Has anyone announced a primary challenge to Obama thusfar?

[LoZoccolo]

[polichick]

1. No, though I think it would be good for the party if he was challenged...

...by a populist who would draw clear lines between gov't of, by and for the people and gov't of, by and for the corporations.

[MineralMan]

5. Have anyone in mind who hasn't already said they wouldn't?

[polichick]

7. Maybe Feingold will reconsider now that Wanker has attacked unions in Wisconsin...

Who knows?

What I do know is that the battle to reclaim a gov't of, by and for the people is inevitable - the question is when?

[MineralMan]

17. Don't think so. Try another. Time's a'wastin'.

There isn't anyone, and you know it. President Obama enjoys broad support from Democrats, and even some moderate Republicans are swinging his way due to the horrible behavior of the Republicans.

So, unless you have a candidate in mind, it's time to drop this pipe dream and get on board to defeat the GOP. Of course, you'll do whatever it is that you want, and that's fine, too. It will affect nothing in 2012.

Let's reclaim control over the House and expand our majority in the Senate, along with getting back the state legislatures. Let's do something useful, OK?

[polichick]

20. Like I said, the battle is inevitable. It will happen - now or later. nt

[MineralMan]

21. OK. Whatever.

Any comment on my suggestion about what to do in the meantime? Are you going to beat this dead horse while the Republicans gain more control? Is that what you are planning? 2012 is 2012. That's what we need to deal with, and Obama will be the Presidential candidate. Isn't there something else that we need to be doing?

If you're going to keep on with some fantasy of an unnamed "populist progressive" stepping up, then go ahead. But step out of the way. Some of us are trying to get things back on track, and your fantasy is beside the real point.

[polichick]

24. I'll vote either way, just hope there's a meaningful choice. nt

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[robdogbucky]

38. "...Obama will be the Presidential candidate..."

Really? Based on what?

Here he was in June, 2010:

U.S. Voters Split on Obama Re-Election in 2012
Little change seen since March on this measure

by Frank Newport

“…Obama received 53% of the popular vote in his 2008 victory over Republican John McCain. The current re-elect data suggest that -- depending on the Republican nominee -- the 2012 presidential election could be quite competitive were it held today.

However, history shows that much can change in the years prior to a presidential election. Gallup surveys in late April/early May 2002 found 69% of registered voters saying President George W. Bush deserved re-election. This was at a time when Bush's job approval rating was 77%, reflecting the rally effect that followed the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C. By October 2004, just before the election, Bush's approval had fallen into the 50% range and his "deserves re-election" percentage had dropped to 50%. Bush ended up receiving 51% of the popular vote to John Kerry's 48%.

Obama does not receive a universal endorsement for re-election among his fellow Democrats, 18% of whom say he does not deserve re-election; 79% say he does. That compares with the 9% of Republicans who say Obama deserves re-election. A 53% majority of independents say Obama does not deserve re-election…

…The 2012 presidential election, in which President Obama will almost certainly seek re-election, is now less than two and a half years away. Currently, Americans' views on whether Obama deserves re-election show it would be a close race if the election were held today. Still, a great deal can change in what is a political lifetime between now and November 2012, meaning that while of current interest, estimates of Obama's re-election chances at this point have little predictive validity…”

http://www.gallup.com/poll/140810/Voters-Split-Obama-Election-2012.aspx


Now fast forward to February, 2011:

Dead even on Feb. 16, 2011:

February 16, 2011
Editor-in-Chief Insights: Obama's Re-Election Chances

Gallup Editor-in-Chief Frank Newport reveals Americans' views on whether they would vote for Obama in 2012 and provides historical insights.

“…Now Obama is dead even at 45/45 for and against.. a lot can change, it is really too early…
…Obama is highly polarizing, has created a 67 point spread in Dem approval vs Repub approval, second highest in history. Gallup advises Obama will continue to track to the middle/right, ala bipartisanship, etc.

http://www.gallup.com/video/146135/obama-elect.aspx



Obama's Re-Election? Voters Split On His Chances

“In what is admittedly not the most useful polling result ever, CNN/Opinion Research reported Tuesday that about half a group it polled was split on whether President Obama would be re-elected.

According to the survey, 51 percent said Obama wouldn't be re-elected while 46 percent said he would. The survey's margin or error was plus or minus three percentage points.

The survey's usefulness is limited because one, it's only February 2011 and a lot can happen between now and November 2012. In January 2007, Hillary Clinton was polling at 34 percent in terms of likely support; Obama was at 18 percent and John Edwards was at 15 percent…”

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/02/08/133594944/obamas-re-election-chances-find-voters-split


Cheer away.....


12 Reasons Obama Could Lose in 2012

Supporters are as exhausted as Velma Hart, the Tea Party has momentum, and Republicans are now more trusted. Mark McKinnon on why those issues, plus nine others, spell doom for the president’s reelection hopes.
President Obama’s State of the Union was strongly bipartisan and made smart moves to the center, although it missed a chance to really tackle tough fiscal issues like meaningful entitlement reforms. His Arizona speech was terrific, his favorable ratings are climbing over 50, the economy is showing steady signs of improvement, and the stock market is up. So, how could he possibly lose his reelection bid? Just ask George H.W. Bush, who had an approval rating of nearly 90 percent two years out from his reelection. $#&! happens when you are at the helm of the free world. What could happen? Let us count the ways...

1. Velma Hart Syndrome
Many of Barack Obama’s supporters “are exhausted.” Many defected in the midterms. Independents, suburban residents, college graduates, working-class voters, and even Hispanic voters shifted right. Exit poll analysis by National Journal shows “white voters not only strongly preferred Republican House and Senate candidates but also registered deep disappointment with President Obama’s performance.” Team Obama will focus heavily on minorities, the young, and women, but voter enthusiasm may be tempered by economic exhaustion. Good news for Team O? Velma liked the speech Tuesday night.

2. The Obama Overexposure Effect
With counsel that he needs to get out more among the people to sell his message, voters may be turned off by the Obama Overexposure Effect. A Pew 2008 weekly survey showed, by a margin of 76 percent to 11 percent, respondents named Obama over Sen. John McCain as the candidate they heard about the most. Close to half said they heard too much about Obama. And by a slight but statistically significant margin, they then had a less favorable view of him. Before the 2012 campaign even kicks off, will Obama fatigue return?

3. Debt Bomb
The national debt reached $10 trillion under President Bush, but deficit spending is at an all-time high under President Obama, with $1.4 trillion added in 2009 and $1.3 trillion in 2010. And the CBO now projects a deficit of $1.5 trillion this year. That means the federal government will borrow 40 cents for every dollar it spends. Bankruptcies loom for many states faced with unfunded public pension liabilities; strong-arm demands for bailouts by unions will threaten Democrats’ credibility. Sixty-eight percent of likely voters already express a preference for smaller government and lower taxes. Talk of more federal spending and the potential for state bankruptcies will increase voter anxiety. As the GOP educates voters about what the exploding debt burden means for future generations, its cost-cutting measures and messaging will resonate…”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-01-28/obamas-reelection-chances-12-reasons-hes-likely-to-lose/


rdb

[MineralMan]

41. Get back to me after the 2012 Democratic Convention.

We can discuss it then. Either that or start suggesting viable primary candidates.

[spanone]

72. based on reality.

[MilesColtrane]

33. !

[polichick]

53. LOL - hopefully millions of Americans WILL RISE! nt

[MilesColtrane]

55. You mean millions of Democrats against Obama, don't you?

Yeah...I don't think that's going to happen.

[polichick]

68. Actually no - I mean millions of Americans against corporate power...

If the president takes this union-busting opportunity to distinguish the Democratic party from the corporate-owned Republicans, that's great - somebody has to.

[cali]

30. highly unlikely and wishful thinking won't make it so.

[polichick]

34. Still, the battle over gov't by the people vs gov't by corps will happen...

Just a matter of when.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

42. Walker has attacked unions, not Obama

His administration is clearly backing the unions (and he mildly scolded the Republican Governors Associations over this sudden rash of anti-union legislation) even though he doesn't (for good reasons IMHO) want to personally inject himself into the fray. AFAIK Obama isn't taking calls from the Koch brothers either (unlike Walker).

[polichick]

43. Yes, I said "Wanker." nt

[Proud Liberal Dem]

46. I knew who you were referring to

However, what I was wondering was, how will what is happening in Wisconsin cause Feingold to reconsider running/primarying Obama when Obama had nothing to do with Walker's union-busting legislation? :shrug:

[polichick]

47. Well, Feingold is from Wisconsin and must be very invested in stopping...

...this anti-union movement. He's also a Dem who's not shy about standing up for Democratic principles.

Like it or not, Pres. Obama is a corporate Dem, not likely to lead the fight against gov't by corporations.

[MineralMan]

52. Feingold is extremely unlikely to challenge President Obama.

I don't believe he has even mentioned thinking about it. Further, he has virtually zero national name recognition among Democrats and he just lost an election. I can't imagine he'd be interested in such a thing.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

56. If by "corporate Dem"

you mean, not being willing to bring down our entire economic system and actually being willing to engage in dialogue with corporations on how best to grow the economy and create jobs, then I suppose he is. He's definitely no Wall Street/Chamber of Commerce/Koch Brothers lackey though.

[polichick]

70. I mean someone who is comfortable with the corporate/gov't status quo...

As opposed to someone who thinks corporations have too much influence in DC, as is willing to fight it.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

81. I don't know how comfortable he is with the corporate/gov't status quo

nor how much he likes it- but I'm not sure exactly what he might do to, as you say, fight it outside of making a few speeches. He lacked the votes to fundamentally restructure things during his first two years and he definitely lacks the votes for the next two years (and maybe even longer) to do anything too radical- if he were so inclined. There's really got to be a monumental shift from the grassroots level upwards to try to really change things IMHO. We need the right people in Congress first and foremost if we are to get the right kind of laws passed and that's where we really need to organize and apply pressure. I don't think that President Obama is necessarily content with the status quo but it's pretty much all he has to work with as long as he has Bush's mess to finish cleaning up, Republicans and their right wing media and activists nipping at his heels 24-7-365, as well as less-than-friendly Dems making things difficult for him in Congress.

[Motown_Johnny]

12. it would put a Republican in the White House,

do you think that would be good for the party?


If POTUS were to face a challenge from the left it sends a message to the people who don't really pay attention. That message is that even this President's own people are unhappy with him. This will be enough to lose the general election.

[polichick]

14. Not necessarily. It could serve to make the party decide what it is...

Are we just corporate-Republican-lite or do we really represent gov't of the people?

Could strengthen Obama if he responded in a bold positive way, and get more Dems to the polls.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

44. With all due respect

Most people don't pay attention to all of the subtle nuances in political ideology that we tend to. To most people, at election time, a Republican is a Republican and a Democrat is a Democrat. The partisans on either side will vote for their candidates no matter what but then the candidates will have to convince a majority of the rest of the voters to support their policies over the other and in 2008 and, especially, in 2012, there will be very distinct differences between President Obama and whoever they manage to nominate IMHO.

[polichick]

45. Sure, but a primary is for those who pay attention to nuance...

...and especially for those who want to play a part in deciding what the party is about.

The general election comes later.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

51. All but +/-20% Democrats

are satisfied with President Obama as he is now, presumably knowing everything we here at DU know about him. Absent some kind of political catastrophe (i.e. mass defection of Democrats), I fail to see how a primary challenge would be productive or anything other than a symbolic effort, particularly since nobody's come forward to challenge him as of yet. If we want to have debate about the "what the party is about," do we necessarily have to have a primary challenge in order to have that discussion? :shrug:

[polichick]

78. Well, the president could lead in the battle to take the gov't back from corporations...

...but so far he hasn't.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

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

[Motown_Johnny]

62. I suppose a challenger who "gets it" is one who agrees with you

and I would think that even you would have to admit that your political views are not main stream.


A challenge from the left puts a (R) in the white house. That is simply the reality of politics as it is today. Deal with it.

[swilton]

63. Furthermore if a primary challenger were to lose in 2012

the process of challenging a weak incumbent on progressive principles would strengthen the Democratic Party for 2016.

[polichick]

69. I agree that a candidate like that would win with a large coalition. nt

[walldude]

75. That's the kind of thinking that got us in this mess...

We better take whatever crap they serve us because the alternative is worse. And it is I agree. I thought Obama was different, he was the first vote in a long time I thought I was getting something other than the lesser of 2 evils. I was wrong. Time to find another guy.

[elocs]

2. Definition, "disingenuous":

dis·in·gen·u·ous (dsn-jny-s)
adj.
1. Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating: "an ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator, who ... exemplified ... the most disagreeable traits of his time" (David Cannadine).
2. Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-naïf.
3. Usage Problem Unaware or uninformed; naive.

[cliffordu]

11. Yep.

[Ignis]

48. See also, "flamebait."

[SidDithers]

3. As far as I know, only Lee Mercer and Randall Terry...

Tim Kaine was right. The only primary challenge to Obama will come from the fringe.

Sid

[Bucky]

66. I thought the last round of Lee Mercer jokes was getting kind of forced

I hope it's a more interesting idiot this time around. The 2008 batch of idiots was pretty lame.

[SidDithers]

80. But there's plenty of fresh material with Randall Terry...

:hi:

Sid

[MineralMan]

4. Nope. Nor will anyone with any serious chance. They're all in

support of President Obama, generally.

[JuniperLea]

8. Indeed...

It would be a huge waste of time and money, and an opponent would need to smear Obama pretty damn good to make any headway at all. That leaves them at risk of blatant hypocrisy should a miracle occur and they get into office... and want to do the same things Obama is doing.

[county worker]

13. When ever I see posts like this I am reminded of Bobby Kennedy in 1968

“I do not lightly dismiss the dangers and the difficulties of challenging an incumbent President. But these are not ordinary times and this is not an ordinary election. At stake is not simply the leadership of our party and even our country. It is our right to the moral leadership of this planet.”


My guess is that someone will rise and challenge Obama and will get the nomination and the Obama supporters will have to make the decision they are telling the rest of us we have to make.

Should they support the Democrat or stay home.

[polichick]

22. Glad not everyone is asleep.

[AtomicKitten]

23. pfft

[walldude]

77. What a well reasoned and well informed response.

Thanks so much, you have changed my mind with your incredible grasp of the facts.


BTW Bobby Kennedy was assassinated... for a reason.

[AtomicKitten]

84. --

"My guess is that someone will rise and challenge Obama and will get the nomination and the Obama supporters will have to make the decision they are telling the rest of us we have to make. Should they support the Democrat or stay home."

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[Robb]

29. A good point, but remember LBJ was polling, roughly, in the toilet at the time. nt

[MineralMan]

50. Yes, and President Obama is polling very well, especially

among Democrats. That would indicate that even a serious primary challenger will have no chance, even if one showed up, which I doubt.

[county worker]

61. The reason he got in the race was the Vietnam war not Johnson's poll numbers.

Bobby Kennedy wanted to end the war just as some progressive candidate today may want to end the assault on the middle class.

[dionysus]

54. !

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Number23]

67. I know. That post is something.

What that something is, is the real question...

[alcibiades_mystery]

6. ROFL...the GOPers are even scared to announce for the general

The "primary Obama" crowd looks sillier and sillier with each passing day.

Not gonna happen.

[SidDithers]

9. But not as silly as the "Are we sure Obama is going to run in 2012?" people...nt

Sid

[alcibiades_mystery]

16. There's no accounting for

straight up stupidity.

Plenty of people proved the worth of the political predictions in the Spring and Summer of 2008, when they first declared that there was no way Obama would win the "white working class vote," no way he would win "PA and OH," no way he could win the general. He won not only OH and PA by hefty margins, but also Indiana, Virginia, and North Carolina.

These people were wrong then. And they're still wrong when they make their ignorant predictions today. I lived in PA for 10 years, during the Bush years. Anyone who thought Obama was going to lose PA doesn't know fuck all about PA or politics. Simple as that. I actually made a liust of all the people promoting that nonsense in the Spring, Summer, and Fall of 08, so I know who to ignore when they make predictions.

:rofl:

[JuniperLea]

10. The GOTP (tm) is running a dead guy...

They are pushing Reagan, which is uber weird. Anyone they run will be expendable. They say stupid things, but surely they must have read the writing on the wall.

[JoePhilly]

15. +1

[Warren Stupidity]

18. Is a shit question.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[Warren Stupidity]

58. Ah you have to understand the history here. nt

[polichick]

76. It is a legitimate question - welcome to DU!

[MineralMan]

79. Does it, now. Who do you recommend to run in the primaries

against President Obama, then? You must have someone in mind.

[liberal N proud]

19. I nominate you!

[Freddie Stubbs]

25. Yes:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/17/alvin-greene-next-president_n_784356.html

http://www.terryforpresident.com/

http://www.deonianeveu.com/

http://www.jeffbossforpresident.org/

It looks like it's going to be real challenge for the President.

[MineralMan]

28. Ah...potential threats, one and all...

:rofl:

[NeedleCast]

32. Sigh...I was really hoping Terry was going to be for Terry Bradshaw

It looks like the only thing holding Jeff Boss back is use of a larger font and more caps lock on his web site. if he can clear that hurdle, he'll be legit.

[Shiver]

64. Oh, god no...

As a graphic designer, I refuse to support anyone who cannot build or have built for them a decent website. If they can't manage their online presence, how can they manage a country?

Also, he seems just a bit batshit crazy.

[whattheidonot]

31. fool me once

fool me once shame on you. fool me twice shame on me

[Autumn]

35. Not yet, If someone is going to do it I

hope they do it soon though.

[leftstreet]

36. Yes. Jeb Bush n/t

[SidDithers]

39. Where has Jeb Bush announced his primary challenge?...nt

Sid

[leftstreet]

40. Where is your sense of humor today?

:)

[Exultant Democracy]

37. No one has challenged him at all in fact, in either party.

[Youth Uprising]

59. Some of the attitudes that are being displayed here

remind me a lot of the Bush apologists during the '04 election. Truly sickening... And hypocritical, I might add.

[2banon]

65. the underpinning debate has been going on for over a decade

Yes, I know it's been going on since Johnson term (VietNam), then Carter, and especially racheted up during Gore vs Bush, followed with Kerry vs Bush.

We need a completely different paradigm and I don't see the beginnings of it yet. I had placed all my faith (naively) that Obama would be able to pave the way, but the PTB got a hold of him before he even took office, looks like the Korporate Empire will continue to reign for at least another generation maybe longer, unfortunately.

Unless I'm wrong and events in Wisconsin serve as the necessary spark to bring about some sort of national grassroots revolt against the KE.. (it's possible)
things are going to get a whole lot worse and it won't matter who the figure head is occupying the WH.. because that person isn't the one "in charge".

[mmonk]

71. Doubtful. But any mocking in this thread at the pain of the people

could backfire. If there is a challenge from left of center, its hard to tell what the better scenario would be for the party, one from the inside in a primary or outside that might peel away votes. I think the challenge to any policies from the left should come from the people. That challenge should be to vote for progressives throughout the Congress and to protest.

[Little Star]

73. We will not be that lucky. Four more years of....

bipartisan shit!

[polichick]

74. "Bipartisan" seems to mean "two parties serving the same corporations." nt

[Freddie Stubbs]

82. Did you prefer Bush's eight years of partisan shit?

[WI_DEM]

83. No and likely nobody will. The Dems don't want a primary fight

and most democrats want Obama to be the nominee. If anybody does challenge him for the nomination it will be on the fringe.