Here is where I am coming from re: a primary challenger for Obama

[LuckyTheDog]

We cannot know whether or not we could have avoided living through the destructive Ronald Reagan era if Democrats had stayed united under Jimmy Carter in 1980. But in hindsight, I think it's pretty clear that Ted Kennedy's primary run weakened Carter and helped smooth the path for Reagan in the general election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1980

I suppose it's also possible that Kennedy could have won if the Democrats had had the guts to dump Carter in favor of him. But I sort of doubt it. The electorate does not like to reward parties for disunity and disarray. The fight itself -- rather than the particular merits of Carter or Kennedy --is what did the damage.

There is a lot of talk about how Obama needs to dance with the ones he came with. That goes for both dance partners, though. For whatever it's worth, Obama won the presidency. He delivered the victory we wanted in 2008. And, I'm sorry, but most of us knew (or should have known) we were voting for a moderate, centrist candidate who made a point of presenting himself as a bi-partisan compromiser.

Let's not second-guess ourselves now. It'll only make us look weak, fickle and squirrelly to the electorate at large.

Yes, we should put heat on Obama to be stronger and to compromise less. But keep in mind that we actually make it harder for him to do that if we (meaning those of us in the Democratic base) signal to the opposition that Obama does not have our support for the 2012 election.

That's just how I feel.

[butterfly77]

1. He's not running..

[LuckyTheDog]

2. That's unlikely to be true (nt)

[jaxx]

7. In your dreams...

[CakeGrrl]

22. Wishing won't make it so. He's running, and

he'll be stronger than you want to think having set this unemployment/tax cut deal in motion.

[butterfly77]

46. Lol...

Good.

[Aramchek]

41. when did you completely detach from reality??

It is certainly going to be sweet on the day we are celebrating Obama's reelection here.

Do drop in.

[butterfly77]

45. It will be a happy one

for me too,I want him to run and win.

[polichick]

3. I welcome a primary challenge. Right now the party stands for nothing...

I might as well vote Republican unless we return to Democratic principles.

[lillypaddle]

16. So would you vote Republican? nt

[polichick]

19. If I vote for Dems who fight for Republican principles I AM voting Republican. nt

[lillypaddle]

24. No you're not

That's absurd. Do you think President Obama will make a positive difference in the Supreme Court? That alone is worth the vote, imho.

[polichick]

25. I think Obama is Republican lite, just like Clinton. I'm not a Dem for that. nt

[Ikonoklast]

43. So, if the Democrats won't nominate or elect YOUR candidate,

you will stamp your feet and go home.

So, who what party would want your support anyway, based on that? Your way, or no way.


There are other political parties that have purists as candidates to support, maybe you should find one to your liking.

[firedupdem]

23. Well I'm glad they stood with people who would have had

their unemployment compensation stopped etc. I'm also glad that my kid was able to borrow his student loan money from the government and was able to kick sallie mae to the curb. and I'm also happy he stays on my insurance when he graduates etc. But you go on and vote republican.

[lillypaddle]

26. +l

:thumbsup:

[polichick]

29. Glad you're happy with the crumbs they tossed, but Dems had the opportunity...

...of two lifetimes to turn the system upside down and bring real change - the president stood by the corporations with his Republican pals.

[firedupdem]

34. Mighty good of you to consider those things crumbs. People

living on unemployment insurance right now...and trust me there are many, certainly don't see that extension as a mere crumb. My husband, and the fact that his pre-condition won't prevent him from getting to a doctor any longer certainly don't see crumbs either. But again.....go vote republican. Republicans have stood in the way of damn near everything yet they are his 'pals'? That sounds as stupid as it is...but go vote republican.

[polichick]

35. What was accomplished is crumbs compared to what should have been accomplished...

...and what would have been accomplished if the WH hadn't sold out to the corporate status quo every step of the way.

My comment about voting Republican was about voting for Dems who ACT like Republicans.

[firedupdem]

36. oh, so there were accomplishments, but they just weren't good

enough? ok :eyes:

I have no idea of what you're talking about where the "corporate status quo" is involved. There is a 60 vote requirement to get just about anything done, so maybe those who stand in the way should be the target of our angst instead of the president all the time. He doesn't have a magic wand ya know.

[polichick]

39. I'm talking about the deals this WH cuts - from healthcare...

...to this week's bill, the WH cuts deals that go against Democratic principles. Instead of standing with the people for a public option, they traded it away without Congress' knowledge, etc. It's just the way they do things, selling out the base and Democratic principles while furthering Republican/pro-corporate policies.

Maybe you're happy with that - I'm not.

[Aramchek]

42. quit making threats and change parties, already!

prove to us all just how much you despise Obama.

[xchrom]

4. obama is a committed neo-liberal. -- that means he has more

interest in continuing the democratic party's version of reagan's policies.

there has been a merging -- and for the foreseeable future -- there's no turning back.

[Ozymanithrax]

5. Remember Reagan primaried President Ford, and Ford lost to Carter.

I've used this argument myself, but I have been wondering if Presidents are weakened by primaries or primaries are symptoms of a weakened President.

[LuckyTheDog]

9. Obama is not as weak as you think

His numbers have been consistently better than Reagan's or Clinton's numbers were at mid-term.

[Ozymanithrax]

28. Weakness is in the eye of the beholder...

Those who want him primaried see him as weak and ineffectual. I've yet to see any evidence that they have convinced someone to primary a sitting President. That may happen, but all the likely strong opponents have moved their hats from the ring.

I just wanted to point out that, from my own thinking, saying that a primary weakens a President may be missing some other political currents at work. If no one steps forward to challenge him, then the POV of the elected class will be that he is too strong to beat by one of his own.

[gkhouston]

37. What I remember is that Ford was lame *before* Reagan entered the fray, and

that I didn't take Kennedy's candidacy seriously in '80. It was the hostage crisis that did Carter in.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

12. Yeah, if only we had LaRouche, right?

:eyes:

[lillypaddle]

20. "you guys"?

We can't all be as enlightened as you obviously are.

[dennis4868]

8. you obviously never heard of the fillubuster!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster:

"it is a form of obstruction in a legislature or other decision-making body whereby a lone member can elect to delay or entirely prevent a vote on a proposal."

You obviously did not watch Rachel Maddow explain how the repubs broke the senate to weaken Obama with record number of fillubusters:

http://www.politicususa.com/en/maddow-broken-senate

It's obvious why Obama has to compromise....if he doesn't NOTHING GETS DONE! No other president has had to deal with a fucking FILLUBUSTER on every FUCKING vote....I don't care who the president would be now, they would HAVE TO COMPROMISE!!!!!

LET'S CHANGE THE FILLUBUSTERS RULES ON JANUARY 5TH SO THE COUNTRY CAN MOVE FORWARD!!!!!!

[Jackpine Radical]

11. So why the fuck didn't they change the rules

in 2009?

I think they wanted the cover.

[dennis4868]

14. So why the fuck didn't they change the rules

That's a hell of a question which I cannot answer....maybe they did not have the 51 votes to change the rules?

[Jackpine Radical]

21. Out of 60 Dems?

Lots of stuff would have passed by some number between 51 and 59 but for the rules. Why didn't thye have the votes to change the rules? That is an excellent question; I already gave my guess at the answer above.

[dennis4868]

27. I'm only guessing....

but perhaps soem dems were worried that one day they would ne in the minority and they wanted the fillubuster rules to stay the same...Plus, there are conservative dems who wanted the fillubuster to stay the same as well.

[Jackpine Radical]

31. It only takes a majority vote to change the rules.

And anyway, if the Republicans wanted, they could change the rules to 51 as soon as they got back in power.

[lamp_shade]

38. That's a very good guess and it's mine as well.

[Ozymanithrax]

30. If you research you question you will find out why. n/t

[bushisanidiot]

10. +10000

he is getting hit from both sides which will make it hard for him to win.

i really don't understand how some on the left really don't care that the Roberts Supreme Court could gain even more right wing judges if we lose to the repukes. IT IS ALL ABOUT THE SCOTUS!!

[emulatorloo]

17. DU is going to get a crash course in Republican Crazy with the Boehner House of Representatives

[robcon]

13. I agree with the OP. A primary challenge will weaken Obama.

I still think he'll win re-election, though.

[lillypaddle]

15. K&R

I agree with you.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[polichick]

32. I'm pretty much where you are - just can't imagine voting for what I consider...

...a Republican lite Dem again.

[Democrats_win]

33. We can't put, "anyone but bush" in the primary, because that's Obama.

Obama isn't bush, but that's about all there is to him.

[Uzybone]

40. "It'll only make us look weak, fickle and squirrelly to the electorate"

Well said.

Its not for nothing that liberals are seen as weak and cowardly by non liberals. We cant even back our own side for 3 months without massive bitching from the fringe.

[avaistheone1]

44. This tax extension shows we are "weak, fickle and squirrelly to the electorate".

We do need a challenger for Obama.

[AndrewP]

47. I kind of just view the whole things as a bunch of words

At the end of the day President Obama will be the nominee and most of us will end up supporting him.

I've thought from the beginning the only primary challenger that the President could have that would make any serious dent would be Hillary Clinton. I don't think she would win, but that is the only candidate that could mount any sort of serious run. And I don't think that would really be that close either, with the advantages of being in office gives to President Obama.

With her out of the picture by her own statement regarding the issue, the rest are a bunch of candidates that just aren't going to pull more than a couple of points in the polls.

[demwing]

48. "The fight itself-rather than the particular merits of Carter or Kennedy-is what did the damage." ??

What's your evidence of that?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

49. Ted Kennedy failed in his primary bid against Carter because

the Chappaquiddick incident was only 11 years in the past and still way at the top of everyone's consciousness, including Democrats. Even people who liked Teddy were running scared of that story.

[zipplewrath]

50. you'd have a hard time proving our assertions

It is very difficult to demonstrate that having a primary challenger is related to losing in the general election. The reason is that a primary challengers can as easily be a leading indicator of losing the general, as it is a cause. I can think of no way to separate out the two. One gets "serious" or "credible" challengers because they are percieved as "beatable". They are perceived this way not only by those in their own party, but by those in the opposing party. If there is a "loser" aspect to it, that may just be what is potentially coming here. Any challenger to Obama will come from the left. Kennedy challenged Carter from the left. If there was ever a serious challenger "from the right" so to speak, or the ubiquitous middle, it could present a different landscape. But we may never see such a thing because weak presidents tend to move towards the middle, not towards their extremes.

Carter got challenged from the left, Ford ostensibly from the right. Bush got challenged from "both sides" to some extent, Buchannan in the primary and Perot in the general. In the end the most basic conclusion that one CAN draw is that "weak" president, i.e. ones percieved to be vulnerable, get challengers. And they will get them from anywhere. If one wants to avoid challengers, from any side, ones primary focus should be on being "strong" at least in perception. Obama has one person to blame for that.

[mmonk]

51. The Ronald Reagan era is still with us.

Why?

[avaistheone1]

52. Hell the Ronald Reagan era is raging right now.

Thanks Obama.


:thumbsdown:

[Clio the Leo]

53. "That goes for both dance partners" ..... exactly. nt