Who out there sees the BENEFIT to Democrats of a serious progressive presidential primary challenge?

[cloudythescribbler]

It would increase interest in a moribund campaign, and force issues into the limelight that are otherwise ignored -- eg, how 1% of top income earners have increased their share of the pie from 9% in 1979 to about 1/4 and rising today?

(That's trillions extra per year to a tiny group that were fine in 79 and could pay off Medicare, Social Sec, eco-industrialization, state and local budgets etc)

Unless these issues are forced on to national agenda they will be swept under the rug for sure

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. Sitting Presidents who are primary challenged...are weakened.

[lib2DaBone]

12. True. Sitting Presidents are weakened by a primary chalenge... but...

How could you make Obama any WEAKER than he already is?

[karynnj]

46. You need to look beyond your own circle

Obama wins every head to head contest with every potential Republican. That is pretty strong - stronger than many incumbent Presidents were at this point - who eventually won.

Which scenario do you think helps:

- Obama has a real primary with a viable challenger - emerging the victor.
- Obama has a real primary with a viable challenger - losing to the challenger
- Obama has a primary, where someone with NO CHANCE of winning is able to get media attacking him - over using themes the Republican could pick up.

Now I don't think the first two are possible - as I don't think there is a viable challenger. In hundreds of threads, no one has suggested anyone I think could come close. It also is slightly less than 6 months before the primaries - and last quarter Obama raised $86 million. If there were a serious opponent, we would know as he/she would be raining money. Not to mention, even on the Republican side, it is getting late declaring you are entering the race. As I have said many times, Obama is too close to the center of the Democratic party for a successful primary challenge from either the left or the right.

Obama is stronger than either Carter or Clinton at this point. Clinton was not challenged. As to Carter, there is no "Kennedy" out there. Hillary is the only one with similar media designation as a superstar, but she can't (and won't) go from SoS in July 2011 to challenger before the 2012 primaries. Not to mention, Obama beat her by 20 points the last time that was polled.

So, that leaves the gadfly attack. It is far too late for another possibility - a movement type candidate - like Eugene McCarthy against a much less popular LBJ.

[Demeter]

23. Pathetically week sitting presidents are primaried

trouble is, who would be ready for the challenge? Grayson's not, Sherrod Brown? Whitehouse?

We have no ladder of opportunity, no career development path, and NO MENTORS~

[BklnDem75]

29. LBJ was weak? Hmmm...

Isn't Obama constantly compared to both FDR and LBJ? Message control really sucks.

[ClassWarrior]

34. You honestly believe that LBJ was primary challenged?

:rofl:

NGU.

[BklnDem75]

35. Nah...

McCarthy, Wallace and RFK were only pretending.

:crazy:

[ClassWarrior]

36. ROFLMAO...

NGU.

[BklnDem75]

38. LOL is right...

at your attempt to rewrite history.

:rofl:

[ClassWarrior]

40. You think LBJ lost to Nixon because of a primary challenge, and I'M rewriting history??

:rofl:

NGU.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BklnDem75]

67. Please link where I said that

Thanks in advance

[ClassWarrior]

70. Everyone can see where you said that, above.

NGU.

[BklnDem75]

88. Then you should have no trouble pointing it out

It's alright to admit you're wrong. Go ahead.

[ClassWarrior]

91. I'll have no trouble pointing it out REPEATEDLY.

:rofl:

It's alright to admit you're trying to snake out of your own words. Go ahead.

NGU.

[BklnDem75]

93. Words you apparently can't point out

but please keep at it. It's getting boring, but I do try to give comedy a chance.

[Tesha]

24. Sitting Presidents who are weak are challenged in the Primaries. (NT)

[Ed Needham]

27. russforpres.com

This is a chance we cannot afford to pass up.
True, statistical data supports your argument.
But, I for one, cannot support the hypocrite in chief.
I was a HUGE Obama supporter/activist.
I have been HUGELY disappointed.
We NEED a Democrat in the White House.
If we let Obama go unchallenged, it means we support what he has done to date.
Who among us has a conscience that allows us to look ourselves in the mirror and say we want four more years of what we have seen so far?
Surely, not me. Not even close.
We must put principle ahead of personality.
I feel if we don't do our best to elect a true Dem, like Russ Feinglold, in the Primary, we will have given up on the very values that make us Democrats.
Please, join me.
russforpres.com

[karynnj]

47. I believe Feingold long ago ruled that out

Not to mention, raising the money to run is something he would never ever want to do.

[PragmaticLiberal]

62. Deleted post

[Inuca]

82. Absolutely! And while we are at it

let's run Grayson at the same time. Why not? The more, the merrier. Because we all know that having recently lost a campaign to keep one's Senate seat is a perfect recommendation to do just great at the national level. Just ask Santorum, if he can do it so can Russ.

This being said, I miss Feingold in the Senate, and I hope he will run for Kohl's seat or run for governor against the despicable Walker.

[tallahasseedem]

106. Troll...

Enjoy your stay.

[ClassWarrior]

33. Wrong. Sitting Presidents who are weak... are primary challenged.

NGU.

[Hawkowl]

37. Unless the challenger becomes the VP .nt

[Leontius]

104. Sitting Presidents who piss on Democratic principles and

ideals are weakened.

[frustrated_lefty]

109. Weak presidents are challenged, no?

[bigwillq]

2. I highly doubt that

there will be a serious progressive challenger in the primary.

I am certainly for it, but who?

[elleng]

3. No reasonable Dem/Progressive, imo.

Dems cannot afford to 'eat their own,' now or ever.

[lib2DaBone]

4. If the Democratic Party wants to stay alive...

The only hope is to offer a STRONG primary challenge to Obama.

Some here say it is not possible. But to stay with the status-quo Wall Street mandate is suicide to all.

[nevergiveup]

7. This is what suicide looks like.

Republican House, Republican Senate, Republican President and Tea Bagger dominated Supreme Court.

[lib2DaBone]

9. We have that anyway.... and everyday the media dumps more on our doorstep..

Dems controlled everything... and what did they do?

Unless we get a leader who is not going to be the "Capitulator-in-Chief".. we are doomed.

[kiranon]

59. No president can deliver everything to everyone. Obama is smart

and committed to getting there in the long run which, in this political climate, is probably the only way progressive programs can be achieved. Cannot imagine that an all Republican Congress and White House will be good for anyone but the corporate rich.

[Inuca]

83. "the arc of history bends slowly....

... but it bends towards progress". Didn't he use to quote this often? Not sure it's an exact quote, but pretty close. And I think it's a quote that encompasses a lot of what Obama is about as a politician.

[kiranon]

57. Agree. n/t

[grahamhgreen]

76. +1,000,000,000

[Fire1]

5. Dennis Kucinich!!!

:rofl:

[AtomicKitten]

6. "Moribund" campaign? Tell that to his 200,000+ new donors.

History provides several examples of why a primary challenge is not a good idea. Carter/Kennedy ring a bell?

[jenmito]

26. 260,000+ new voters. And I agree with the rest of your post.

But when you think about it, 200,000+ could mean 260,000+. :hi:

[AtomicKitten]

42. easily 260,000+

Very happy to see those stats.

:hi:

[MiniMe]

8. Jimmy Carter

When Ted Kennedy tried to get the Presidential bid over Carter. That brought us 8 years of Reagan

[lib2DaBone]

10. These are different times.. if you dont believe me.. get back to me on Aug 3rd...

.. the world-wide economic collapse is HAPPENING.

Obama has us in 6 wars... 3 of which are new (that he started)

Iraq
Afgahistan
Libyia
Yemen
Somalia
Pakistan

And god help us if Obama decides to invade Iran... turn out the lights.

[Inuca]

84. OK.... 6 wars and invading Iran...

Time to wake up! Or maybe I am sleeping and having a nightmare....

[Maccagirl]

13. I've never bough into the "Ted Kennedy ruined Jimmy Carter's chances"

Carter was doomed by the economy and the Iran hostage crisis.

[bhikkhu]

53. And, I hate to say, he was a lousy speaker

though I was a teenager and very much behind him at the time. Youtube has his debates against Reagan and some speeches, and I have to say, having looked at them again, they were terrible. The flaws and lies in Reagan's message are obvious, and the basic soundness of Carter's is still there, but he sounds terrible.

He just wasn't effective at all by the end of his presidency in communicating.

[21st Century FDR]

21. Yeah, that Ted... what a bastard.

Why do you have him as your avatar then?

[boppers]

41. Wooops.

Didn't follow the thread right.

[saras]

11. Since there's no serious Repub challenger, we have a lot of slack

A progressive in the primary would do much to push Obama nearer to the views of the majority of Americans.

Of course, he's going to have to get off his ass and do something serious about election corruption for any of it to make a rat's ass of difference. The elections are, if present trends continue, going to be a LOT more corrupt than 2000 or 2004.

[former9thward]

18. The idea that there's "no serious Repub challenger" is just silly.

The latest polling shows a generic R up by 8 or 9 points over Obama. Rommey is ahead in some polls and close to even in others.

[KingFlorez]

19. Generic is not a real person

There will be no candidate named Generic Republican on the ballot. Most of the Republican field is a joke, including multiple positions Romney. What is silly is the notion that Generic Republican is a real person.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[BklnDem75]

30. Like they united around McCain?

Ignore history if you wish. It wasn't that long ago.

[former9thward]

54. 2010 was not that long ago either.

[BklnDem75]

56. Was there a general election in 2010?

[former9thward]

66. General elections are held every two years in this country.

I surprised that someone posting on a political board did not know that.

[BklnDem75]

69. Considering we're talking about Obama...

I suppose it was too much to ask that you remain on topic, so I'll rephrase my question. Was Obama on the ticket in 2010?

[former9thward]

72. If you want to ignore 2010 just because Obama was not on the ballot so be it.

I assure you the people running Obama's campaign are not ignoring it. Perhaps you should apply for a top staff job there so you can tell them the election is in the bag and there is nothing to worry about. Obama would save a lot of money if they take your advice.

[BklnDem75]

89. As opposed to your doom and gloom...

end of the world forecasts? You'd certainly have no place in any campaign.

[KingFlorez]

31. I know a lot about politics, thank you very much

Generic numbers don't rub off on established candidates. Most polls show voters do not like the Republican candidates much and that's a real problem for all of them.

[former9thward]

55. Then I guess we can just sit back and watch. Right?

All Obama has to do is put his name on the ballot and it's all over.

[KingFlorez]

86. My point is, Republican don't have an easy win

You were the one who seemed to be claiming they did, because of a lead by a non-existent generic candidate. Don't project.

[former9thward]

87. I am not assuming anything. The difference between you and me.

I believe the election will be very tight, much more so than 2008. No matter who the Rs nominate.

[KingFlorez]

97. Yeah, sure

I'm not really going to argue about it, since it's pointless to argue with posters like you.

[elana i am]

14. bringing some issues out into the light might be the only benefit.

and then there's possibly syphoning off some of us lefties as well, which would basically amount to vote splitting.

ultimately there are not enough of us progressives to matter yet, else dennis kucinich would be president right now.

look, i'm a progressive, i voted for kucinich in the primaries. but i'm also a pragmatist. the progressives on this site whining and knashing their teeth are taking their frustrations out on this message board because that's all they can do.

no progressive is going to get elected for the foreseeable future. We've got another 20 years or so of attrition before the repug geezers holding this country back will have passed on. then? maybe. BIG maybe.

i know that a lot of progressive folks don't want to hear this, but i consider us lucky that obama stands between us and the repugs. he's not a liberal, i wouldn't even call him a moderate, but he is the best we can hope for. think about it for a moment. maybe 10%-20% of the population has anything other than a perfunctory interest in politics. of those 10%-20%, maybe 50% is on the left side of the spectrum, and progressives account for about for maybe 20% of that. hell, you'd have to be a political junky just to know what a progressive is. to make matters worse, for some of the more moderate and centerist dems if they even know we exist, we probably look like the lefty version on teabaggers.

a progressive view seems sane and practical to us, but the rest of the country hasn't caught up to us yet. that's life, and that's reality.

[Paka]

39. Thank You, elana i am!

You said it so nicely. He is the best we have right now. We need to keep fighting back and pushing in a progressive direction, but the last thing we need this election cycle is to let a split vote put the WH back in the hands of the repugs.

We need to focus on giving him a supportive Congress all the way down to local representatives. Numbers alone mean nothing in the Senate or the House if those elected don't respect the historic values of the Democratic Party.

And at an individual level, we need to educate and spread a strong progressive message to everyone we encounter in our daily lives. It's an uphill battle, but with determination we can make progress. Yes, it is slow, and Americans in general are not known for patience.

:eyes:

[Skittles]

43. Obama is the best we can hope for?

:rofl:

gawd, we are truly fucked

[MissDeeds]

51. +1000

[Tarheel_Dem]

61. Very well stated.

:toast:

[tritsofme]

15. There are no credible challengers. Only kooks. nt

[FrenchieCat]

16. The ones who see a benefit (totally speculated on their part with not proof to back them up)

will have to shoulder the years of Republican rule they bring on.

I remember the 90,000+ that voted Nader in Florida....who never wanted
to accept their responsibility for Bush's eight years, and how that hurt
the most vulnerable among us; those that these serious "progressives" supposedly
care the most about.

Unintended consequences is obviously not something these folks
care to "think" about, when they really should.

Here's a piece for you. Just answer the questions that are posed at the lin,
and hopefully you'll think about those answers.
http://democratsforprogress.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=7310

Oh, and, don't be surprised if most Black voters (which I am one of) say "Fuck you" to the Democratic Party from that point on. I'm sure you won't mind, since you either want to defeat
Pres. Obama or you simply wanted to express a "sincere" brain fart of yours.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[JoePhilly]

22. WOW ... a 2nd "primary Obama" thread on DU in the same day!!!!

Obama is really in trouble now!!

:sarcasm:

[Ed Needham]

25. russforpres.com

The site has a ton of the current argument on why the party/country needs a primary challenger and why Russ is the best bet.
Just signed up to volunteer.
We need a Democrat in the White House.
We need to get off our butts and do something.

[Tarheel_Dem]

63. Nine whole posts, and you're pushing a primary challenger? Hmmmmm....

:hi:

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

28. NOPE!! Stop your hate mongering! Flamebait!! n/t

[mitchtv]

32. no benefit , no loss

We are constantly being reminded that liberals are irrelevent, so what's the problem with letting the owners, hear about how we feel? and who we like?

[July16th-20th]

45. Answering the question in the headline:

Not me.

[Jennicut]

48. No. Has it ever been a benefit before?

If you don't want to vote for Obama then write in someone you want or vote for a third party candidate. I highly doubt he will be challenged at this point.

[Yavin4]

49. It Aint Gonna Happen. Obama Is Not Going to be Primaried.

I have a better chance of vacationing with Mila Kunis in the South of France.

[BlueIris]

50. I think it is the only way to save the Party.

That being posted, I don't think we will have any primary challenges to the sitting president.

[Palmer Eldritch]

60. The Party doesn't need you to save it.

[Tarheel_Dem]

64. Thank You!

:thumbsup:

[woo me with science]

100. Agree. nt

[kjackson227]

52. I don't see it...

because the corporate-owned msm is the main reason why pertinent issues aren't addressed as they should be in this country. They spoon feed the issues to us that they want us to see (which is the village idiots Palin, and Bachmann et al). Nothing of substance as it should be, so a primary challenge wouldn't help at all and would most likely hurt, imho. The majority of Dems. know President Obama is doing a good job regardless of what some might think here at DU.

[Palmer Eldritch]

58. No, thanks. We'll just stick with the best President in the past 70 years.

[Tarheel_Dem]

65. Ask Ari Melber of The Nation if that's a good idea. There's a reason no one has stepped forward!

Internet noise does not equal reality. This president enjoys higher approval ratings among Democrats than any president, at this point in his presidency, in the past fifty years. And that includes Bill Clinton.

So no. There won't be a challenge, and the Republican enablers & moneychangers over at FireDog Lake should STFU and give it a rest. :hi:

[dionysus]

68. LOL, today's Primary Obama!!1!! thread....

[Inuca]

71. Idiotic! And "moribund campaign"?!?!?!

ReallY? Wake up!

[thelordofhell]

73. The most popular Democratic President since Kennedy and you want to primary him?

When did DU turn into a bunch of imbeciles?

[Inuca]

74. But he has a "moribund campaign"

didn't you know that?

Good question, by the way :-(.

[grahamhgreen]

77. What we really want is for him to stand up for Dem principals like Medicare for All, Ending the wars

SS off the table - you know, the stuff that separates us from the right wing freaks.

[Cal33]

80. And the only way to make sure of retaining SS, Medicare, Medicaid...etc..

is to make sure that Obama wins in Nov. 2012. Even if he should
lose it now, they can always be reinstated after he wins in 2012.
Obama may also be in a situation of having to choose between two
evils, for all we know.

But if he should lose in Nov. 2012, I see the death of democracy
in our nation. The loss of SS, Medicare, Medicaid... will be permanent!

Which, do you think, is the greater of the evils?

[grahamhgreen]

96. His current strategy of debating within the radical rights narrative, and then

caving into their demands WILL cost him the election.

The only hope is for him to embrace the lefts solutions to our countries problems, and shove them down the throat of the neo-fascist right in the spirit of FDR!

(they like that sort of thing anyway!)

Since our constant prodding has yet to do anything to sway him, the only hope is a primary challenge, IMHO.

[thelordofhell]

90. Then please start a thread with that

Not this "I can't believe we're not going to primary the President" baloney

[grahamhgreen]

75. Let's face it, Obama is on a trajectory to lose in 2012. "Given the choice between a Republican and

someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time"


- Harry S. Truman

We desperately need a primary challenger who will either force Obama to be a real FDR Democrat, or win the nomination, and subsequently the election on our platform of:

End the wars.
Tax the rich at the rate they can afford.
End "Free" trade to bring the jobs back home.

[Cal33]

78. HST was correct. Neocons and Tea Partyers are not Republicans at all. The

Neocons joined the Repubs. some 30 to 40 years ago, worked their way up
the ranks, usurped the power of the Repub. leadership and threw them out.
They were smart enough to keep the Republican name so as to keep on getting
the votes of the old-timer Repubs. These latter-day Repubs. are Neocons
and Tea Partyers!! So, they will lose, right?

[Inuca]

81. Let's not face it

because it is not true. It has a good chance to happen, I agree with that. But at this point to say that "Obama is on a trajectory to lose" is a meaningless statement.

And by the way, Obama does NOT act like a republican. He may not act like your idealized version of what a democrat should act like, but most definitely he does not act like a R (ask the Rs!)

[WI_DEM]

79. But it's not going to happen so its a mute point.

[ccharles000]

85. It would not help anything.

It would only serve to help repugs.

[Arkana]

92. Primary challenges have proven nothing but harmful to sitting Presidents in the past,

both from the right and the left.

I'm going on about 40 years of historical precedent. What have you got?

[NorthCarolina]

94. I sure do, but the New Dems fear a primary challenge, especially by a Progressive,

because quite simply....Obama may lose.

[nemo137]

95. The general election.

Not the primary. I really don't see anyone dark horsing it up enough to win the nomination, but if some jackass comes out of right field, gives the righties another angle of attack, or (worst case scenario) tries to split off his voters into a third party, then yeah, some of us are real afraid of Obama losing.

[lunatica]

98. I think you're wrong on both counts

President Obama is raising a ton of money which shows his campaign is far from moribund, and the limelight is already on income disparity. Anyone even the least interest is aware of that.

[robcon]

99. It's a benefit only if by "benefit" you mean electing a Republican president in 2012.

Most people would see a primary challenge as an attack on the president, and the enabling of a stronger Republican opponent.

Did Kennedy's challenge to Jimmy Carter in 1980 benefit the Democrats, or did it elect Ronald Reagan?

[mkultra]

101. history says you're wrong.

It has never been a benefit.

[Phx_Dem]

102. Nope. None whatsoever.

[stevenleser]

103. No. n/t

[tallahasseedem]

105. Not this shit again.

Whatevs.

[Fearless]

107. I do. This president has been far to cozy with Republicans

He needs to be jerked back or else replaced.

[Autumn]

108. Today, I am 100% behind a primary challenge.

We need a Democrat to run against him.