Other than as a protest, there is no point in trying to primary Obama

[cali]

There is no viable candidate in the party who will run against him. Period. And a primary against the first black president? As was pointed out in another thread, dems can't win without the black vote. Russ Feingold has already endorsed Obama for 2012. I can guarantee Bernie will as well. So will Boxer and virtually every other liberal and progressive lawmaker. I'm betting that even Dennis won't run.

This is just reality. Start where you are. And where we are is with Obama as the Dem candidate- unless he decides not to run, and that's unlikely.

So if you want to discuss who the dems should nominate on the outside chance that Obama doesn't run, you're operating in reality. Talk about a primary to him as viable, is just silliness.

[Tesha]

1. Then we absolutely lose. (NT)

[NNN0LHI]

2. Who is we?

[Tesha]

5. Democrats. Without a miracle, Obama will *NOT* win reelection in 2012.

Here in New Hampshire, he's teeing up to lose by record numbers.

Tesha

[egoclothes]

12. I am beginning to have doubts also.

[Dr Morbius]

15. To whom?

I'm inclined to agree the GOP has an opportunity in 2012, but who will they run?

Do they have anyone, and I repeat ANYONE, who can match President Obama in charisma or gravitas? Palin is a joke who won't win the GOP nomination. Haley Barbour has probably the best chance of any in the Republican party but Obama need not fear him; the man doesn't have anywhere near the charisma needed to win national office.

Looks, personality, charisma: these are the most essential aspects to the successful candidate for elective office in America. There must be some rising stars in the Republican party, like for example Illinois' Mark Kirk, but I don't see any in a position to challenge the President in 2012.

The solution is not to abandon the President but to take control of the Democratic party, and elect more left-leaning representatives in office. The "big wins" in 2006 and 2008 were not victories for progressives or liberals; they were victories for a centrist Democratic party. We, the left, need to start winning more elections in the states, the House, and the Senate. Until then, we will simply be frustrated. President Obama will follow the people if the people move to the left; I think you can count on it.

[cali]

20. IAt this point in his presidency, Clinton's numbers were even worse than

Obama's. It's just too early to know.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. Clinton Won Reelection Because The Economy Was Booming

If the economy is booming in 012 President Obama will enjoy the re-election victory Clinton did. If it doesn't he will enjoy the same fate Clinton would have if it sucked.

[muriel_volestrangler]

42. This is true; if the economy looks OK by 2012, Obama shouldn't have a problem

If it is still bad by then, then the current fickleness of the American electorate (as shown by giving the Republicans a majority in the House, even though polls show voters don't actually support Republican policies on the economy, which they rate as the most important topic - they just wanted to vote against the current politicians in power) will mean some Republican candidates stand a good chance. Not all, of course - if their primaries select Palin, then Obama should be able to win whatever the state of the economy. There are too many moderate Republicans and Independents who recognise her as incompetent and greedy for her to win - thank goodness.

[somone]

30. He'll be lucky to draw a half full stadium in 2012

The adoring crowds are gone.

[Vinca]

40. Agreed. I've never seen a state flip from blue to red so fast.

[onenote]

41. and what Democrat has a better chance of winning?

[BzaDem]

3. Why? Opposition to the President from the left is the lowest in 50 years. Obama's obviously doing

something correctly, for such opposition to be such a negligible portion of the party (in both absolute terms and relative to all modern past presidents).

[Tesha]

8. That explains why Democrats did so well November 2nd.

Here in New Hampshire, we went from having a "blue" government
to one that sees 75% Republican majorities (veto-proof majorities)
in our state house and Senate, 100% Republican majorities on the
Executive Council (the five "lieutenant governors), and a fake
Democrat as our Governor.

In NH, 2010 was a disaster of record proportions.

Tesha

[BzaDem]

11. Why do you assume that isn't because independents think he's too far left? After all, he lost

independents to REPUBLICANS (not some leftist third party) by 18 points. If you were to set the margin among Independents to the margin in 2006, it would have been a stunningly good year for Democrats.

It seems if you thought November 2010 is a message for November 2012, you would at least want the President to PRETEND to be more centrist (to win back the centrist Independents who ran away from the Democrats).

[OneGrassRoot]

19. The independents (and moderate republicans) I know who voted for Obama stayed home...

They voted for him to move the country left; they stayed home on 11/2 rather than vote republican.

It's so hard to get a read on the nation as a whole and thus I can only interpret things based on my personal experience.

It's also hard to know WHY people do what they do, especially since so many are uninformed and even more are misinformed (thanks Fox).

:hi:

[BzaDem]

22. But the ones you know aren't a representative sample. Registered voter polls show that of ALL

independents registered to vote (including the ones that stayed home), the proportion of them that support Republicans significantly increased over the past two years.

[OneGrassRoot]

27. Okay, thanks. :) n/t

[Tesha]

38. Are you mathematically challenged or trying to be deceptive?

If the pro-Obama Independents stayed home, *OF COURSE*
the proportion of voting Independents who supported the
Republican candidates increased.

Tesha

[cali]

21. and next door in Vermont, we went from a republican gov

to a dem gov, handily re-elected Welch and Leahy and gained slightly in state elections.

[old mark]

4. Put it another way - then the GOP would absolutely WIN the election.

All people in the US would lose.

mark

[OneGrassRoot]

18. As would the world. I agree. n/t

[old mark]

28. The US has gone so far right, I believe we won't get a more progressive

candidate than Obama to run at this time...I am afraid Mr. Obama is as good as we will have for some years to come, at least till his second term is over. We should start searching for candidates for that race after 2012.


mark

[ibegurpard]

6. tough shit

if people want to talk about silliness you can hide the threads

[BzaDem]

9. Oh you certainly can spend all your time talking about silliness. I don't care if other people waste

their time.

The OP is just pointing out the obvious, for those remaining tethered to reality.

[ibegurpard]

10. apparently you do

considering how much time you waste commenting on them

[BzaDem]

13. Why do you assume that what I comment on has anything to do with whether I care about how people

waste their time?

[OneGrassRoot]

Rabbi Michael Lerner wrote this op-ed speaking to this...

I see what he is saying here, but it feels like a moot point since we know that how people campaign is rarely how they actually govern. Even if Obama were forced to campaign on a more progressive platform...again...how would that change how he governs? Honestly, how anyone campaigns really can't be taken seriously any more, since the system itself is what is corrupt; the candidates seem to merely be interchangeable pawns in the game.

:shrug:

But there is a real way to save the Obama presidency: by challenging him in the 2012 presidential primaries with a candidate who would unequivocally commit to a well-defined progressive agenda and contrast it with the Obama administration's policies. Such a candidacy would be pooh-poohed by the media, but if it gathered enough popular support - as is likely given the level of alienation among many who were the backbone of Obama's 2008 success - this campaign would pressure Obama toward much more progressive positions and make him a more viable 2012 candidate. Far from weakening his chances for reelection, this kind of progressive primary challenge could save Obama if he moves in the desired direction. And if he holds firm to his current track, he's a goner anyway.

<snip>

Public officials who would make excellent candidates should they run on this platform include Sens. Russ Feingold, Bernie Sanders, Barbara Mikulski or Al Franken; Reps. Joe Sestak, Maxine Waters, Raul Grijalva, Alan Grayson, Barbara Lee, Dennis Kucinich, Lois Capps, Jim Moran and Lynn Woolsey. Others include Jim McGovern, Marcy Kaptur, Jim McDermott or John Conyers. We should also consider popular figures outside of government. How about Robert F. Kennedy Jr.? Why not Rachel Maddow, Bill Moyers, Susan Sarandon or the Rev. James Forbes? All suggestions need to be part of this critical conversation. What's clear is that we need such a candidate, and the finances to back her or him, very soon.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/03/AR2010120304148.htmlText

[egoclothes]

14. I read that post. I, too wonder if

it will be any good to have Obama primaried, as it may force him to be more progressive with his promises-How will he govern, if he wins is the question! We have his record NOW!--as it is not progressive in many respects.

[OneGrassRoot]

16. Welcome to DU, egoclothes!

:hi:

[egoclothes]

25. Thank you.

[Catherina]

29. +1 I'd rather let Obama keep exposing himself and fall flat on his face,

Obama's presidency isn't failing. From the empire's standpoint, things are going swimmingly. Lerner is in lalaland.

[Lasher]

7. Resistance is futile.

Bow down to your neoliberal masters.

[MadHound]

17. Well, if the Dems don't get a different candidate coming out of primaries,

Then you can expect a strong third party challenge in the general. In fact if the Green or some other independent is a strong challenger, you could expect a scenario more Perot than Nader. Can Obama win if such a candidate gets nineteen percent of the vote, mostly coming from the left? I don't think so.

[BzaDem]

23. "you could expect a scenario more Perot than Nader"

When the exact opposite happens, and no left-leaning third party candidate gets to 5% (let alone 19%), will you finally admit that a negligible portion of the population generally can't actually get something just because they want something? Or will it take another 5 examples? Or 10?

Is there any test you would agree to in advance that could prove you wrong?

[Dr Morbius]

24. I don't think so. No third party candidate can get even 10% these days.

After Ross Perot, the two parties changed the rules to make it very difficult for a third-party candidate to compete. For example, there will never again be a three-way debate.

President Obama will almost certainly win in 2012, and then the GOP will retake the office in 2016. Like all smart leaders in a democracy, President Obama will follow the people. We need to win the smaller elections, not worry about the biggest one so much. I think it's worth remembering that neither party is much concerned about our opinions at all, except to the extent that they can manipulate and mold our opinions. Both parties are top-down; neither party is grassroots-based. If one wants substantive change, then that's the main thing TO change; turn the Democratic party upside down and empower the people instead of the party.

[cali]

26. That's possible

But I don't see anyone who could get anymore than a 2 or 3 percent.

[TheKentuckian]

31. Obama must be primaried and primaried hard as not to allow his corporate ass

to be set as the liberal fringe of American politics.

Better to lose than allow the framing the President is trapping us into, if we do we will have absolutely nothing to build a left movement from.

If Obama is allowed to continue to be a "Marxist" then no actual solutions to the real and seemingly ever growing systemic problems in this country.

Obama is movement suicide. And must be opposed, even in a failing bid.

[HipChick]

32. Better to lose to a Republican?

[KoKo]

34. Repug Lite...Dem Right... what difference?

:shrug:

[TheKentuckian]

37. Yep, you're talking a single election and I'm talking a generation or more.

[KoKo]

33. I'm still waiting for Tim Kaine's Resignation... Guy was a disaster

...and if he stays then we Dems will know what the real deal is, for sure going into 2012. Repugs are in a hissyfit over Party Chair Michael Steele...but we Dems....we are still licking our wounds..in the corner.

But then what can you expect of "Fucking Retards" and "Druggies."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. Even a protest is better than no choice.

[Tatiana]

39. I agree that there's no point in trying to primary Obama. There may be other options.

If, for instance, the Tea Party fields its own conservative candidate, that would open the door for a more progressive candidate (like a Bernie Sanders) to get in the race.

A 4-way race could make things a lot more interesting.