnings ceiling!!


If anything is codified into law now -- then I guess no one has borrowed from

the Social Security Fund this year, last year, year before?


:eyes:

wrong place. :)

and restore funding to LIHEAP. Someone who's willing to cut the bloated defense budget in a substantial way. Someone who doesn't give a crap what the right-wing thinks, and doesn't give a damn about "legacy" or "bipartisanship". Someone who isn't afraid of being branded a radical--who recognizes that sometimes, radical is NECESSARY. Maybe...*gasp*...someone from the working class. I know it's hard for some people to believe, but there really ARE people in the working class who are intelligent, informed, and capable enough to do that job.

Our problems aren't bipartisan. They aren't going to be solved by turning Washington D.C. into the biggest FAILED Boy Scout Jamboree campfire sing-a-long in history. It's time to lay down the law with the right-wing gazillionaire whiners and do the right thing, no matter how much they scream and cry about it.

If someone like that runs, they'll have my time, my money, and my vote in the primary, for whatever good it will do.

And a strong anti-war candidate for VP -- how about Tom Hayden?

Susan Sarandon!!??

Plenty of dems outside the party who aren't pre-owned and pre-bribed by corporations --

We need to pick up this party and walk off with it!!






The Rightwing Koch Bros. Funded the DLC --

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

If you knew, why didn't you tell us?

If you didn't know, pass it along!

:)

Come on, now, we must have standards!

Personally, I'm holding out for someone/thing with a pulse.

src=""

Even if whoever it is does nothing different, and just continues the corporate pillaging, my vote is precious to me (it being my only say) and I will NOT vote for continued war, spying on Americans, torture, indefinate detainment, shredding the constitution, tax cuts for billionaires paid for by the poor and our children, or any of a hundred other things.

GOOP nominates a T-Bagger. The media will see to it that the narrative will be focused in such a way that progressive/democratic principles are villainized or ignored.

We need a primary challenge to show Obama that the support of Democrats (especially the prog. base) is not something he can take for granted.

voiced among elected DEMs anywhere.

For a regime this corporate, this conservative, and this ( ducks down below the table to avoid " blunt instruments and throwable objects") *unsuccessful* , this is truly a remarkable phenomenon.

The adm. may think this a good sign. However, some of us are more likely to vote for a renominated Obama if he's survived a DEM primary challenge. It's human nature: we want a chance to vote FOR someone we WANT.

If there's no challenge from within the party.... a Green or a Socialist might look pretty attractive on the ballot in November.

Are we really expecting millionaires and multi-millionaires in Congress to

legislate and vote for the general welfare?


They're voting in their own interests!!






The Rightwing Koch Bros. Funded the DLC --

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

If you knew, why didn't you tell us?

If you didn't know, pass it along!

:)

corporatist financiers and wealthy donors. And Arne "charter school" Duncan has had a banner year as has Alan Simpson.

And the only thing worse than a center-right politician is a far-right politician.

dream on.

Sid

Wonderful. :eyes:

So, I guess my answer would be no one.

I believe Russ is more "electable" but I'd take either one.


It's nice to dream.

and after the Obama experience think we have to be ABSOLUTELY sure of

who we trust this time around -- !!

No one pre-bribed or pre-owned by corporations --

Outside the party might be best --

Anyone from the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party

No Dem who is already pre-bribed and pre-owned by corporations should be

considered --



The Rightwing Koch Bros. Funded the DLC --

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

If you knew, why didn't you tell us?

If you didn't know, pass it along!

:)

And I like to see him come out telling the truth about every dirty deal in DC and New York.

I want someone who will actually work for WE THE PEOPLE. We DEFINITELY need someone to run against BO.

I haven't seen a single name on this thread that would have much of a chance of doing so.

Most posters on DU, I would say, are much more left than the majority of Democrats. (Not saying this is a bad thing, so am I.) But if you want to actually win elections you can't run Bernie Sanders (a self-confessed socialist).

Since he's dead, and none of the other politicians on any side make a damn bit of difference I might just write in Eugene Deps this next run. Probably not...but still fun to speculate

He could win 3 Primary contests.

Hell, I'd even like Al Franken to run.

what happens when you try to primary an incumbent Democrat because you think he isn't pure enough.

If somehow Sanders or Kucinich won the primaries, you might as well just hand the Presidency to whatever Republican wins their primaries. Sanders a confessed socialist and Kucinich have about as much chance, actually probably much less, of winning a Presidential race as McGovern did. The Republicans are ready say Obama sucks, running a full slate of candidates against him would say Democrats think the same thing. I'm pretty sure Obama would win the primary, but it would just further hurt his chances in the presidential election. I know some think that it would force him to the Left, but it might just as well force him more to the Right. If he felt vulnerable he could try to appease more independent and moderate Republicans. I think the best strategy is to stick with Obama, she he has faults, but a lot less so than any Republican I can think of.

Not this again! :banghead:

There is no one with the stature to do any such thing, except as some sort of gesture.
Which someone can do, if they wish.

his election in 2008 -

Even when people were screaming that Obama was no liberal, no progressive, with a corporate status quo ideology?

How many of these same hardheaded know-nothings listened to people telling them to fucking wake up....Yet they screamed more ignorantly louder right back - Novices....actually believed Obama's every word.....And now these same experts want to weaken a sitting Democratic president - Like automatically, the new Dem they want will be different and just mechanically win the presidential election and sweep in a majority democratic congress with him....

Get fucking real - You weaken a sitting president the other party (republicans) will sweep into power....I reluctantly voted for Obama, I certainly didn't believe all the big eyed morons who knew absolutely nothing about politics and their bullshit about Obama - But I voted for him only because I didn't want to see worst, a republican as president, especially after 8 years of republican Bush purposely bankrupting the country to destroy all social programs & unions to give all the money & treasury to the rich and their corporations....

To weaken a sitting president (and Obama will win any fight with any Dem going up against him in a primary)...but be advised, he will be significantly weakened - and expect to see a republican even an asshole like old Jebbie Bush (fuck what Jebbie says NOW about not running, the republicans see an opportunity and a weakened prez the republicans will jump on it)) will be able to keep it close for the republicans to steal the presidency - You don't weaken your own sitting president, ever!

You voted for Obama now force him to do what we want...get out in the fucking streets....As aforementioned I voted for Obama, I don't like 80% of his policies and his backtracking from what he said...but I expected it, and I will continue to fight. Obama will be the Dem candidate again and I will also do all I can to make sure there's not a republican president.

A weakened president by his OWN party will just about 100% guarantee a republican president the republicans drool at the thought of a Obama having to fight for his life in a primary against another Dem (as much as I adore Dean & Kucinich there's no way they will come out on top - only weaken the Dem president, and they know that to be true) - Oh but the same know-nothing children, novices "experts" who have NEVER been thought it before will scream, pontificate & disagree like complete stupid fucks as indeed they are!!

nt

Indeed, Bernie Sanders was the name that was mentioned most often and the idea that that would ever happen is beyond hopeless.

There was also the mention of Kucinich, and even though he may be the most honest politician in DC, he is not a viable choice either.

Given that this is DU, I can only assume that those with realistic expectations simply did not respond. :shrug:

Lynch was born in Waltham, Massachusetts, the fifth of William and Margaret Lynch's six children. He attended local schools prior to earning his undergraduate degree from the University of New Hampshire in 1974, an MBA from Harvard Business School, and a Juris Doctor degree from Georgetown University Law Center.

Prior to his election, Lynch's career included work as Director of Admissions at Harvard Business School, CEO of Knoll Inc., a national furniture manufacturer, and president of The Lynch Group, a business consulting firm in Manchester, New Hampshire. Lynch was serving as Chairman of the University System of New Hampshire Board of Trustees when he announced he would run for governor.

While CEO of Knoll Inc., he transformed the $50 million a year losses into a profit of nearly $240 million. Under his leadership, Knoll created new jobs, gave factory workers annual bonuses, established a scholarship program for the children of employees, created retirement plans for employees who didn’t have any, and gave workers stock in the company.<1>

ocean.