Is it conceivable that a progressive Democrat might challenge President Obama

[branders seine]

in a primary in 2012?

It seems clear that there is conflict among various wings of the Democratic Party. This in no way compares to the utter freak-show meltdown septic tank explosion that is the rapublican party, but might some progressive Democrat be a viable Primary opponent to Obama?

I do not mean this to incite a flamewar. I know there is a faction here that will try to make it one, but let's see if we can't have a discussion instead of another shit-flinging eruption.

It seems to me that three 2012 possiblities exist:

1. Either the current apparent dissatisfaction of progressives will evaporate, and all will vote reliably Democratic in 2012, or their numbers are too small to matter. We could call this the polyanna scenario.

2. The current apparent dissatisfaction of progressives will create a large apathetic bloc within the Democratic base, who will not vote in 2012. This is the make races close enough for rapublicans to steal scenario.

3. The current apparent dissatisfaction of progressives will translate into support for a third-party candidate. This seems likely, but is not very pragmatic if you want progressive change.

Let's be clear. Short of some sort of catastrophic change, Obama will be the democratic candidate in the 2012 general election no matter what. This thread is not advocating Obama's defeat. This thread is predicting his victory.

My belief is that a progressive Democratic primary opponent is the best alternative for the Democratic Party, not just because I am progressive, but because I think it would give progressives an opportunity to be heard and to influence the course of the party. This is true even though Obama is certain to win. Much as the divisive primaries of 2008 saw Democrats coalesce behind Obama and propel him to an overwhelming victory, this could be the best way to reunite the currently squabbling factions within the Democratic Party.

[Mari333]

1. I keep thinking about Paul Wellstone, JFK, RFK, and I ponder

why would the corporate status quo ever allow a truly progressive liberal into office?

just pondering.

[Posteritatis]

6. Or, y'know, the electorate. (nt)

[branders seine]

12. the survival rate of even slightly liberal politicians in America is low

the owners don't like 'em.

[ananda]

2. If only..

I'm just not sure that a people-first person can get
nominated.

It would be nice though.

[cali]

3. no, it's really unlikely. sure kucinich might run, but that's a novelty run

nor are all progressives on the same page with you. herding cats is an apt expression. And are you aware that polls show that self-described progressives/liberals still support Obama in large numbers?

I doubt that a viable progressive candidate will run against Obama, and I don't see it as making much of a difference if one does.

[rhett o rick]

38. You said "viable progressive". OMG nm

[dionysus]

105. in what respect, charlie? name some that would be "viable" as far as having a decent chance.

[rhett o rick]

40. As much as I hate to admit it, cali is right. Progressive are screwed.

They make up a small part of the "New" Democratic Party that has embraced the ex-republicans. We have no choice. That's why Rahmbo would rather pursue Arlen Specter and spit on the left. The "New" party is the party of the DLC/corporatists and the ex-republicans. Heaven help us. Notice that Rahmbo isnt on TV every night push HCR. In fact no one in the admin is pushing for HCR.

You are right cali, I hope you can live with it.

[cali]

84. you live with what there is

what's the alternative? seriously? it's hardly something I created. I live in Vermont where I have the opportunity to vote for progressives who win on the local, state and federal level.

[rhett o rick]

89. "You live with what there is"? Is that code for "sit down and STFU"? nm

[Cleita]

53. Has Kucinich ever run against a sitting Democratic President?

I don't think he has. I don't think he would do so this time either.

[cali]

83. I wouldn't be surprised if he did

I think he runs to try and get his message more exposure.

[flvegan]

4. Corporate money would come in by the truckload to buy the election.

The media will happily ignore anyone opposing.

By any means necessary, keep a true progressive out of the White House. He/she would be good for the people, bad for stockholders.

[CrispyQ]

5. And if money & media can't pull it off, electronic voting can.

They hold all the cards.

[demosincebirth]

41. I don't think it would have to be bought...just go back to '72

We nominated a very liberal politician and look what happened...we got our butts kicked.

[salguine]

7. Look at what happened in the 2008 primaries. A genuine progressive, Dennis Kucinich,

was every bit as legitimate a primary contender as any of the others; he was on the ballot and everything...but the party made sure he was kept out of debates. Does that answer your question?

[branders seine]

14. his candidacy was killed by the corporations

[Individualist]

22. and DLC.

[stray cat]

25. killed by democracy ie voters

[rhett o rick]

37. Are you Rahm? Such hatred toward the left is harming the party. Is that your objective? nm

[karynnj]

61. Here is the polling - Dennis really did lose because not enough people supported him

http://pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm

[rhett o rick]

65. Good grief. And Kerry lost because not enough voters voted for him. And Carter lost becaue not enoug

h voters voted for him. That is obvious. But why did the voters not vote them? Now that's the question.

[KharmaTrain]

80. Cause He Ran Piss Poor Campaigns...

But it was all a conspiracy, right? The media, the DLC or some other conspiracy led to 95% plus of Democratic primary votes to choose someone else?

Bottom line is he ran poorly organized campaigns that led to less votes for him in the primaries in 2008 than in 2004.

Damn that thing called democracy...things were so much better when candidates were decided for us :sarcasm:

[rhett o rick]

82. We no longer have democracy in this country. Elections have been fixed or manipulated for decades.

[cali]

86. right. if that were across the board true as you claim

Bernie wouldn't be in the Senate. For that matter, neither would Al Franken or Sherrod Brown or Sheldon Whitehouse, etc.

[rhett o rick]

87. Ok so we have some democracy for some local races. Does that mean

that all elections are fair and free of fraud? Corporations can and have influenced elections.

I just cant understand you and your friends continued attacks on Rep Kucinich. Does he represent a threat?

[apocalypsehow]

99. "some democracy for some local races" - That's an astonishing - and incorrect - view of "democracy."

rhett o rick's version of "democracy" seems to be: when the voters vote the way I want them to, that's democracy. When they don't, it's fraud; corporate influence; a rigged game; etc., etc.

[rhett o rick]

110. Easy to attack me, but what's your opinion? Do you think the presidential races were democratic in

2000 and 2004? How about Reagan's October surprise? Or Nixon making a deal with the North Vietnamese to help his election? I believe that some elections are fixed, rigged, fraudulent. And I dont think the left is involved. I think the reich-wing is willing to do anything, including murder to win elections.

Now it's your turn. Give some dialog and cut the crap. Do you think we have democracy in America? Please explain.

[apocalypsehow]

114. It's easy to attack what you wrote because what you wrote is nonsense. Your worldview is predicated

on the belief that when the voters vote the way you think they should, everything is peachy - but when they don't, the "reich-wing" is busy fixing, rigging, and frauding.

That is called an circular argument, and it renders you and I incapable of having a "dialog": I don't do therapy or analysis. I'm just here debating politics and issues of the day on a discussion board. You and I are incapable of "debating" with each other as grown-up people for reasons of your own making that are manifest in your posts in this thread. Such a debating contest would be inherently unequal, since I would be posting from a reality-based adult perspective and you not so much. In a very real sense, it would be unfair.

I wish you well.

[rhett o rick]

115. Are you for real?

"since I would be posting from a reality-based adult perspective and you not so much. In a very real sense, it would be unfair."

I bow to your obvious superior intellect, at least in your own mind. Goodbye dipshit.

[apocalypsehow]

117. "Goodbye dipshit" - So much for "dialog" then, I reckon...

Your concession is duly noted.

[dionysus]

119. !

:spray:

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

[spanone]

130. or Barack Obama

[saltpoint]

85. They were in most aspects piss poor campaigns indeed.

Kucinich appealed to a strikingly small percentage of Democratic primary voters in 2004 and then all but replicated the same strategies and employed the same tactics in 2008 that failed so spectacularly in 2004. One of the old hinge wisdoms is that we should learn from our mistakes.

No conspiracy was required to thwart the Kucinich campaign in either cycle -- his own strategy did all that work for the DLC or the media, or the Cleveland banks, or a secret cabal of industrialists from nine states west of the Mississippi, or Ted Koppel, or Warren Buffett, or Gordon Lightfoot.

[karynnj]

93. Agree - but are you sure about Gordon Lightfoot?

[saltpoint]

94. LOL! "I will neither confirm nor deny..."

:hi:

[karynnj]

95. I loved your inclusion of Lightfoot

:hi:

[saltpoint]

96. Hi, karynnj.

'Have been reading your posts with pleasure on DU for a while.

But the recent ones have crackled, they're so good.

Happy spring time.

[karynnj]

100. Thany you for the compliment

Your posts always are so wise and often have a wonderful sense of humor. They are amazing bringing balance to often far overheated opinions.

[dionysus]

120. yeah but Sundown is a killer tune. you SURE he didn't have something to do with it?

:toast:

[saltpoint]

123. Perhaps I was too hasty on Lightfoot.

You're right. He can sit down and write down killer tunes at the drop of a hat.

(scartches chin suspiciously...) Hmmmm.

[dionysus]

124. sundown, kucinich beware, if obama finds you been creeping round his back stair....

sometimes, he thinks it's a sin, when he keeps on running just to lose agaiiinnn.
:rofl:

[saltpoint]

125. "Well I can see Kooch holding back under great duress

On a bill poised for passage, more or less..."

[dionysus]

126. !!11!

:spray:
:thumbsup:

[karynnj]

92. There's a difference in losing by 59,000 votes in one state,

wher ther was voter suppression and polling as Kucinich did in all contests. In Iowa people meet the candidate - if they were impressed by Kucinich they would have caucused for him - not many did.

[dionysus]

107. ROFL... dude.. he lost because he was a shitty candidate. not because he's a liberal.

:rofl:

[demosincebirth]

43. Ditto

[Donnachaidh]

54. killed by the Main Stream Media pundits and their owners

Tim Russert is roasting his marshmallows in hell right now.

[rhett o rick]

88. Are you one of the DU supporters of the DLC? nm

[branders seine]

121. that is either laughably ignorant

or laughably revisionist

[karynnj]

60. No, his candidacy was killed by lack of interest

[cali]

81. he ran a piss poor campaign-

no office at all in Iowa, didn't show for a campaign event, nearly non-existent presence in NH.

[dionysus]

106. LOL.

[cali]

so I dreamed I saw him in the debates?

[hfojvt]

23. he was kept out of some Iowa and Nevada and New Hampshire debates

also Richardson was promoted by the media as a possible contender even though he often polled lower than Kucinich. I saw him in one debate, but the New Hampshire debate was Edwards, Clinton, Obama and Richardson. I don't remember why.

According to Iowa, they kept him out of the debate there because he had neither a) an office and b) a full time staffer. Which seems to me partly like Kucinich's own fault. If he knew about those requirements it would have been worth his while to open up an office in the Quad cities or Dubuque (I like those cities because you can also cover Wisconsin and Illinois from there) and hire a staffer. Seems to me that would cost less than $10,000 and if your campaign cannot scrape together $10,000 then it is not very legitimate.

The question is, if he had done that, would they have found some other excuse to keep him out the debates?

[CrispyQ]

31. The media has totally marginalized Kucinich.

:grr:

"The question is, if he had done that, would they have found some other excuse to keep him out the debates?"

Yes. Choose an answer below:

A. He looks like an elf.
B. He's a vegan.
C. He wants a Department of Peace.
D. Oh how cute, he carries a pocket Constitution.
E. All of the above.

[hfojvt]

34. even when he was included in the debates

he was asked a question about a spaceship.

Then again, he did write that book.

We had a debate watch party and afterwards one guy was talking to a waitress and she sorta apologized for liking Kucinich, like it was something to be ashamed of.

[msanthrope]

108. Kucinich marginalized himself. Seeing a UFO while hanging with Shirley McClaine?

For cripes sake--

[apocalypsehow]

27. "Legitimacy" in a primary is conferred by votes. Dennis didn't get very many. As to the debates, he

certainly was in the first several rounds, in Philadelphia among other prime-time appearances. But then he came in, like, last or close to it in Iowa. The field narrowed to three, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. Most of the other contenders had the dignity or common sense to drop out. That's what happens when the field narrows - the party has to look to those that have a reasonable chance to make it all the way to the nomination. Dennis didn't have a prayer after Iowa, debate or no debate.

[karynnj]

59. "debates" Kuchinich was in every debate except the NH one in

January 2008. Then he dropped out. At that point, he had less than 5% of those polled - sometimes as low as 1%. (Go to the bottom to see the polls in that time frame - http://pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm He was in EVERY 2004 debate.

It was not the one poll he was not in - it was that in two separate years, he simply could not get more than a very small percent of people to vote for him.

[saltpoint]

67. Kucinich did not persuade more than those already committed to his

candidacy in any of the debates he's been in over the last decade.

He's had plenty of time to sharpen the points and make the case but did neither.

The percentages Kucinich drew in the primaries are the definition of statistically marginal.

Kucinich's case was never made because HE failed to make it.

[coti]

68. Kucinich will always lose because his policies are unrealistic.

Everyone seems to be hemmed inside this binary mode of thinking when it comes to Democratic politics- someone is always either a DLC corporatist whore (which do exist) or a heathen commie hippie peacenik (which also exist).

There is a third category- the moderate liberal.

Howard Dean is the preeminent moderate liberal. He is, contrary to the opinion of some, not an ideologue. He is, at his core, a pragmatist. He does not ask for that which is unrealistic. He is also a strong populist, which in itself can make one unrealistic, but doesn't when one tempers that populism with pragmatism. He knows very well and also does what is possible. Dennis Kucinich does not.

Obama ran his campaign as one of these moderate liberals. That is why he won. He had an extremely strong populist message. He ran a pro-Afghanistan War, anti-Iraq War campaign. He was pro-public-option and anti-mandate (people like having choices, and it's not an unrealistic idea!) He said 95% of Americans should get tax cuts, while only those making over a quarter million dollars a year should have their taxes raised. Yes, these were all great, populist, liberal, yet moderated, ideas, and if he'd just stuck with them, he would have been in great shape.

But he caught the curse that so many are infected by when they go to Washington and sold out to moneyed interests. Or maybe he just turned into a coward. Either way, he became that DLC corporatist whore and I now have serious doubts that he'll win re-election.

My point is that you don't have to be either Dennis Kucinich or Barack Obama. There is a middle position between them- the one that wins elections and, when carried through to the end, would actually help the American people.

[quakerboy]

73. Kucinich will always lose because he is not charismatic or pretty

Are you telling me that either bush had realistic policies? People will buy a pack of fairy tales as long as its packaged right, and Dennis just ain't packaged right for mainstream consumption.

Other than that, plus one.

[coti]

74. Well, that doesn't help either.

Although Democratic populism is much different than Republican populism.

You're right about Kucinich. He's not packaged for mainstream consumption, as you put it, at all. A good portion of that packaging is the ideas on which he is building himself, though.

I wouldn't call Dean "pretty" but he does have a folksy charisma to him.

[johnlucas]

75. Also heightism factors in

Human beings in their foolishness equate height with leadership & respectability.

Kucinich ALSO loses because many people don't like how short he is. It's stupid. It's dumb. It's humanity.
I never liked Kerry in 2004 & I believe one big reason people got behind him is because he was 6'4".
John Lucas

[roseBudd]

102. Kerry is 6'4" but his droopy dog sad face was an obstacle IMHO

I always thought Wes Clark was our strongest candidate, but at 5'10 I wondered if his height was problematic

[Marr]

97. He's not packaged for mainstream consumption, *and*

Corporate America gets to design the packaging.

Even if Kucinich had that gameshow host appearance, he'd still be marginalized in the US mass media. If someone like Kucinich ever does take the presidency, it'll be the result of having run a completely different sort of campaign; skirting the usual corporate-controlled outlets, or even vilifying them.

[roseBudd]

101. Kuccinich doesn't win primaries because people don't vote for him, how is he going to win a general

[Hippo_Tron]

116. He didn't have a campaign office in Iowa

If you're too inept to open a campaign office in the first caucus state then you really don't deserve to be in the primary debates.

[Blue_In_AK]

8. I'll always vote,

but I'm about as apathetic as you can get at this point. I'm just tired of everything political. Politics in Anchorage sucks, politics in Alaska sucks, and politics in Washington sucks.

[BlooInBloo]

9. Nice to see things haven't changed on DU...

And that the whole "reality based community" marketing campaign remains a lie.

[stopbush]

10. No, it's not.

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. I certainly hope so

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. Hopefully there is a Gene McCarthy waiting in the wings. We sure as hell need one.

Another president pissing away his opportunities for real "change" in a lost war and caving to the right.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

16. Who got the nomination the year McCarthy ran?

And who won the election?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. Humpty Dumpty and Nixon won.

The "not as bad" ploy fell on it's face.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

79. Humphrey>>>>>>>>>>Nixon

~

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

45. Are you assuming the nominee would be assassinated?

The year McCarthy ran Humphrey got the nomination and lost a close election.

But it's not like LBJ would have won anything. LBJ never lost a primary in 1968. He dropped out of the primaries because he knew he was toast all around. He wasn't forced out.

And RFK was shot... kind of a special circumstance.

[jonathon]

15. I think it is very possible - and I think it is necessary to push the country left

Whether a primary challenger is successful in getting the nomination is secondary to pushing the right wing democrats further left.

I think it is the best way to start a third party as well, a vigorous campaign would energize a left progressive base that would want to continue if their bid to unseat Obama was unsuccessful.

[leftstreet]

17. If he chooses not to run, it won't be a 'challenger' n/t

[Ishoutandscream2]

18. I have been disappointed in the President

but a run like Ted Kennedy's in 1980 would be disastrous for us, in my opinion. I'm afraid the best option would be for me to hold my nose and vote for the President in 2012.

[hfojvt]

19. I very much doubt it will happen and it is not a good alternative

Bill Clinton was not challenged in 1996, at least not by anybody I remember. Al Gore was challenged by the supposedly more liberal Bill Bradley, and that also helped to elected George W. Bush. It forced Gore to spend money on a primary, attacking Bradley instead of attacking Republicans. It allowed the media to put Gore on the defensive. The media created the narrative that Gore was negative and that he would "attack, attack, attack" George Bush just like he did to Bradley. It also created enough bad feeling in New Hampshire among Bradley supporters that Gore lost New Hampshire. If Gore had won New Hampshire, Florida would have been irrelevant and Gore would have had an electoral college victory to go with his popular vote victory.

Then there was 1980 when the Liberal Lion challenged the bumbling southern democrat in the primary. My feeling was that Kennedy would win the primary. Carter had been bashed and trashed for three plus years by the media, he was pretty unpopular and the economy was not doing that well. Plus, Kennedy had a name and had money. Yet he still lost and took his fight all the way to the convention where he gave a great speech, but did not concede as graciously as Hillary did. That primary battle helped to elect Reagan.

So
a) I don't think it would be a good thing to have a primary challenger, and
b) I don't see anybody with the advantages of Kennedy who could even represent the left. The closest would be either Howard Dean or Al Franken, but neither of them are a Ted Kennedy. Ralph Nader might have made a decent showing in a Democratic primary, but for some reason, he chose a different path.

[GreenStormCloud]

21. First, we need to see how 2010 plays out.

I don't foresee a serious Democratic primary challenger to Obama in 2012. Usually when that happens, the incumbent wins the primary and loses the general. Recent examples would be Ford in 1976, and Carter in 1980. Johnson in 1968 would be a kind of example, except that he resigned but the Democrats still lost.

A serious challenge from inside the party divides the party and takes it down to defeat in the general election.

[zipplewrath]

28. Lagging or leading indicator

I think you may have your correlation backwards. The challenge doesn't divide the party, the party is divided which creates challengers.

[GreenStormCloud]

42. Excellent point.

Perhaps it is both. The divide creates the challenger who then makes the divide deeper.

[stray cat]

24. Of course - however someone capable of winning more than 10% is unlikely

[madrchsod]

26. won`t work--not enough money.

the next election will see billions given to the republican and democratic presidential candidates.

[SlingBlade]

29. We can only hope. Nevertheless, He's got a foursome waiting

at the local republican country club consisting of George HW, Clinton and that imbecile Dubya.

[Greyhound]

32. Surprising how few remember even that long ago.

What did it take Clinton, 60 days before he comes out in his "Senior Statesman" photo-op being all chummy with the people that "tried to destroy him for 6 years".

Obama didn't even wait until the mid-terms before the knives came out.

[SlingBlade]

76. Selective Memory. This Kucinich hate feast is part of Rahms

Big Push. It's got Chicago style politics all over it.

Funny about that memory thingy too huh.
Looks like some DUers have picked up that old BushBot disease from the spit drippers.

It's a pretty clear example as to why real change is so difficult
They pull out the Re-Puke Card as in the old Good Cop Bad Cop game and anyone
whose left standing, Those who refused to take a chair are attacked unmercifully, From all sides.

That's also a pretty clear sign that your on the right track.

[mzmolly]

30. Yes. Kucinich is a reliable challenger.

He's currently positioning himself to run against Health Care reform.

[anonymous171]

33. I agree. Primaries are always good. However, Kucinich would not be a good challenger

UFO and elf jokes aside, he is regarded as a perennial candidate and will not be taken seriously.

[customerserviceguy]

35. I'm sure

that by this calendar date in 1978, it didn't look like Ted Kennedy would challenge Jimmy Carter. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect there's more disenchantment with President Obama than there was with President Carter by the same point in their terms.

[onenote]

49. Comparison of Obama and Carter

In March 1978, Carter's approval level was around 49 percent -- roughly where Obama is now. But the bottom was about to drop out on Carter. A month later, he was at 40 percent and he hovered in the low forties to upper 30s for months thereafter. Carter had a bit of a bump in late 2008, but in the spring and summer his approval levels plummeted to below 30 percent.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx


So while its true that "by this date in 1978" it may not have looked like Ted Kennedy would challenge Carter, the drumbeat for a Kennedy candidacy was only a couple of weeks away. Polls at the time showed that Democrats preferred Kennedy to Carter.

While we'll know in a few weeks, my bet is that Obama is not on the verge of a 10 point drop in his ratings in the next couple of weeks. And there is no Democrat who is preferred over Obama or even in the same ballpark.

[customerserviceguy]

111. Thanks for looking that up

Two things: while the drumbeat for the Kennedy candidacy was only a few weeks away, this thread is proof that it's here now for President Obama. That may be a function of having the Internet now, whereas we didn't in 1978, but the very presence of that media (as well as the three 24/7 news channels) means that momemtum slips can get way out of control faster than they did at that time, as well.

And we're about to see what happens to Obama's ratings as the HCR drama goes from cliffhanger to resolved status. I predict a drop in his poll numbers no matter which way it goes, there will either be a sense of failure surrounding him if it fails, and buyer's remorse if it passes.

Woe be unto him if he gets the House to pass the Senate bill, and the reconciliation bill fails. He'll make Jimmy Carter look like FDR.

[onenote]

112. the difference is that there was a drumbeat for a Kennedy challenge, but there is no one

that anyone has identified as a possible challenger to Obama with anything approaching the stature and the built in national base that Kennedy had.

[customerserviceguy]

113. That is quite true

Kennedy was a political giant, who probably thought that 1976 was too soon after Chappaquiddick to run for the Presidency. Jimmy Carter beat out a weak field of candidates.

But we had a somewhat stronger field of candidates running for the Democratic nomination in 2008. It's not impossible for one particular such candidate - Hillary Clinton - to emerge as the most successful part of this Administration, and be persuaded into "saving" the party from defeat in 2012. She already still has a political base that nearly gave her the nomination two years ago, they'd be happy to see her do this.

Stranger things have happened.

[rhett o rick]

36. Who do you mean when you say "best...for the Democratic Party".

The DNC, DCCC, DLC, Rahmbo, and the Blue(R)Dogs? Or the progressives? It is almost impossible to effectively challenge a Democratic incumbent. The "Democratic Party" machine will always oppose challengers to Democratic incumbents. Big money support will always go to support the incumbent.

Trying to run progressive challengers against entrenched Democratic incumbents is one of our few options and I strongly support it. Just remember, it must be done from outside the party, maybe moveon.org or Democracy for America. Your local and state parties will most likely not help. And we know the national party is anti-progressive.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[shimmergal]

44. No. I must regretfully conclude that a

primary challenger from the left won't succeed, and likely as not would weaken the party.

What COULD work out well, though, is a third party RADICAL CENTER candidate. Put aside all the daydreams about a Naderesque or Kucinich-like campaign getting anywhere. Like them or not (and I don't like Nader, have a lot of admiration for Kucinich), such a candidacy is doomed to at best, irrelevance, or worse, playing a spoiler role.

The only workable model is a Perot-type campaign. He won 19% of the vote in 1992; enough to make a difference. Among the lessons to be learned from this: you can draw voters with just a few, well-chosen platform planks. As things stand now, I'd recommend: 1) HCR {as likely to be passed,) doesn't work, so give states autonomy to try out their own plans for health coverage.
Of these points, only #3 is likely to draw the ire of Republicans. The radical-middle campaign needs to have as muxh potential to draw votes from "independents" and non-crazy Republicans as from disillusioned Democrats. Long-unemployed Republicans might be willing to forego ideological purity it if meant a job for themselves. Another way to sweeten it in the platform would be to speak of public jobs as a substitute for long-term unemployment benefits. At least this way we could get some of our crumbling infrastructure worked on.

OK...I can just hear the "But..but..buts" from DUers who want a candidate who'd match their wishes exactly. But you're not going to find one. The radical middle candidate could at least make a good showing, not hurt the core Democratic vote much, and probably be less subject to small-aircraft accidents or other misfortunes, because none of the "big boys" would take him all that seriously.

'Course he/she needs either to be independently wealthy and able to self-finance, or able to tap a hitherto unexplored source of campaign financing.

Any ideas along this line?

[Enthusiast]

46. This country desperately needs

more than two parties. We need five or six viable political parties. Then it would not be the "lesser of two evils" every time we vote.

[shimmergal]

47. Oops--computer cut off

my points #2 and 3 in my 'RADICAL MIDDLE" THIRD PARTY POST.

2. sTOP OUTSOURCING JOBS. pENALTIES FOR DCOMPANIES WHICH CONTINUE TO DO THIS. tAX CREDITS AND OTHER BENNIES FOR THOSE WHO CREATE JOBS AT HOME, OR BRING THEM BACK. 3. dIRECT JOB CREATION, AS IN fDR'S ERA.

[Stinky The Clown]

48. Anything's possible. I think it VERY unlikely. But its possible.

[onenote]

50. For those who think a progressive challenge is possible, please identify the challenger?

When Kennedy challenged Carter, you were talking about a challenge from someone who had a built in following that was as strong and widespread as Carter's himself (if not moreso). No one today comes close to Kennedy in that regard and the notion of a serious challenge to his renomination is, at least today, pretty farfetched without a name.

[Edweird]

51. If Grayson can keep doing what he's doing, I bet he would put some fear in the DLC'ers.

[Cleita]

52. I don't want him challenged. I want him to do his two terms.

What I want is for every DINO and Republican in Congress to be challenged. I want to see a whole lot of progressive fresh faces in the next Congress. We need Obama to get some decent Supreme Court judges in during his two terms. I think he will do a good job at that since he is a Constitutional lawyer.

[Donnachaidh]

55. *his* two terms? Uhh, that second term is not automatic

Perhaps he thinks as you do, and that's the reason behind some of his decisions right now. But it's NOT automatic, not by a long shot.

[Cleita]

58. I agree with you but it would be disastrous if he lost. It would mean another

Republican in office. Even a DLCer is preferable to the real thing. Traditionally the DNC usually doesn't encourage primary challengers against a sitting President although there have been a few in the past.

[Oerdin]

56. I wish they would but I doubt it.

The truth is we liberals just let them stab us in the back over and over and over again and, like an abused wife, we keep crawling back to the liars who constantly abuse us. We need to do what the Republicans do and primary every single bastard who dares to vote against any part of the party platform. If we won't stand up for what we want then we deserve these traitors who constantly thumb their noses at us.

[LostInAnomie]

57. I hope Obama destroys anyone that would consider a run against him.

Whether it be Bayh, Kucinich, or any other piece of shit that looks to help Republican chances by harming the President. Any way you slice it, that is all a primary challenge does. They will not be successful, it will not push any issues, it will only divide the party and help republicans.

Anyone for primarying Obama is a fucking idiot.

[Donnachaidh]

62. hiow utterly Big Tent of you!

Free Republic is --> that way.

[Last_Stand]

66. President Obama might want to start destroying some of these fucking republicans first...

[anonymous171]

72. He could easily destroy them by moving left. That's how FDR had planned to neuter Huey Long. nt

[Kalun D]

63. Probably not

delete duplicate post

[Kalun D]

64. Probably not

the medium the majority of Americans get their "news" from including coverage of political canditates, namely the TV, is wholly corporate owned. Just look at what happened to Howard Dean (a viable Progressive) when he advocated media reform as a candidate, it was lights out and he became "unelectable" according the the corporate TV.

If you don't tow the corporate line, which is an antithesis to progressivism, you don't get favorable coverage from their TV

that's why Obama has been suspect from day one, he got more or less favorable coverage from the corporate fascist television.

[Hekate]

69. Reunite the Dem Party? No, it would split us wide open and make the Repubs deliriously happy...

... because ONCE AGAIN the Democrats would manage to snatch Defeat from the jaws of Victory.

Because why? Because we're that stupid.

Hekate

[depakid]

70. Two of the last three Democratic presidents faced a primary challenger

One over a quagmire of a war. another over health care and the economy.

[saltpoint]

71. I think it's more likely that Evan Bayh will run on an independent ticket.

It would be kind of interesting if we had President Obama seeking re-election; Willard or some other automaton running for the Pukes; Evan Bayh launching an indie bid; and perhaps a nutbag ticket from the Tea Party / Founders? WHAT Founders demographic running to Willard's right; plus the Greens, etc.

Not clean and neat and tidy and polite mind you. But interesting.

[gleaner]

77. I think it is ...

in addition to all of the factors you cite in your post there is the personal ambition of progressives like Grayson (whom I like, by the way) which sees the vulnerability of Obama and may decide to go for it.

I don't think Obama's victory is sure and certain, though and if he should win it will not be like it was in 2008. Then people were voting for him. If he won the primary and ran again people would be voting against someone else and not for Obama. The difference would be the margin of victory.

People are angry and feeling very betrayed at this point. It was pointed out once that the popularity of the president is at its peak during the year following the election and then tends to fall even in the best of times. These are not the best of times and Obama is not making it better.

I would like to see someone like Grayson who is strong and ambitious run. He would be less likely to sell out his base and maybe we could see some real reforms that would remove the stagnation we are experiencing now. I also like Kucinich and Weiner, although I don't think Weiner could mount a very strong primary challenge at this point. He is a promising gadfly, though.

[upi402]

78. i WILL vote for her, or him

or it for that matter.

[tritsofme]

90. Only vanity candidates will "challenge" President Obama

There will be no need for the President to even acknowledge their existence. Maybe Fox News will run a profile about divided Democrats, but that's about as far as these candidacies go.

But to answer your question, it wouldn't surprise me to see Kucinich run again, he seems to do it every four years.

[Odin2005]

91. Dean/Grayson 2012!

!!!

[Fire1]

98. Anybody can 'run.' But to 'win?' Not a chance in hell. n/t

[bigtree]

103. and divide our Democratic vote leading into that election, giving support to republican opposition?

Hope not.

[dionysus]

104. serious question, do you think there's any candidate that can get any serious support.

[saltpoint]

109. My take is no.

Obama seems well-positioned for renomination if he wants a second four years.

[scarletwoman]

118. I wish people would stop looking for a savior. Just stop.

It doesn't matter who's president, the real power resides elsewhere, and this has been so since the JFK assassination.

The president is a figurehead, a front man, a chief of PR. He (or she, if that ever happens) can only do what the real powers allow him (or her) to do.

If you want real change -- not the slick ad campaign kind of pretend change -- it will have to come from the bottom up. The kind of change you want will NEVER come from the top down.

Stop looking for an easy way out by fantasizing about some wonderful progressive deus ex machina to come along and make everything right. How do you think we ended up with Obama, for cripesakes? We got Obama because everyone was looking for a Mr. Wonderful to swoop in and fix everything.

There's no savior out there waiting in the wings. WE are the ones who will have to do the hard work of channelling all our creativity and energy and anger and angst into remaking how the world works. We are going to have to be willing to throw our bodies into the cogs and wheels of the machinery that's destroying us -- that's what it's going to take to stop it.

Voting don't mean shit. As Emma Goldman said, "If voting really changed anything it would be made illegal." Looking for a different candidate to make things better is just avoiding the hard choices that REALLY need to made -- like, are you willing to give up your relatively comfortable material life in order to throw off the chains that bind us and Obama alike?

There are no saviors, there's only US. What are WE going to do?

sw

[branders seine]

127. please re-read the OP.

it is not an appeal for a "progressive savior."

First, it assumes that the current DC-based Democratic Party is antithetical to a progressive agenda and is alienating progressives. Then it speculates that if a truly progressive Democratic candidate participates meaningfully in the 2012 primaries that perhaps at least some elements, no matter how small, of progressive ideas could interject themselves into the debate, reengaging progressives in the Democratic Party.

Agree or disagree, at least comment on the topic.

Personally, I think if the above scenario played out, it would be a *bad* thing, precisely because it might further reduce the pressure that is building toward a scenario like you describe--real progressives doing whatever it takes to change the world. Even if Obama did give a little lip service to progressive ideas in 2012, we already have seen that he will continue with his relentlessly corporatist, anti-progressive, anti-worker agenda.

[kctim]

122. #1

Nobody ever gets EVERYTHING they want, so progressive dissatisfaction will NEVER evaporate, no matter who is president, but they will vote for President Obama out of fear of Republican wins NO MATTER WHAT.
Progressive numbers are NOT too small to matter because President Obama cannot win without them. Just like he cannot win without the same number of moderate and black American votes.
Diehard progressive numbers are too small to make a third-party candidate viable.

[branders seine]

128. I agree with your second statement.

Progressives are a large enough bloc to make or break Democratic candidates.

As for your third statement, sorta kinda. Progressives are too small a bloc to take over the Democratic Party, but constitute a larger bloc than the rapublican base. It is the corporate ownership of America and the extra-constitutional two-party system that prevent progressives (or anyone else) from forming a viable third party.

Your first statement? Nonsense. I see millions of progressives not voting for Obama in 2012, no matter which knuckledragger runs against him.

[kctim]

131. Nonsense?

Imagine its Palin vs President Obama in 2012 and all the polls are within the margin of error. You really don't think fear will put the progressive vote in Obama's corner? I disagree.

I guess only 2012 will show who is right.

[branders seine]

132. Nothing pisses someone off more

than being betrayed by someone they trusted.

[Echo In Light]

129. This is based on the assumption that the public decides who will be elected

We don't