Should we 'primary' Pres. Obama in 2012?

[LongTomH]

Poll question: Should we 'primary' Pres. Obama in 2012?

That is, should there be a primary challenge from one or more progressive candidates in the 2012 election? Rep. Bernie Sanders is one of the Democratic leaders calling for a primary challenge.

What's to be gained by such a challenge? It would allow challengers to articulate the kind of progressive agenda that Mr. Obama himself supported in 2008, and might push Mr. Obama to the left. It could also increase interest in the process. Remember, Sen. Obama's campaign in 2008 brought a lot of disillusioned young people back into the political process; most of those are again disillusioned and angry.

On the other hand, it might weaken the President, guaranteeing a Republican win in the general election. People on DU have pointed out the example of the 1980 election, with Sen. Ted Kennedy challenging Pres. Jimmy Carter in the primary (I would like to point out that the Reagan win in 1980 was largely due to the 'October surprise' cooked up by the Reagan
team!).

Please note, I am leaving a lot of room for uncertainty in the various responses. Actually, I'm uncertain myself, though I'm leaning more and more toward supporting the idea of a primary challenge.

[Vincardog]

1. it might weaken the President, guaranteeing a Republican win? How is a MAYBE weakening GUARANTE

to lead to a GOP win? Nice framing

[LongTomH]

6. OK, maybe that was a poor choice of words!

I should have used maybe!

[elocs]

2. Wow! Is this a new idea that you just thought of?

:shrug:

[LongTomH]

9. Read the post again!

I mentioned Bernie Sanders and others who are currently suggesting a primary challenge.

[RC]

3. We need a Left of Center Democrat for President.

Not a moderate right of center Democrat, read 'DINO'.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[quiller4]

5. Why would we. It worked so well in 1980... n/t

[Worried senior]

7. I wish he were more progressive

but I fear a primary would only ensure a Republican would get in and that scares me to death.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

8. Sure looks pretty close. nt

[rury]

10. Still posting this nonsense, huh?

:rofl:

[Rowdyboy]

11. Who is "we"? If you're talking about DU members "we" make up about 1% of the Democratic electorate

I don't think "we" will have much effect.

If you're speaking of "we" as the progressive movement of which we here are a tiny (non-representative) cog then "we" have no candidate willing to primary Obama. Can't run against someone if you don't have anyone interested in running.

Seems kinda silly to get excited about a primary challenge when you're lacking a candidate.

[texshelters]

13. DU is a very small part of the electorate

and Conyers and Franks are really angry at Obama as are other national Dems, so dissatisfaction to the left of Obama is real.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[RichGirl]

36. Dissatisfaction is one thing...risking a republican win.....

Is a whole different ball game that no one with a brain wants to play.

Would you rather have:

1) a president you're dissatisfied with or

2) one who is bat shit crazy and evil and will turn this country into a wasteland????

[texshelters]

39. I'd rather not have a stealth conservative

compromising on Social Security. If McCain had been president with a Democratic Congress, they would have had none of this. But it's okay to put SS and Medicare on the table because it's a Democrat.

http://texshelters.wordpress.com/2010/11/23/i-should-have-voted-for-mccain/

We would be up in arms over the wars and the drones and the detentions if McCain had won. But were all passively accepting less then Democratic values because it's a "democrat" in office.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[OutNow]

12. You really don't follow politics do you?

You wrote, "Rep. Bernie Sanders is one of the Democratic leaders calling for a primary challenge". That would be SENATOR Bernie Sanders. And, as he points out every day, he IS NOT A DEMOCRAT. He's an independent socialist and has been for over 30 years. Other than that, your post is still lame.

[LongTomH]

18. Mistakes admitted!

I should have said: "Sen. Bernie Sanders is one of the progressive leaders calling for a primary challenge to Pres. Obama!"

[ZombieHorde]

14. Why would a primary challenge weaken President Obama? nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. Because He Would Spend Most Of 012

Because he would spend most of 012 focusing his fire on another Democrat and not the Republicant.

Oh, he would beat any challenger like a drum.

And folks here should be worrying about the general election. I don't see a path to victory with his current poll numbers and crappy economy; an economy he inherited but that's beside the point because folks are looking for a scapegoat.

[ZombieHorde]

19. If he could beat any challenger like a drum, why would he focus his fire on them? nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. Good Point.

Obama might get a primary opponent like Nixon did in 72. That was Bob McCloskey who he beat like a drum. I don't think Bernie Sanders or any opponent could garner more than a dozen or so delegates.

[CakeGrrl]

29. But Ralph Nader insists it wouldn't be meant to DEFEAT the President.

:eyes:

Why, just once, can't Democrats leave the stupid to the Republicans?

[treestar]

15. Unrec'd

It's too late. And just changing presidents would not solve anything.

[billh58]

17. I always get a kick

out of the notion that "we" can present a candidate for office, or even persuade a particular person to run for office.

The truth of the matter is that unless a well-funded, extremely popular, Democrat wants to run against a sitting Democratic president, and can gain enough support from the Democratic Party movers and shakers, "we" can only post wishes on Internet discussion boards.

Of all the lessons learned from the vicious and divisive 2008 Democratic primary elections, the fact that "we" only get to vote for candidates picked by the political machine should stand out as the most important one. Just ask also-ran DK...

[Creideiki]

21. Carter didn't lose because of the primary challenge

I was only 12 at the time and even I know that.

Carter lost because of the economy sucking tied together with the Iran Hostage situation.

Saying that he lost because of the primary challenge is the post hoc logical fallacy.

[bigwillq]

22. All incumbents, at every level, should face a primary challenge.

May the best man or woman win.

[LongTomH]

23. This has become an object lesson in "check your language before you hit the post button!"

Yeah, I made some really embarrassing slips with "Rep Bernie Sanders" and referring to him as a 'Democratic' leader rather than a progressive one. And I should have not used the pronoun 'we' giving the idea that DUers were able to influence the decision.:blush:

All of that being said, there is still a question that has been raised. Some important people on the progressive end of the spectrum want to raise a primary challenge to President Obama in 2012.

I think the pros and cons I mentioned are still valid. A primary challenge, by an articulate progressive candidate, might actually bring some disillusioned younger voters back into the political process. Whether they would stay active for the general election is problematic.

[CakeGrrl]

24. Why don't the people who want him primaried just put their money where their mouths are

go off, form their grassroots campaign, and give progress updates to DU?

Shit or get off the pot, as it were.

[Forkboy]

25. I'm all for primaries regardless of who is president.

If Kucinich or Sherrod Brown were president I'd still be for a primary. The more voices the better.

[Fire1]

26. And of course the "way you're leaning" makes all the

difference. :eyes:

[Tarheel_Dem]

27. Aside from all your other misinformation, Bernie Sanders is not a "Democratic Leader".

:eyes:

[polmaven]

28. Oh GOD not this again!!!!

Unrec for sheer repetition!

[CakeGrrl]

31. I will be soooo glad when President Obama is officially the nominee.

It will become quite a bit quieter around here if the non-voters are as good as their word.

[Number23]

32. I know. This was repetitive at only the 435th time it was mentioned

[JoePhilly]

38. Its the daily "we must primary Obama" thread.

Ignore the fact that there is no candidate who could do so.

[Bonobo]

30. Yep, he's the worst of both worlds.

He is attacked as a flaming liberal socialist but is, in fact, a middle of the road Conservative.

So Obama is a lose-lose for Democratic principles.

We take the heat and receive no light.

Dump him, elect a strong Progressive and then, even if we are attacked for being liberals, we will actually be promoting liberal values instead of capitulating on them.

[jefferson_dem]

33. Yeah! Just what we need...

As the nation runs the real risk of slipping into the abyss thanks to neaderthanlic teabaggers... More sniping from malcontents on the supposed left.

Get a fucking grip...

[TheKentuckian]

34. That is well deserved for giving the fuckers credence and their nonsense legitimacy

Certainly well deserved for advancing their positions and more so for making concessions to the terrorists.

[secondwind]

35. I find it offensive to even start a post like this. Sorry.

[aaaaaa5a]

37. Only a fool would think about a primary for Obama.

At this point, that's treason for our party. All that does is assure that a ReThug is in the White-house in 2013.


You have to be smarter than that!