Can we talk about a 2012 primary challenge?

[lwcon]

In November, 2008, I voted for Barack Obama. And, as his campaign urged us, I hoped.

A year in, it seems unavoidably clear that his "post-partisan" center-right politics are anything but a match for the problems we have, problems whose solutions have a well-known liberal bias.

I could draw out a litany of reasons why it looks that way to me, but either you see it by this point or you don't. Or you see it but remain hopeful that this administration will get better from here.

Where are you at?

* Happy?
* Hoping?
* Worried?
* Ready for a 2012 primary challenge?

I'm in the latter camp. Does that offend you, or do you think it's appropriate that Dems should consider our options, especially given today's long presidential-campaign cycles?

I understand the impulse to wag a finger at "splitters," "Naderites," etc. I've done my share, sometimes harshly so. I still think Nader was quite wrong not to see a considerable difference between Bush and Gore, but in any case, our political situation keeps evolving.

It's always tempting to fight yesterday's battles today. In fact, I think that's President Obama's biggest mistake. He thinks it's still 1994 or 2002. He doesn't seem to appreciate the mandate he got for real change, the mandate he asked for and was given.

Maybe there's a way to salvage his presidency, and maybe there isn't.

I care more about having good government than I care about who gets the gig. My focus isn't whether Barack Obama gets a second term, it's whether my children and everybody else's children get a good life. If he's not prepared to repudiate the Reagan Revolution and save this country from what it's doing to itself and others, I'd sure like to see a Democrat on the ticket in 2012 who will.

A credible challenge supported by the liberal base might:
* Push Obama to do much better than his disappointing "honeymoon year"
* Provide our last chance to save America by putting a real progressive in the White House
* Be the only way to stave off, for the nation's highest office, a Republican victory like the one Scott Brown just won in the nation's bluest state

Will such a topic be considered fair play at DU, or is it -- and will it remain -- off the table?

Unrec as you will, but please don't flame. The Democratic nomination belongs to the voters, not to the incumbents.

Call it too soon to have this discussion if you will. But then answer me this, please: when will we be able to have this discussion? When it's too late to be useful? Never?

[WeDidIt]

1. Too soon

And never.

[Wapsie B]

2. The party will quickly prevent any real Liberal from running.

Kucinich was shown the door, not even allowed to the debates. I've even seen it at the state level in Iowa where lefties were left twisting in the wind.

[lwcon]

28. Seems like we need to find a solution

It's not so much about seeing liberals get their due, it's about getting solutions to the problems that have festered since Reaganomics and other inhumane rightwing agendas became our national marching orders.

As I said, the policies we need have a well-known liberal bias... or at least that ought to be better known.

[Wapsie B]

39. To me it's actually have this "big tent" people talk about and have Liberals at the table

rather than being shunted aside by the DLC crowd.

[lwcon]

50. Yes, the "big tent" argument is usually...

... an argument for liberals to STFU, rather than be heard as a -- or really, the -- base of the party.

[Tesha]

3. We can talk about it, but history suggests it will end in a disaster.

Then again, if the 2012 election were held today with Obama
as the candidate, that would probably end in disaster as well.

But if Dr. Dean were to run, I'd be all over that campaign, working
my heart out (which is certainly *NOT* what I'll be doing for Obama).

Tesha

[bluethruandthru]

4. I think it's a little early to make that decision.

That being said, I'm not at all opposed to a strong liberal candidate challenging Obama in the primary. Obama has disappointed me on many levels...but I'm still hoping for real change. I've been trying to stay optimistic but it's gotten very difficult.

[marshall]

19. Discussion will keep Obama on his toes

Actually doing it might result in disaster, but I think talking about it is a good thing.

[babylonsister]

5. And I'm focused on the next year or two. Consider whoever you

want. Do you have any competitors in mind who'd be doing any better, given the crappy (inherited) climate?

[DefenseLawyer]

6. That trick never works, Bullwinkle n/t

[lwcon]

31. Neither does "post-partisanship"

What else have we got up our sleeves?

[berni_mccoy]

7. 2L4O?

Sounds like too lame for own good. You really want to lose 2012, don't you?

[lwcon]

21. If I really wanted to lose in 2012

I would have bailed out the rich and not the poor and middle class, conducted two surges in Afghanistan, let Big Insurance write the "healthcare reform" bill, put a freeze on government spending, ratified Bush's assaults on the Constitution, and so forth.

[AlinPA]

8. Give Obama some time, at least 3 years.

[Bucky]

9. When I go up the staircase, I'll stick to the right. When you come down, stay to the left.

...that way we'll avoid the usual Democratic blunders.

[FBaggins]

10. Sure!

As long as you're going to tell us which Republican you think you'll be handing the reigns to... because there's no sense in pretending that ANY democrat can win after we do it.

[suzie]

22. Reality is such a downer.

[lwcon]

30. Like the reality that...

Obama seems to have no interest in bringing real change?

Like the reality that he's on track to have no chance of winning in 2012.

[scheming daemons]

11. "Can we talk about a 1980 primary challenge?"

That brought us Ronald Reagan.


Democrats never learn.

[leveymg]

12. Who knows, maybe Ted would have beaten Ronnie.

[lwcon]

18. Unfortunately, Ted ran a very poor challenge

I saw him in his home court, speaking in Boston, and he was really off his game.

If he'd been the same Ted we saw years later running strong against Mitt Romney, it might have been different.

Also, we were caught in a no-man's land. Dem dissatisfaction with Carter wasn't quite enough to lose him the nomination, but given the media's treatment of him, he didn't have much hope of re-election, with or without Ted's challenge.

As things stand, Obama looks very likely to lose in 2012... and given how little his policies are a change from Bush's, his re-election won't cure what ails us.

Seems to me the choices are:

* Push Obama to embrace his base and its timely agenda
* Change the batter

Both start with progressives being genuinely open to alternatives, else we'll get the same ol', same ol,' since "we have nowhere to go."

[zipplewrath]

15. No, it didn't

Carter himself will tell you that. He was on the road to winning, but lost it in the last 2 weeks. The failed resuce attempt didn't help much. Truth is, a primary challenger is a lagging indicator, not a leading one.

[FBaggins]

23. We should be surprised?

So a losing candidate tells a story about how he WOULD have won "if only" and we just accept that?

That would significantly change our impression of VA/NJ/MA... wouldn't it?

Carter wasn't "on the road" to getting crushed... but he most certainly wasn't on the road to winning. In fact, he was almost certain to lose (though likely by 35 points rather than 10 points).

[zipplewrath]

33. Not in October

In October, he was running neck and neck. It was basically the last two weeks before the election. The polls showed huge numbers of "undecideds". They all "broke" to Reagan. It is dubious any of that, in the last two weeks, had anything to do with Teddy from the spring. It had far more to do with the failed rescue. One can always argue that he was lost no matter what, but it isn't clear whether the absence of a primary would have significantly changed the outcome. Considering the dems didn't particularly take a beating over all that year, one can make the case that it was Carter himself. And as I say, the final question becomes whether a primary challenger is a leading or lagging indicator. If there is enough money and support to mount a serious challenge, the candidate is already in trouble in the general election, whether that challenger emerges or not.

[FBaggins]

48. Yes in October.

He really wasn't "neck and neck". Reagan was usually ahead, but more importantly.... well, you touch on it here:

The polls showed huge numbers of "undecideds". They all "broke" to Reagan.

That's what you expect to happen in a normal race. That's why we say that a well-known incumbent who is leading 48-41 a month before the election is in trouble. It's also why some of these Republican Senate incumbents are still rated as "toss-up" races despite leading in most/all polling... they can't get above 50%. The voters known the incumbent... if they are "undecided" at this point then when they "break" they're either voting for the other guy or staying home.

I can't tell you how many races I've seen where one candidate leads the polls bu 47-43 and loses 52-48 because the undecideds broke entirely for the challenger. People hadn't settled on Reagan yet, but they weren't going to vote for Carter. That's why we knew that McCain's talk of a "Reagan-esque comeback" were unfounded. He wasn't a challenger to a well known incumbent. If anything, the undecideds would break the other way (and they did) since he was the one who was well known (and of the party they were rejecting).

Anderson confused the race to some extent, but it was clear WELL before election day that Carter was in serious trouble.


in the last two weeks

Two weeks before the election, the NBC/AP poll had Reagan up 42-36 with nine points undecided. There doesn't have to be any "movement" in the last two weeks. A farily normal 2:1 split of undecideds toward the challenger gives about a ten point win.

[zipplewrath]

54. All of which goes back to

All of which basically goes back to the fact that Kennedy wasn't particularly a cause in any sense of Carter's loss. If anything, one could have made the case that, much like Obama and Clinton, the campaign should help strengthen a candidate for the fall election. Of course it means he has to have any chance at all. There were reasons to believe (mostly economic) that Carter never had a prayer. Some argue to this day that Kennedy would have had a better chance. I tend to discount that. The dems were on their way out. The only reason Carter won in the first place was Nixon. By the end of the 6 years (including Ford) that issue was long passed. The economy had tanked. Carter never had the campaign/political skills to win in such an environment.

[FBaggins]

59. I wouldn't say that Kennedy was the cause

but the forces that caused Kennedy to consider the challenge (and while we're talking about it... that caused Anderson to get into the race) were also some of the forces that caused his loss. Some Democrats were unhappy with his while many republicans were energized to vote against him.

Once could say that Kennedy was the symptom
The same dynamic that is killing us right now.


One think that hasn't been mentioned, however, is the Anderson candidacy. Carter likely wouldn't have been close even in the earlier polls if it weren't for Anderson.

[zipplewrath]

66. I suspect you're right about Anderson

He was pulling on Reagan's numbers mostly. The "anyone but Carter" vote.

However, if I might restate your premise. The forces that cause Kennedy to be asked to run (and he was asked to run, he didn't really want to. He felt obligated) were the performances of Carter.

Which is to say that supporters of Carter should have considered, in the primary, whether Carter had maintained the support of ALL of the democrats. The nomination of a candidate shouldn't be seen as some right. A sitting president, through his governance, should maintain, AND BUILD support amongst his party and independents. If he does not accomplish this, party members should seriously consider whether he deserves their continued support. Being the "last loyal supporter standing" doesn't serve the larger purpose. If a candidate loses the support of the people, even if it is not inclusive of oneself, the question becomes should one continue to support his candidacy. His job isn't just to keep "your" support, but everyone elses as well.

[lwcon]

41. Democrats have learned...

... to keep governing exactly like Republicans.

I'll say that much for them!

[zipplewrath]

13. Yes but,

If your question is "will it be allowed in DU", I'd suspect the mods would suggest one can talk about having a primary challenger, but not a "third party" candidate.

I'm all for discussing possible primary challenges. It's how it suppose to work. We are a collection of different people allied under a single party banner. But we are suppose to be able to "compete" in the primary phase. It is how one can "build" coalitions. You don't build them by demanding loyalty to one outcome up front. You allow the debate.

However, the debate should be conducted in the spirit of, "in the end we all come together". And as we saw in the past primary, and with all the PUMA stuff, that this is hard for everyone to do.

All that said, I'm not sure exactly who such a a candidate would be. Someone who 1) could raise credible money 2) Have a debate that isn't just alot of posturing 3) would make the whole party look better by drawing out Obama into some impressive debates. Put a name to that guy and it might be easier to discuss. But I don't see a Kennedy out there to do it. I don't see Feingold trying. I don't see Richardson, Clark, Clinton, or any govenor stepping up and taking on such a role. I don't see Kucinich or a Nader filling such a role. We don't need a Ron Paul or Huey Long. We'd need a Ted Kennedy. We'd need a Bobby Kennedy.

[lwcon]

36. The name that's coming up most often is...

Elizabeth Warren.

Frankly, any Dem who stands up and embraces a liberal agenda and distances him/herself from the right-centrism that is killing us will have a real opportunity to catch people's attention. At a bare minimum, separating Obama's disastrous continuance of Bush's policies and Reagan's frames from being perceived as liberalism is a very smart and healthy move for the party as a whole.

[zipplewrath]

47. Not another rookie

I like her positions, but she hardly has the executive/political experience I'd really like to see.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[cali]

16. highly unlikely any credible candidate will challenge Obama.

[mmonk]

17. I can imagine 4 candidates for president in 2012.

Obama, a Republican, a tea bagger, and someone from the left, maybe a Green. Can you talk about it? I guess. But I doubt he will be primaried.

[CBR]

20. Talk away... nt

[Rowdyboy]

24. Enjoy your mental masturbation-for me, the question is absurd....

[zipplewrath]

35. It wasn't in '68

I've lived through more primaries against encumbants that not. LBJ decided not to even run. Carter had Kennedy. Truth is FDR had a series of primaries. Truman always was running agianst someone. JFK was in Dallas because he was worried about his prospects. There was a very good chance he'd see a southern primary challenge.

Clinton is really the only guy that the dems didn't challenge. And that came because Ford got beat up so bad by Reagan that the "conventional wisdom" was that you don't challenge a sitting president. As I say, I think that is a misreading of history. Quite to the contrary, a sitting president against which a credible primary challenge can be made is a VERY weak president and as such it is all the more imperative that a primary challenger emerge.

[lwcon]

38. Nicely said

"a sitting president against which a credible primary challenge can be made is a VERY weak president and as such it is all the more imperative that a primary challenger emerge."

Dem conventional wisdom will be to go down with Obama, not just to electoral defeat but to continued policy defeat in the meantime.

[Nye Bevan]

25. Can you imagine DU, if Kucinich mounts a challenge to Obama?

Just imagine!

[lwcon]

27. One solo Beatle: "Imagine"

Another: "That Would Be Something"

[NorthCarolina]

40. I know one thing for sure, given that scenario I would vote for Kucinich. eom

[bvar22]

42. Thats not going to work....

AND I'm a HUGE Dennis supporter.

What we need to do if we want to win is run George Clooney.
Low Information Americans vote for who they see on TV.

Clooney would WIN in a landslide, and wouldn't even have to campaign.
Obama WON without taking a STAND on anything.

The Left needs to come to the realization that we need a good TV Spokesperson with a nice tight ass from a Western State who looks good riding a horse, and can talk in empty folksy witticisms that remind America of their grandfather and the "good old days".

As much as I hate it, THAT is what America will vote FOR.
Doesn't matter where they STAND on "The Issues".


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[lwcon]

51. LOL n/t

[Lorien]

26. I seriously doubt that he'll run in 2012. He's dropped enough hints about that

even before he won the election.

[lwcon]

45. He's said some pap about...

... emphasizing being a good president more than a two-term one.

If this is him pushing the envelope, I'd hate to see what he does as a lame duck!

[Lorien]

52. He's also said, when asked about a second term, that "The American people will decide if I RUN

for a second term." Not the usual "The people will decide if I am ELECTED to a second term." I don't think that was a slip of any kind.

[lwcon]

55. Hard to say

He wanted the job pretty bad. Few walk away without a second term fight.

[uponit7771]

29. FUCKIN WOW!!!!

[placton]

32. This discussion cannot begin SOON ENOUGH

nothing we have done so far has made ANY impact on the Dems in power - even the 3 elections lost, in part, because of low Dem turnout. We have a disproportionate impact in primaries - both in working FOR a replacement, and NOT WORKING for the current officeholders.

[lwcon]

34. Most of what we do supports our disempowerment

We collectively have PTSD after the 2000 election and its aftermath. The fact that 2009 looked and acted just like the eight years before it doesn't seem to matter to most. Most will want to hold criticism and planning for alternatives until it's officially too late.

Thanks for standing up for real change -- I hope there are a lot more like you, for the good of the party and for the good of the country.

[bvar22]

37. A radical idea.

I propose we run a "Democrat" this time.
You would have to be pretty old to remember what a "Democrat" sounds like.
Here is one:

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.--FDR

I remember these wonderful creatures called "Democrats".
They bear NO FUCKIN RESEMBLANCE to the political party using that name today.

I propose that we find one of these Old Democrats, and run THEM for political office.
I would follow a REAL "Old" Democrat to the gates of HELL!
:patriot:

[WI_DEM]

43. You can talk of it but no major dem will challenge Obama in '12

they know to do so would tear the party apart and doom whoever the nominee is.

[lwcon]

44. The "tear the party apart" scare just isn't cutting it anymore

The Dems need to be about more than protecting incumbents and playing it safe, if safe is defined by giving us more disastrous politics.

[CBR]

46. It is not the "tear the party apart scare" -- it is the "90% of Dems

support the president" fact. Granted, alot could change by 2012 and the Prez could be damaged significantly but at this point, no go.

[lwcon]

49. I can tell you that in my home state of MA

The senate vote was very much a vote of no confidence for Obama.

The air of change from 2006 and 2008 is completely deflated.

We either step up in recognition of this, or we pave the way for a lot of Scott Browns... and until then, lot of policy that's little different from what Brown and Bush would do.

[inna]

53. K&(Invisible)R

[lwcon]

56. Thx

The un-reccing crew does its best to keep some things at Democratic Underground... underground.

[BlueIris]

57. I'm conflicted, but not ready to, er, love the idea of a full-on primary challenge.

On the one hand, I think this presidency isn't going to accomplish much, if anything, and I have my doubts that this president is even considering effective solutions. On the other, he still has time to turn this around, and I'm not totally willing to give up on the possibility that he is, um, willing to embrace "real, meaningful change."

[lwcon]

70. There's the rub

What's going to either...

1. Convince him to consider effective solutions
2. Give us a better alternative to the choice between more of the same and a Republican?

Seems to me that a primary challenge facilitates an opportunity for both.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

58. I think it is a valid discussion --

I think it may become even more valid depending on what happens in the midterms. O and the public's mood delivered some serious coattails for many Dems last go around.

If O loses his luster and the mood has changed again, then those coattails may morph into a nasty boat anchor that threatens to bring Dems down across the country.

If nothing else, I would hope some folks step into the primary race just to keep the debate honest and robust.

[lwcon]

61. I'm not sure whether there were coattails last time

The mood was strikingly anti-Republican, though until the financial meltdown, McCain-Palin briefly pulled even.

After the market tanked, there was no saving the Republicans for that election cycle.

Just a year later, the Dems have completely lost their sparkle. Healthcare "reform" was a complete debacle, and an utter betrayal of the announced plans for an open and transparent process that considered all options. If anything, they got off easy, with little outcry about the secret deal with Big Pharma, the lies about public hearings, and with "progressives'" gushing enthusiasm for the meaningless "compromise" plan that was even too much for the Dems to stick to, the so-called "public option," which was designed to create virtually no competition to the commercial plans.

We've got a long way to go before "honest" and "robust" characterize the political debate in this country, IMHO.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

67. I think O's coattails were about turnout numbers --

Mostly I think 2008 was about mood.

What you just posted is the primary reason I want a challenger -- DK and Al Sharpton were the only ones telling a whole lot of truth during the 2004 primary. I appreciated their inclusion because someone needed to be telling it like it is -- it sure as hell wasn't Kerry or Edwards.

The Dems are heading for a world of hurt in 2012 -- and they deserve to get spanked for such a colossal fuck-up they have provided us with.

[lwcon]

69. Every powerful force...

... seems to compel the Dems to reject their base more and more.

Money says to.
The MSM says to.
The Blue Dogs say to.
The pressure from the Repubs says to.

The no-shows of Dems in the MA special election is a taste of what happens when they ignore the base. Naturally, they'll try to learn every wrong lesson they can, because there's so much support for learning the wrong lessons.

Even in the rank and file, there is such fear and animosity involved with refusal to toe the party line, it all plays into the hands of those who want a center-right or plain right-wing Democratic Party. A liberal primary challenge gives us leverage -- but everyone, including most of us, treats the left as a a red-diapered stepchild better ignored than heard. I'm not sure how, but somehow we must make ourselves heard. A well-supported primary challenge would be a good start.

[Ganja Ninja]

60. I'll wait another 18 months before I start to give a challenger consideration.

If things haven't turned around by then I'm sure Hillary will be a challenger.

[lwcon]

62. I don't know

If Obama's running for re-election, it would be a painful revisitation to all the "she's tearing the party apart" stuff.

[Toasterlad]

63. "either you see it by this point or you don't"

Truer words were never typed.

I do, in fact, see it. And I'd be delighted to campaign for a primary candidate with a proven progressive track record.

[lwcon]

64. Thanks

I hate to put it into such terms. But I've built the case many a time, and "there are none so blind as those who will not see" has to kick in after a while.

I was skeptical of Obama's post-partisan agenda going in, and it seems that more and more people are seeing it for the tragic mistake that it's proving to be.

I still would like to know what he's really passionate about, what he'll marshal his role and reputation and rhetoric to accomplish. SOTU addresses are usually a lot of hot air and faux-wonk, so I'd be awfully surprised if tonight were a real coming out of a real agenda, and ideally a populist one. We'll see....

[dionysus]

65. political suicide for the dems if it happens.

who would you have try, dennis?

i don't see any big names that would attempt it.

probably be a media circus and end up with a repuke president.

[lwcon]

68. We have a president who is doing almost precisely what Bush did

I think we not only can do better, we must.