What would happen if an admirable Democrat were to mount a Primary challenge to Obama?

[ThomWV]

Its not all that long to the next election. Unlike the Republicans, the Democratic Party has some real strength of personality in its lower echelons. There are several Democratic current and ex-Governors and Senators who would make a fine President; House members too. There are Democrats in private life who could do a very good job in the office, there are some real stars out there - look at Elizabeth Warren as an example (not saying or suggesting for a moment that she would challenge the President).

What effect do you think it would have on Obama? What effect do you think it would have on the Republicans?

By the way, a lot of folks seem to think that an emergent liberal Party would receive no press coverage. I disagree, I think the press would be all over a new Party. The Tea Party is gone for them and they need something new to obsess with - and so its my guess that if a progressive Party were to emerge all of the networks (including FOX, who would deride it 24/7) would cover it incessantly.

[Bandit]

1. It would be nice if I had someone or something to vote for again.

"Fool me once, can't fool me again" as Bush* would say..

[ananda]

2. You mean someone like Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinich?

Either of those would have my vote.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

3. You mean, one exists?

Of late, the conspicuous lack of spine has been the Democratic logo. Which they obviously get from our president.

[Dennis Donovan]

4. Gore - he's due a second term!

:thumbsup:

[originalpckelly]

8. Yeah. After Inconvenient Truth...

we know he's got the spunk to do it.

He really would be the guy. And then we'd have a stable hand to get us through climate change.

Or some star in our party who has a chance to knock him off, who we can get to sign a pledge to protect social security and medicare.

Obama is honestly, starting to look like a moderate Republican as the term winds on.

[Rhiannon12866]

36. Don't you mean a first term?

He was cheated out of that back in 2000. ;(

[Sherman A1]

5. They would have my vote.

it's pretty simple.

[LooseWilly]

40. Yup.

A challenger from the left, anyway...

[emilyg]

41. Yes.

[MineralMan]

6. In the first place, nobody is going to do that.

The likely suspects have all said they had no intention of running against the President in the primaries. The rest would have zero chance. President Obama's popularity among Democrats in general is far higher than it is here on DU. A primary candidate would not make any headway whatsoever.

[originalpckelly]

10. Not if he fucks with Social Security.

He's a loser in the general election and in fundraising if he does that. That's the problem with him. It's not a matter of choice, but of necessity.

[Erose999]

19. They may have that support if Obama axes SS and Medicare.

[Aerows]

30. If SS is messed with

He's a one-term president, and there will be disastrous consequences for any Democrat that supports tinkering with SS - you can take that to the bank. It will not only piss off Democrats, it will piss off moderates and Independents. There are only so many votes you can afford to throw away, and messing with Social Security guaranteed will be a major casting away of voters, and not just those receiving Social Security currently.

We have paid into it (and Medicare) - it's our money. There are plenty of people that voted for Obama who will balk at anything to do with messing with SS/Medicare. I'm one of them. If he does, he's a Republican and I won't vote for a Republican, I don't care what party they say they are with.

[Cal33]

65. I would appreciate it if you would give me the links of another large Dem.

forum. Thanks.

[HopeHoops]

7. A fucking 3-ring circus - Obama would win anyway.

[Jim Lane]

15. There's a huge difference between a primary challenge and a third party

Neither would have any realistic hope of winning, but a primary challenge wouldn't split the progressive vote and enable a Republican to win with less than a majority. (A wild scenario, I know, but just indulge me in the remote possibility that it could conceivably happen.)

A primary challenge by an unknown would have no noticeable effects, good or bad. A primary challenge by a candidate with stature almost certainly won't happen -- the obvious choices have all said they won't do it. But, just as a thought experiment, suppose someone like Feingold were to mount a challenge? Would that be good?

Benefits:
* Make Obama look conservative by comparison, helping him with independents in November (and blunting Republican denunciation of him as a "socialist").
* Let progressives blow off steam in the primary, with the result that, come November, we can feel we've made our point, so that it's psychologically easier to vote for the lesser of two evils.
* Undercut the GOP monopoly of media attention in the first part of 2012, and give Obama a good hook for deploying some of his vast campaign treasury, to tout his achievements before some voters' attitudes have hardened.
* Galvanize Obama's fundraising, as he tells donors he needs to fight two campaigns, not just one.

Drawbacks:
* Even a Feingold would get only a small percentage of the vote, thus possibly reducing rather than increasing the left's already minuscule influence within the Democratic Party.
* A primary battle would foment disunity within the party, and some disgruntled Obama opponents would have their animosity raised to the level that they'd stay home or cast a wasted protest vote in November, although without a primary battle they would have voted for Obama.
* Obama would have to spend at least some money and thus would have less for the general election.

I'm sure I've missed some considerations. Any additions to the list?

[Dr Fate]

21. Some of your "benefits" section sounds like our failed approach to the midterms.

* Make Obama look conservative by comparison, helping him with independents in November (and blunting Republican denunciation of him as a "socialist").

* Let progressives blow off steam in the primary, with the result that, come November, we can feel we've made our point, so that it's psychologically easier to vote for the lesser of two evils.

* Undercut the GOP monopoly of media attention in the first part of 2010, and give Obama a good hook for deploying some of his vast campaign treasury, to tout his achievements before some voters' attitudes have hardened.

These could have been pre midterm talking points describing the "benefits" of Obama's centrist strategies. In fact, they were. Then we lost.

[Jim Lane]

22. I don't understand your comparison.

To take one example, a primary challenger in 2012 might call for single-payer health care and denounce the Obama plan for increasing and entrenching the role of the private for-profit big businesses that run the insurance industry. Then, in the fall, it's harder for Republicans to denounce "a federal takeover of health care" because voters have been exposed to the opposite criticism (that the so-called reform was bad precisely because it was not a federal takeover).

Similarly, a primary challenger would criticize the stimulus plan as having been far too small.

What was it that happened in 2010 that was comparable?

[undeterred]

9. At this point it would unnerve him.

And he would see a lot of people rushing to support Russ Feingold.

[TreasonousBastard]

11. Exactly what happened when Kennedy challenged Carter...

we ended up with a Republican President. Want to see that again?

Suck it up-- most real Democrats who are too busy to post on internet boards are OK with Obama, and even if they weren't there's no way a further left candidate could win.

The fight next year is to get back the House and keep the teabaggers out of the White House. If you don't like Obama-- tough shit he's all you got.

[newspeak]

32. yeah, because the Iran hostage deal had nothing to do

with Carter losing. Or the OPEC big boys playing with politics.

If Obama is having closed door meetings with repugs while closing out democrats, why do you think we should not attempt to find a viable candidate in the primaries?

[Chan790]

63. This isn't 1980.

It's more akin to 1968. So unless you really want to make the argument that Nixon would have creamed RFK, I'd say that your ground is pretty fucking shaky.

[WI_DEM]

12. It's too late--it won't happen--no "name" dem will do it

[Cleita]

13. He would be run out of the Democratic Party.

However, an Independent in the General Election could probably pull it off providing the Republican candidate is so lame that he/she would only get 2% of the vote and the rest would be divided between the Independent and the Democratic candidate. It's a very, very long shot though and 2% of the vote could prove to be a spoiler in defeating Obama. However, the opposite could be true as well and a Republican could be elected with the Independent being the 2% spoiler. Any way you look at it, it sucks.

[Cleita]

14. ...

[Erose999]

20. Well, the "party" establishment is a fucking den of snakes now anyway, for the most part.

[cbdo2007]

16. It's funny people keep saying this...when the reality is that no "admirable Democrat" would challeng

President Obama.

So why do people keep asking this same question just to get the same answer?

[gkhouston]

28. Because no admirable Democrat would help undermine Social Security. n/t

[Chan790]

64. Because...

an agreement with SS cuts would be a game changer. Why do we have to keep giving the same obvious answer? Any "admirable Democrat" that didn't rush to primary the President at that point is one who just doesn't want the job in any circumstance.

To put it another way...any deal that included the sort of cuts the President put on the table would reduce his win-shares to 0. We'd have to be fucking morons to not primary a guy who can't win a second term.

[Nye Bevan]

17. He or she would no longer be "admirable" (nt)

[Horse with no Name]

18. I think they would win

the republican crazies have a guaranteed vote of about 26%...but not much more than that.

Obama probably has about the same from his doe-eyed supporters.

If a good candidate could emerge from either side as a third party candidate, he could win.

I heard talk that there are attempts at recruiting Chuck Hagel as a third party. If that happened, he would win. If we could recruit a solid candidate into a third party, I have no doubts that they would win.

The problem is...that all the centrists think they are the only sane ones...but in terms of policy--they are actually the fringe whackos. Polls are saying that Americans support ending wars, healthcare for all, and leaving their fucking hands off of the New Deal.

All except for the fringe, that is...who support giving all of our money to the rich.

[rucky]

23. I see it as a win-win

the left can express their disappointment. it'll move Obama farther to the center in the minds of independent voters. the challenger will lose the primary, then everybody can vote for Obama again.

[21st Century FDR]

47. Farther to the center?

He's to the right of Reagan already (Reagan was a piece of shit most of the time, but he knew better than to fuck with Social Security)

[lumberjack_jeff]

24. They'd get $20 and a vote from me. n/t

[gkhouston]

25. Which Democrat? Using which platform?

A genuine Democrat could get my interest, but it's going to take some convincing to persuade me it's not just another shell game.

[ThomWV]

26. I'd start with the 2008 Democratic Platform and someone like Russ Feingold comes to mind.

[oldlib]

27. I think that a primary challenge

would wake Obama up, to the dissatisfaction within the party. I like him on a personal level, but his negotiating skills with the GOOP needs some help. I would consider a strong Democrat in a primary challenge, for a replacement for Obama.

[Arkana]

29. Then the "admirable Democrat" would lose, Obama would lose,

and Michele Bachmann would be President.

[librechik]

31. yup. get over it people, we're stuck with him

beats having 2 more RWers on the SCOTUS

[Horse with no Name]

34. No. Because the 26% die hard republifreaks would vote republican

no matter what and the 26% Democratic Doe-eyes would vote for Obama no matter what...that leaves a pretty large group of reasonable people out there that would vote for a good candidate who might actually offer real hope and change for this country.

[Arkana]

57. Ahahahaha how adorable that you actually think this.

Do you read history at all? Do you recall how Woodrow Wilson won the 1912 election?

That's exactly what would happen, only switch the party names.

[Palmer Eldritch]

33. He would make a fool of himself, and get his ass kicked taboot.

[robcon]

35. Most likely outcome: a Repug will win the White House in 2012.

I think it is an awful idea.

[fivepennies]

37. Without a decent legislature and senate behind this miracle candidate,

what good would it do if he DID win? Without enough votes in congress, he'd have to depend almost entirely on Executive Orders to straighten out some of the messes he'd face. We put to much faith in the power of one man.

[AlabamaLibrul]

43. Sounds like what we were asked to do in 08. I'm willing to try the game one more time n/t

[fivepennies]

44. Its becoming clear that the game

is rigged. Its looking more and more like we might as well do our voting on a one armed bandit in Vegas for all the good it does us. I've been about one-more-timed to death, but we'll see who they offer up this time and go from there.

[DeSwiss]

38. An admirable Democratic challenger.....

...who (if elected), I'm afraid would still find it impossible to effect any substantial positive change from our present disastrous course, because the system of government it totally corrupt. Totally corrupt.

When a minority in the Senate can kidnap legislation and hold the country hostage - this is not democracy. When corrupt and lying judges can sit on our highest court and rule against democratic principles - this is not justice. When the only ones that can be heard in the Congress are those who are paid the most in the bribes we euphemistically call ''campaign donations'' - then only the concerns of the rich will be catered to.

Capitalism is cancer. Our government has a full-blown case of it -- and is dying from it. It has always been there, except now it has metastasized and is spreading throughout the body politic (Koch). It is the most malignant of societal cancers and the only way to stop its spread further, is to cut it out. And it is my considered opinion that nothing short of a revolution can alter our present course because TPTB will not relent and will use every resource (including force of arms) to protect their position(s) and ownership of the government.

- We don't need another savior. They seldom work out anyway. We need to end this madness and begin anew.

''Ownership" of physical entities by man is untenable in natural law and inherently obstructive to evolution
and realization of the comprehensive emancipation of man.... Only one's own personality and life are ownable.''

''You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.''

~ Richard Buckminster Fuller ~

[CakeGrrl]

39. If this "admirable Democrat" feels the same way a big chunk of DU does,

why haven't they stepped forward on principle to save this country from imminent ruin?

[Bluerthanblue]

61. perchance they don't

exist?

[FreeStateDemocrat]

42. Eugene McCarthy kicked out a sitting Dem president when he declared his candidacy on Nov 30, 1967.

He was a one issue candidate and Social Security and Medicare qualify as being that important issue that could destroy Obama in 2012 and make him unelectable just like LBJ. So it is not a matter of it being too late only whether Obama provides the reason for the one responsible leading Democrat to step up and to seize the opportuntiy

[NYC Liberal]

45. Care to name some names?

A nameless, hypothetical candidate is, of course, perfect and can be whatever we want them to be.

Let's talk about actual people, because it depends on who would be running.

I don't mean that to be snarky. I'm serious. You can't compare generic candidates to an actual, existing candidate.

[Karmadillo]

46. Given the path Obama is following, the admirable Democrat would do awfully well in

accumulating votes. The Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party needs to take on the Republican-lite and not so lite faction.

[CakeGrrl]

50. Correction: They'd do awfully well in DU polling.

In the outside world, where Dem/Liberal approval for the President holds steady around 80% or so, perhaps not.

[Karmadillo]

55. Let's hope we get to put our disagreement to the test in the outside world.

If Obama makes Social Security part of the deficit reduction package, I'm guessing that approval figure might drop a bit.

[Dappleganger]

48. My guess is that the Dem leadership won't be pushing this...

so any chance of getting another candidate will be dead out of the gate. The fucking LEADERSHIP is 3rd way/dlc-reborn. :shrug:

[loyalsister]

49. Say a very liberal Dem wins primary and election

and the republicans still have the house along with a slim majority in the Senate. Does anyone really believe that president's agenda would have any chance of going anywhere?

[CakeGrrl]

52. Apparently this person would "stand up" to the Republicans where the President has not.

But if the actual reality of the workings of Congress rain on the parade, I predict that excuses will be made for this person who at least TRIED or had good intentions - however that will be gauged.

[rug]

51. We would have an epileptic reaction to all the flashing blue links.

[SoCalDem]

53. republican president n/t

[Motown_Johnny]

54. to mount a primary challenge is to not be an admirable democrat

mutually exclusive

therefore impossible



all you do is weaken our candidate

[Bluerthanblue]

59. +1

but not sure you'll be heard.

:hi:

[mochajava666]

56. I would love to see this hypocrite to see some accountability

by having a Primary challenge.

Maybe it would make him think about all of the promises he said during the campaign that he has now made a mockery of.

[Bluerthanblue]

58. we'd all lose.

that is, except those want to see the Republicans take the country over completely.

[babsbunny]

60. On him/her like flies on shit!

:fistbump: :fistbump: :fistbump: :fistbump: :fistbump: :fistbump: :fistbump: :fistbump: :fistbump: :fistbump: :fistbump: :fistbump: :fistbump: :fistbump: :fistbump:

[jmowreader]

62. Easy: President Bachmann

Swing voters elect presidents. We know that.

If we primary Obama, he'll make it to the general election but the swing voters will decide the primary challenge means we hate him...and if the base hates him, why should swing voters feel any differently? Result: President Obama, five Democratic seats flip, the GOP majority in the House is strengthened, and we kiss Social Security goodbye.

If we run a third party candidate against him, the 3PC will split the left-leaning part of the swing vote and, once again, we wind up with President Bachmann.

The only way we do NOT wind up with President Bachmann is if we stand with the president.

[Long Shadow]

66. Obama would reach for the fly swat...

[Ed Needham]

67. russforpres.com

Agreed. Wholeheartedly.

As appeared two days ago in The Democrat Deal (democratdeal.com):

"Today marked the launch of a new organization and website spelling out what has been whispered about in progressive circles for some time. There may well be a Russ Feingold Presidential Campaign in the preliminary stages.

Recently, a "draft Russ for Senate" campaign in WI has come up short. No one from his inner circle to state political pundits are expecting him to enter the senate race, a race polls show he would take by a landslide. Why? Is it that he has set his political sights higher?

While the former Senator may not enjoy the name recognition of Gov. Dean (neither did Dean til he ran for President) few individuals are held in higher regard by the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party. A champion of civil liberties, worker's rights, a public health insurance option, peace overseas, a David to the Goliath of corporate influence in Washington, Sen. Feingold has been busy with his PAC, Progressives United since leaving office. A direct response to Citizens United, a corporate funded right-wing PAC repeatedly charged with ugly yet effective disinformation campaigns, Progressives United seeks to separate corporate money from the political process and promote greater transparency and accountability in government."

con't here: democratdeal.com

Russ Feingold's (unofficial) campaign site: russforpres.com