The last two times when Dems were the incumbents & had primaries, the GOP took the White House

[MrScorpio]

Yep, we got both Nixon and Reagan respectively... And they weren't considered whacked out nutjobs at the time of their elections. They were "respectable".

Unfortunately, they'd be considered too lefty by today's GOP environs.

Frankly, the prospect of Democratic incumbency primary is much too risky to hazard, given our track record.

The last thing that I want to see in the White House is a scene like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EO9y4rGxvk

Just something to consider.

[Ken Burch]

1. We'd also have lost in '68 if we'd renominated LBJ

The Tet Offensive made that a certainty.

And Carter would have lost no matter what in 1980 once the hostages were taken.

BOTH of them should just not ever have even tried for re-election, and Johnson shouldn't have forced the party to adopt a prowar platform in Chicago.

[MrScorpio]

3. Bobby getting killed 2 months before a riot plagued convention didn't help either

Now, if he were not shot, would that had prevented the party from being so fragmented?

No one knows.

But the fact was that we had the White House and we gave it away to the Republicans.

Basically, we did it to ourselves.

[Art_from_Ark]

11. If Bobby had not been killed, he would have won

He had the momentum. He would have won every state that Humphrey did, and others as well. George Wallace would in all likelihood have been just an insignificant player if he had even entered the race.

Johnson dropped out of the race in large part because he had "lost Cronkite". That is, the influential CBS News anchorman had started coming out against the war in February 1968. In part, Cronkite made the following comments about the Vietnam War on his February 27, 1968 news broadcast:

"Who won and who lost in the great Tet offensive against the cities? I’m not sure. The Vietcong did not win by a knockout, but neither did we. The referees of history may make it a draw.

It seems now more certain than ever that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate.

But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/walter_cronkite_vietnam_and_th.html


As for the Democratic Party platform of 1968, this is what it had to say about Vietnam:

"Vietnam and Asia

Our most urgent task in Southeast Asia is to end the war in Vietnam by an honorable and lasting settlement which respects the rights of all the people of Vietnam. In our pursuit of peace and stability in the vital area of Southeast Asia we have borne a heavy burden in helping South Vietnam to counter aggression and subversion from the North.

We reject as unacceptable a unilateral withdrawal of our forces which would allow that aggression and subversion to succeed. We have never demanded, and do not now demand, unconditional surrender by the communists.

We strongly support the Paris talks and applaud the initiative of President Johnson which brought North Vietnam to the peace table. We hope that Hanoi will respond positively to this act of statesmanship.

In the quest for peace no solutions are free of risk. But calculated risks are consistent with the responsibility of a great nation to seek a peace of reconciliation.

Recognizing that events in Vietnam and the negotiations in Paris may affect the timing and the actions we recommend, we would support our Government in the following steps:

Bombing: Stop all bombing of North Vietnam when this action would not endanger the lives of our troops in the field; this action should take into account the response form Hanoi.

Troop Withdrawal: Negotiate with Hanoi an immediate end or limitation of hostilities and the withdrawal from South Vietnam of all foreign forces—both United States and allied forces, and forces infiltrated from North Vietnam.

Election of Postwar Government: Encourage all parties and interests to agree that the choice of the postwar government of South Vietnam should be determined by fair and safeguarded elections, open to all major political factions and parties prepared to accept peaceful political processes. We would favor an effective international presence to facilitate the transition from war to peace and to assure the protection of minorities against reprisal.

Interim Defense and Development Measures: Until the fighting stops, accelerate our efforts to train and equip the South Vietnamese army so that it can defend its own country and carry out cutbacks of U.S. military involvement as the South Vietnamese forces are able to take over their larger responsibilities. We should simultaneously do all in our power to support and encourage further economic, political and social development and reform in South Vietnam, including an extensive land reform program. We support President Johnson's repeated offer to provide a substantial U.S. contribution to the postwar reconstruction of South Vietnam as well as to the economic development of the entire region, including North Vietnam. Japan and the European industrial states should be urged to join in this postwar effort.

For the future, we will make it clear that U.S. military and economic assistance in Asia will be selective. In addition to considerations of our vital interests and our resources, we will take into account the determination of the nations that request our help to help themselves and their willingness to help each other through regional and multilateral cooperation.

We want no bases in South Vietnam; no continued military presence and no political role in Vietnamese affairs. If and when the communists understand our basic commitment and limited goals and are willing to take their chances, as we are, on letting the choice of the post-war government of South Vietnam be determined freely and peacefully by all of the South Vietnamese people, then the bloodshed and the tragedy can stop."

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29604

[MrScorpio]

14. Frankly, Bobby is a non-issue, because he was dead.

In the wake of his death, the Democratic Party had two months to get their shit in order and they muffed it up, from LBJ, to HHH, to Daley and his police riot on live TV.

We were not a united party and Nixon took advantage of it.


It's a lesson that we should heed.

[Art_from_Ark]

18. Actually, Bobby is a big issue here

because the premise of the original post is that there should be no primary challenge to a sitting Democratic president because it ends in defeat for the Democratic Party. My point is that Bobby Kennedy, who was not the incumbent Democratic President in 1968, would in all likelihood have won the '68 election. So yes, he is entirely relevant here.

As for Carter, he did not lose because he was challenged in the primary-- he lost mainly because of Iran and the economy. And, as was the case with Wallace and Nixon in '68, in the 1980 Presidential election Carter also had to fight off strong challengers from both sides (Reagan and Anderson).

[Ken Burch]

24. Bobby's death played a huge role, it's true

Still, defeat could likely have been avoided if any of these three things had happened:

1)If Eugene McCarthy had been nominated;

2)If Teddy Kennedy had been drafted for the nomination(which was a serious possibility);

3)If Johnson, who had personal control of most delegates that were pledged to Humphrey(they were actually just pro-Administration delegates and almost all of them were chosen by non-democratic means)had allowed Humphrey to do what he desperately wanted to do and have his delegates approve a peace plank.

Defeat in 1968 was almost entirely Johnson's fault. He chose to make the party lose rather than let it break with the war.

It goes without saying that Johnson himself would have lost if renominated.

[Greyhound]

31. That would be a police riot, and it was the result of the same attitude displayed

in your revision of history. The Party bosses were willing to lose rather than sharing the power with the people that wanted to give them victory. "We" had nothing to do with it.

The naked aggression displayed by Daley's thugs and the reprehensible tactics used in the convention also caused the primary rules changes that allowed Jimmy Carter to get by them and into the general election. The only "Democrats" that lose are the short-sighted, power hungry assholes that always seem to be at the top of our party's power structure at the critical moments. They work against their constituents to further their own avarice, IOW they are republiks in Democratic clothing.

[Le Taz Hot]

35. +1

Exactly.

[JVS]

33. All of these factors point to 1968 being too polluted a sample to use for comparison.

The fact that there were primaries was the least of our problems. In fact, one can argue that we had primaries only because things were so fucked up in the first place with regards to LBJ.

[Art_from_Ark]

44. Pro-war platform?

This is from the actual 1968 platform:

"Troop Withdrawal: Negotiate with Hanoi an immediate end or limitation of hostilities and the withdrawal from South Vietnam of all foreign forces—both United States and allied forces, and forces infiltrated from North Vietnam."

Doesn't really sound pro-war to me

[Ken Burch]

45. It kept the bombing going for the forseeable future

And continued on the pointless and unachievable objective of "peace through victory".

It implied that the war was with "Hanoi", rather than also with the National Liberation Frong(NLF). The Vietnam War was not a foreign invasion.

Also, Vietnam was always ONE country, so "North Vietnamese" troops were not "foreign".

And, for the record, here is the ENTIRE Vietnam plank from the 1968 platform:

"Our most urgent task in Southeast Asia is to end the war in Vietnam by an honorable and lasting settlement which respects the rights of all the people of Vietnam. In our pursuit of peace and stability in the vital area of Southeast Asia we have borne a heavy burden in helping South Vietnam to counter aggression and subversion from the North."

"We reject as unacceptable a unilateral withdrawal of our forces which would allow that aggression and subversion to succeed. We have never demanded, and do not now demand, unconditional surrender by the communists."

"We strongly support the Paris talks and applaud the initiative of President Johnson which brought North Vietnam to the peace table. We hope that Hanoi will respond positively to this act of statesmanship."

"In the quest for peace no solutions are free of risk. But calculated risks are consistent with the responsibility of a great nation to seek a peace of reconciliation."

"Recognizing that events in Vietnam and the negotiations in Paris may affect the timing and the actions we recommend, we would support our Government in the following steps:"

"Bombing: Stop all bombing of North Vietnam when this action would not endanger the lives of our troops in the field; this action should take into account the response form Hanoi."

"Troop Withdrawal: Negotiate with Hanoi an immediate end or limitation of hostilities and the withdrawal from South Vietnam of all foreign forces—both United States and allied forces, and forces infiltrated from North Vietnam."

"Election of Postwar Government: Encourage all parties and interests to agree that the choice of the postwar government of South Vietnam should be determined by fair and safeguarded elections, open to all major political factions and parties prepared to accept peaceful political processes. We would favor an effective international presence to facilitate the transition from war to peace and to assure the protection of minorities against reprisal."

"Interim Defense and Development Measures: Until the fighting stops, accelerate our efforts to train and equip the South Vietnamese army so that it can defend its own country and carry out cutbacks of U.S. military involvement as the South Vietnamese forces are able to take over their larger responsibilities. We should simultaneously do all in our power to support and encourage further economic, political and social development and reform in South Vietnam, including an extensive land reform program. We support President Johnson's repeated offer to provide a substantial U.S. contribution to the postwar reconstruction of South Vietnam as well as to the economic development of the entire region, including North Vietnam. Japan and the European industrial states should be urged to join in this postwar effort."

"For the future, we will make it clear that U.S. military and economic assistance in Asia will be selective. In addition to considerations of our vital interests and our resources, we will take into account the determination of the nations that request our help to help themselves and their willingness to help each other through regional and multilateral cooperation."

"We want no bases in South Vietnam; no continued military presence and no political role in Vietnamese affairs. If and when the communists understand our basic commitment and limited goals and are willing to take their chances, as we are, on letting the choice of the post-war government of South Vietnam be determined freely and peacefully by all of the South Vietnamese people, then the bloodshed and the tragedy can stop. "

In other words...an arrogant endorsement of the status quo, the will of the primaries be damned.

[Art_from_Ark]

48. Vietnam was not always "one country"

just as East and West Germany were not always "one country" and North and South Korea are not "one country". From 1954 to 1975, North and South Vietnam were clearly different countries with different governments. The invasion by the North was clearly a "foreign invasion" just as an invasion of South Korea by North Korea would be viewed as a "foreign invasion" today.

[Davis_X_Machina]

2. But the resulting chaos...

...would just bring the dawn of the real, progressive America that much closer.

Now some so-called 'pragmatists' will carp, and say "What about those people who would suffer, unnecessarily, in the meantime?"

I say, that's just a lack of vision.

These great Americans doubtless realize the place their sacrifice plays in our inexorable march towards a true progressive nation, and won't be resentful. At all. Not a little bit.

There will of course be a National Day of Commemoration for them, in recognition of their completely avoidable suffering. Or do you think they'd like to be on a commemorative stamp? Or is a monument, something tasteful and not too showy on the Mall in Washington more appropriate?

Let's get out there and get to work, people! Those contradictions won't heighten themselves.

[MrScorpio]

6. Any scenario where the Republicans take advantage of our fragmentation is a setback for us

I'm sure that the GOP is salivating at the possibility of a Democratic primary next term.

Their message will surely be, "If their own party can't support their own incumbent, why should you? Elect us, we know how to back our guy,"

A powerful message indeed.

[Ken Burch]

27. Nobody's arguing for chaos.

BTW, if Obama "moves to the center"(not that he wasn't already IN the center, so let's admit that he'd be moving to the center-right if he got any more "centrist")those people will suffer anyway.

Clinton didn't defend the poor after 1994. He signed the "Rush Limbaugh's Wet Dream" Poor Law instead(aka "welfare reform").

[MadHound]

4. Yeah, I know this game

Shouldn't primary a bad candidate because the other side will when. Shouldn't vote third party because the other side will win.

Know what, all this "winning" we've been doing fighting for this candidate cum president has done very little besides bring us loss.

So then, what's the point, heads you win, tails I lose.

Yeah, I know this game, I've been getting screwed by it most of my life. That's how we wound up in this position, with a supposedly Democratic president, who campaigned as a progressive, yet is carrying out large portions of the Republican agenda.

[MrScorpio]

8. Whatever your position, I'd rather NOT see the Republicans take the White House

You think that you're getting screwed now?

You haven't seen screwed until the nut cases take control.

[MadHound]

15. I don't think I'm getting screwed now,

I know. Obama's education policy has directly set back my career a number of years. How large that number is has yet to be determined, but since I'm now starting to get within shouting distance of AARP territory, any number is far too large.

Not that I'm looking forward to having 'Pugs take another whack at the education pinata, but the fact of the matter is that Obama has betrayed one of his core constituencies, and implemented the most unDemocratic of education policies. So then, heads you win, tails I lose.

It is quickly coming down to the point where Democrat and Republican are meaningless. The Democratic foundation of standing for the common man, the working man, has crumbled to dust, with just a few of our "leaders" still clinging to those old values. Worse yet, at least in some ways, that firebrand, knock heads style of political fighting so favored by the Dems of old, that's gone as well. Carter was reviled as a wimp, be he's got nothing on Obama. You can't practice bipartisanship on a unilateral basis, you'll get your ass handed to you every time.

So really now, if we continue down this Democratic/Republican two party path, the only question becomes whether I want to watch this country slide down the tubes quickly under the 'Pugs or slightly less quickly under the Dems. I would rather try to find a real solution outside of that Hobbesian choice, and if that results in Republican rule, so be it. In empire destruction, as in facing imminent death, I would rather things get over with sooner than later. At least I will have gone down knowing that I tried for real change, not the faux change of greater and lesser evil.

[MrScorpio]

16. When the third parties start producing substantials, then I MAY consider them

Until then, I really don't think that they'll ever produce on a national scale.

[MadHound]

17. Yeah, that's the problem,

Everybody says that. But the thing is, if people started supporting them, then they would produce. Therefore I'll start trying to undo that Gordian's knot in my own humble way.

But to keep on doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result every time, well by some definitions that is insanity. I'm tired of the madness, I want real change. It may not happen overnight, I doubt it will. But given a few years, a few million pissed off people, it can happen. It has before in our history, so hey, why not give it a shot now? What do you have to lose, a rigged game where we the people wind up losing.

[BzaDem]

29. "But given a few years, a few million pissed off people, it can happen."

A few million pissed off is not going to produce change when there are 115 million that are perfectly fine.

You say doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is insanity. Well we already tried your way in 2000. Why would trying that again, and again, and again produce ANY different result?

You seem to assume that you not liking the two choices implies that there is a third choice. Why do you assume that? Do you at least accept the logical possibility that it might simply be that you continue to dislike both choices forever, with no third choice ever becoming viable?

If you accept the logical possibility, why don't you think that is by far the most likely outcome?

[MadHound]

38. LOL, History belies you, but you already know that

The Whigs went down before the Republicans in the space of two short election cycles.

As far as 2000 goes, you know that was nowhere near "trying it my way".

As far as choices go, it isn't about what I like or dislike. There is always a third choice, whether it be a third party, or simply staying home and not voting. And actually, given the fact that the largest plurality in our election system doesn't vote, you could say that the third choice is winning.

And if I accept your "logical outcome" then I must accept the decline and destruction of this country, presided over by a party that is corporately corrupted. I refuse to give in to that. You can, you already have. But I refuse to let the corporate bastards win.

[BzaDem]

40. Just because our election system lets naive people think there's a third choice

doesn't mean there is actually a third choice. One of two choices becomes President. "Not voting" doesn't have a chance to become President. Not voting just affects the chances of one of the two in various ways -- it is not itself a third choice, since it can't become President. "Not voting" is a coping mechanism borne out of cognitive dissonance that just gives the people actually aware of the choices more power.

When Republicans are laughing their ass off at people who think there's a "third choice" (and contributing heavily to purportedly-left-leaning "third choice" candidates), it's time for the third-choicers to reflect on what they're doing wrong.

[MadHound]

42. Who is talking about a third choice?

Frankly I'm much more interested in replacing the Democratic party with a truly progressive party, and that can be done. Again, witness the Whigs, gone in a matter of years, replaced by the Republicans who won the presidency the second time they ran.

By the by, good morning. I notice that you're up all day and all night around here. You must live on coffee:rofl:

[BzaDem]

43. Oh, sure. A party can be more or less swapped out.

I would be happy if the Democratic party became more progressive.

The problem is that this doesn't happen when the vast majority of the party is satisfied. If there were actually a constituency for a much more progressive Democratic party from within its ranks, it would become more progressive.

But that is not the case at this point. Obama ran on bipartisanship at every chance he got (within the primary no less). He ran on escalating in Afghanistan, he ran on looking forward not backward, etc. The candidate who ran on the opposite on all those things got 1% of the vote or something -- and that's with the caucuses that greatly empower the base over the moderates.

[NuttyFluffers]

36. that's circular reasoning. "when they become popular then i'll bandwagon."

the journey of a thousand (miles) begins with the first step.

... but first you gotta stop playing a fixed game, get up from the table, and walk away.

[BzaDem]

41. The problem is, walking away just enables the two parties EVEN MORE.

You keep assuming that there IS actually something you can do about it (which is why you get the ridiculous notion that "walking away" somehow hurts the two-parties in any way). Perhaps you need to re-evaluate that core assumption -- that you have any power to change the two-party system at all.

[Ozymanithrax]

5. And when Ford was primaried by Reagan, Democrats took the White House...

And when Bush I was primaried by Buchanan, Democrats took the White Hosue.

More often than not, primarying a sittng Prsident is a plague upon both houses.

[MrScorpio]

7. Goes both ways, Buddy

Incumbency primaries are a sure fire disaster.

[Ozymanithrax]

9. Then perhaps we can learn something from this.

Clearly, primarying a sitting president, or any incumbunt, doesn't necessarily make that person move politically, and tends to lead to disaster by weakening the survivor of the contest.

Is it better to have power or better to punish the eleted official that pissed us off?

[MrScorpio]

12. I'm pretty much convinced that most people harping on a primary...

Didn't want Obama in office in the first place.

A primary is their way of "correcting" a wrong.

[Ozymanithrax]

13. He wasn't my first or second choice...

but primarying him is just stupid.

People really wanted a transformative figure but forgot that transformations in real life take years not minutes.

He is infintily better than the alternative.

[aquart]

19. Yes, he is infantilely better than the alternative.

I'd like a grownup, not a frightened child, myself.

[Midwestern Democrat]

23. Both of those cases were somewhat unique.

Buchanan was clearly a "protest" candidacy - it wasn't really a truly serious challenge.

Ford was the only President in US history who was neither elected to the office of President or Vice President - for Reagan (and many others), this was a key distinction - he didn't think an appointed placeholder was at all entitled to a coronation.

[Art_from_Ark]

51. Ford was an unelected President who was a little dense

and a klutz, who didn't even realize that Poland was still under Soviet domination in 1976, who pardoned Nixon (who had appointed him to replace the discredited Spiro Agnew) as soon as Nixon resigned, who presided over the highest inflation rate up to that time in living memory, who got the nation worked up over a non-existent swine flu epidemic...

That is why Ford lost the '76 election, not because of the '76 primary.

[jefferson_dem]

10. You are correct.

Anyone who proposes a Democratic Party primary challenge may as well be a paid Repug operative.

[LiberalAndProud]

20. A primary challenge doesn't make sense, in any case.

A challenge assumes that another candidate would perform better in office. I have come to believe that it's all scripted. One pol can be exchanged for the next but the outcome will still be the same. Maybe I'll feel differently in 2012, but right now Obama is the lesser of evils, for whatever that's worth.

[hfojvt]

21. you seem to have forgotten Senator Bradley

[MrScorpio]

22. You're right

While it is technically true, we should never forget that the White House was actually stolen from the real winner in 2000.

[Shandris]

25. In case you haven't noticed...

...we already have a Republican in the White House.

Or maybe not a full Republican, but we sure as hell don't have a progressive Democrat. We have a man who seems to mistake 'fight' for 'talk and give in'. I've been for Barack for years now, but at this point I'm about sick of watching cave after cave after cave after cave with no lesson seemingly being learned.

Let someone else challenge if they can field a legitimate challenge. If not, then we'll go with who we have.

But I WILL not, I positively REFUSE, to sit back and admit luke-warm mealy-mouthed 'compromise' is the BEST we have to offer because a Republican MAY win the White House.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

46. actually you DO have a progressive democrat in the WH, what you DON'T have is a Liberal one n/t

[the redcoat]

26. I'm all but done caring about the presidency.

We'll either get someone who is against progressive values (and won't even acknowledge civil rights, social security, etc), or someone who says they are for the middle class but makes sure his/her actions, in the long run, keep the status quo.

So, what'll happen in 2012? To be honest, at the moment I just can't bring myself to care. Things will not change because of one person. Things will change when we:

1. Stop being apathetic
2. Stop being influenced by media/corporations

The tea party showed us that one step alone cannot solve our problems.

Oh, and 3. Stop demonizing the people who uncover truth.

[Greyhound]

28. A lot can happen in two years, but right now I don't think it will matter,

the Democrats will lose the White House in 2012, primary challenge/ third party candidate or not.

[BzaDem]

30. Though they'll probably win with a less progressive candidate in 2016 or 2020, once those who enable

Republicans at the ballot box on the "left" finally wake up. And the cycle will repeat, until they tire of it.

[TheKentuckian]

32. Obama should be primaried to make sure he is not allowed to set the leftward

boundary of the political spectrum.

I say this as an Obama primary voter, worker, contributor, and general election voter.

We allowed an approved candidate to be our nominee. If there is much hope at all in electoral politics, at a minimum that has to be nipped in the bud.
Surely we know better than to get roped into these hacks.

[Greyhound]

34. You know, I think that is a valid point.

If nothing else, it will force the party to acknowledge that they must earn our votes.

[frustrated_lefty]

37. And we never had a black president before.

Given that track record, your reasoning suggests......

[TexasObserver]

39. Correlation, not cause and effect.

The last two times we had Democratic presidents who weren't going to get reelected, they got primaried.

[Hawkowl]

47. Weak presidents--not primary challenges

The dems lost because both presidents were very weak. Weakness begets primary challengers. You have your cause and effects reversed. If Obama actually stood on his STATED principles, he would be seen as strong.

[BlueIris]

49. Nothing validates renominating him.

And not just because he'll lose.

[dflprincess]

50. Like they don't have it now? n/t