Would you like to see a Democrat challenge Obama in the 2012 primary election?

[Cyrano]

I really don’t know whether or not I’d like to see this happen. I suppose it all depends on what happens over the next two years.

But one thing I’m certain of is that I never want to see another Republican in the White House in my lifetime.

What’s your opinion on such a challenge?

[Cirque du So-What]

1. If you truly don't want to see another repug in the WH

then you won't go tilting at windmills by supporting a Quixotic venture as foolhardy as a primary challenge to a sitting Democratic president *cough*TedKennedy*cough*

[Cyrano]

I hear you.

As far as I know, such challenges usually lead to disaster. Nonetheless, in today's political environment, who knows what's possible?

[leeroysphitz]

64. Thank you. This has been the DECADE of unprecedented happenings.

Any thing is possible.

[mahina]

9. word.

[hlthe2b]

27. Yes... challengers to incumbents does nothing but weaken them

How often has a primary challenger defeated an elected incumbent President of either party and gone on to win?

[Cirque du So-What]

28. But think of how much better it'd make those who support an incumbent challenger feel?

Isn't their self-esteem worth anything? And isn't their sense of 'team identity' worth the risk of losing the White House? It's all about feeling good about oneself, after all, isn't it?

Oh, BTW, in case it's unclear...

:eyes: :crazy: :silly: :sarcasm:

[blondeatlast]

35. Indeed. nt

[leeroysphitz]

67. What I truly want to see...

I want to see democratic candidates that understand that no matter how much campaign money they get from Goldman Sachs they had better not try to ignore the people once they get to Washington.

That goal seems to me to be more important than the outcome of any single election.

[DutchLiberal]

109. Today's Democrats are equally as bad as the 'repugs'...

Democrats just sell their crap nicer.

[Cirque du So-What]

113. Gee, I hope you didn't strain yer brain

exerting all that effort to tippy-tap out a one-liner of a rebuttal. And your thoughtful analysis & countless examples supporting your thesis are truly dazzling! I am in awe of your powerful argument.

[DutchLiberal]

121. If you need 'countless examples' and 'thpughtful analysis' at this point...

... you haven't been paying attention for the last 30 odd years.

[Cirque du So-What]

124. Still waiting

Yeah, I guess I need more than a one-liner to convince me of what you say - that both parties are exactly the same. Pardon me for asking, but if that's what you truly believe, then WTF are you doing here? Is the raison d'etre for Democratic Underground utterly wasted on you? Please do expound on your 'mission,' although it's rather transparent to me.

[msongs]

2. liberal/progressive challengers are a good thing. helps keeps the conservative in line nt

[bigwillq]

3. Yes

I feel all incumbents on every level in both parties should face primary challenges.

[ScreamingMeemie]

11. +1

[WinkyDink]

39. No. He's weak enough the way it is.

[emilyg]

58. +2

[DonCoquixote]

66. would you say that

If someone was challenging Hillary for a Senate seat? I bet NOT.

[bigwillq]

92. Yes

even though you weren't talking to me! :)

[emilyg]

103. I don't know. All depends

if I felt she was doing a good job or not.

[leeroysphitz]

68. +1000

[Pirate Smile]

4. No. It would be providing an assist to Republcians.

[Enrique]

5. i can't see how it could happen

to run a primary campaign against a sitting president in your own party, you have to level some pretty strong criticism against him. No one has even come close. If someone came out now against, say, health reform, the first thing I would ask would be where were you when it was being passed?

[leeroysphitz]

69. What if it were Howard Dean? n/t

[Botany]

6. Are you nuts?

Every time there has been a serious primary challenger to a sitting President
that President has lost. Obama has yet to give us all ponies that fart glitter
and can fly but he is one damn good President.

[Cyrano]

14. Yep. No one has ever pulled it off.

Having said this, the world of politics has changed so radically, who knows what's possible.

This doesn't mean I'm for or against Obama. I guess I'm just sitting on the fence on this. But to repeat, there's no way I ever again want to see a Republican in the White House.

[treestar]

23. True, and has the challenger ever won either?

Ever gotten the nomination?

The Democratic party's main flaw is the unwillingness to stick together as needed to win and get things done. On DU we often see the lament, "why do the Republicans get what they want when they are in power?" The answer is right there. They stick together and don't worry about not getting everything now. They stay fired up even when they are down. We have people claiming to be discouraged while we were in power.

[BlueDemKev]

41. You said it!

That's what I've been saying for over a year on this board! It's easier to get the cake one slice at a time than trying to get the whole thing at once. While it's only natural that Democrats disagree with each other on some things we basically have the same goal which is maintain our free-market economy, BUT allow some reasonable regulation so most of us don't get completely trampled by the mob.

[TexasObserver]

7. No. He's far better than any Republican.

It's fool's gold to think there's a Democrat who can do better in 2012.

[Pab Sungenis]

8. Yes, for a couple of reasons.

First, it would keep Obama honest.

Two, if the progressive's campaign is more or less limited to how Obama isn't liberal enough, then that helps disarm a potential Republican talking point in November.

[BlueDemKev]

42. Oh, sure....

...that worked really well back in '88 when Dukakis fought off a tough primary challenge from far-left candidate Jesse Jackson. As soon as he got the nomination, Americans saw Dukakis as a very liberal politician, whom most Americans saw as too far left to be elected.

[mkultra]

81. but it wont be limited by that

will it.

[gateley]

10. No. There's no way it wouldn't divide our party and part the waters for the

Republicans to come marching in.

Also, I'm thinking by the end of his first term we'll understand better what he's achieved and more of us will want him to return for a second term.

[robinlynne]

12. Yes, if it is a challenger who is more progressive than Obama.

[area51]

43. +1 n/t

[sharp_stick]

13. Someone should add up

the number of times that exact question has been asked on this site. The responses to this question are amazingly predictable from the same users every time.

[ScreamingMeemie]

15. Not true, because at least two people I see answering here, don't

post as often as they did 2 or 3 years ago, myself is included. Go do the research. :hi:

[Cyrano]

17. I've never discussed this subject here. But, depending on

how the midterm elections go, and what Obama does over the next two years, I think you will see this question brought up time and again.

[bigwillq]

111. Do you really expect the answers to be different?

:shrug: I think it's cool that people are answering the same. My answer is always the same to this question which, yes, has been asked numerous times.

I support primary challenges for all incumbents on every level and for both parties. Predictable, maybe, consistent, yes.

[sharesunited]

16. Hillary will be leaving his administration after the Nov. elections to run against him.

That's been my guess for awhile.

[Jackpine Radical]

19. I really, really doubt that.

[jpak]

26. LOL! what a crock

:rofl:

[blondeatlast]

36. That would be her political suicide. She's far, far too smart for that. nt

[davidinalameda]

47. I hope so

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

49. The PUMA holy grail.

[Arkana]

75. This has about as much chance of happening

as does Obama turning into a lemur in a puff of purple smoke during his next speech.

[proteus_lives]

79. And as usual you're wrong.

[mkultra]

82. this is flamebait as far as im concerned

she is not stupid nor destructive. Your insulting her and her supporters.

[sharesunited]

98. So you're saying she would rather sit by and watch the Presidency go to a Republican

if Barack Obama doesn't appear to be re-electable?

How would that be good for her party or her country?

I was an Obama voter in 2008 and still like him.

But I would admire Hillary very much if she were to challenge him for the nomination.

That's how concerned I am about 2012 with 2010 looking as problematic as it does.

[mkultra]

101. im saying she's not so stupid as to think a challenge would ever work

i say this mostly as it has NEVER worked and has ALWAYS hurt the incumbent. The only two times a serious challenger has came into the game was in 1980 with carter and 1976 with Ford. In both cases, the political infighting caused them to get creamed.


Obama will benefit from the republican primary contest more than anyone.

Consider your "concern" duly noted.

[Ikonoklast]

95. Really. I want some of what you're smoking.

[Jackpine Radical]

18. Not unless he's been caught in bed with a dead chicken or a live Muslim.

I think primary challenges are generally only mounted against sitting Presidents who are already destined to lose. I certainly think that was true of the Kennedy/Carter debacle in 1980. Between the hostage crisis (and October Surprise chicanery), the energy crisis, the runaway inflation, and Carter's problems with his own Democratic majority, he was already in such deep shit that I think Kennedy got in as a sort of Hail Mary pass, trying to turn a desperate situation around. And I thought it was a bad tactic at the time, and still do.

I would prefer a President more liberal than Obama has proved to be, but I would absolutely hate having a Republican there.

[treestar]

20. No, that only helps the Republicans

We have to stick together at some point. Draw the line somewhere. Or we just cede to the Republicans, who always stick together.

[still_one]

21. NO /nt

[Lil Missy]

22. No.

[LiberalAndProud]

24. No.

Twice. And since we're speculating about what Hillary will do -- I predict she's had enough of presidential campaigning. I don't think she will run, certainly not against Obama.

[jpak]

25. No

n/t

[Lucian]

29. If a real liberal/progressive challenged Obama...

I'd back that candidate.

[Parker CA]

30. Nope. Not a chance.

[socialist_n_TN]

31. It depends on conditions in '12 AND..........

it depends on the challenger.

[LostInAnomie]

32. No

And, I hope anyone that does run against him gets humiliated.

[SargeUNN]

33. WHY aren't we divided enough?

We still have those who haven't gotten over Hillary or Dennis not getting the nomination and refuse to support Obama if he had turned out to be perfect. If we could accept the winner and not play the if game then work to accomplish things then fine, but we don't do that, we just fight.

[blondeatlast]

34. No. nt

[jaxx]

37. Hell no.

Why would we set ourselves up to lose?

[TreasonousBastard]

38. Not worth an answer.

[BlueDemKev]

40. At this point, no.....

Right now, I would say no. The party needs to be fully united going into the 2012 election if we are to hold the White House. Unless things get really bad, say like the Republicans take over Congress this November AND Obama's approval ratings plummet throughout 2011, then it would be best for Obama to step aside and let Hillary or another Democrat run in his place. However, I do not foresee the latter happening, especially if the Republicans take over Congress this November. The Republicans will have to pursue a far-right agenda to appease the tea-baggers who got them elected, and Obama will quickly look like a better alternative to right-wing extremism (kind of what happened between 1994 & 1996--Clinton was left for dead, and then he roared back to coasted to re-election).

[davidinalameda]

44. not only yes

but hell yes

[SargeUNN]

48. ok but the big question is

will you or anyone supporting another candidate accept the loss when Obama gets the nomination or will the divide continue as it has with many of Dennis and Hillary Supporters?

[davidinalameda]

55. if the next two years are like the last

I'd say no

Obama has been bad on gay issues; we're still at war; Gitmo is still open

the economy sucks

granted the wars and economy can be partially blamed on Bush but how long do we keep blaming him

when does Obama become responsible?

[Arkana]

76. No, sorry. The wars and the economy are COMPLETELY Bush's fault.

Unless you're somehow suggesting that a then-state senator from Illinois turned U.S. Senator from Illinois had a hand in miring us in the Middle East and cratering our economy, you're talking out of your ass because of a bizarre visceral hatred for Barack Obama.

[mkultra]

83. when he makes it worse instead of better.

Sorry pinwheel. Bush is to blame.

[old mark]

45. No. I don't see anyone more progressive who would be electable

and I am hoping Obama's second term might be a bit less "Bipartisan" fixated.
I think he finally got their drift-they don't give a shit about the country, it's all gamesmanship with the GOP. I now understand that Obama really expected the republicans to be concerned about the economy, unemployment, etc, which of course they are not.

I also think the second half of Obama's first term will be an improvement for us, regardless of the makeup of Congress.

But then, I'm an optimist...a complaining optimist.



mark

[Smarmie Doofus]

46. Absolutely.

I'm supposed to fall in line and support school privatization, *war* privatization, DADT, and "bi-partisanship"-into-perpetuity.... without even a primary choice?

I don't think so.


>>But one thing I’m certain of is that I never want to see another Republican in the White House in my lifetime.>>>>

Me neither. But I don't really care what they CALL themselves. I care about what they do or don't do.

[Bitwit1234]

50. NO right now til this country moves further down the path

of recovery I think we should have more party unity....no no no no no no.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

51. Isn't that what we're supposed to do? Run real progressives against moderates in the primaries?

[Wounded Bear]

57. Sure, in the House and Senate and the state level

Not at president.

I'd love a more pregressive pres, but in 2016. In 2012, Obama's my man.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

61. Why not 2012? For those of us who don't consider Obama our man.

[mkultra]

84. no its not

you run them in primaries without incumbents and that aren't POTUS in nature.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

86. "..POTUS in nature"? Is that like appointed by God?

Progressives are urged to run against sitting Blue Dogs and DLC'rs in primaries. Why not against moderate/centrist presidents?

[mkultra]

88. because it always causes the incumbent to LOSE

when you have the presidency, you don't fuck around with it.

[EstimatedProphet]

52. Sure. I'd like to see a choice

This is the point of the primary process.

[Lisa D]

53. No.

I want Democrats to win the presidential election in 2012.

[PFunk]

54. Right now no.

But willing to concider it if Obama keeps putting down/ignoring his base and continues down the path he's going now. Maybe that'll be the only way to put some sense into him.

[scheming daemons]

56. Whether you'd like to or not... it isn't going to happen.

..

[young but wise]

60. Hell no!

[phasma ex machina]

65. You're probably correct, but never say never. nt

[HuckleB]

59. No, Obama is doing a huge portion of what he was elected to do.

What recent president even comes close in terms of accomplishing what Obama has?

[LWolf]

62. YES. nt

[spanone]

63. Obama is a democrat.

[Cyrano]

70. Please don't twist the meaning of my OP.

I voted for Obama and I was ecstatic when he won. I want to see him succeed and I want to see him take on the Republicans and ground them into the dust.

But, at present, he doesn't seem to be the man we elected president. I'm not expecting miracles. However, I don't think it's too much to ask our president to stand up strongly against the maniacs of today's Republican Party. How could any reasonable person buy into Obama's "bipartisan" talk of the past two years? Trying to reason with today's Republicans is like trying to negotiate with a rattlesnake.

So please don't imply that I believe that Obama is not a Democrat. My hope is that after the next two years, (and the following four), we will all consider him one of our greatest presidents ever.

[spanone]

106. didn't imply anything. Obama is a democrat. you mean another democrat.

[mkultra]

117. who else could challenge him in a primary

seems like your mention is dubious.

[jillan]

71. NO!

[mzteris]

72. F*CK NO! n/t

[Catherina]

73. Hell yes. See and support. Brand Obama doesn't cut it for me at all. n/t

[littlewolf]

114. possibly ... let see what happens in the next year

[Arkana]

74. No. Next question.

[Pavulon]

77. Sure, when they loose (dennis k for example)

maybe the fringe will figure out these people can not be elected to national office.

Actually no, because it wastes money and time any serves no purpose.

[blogslut]

78. I'm all for anyone willing to be heard

Democracy is awesome. Someone will probably attempt to challenge our president in the upcoming primary season. They will fail miserably but, because this is a great country, they will have that opportunity.

[rucky]

80. I think it would be good for the party.

To hash out our vision for the next four years and not leave progressives in the dust. In the end, the people who wouldn't support Obama, wouldn't support him with or without a challenger, but most would.

[mkultra]

85. wow, look at the yes answers. I never thought progressives where this stupid

i guess both parties have their baggers.

[goldcanyonaz]

87. No!

:wtf:

[book_worm]

89. NO, but then I wish Democratic Underground were really a democratic website too.

[Cyrano]

90. So if some disagree with you they're not Dems? That's a Republican mindset.

[mkultra]

93. actually, thats how politics works

when people agree, they join together into a party. The democrats are one of those parties.

[bigwillq]

96. I am sure there are other DEM sites on the web

that you can visit.

[karynnj]

91. No and NO ONE serious will do so

I thought that the poll showing that even Hillary Clinton would start 15 points behind would END this nonsense.

Obama is very near the center of the party - there are not enough people to his left or to his right for a serious challenge. (Carter was to almost to the right edge - and with FAR less popularity than Obama, even Kennedy with the star power of his family, lost the nomination badly.

[opihimoimoi]

94. To Divide is to Weaken....Sun Tsu 38.22....If not broken, why fix? 28.48

[McCamy Taylor]

97. Obama will be re-elected. He is much too likable to be kicked out of office.

I think he needs to pick someone besides Biden to be VP next time. Some one who can get elected in 2016.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

99. I would not at all be unhappy --

with a challenger. I think challengers keep the debate honest, and there is plenty to debate about the last two years.

[H2O Man]

100. Naw

[shimmergal]

102. No. It won't work. But what I would like to see is

a Third Party "radical center" candidate a la Ross Perot in 1992. Running on economic issues only: full employment, no outsourcing jobs, etc. Hell, he or she could even, in good conscience, propose some of the five things on Michael Moore's list: A WPA-type program, etc. And then with the not-too-outrageous promise that in a few years, we might attain an annual surplus in the budget rather than deficits as far as the eye can see. Perot took 19% of the vote with a similar platform in 1992, when the economy wasn't nearly as desperate as it is today.

Such a candidate would draw at least as many votes from independents and non-crazy Republicans as from Democrats. And if the Republicans are heading for suicide via Tea Party ideas, might even replace them as a major party.

And if it didn't win, a good showing might push Obama into some of the measures he should have already taken.

Unfortunately the ticket would need to be headed by either someone with enormous national credibility, or with enormous wealth. And they'd need to start planning and organizing Right Now. Offhand, I don't see anyone who's likely to do so. But I don't see any Republican whom I can envision as a credible presidential candidate either. Unfortunately, there'll be a "Republican" running anyway. Geez. . .

[NYC Liberal]

104. No, because I approve of the job Obama is doing

as do the vast majority of Democrats (and liberals).

[madokie]

105. Not no but hell no

Obama is not the problem the leadership in the senate is our problem. Nancy is doing a good job on her side of the aisle but Harry is worthless as a leader.
The only thing he can point to that might show some strength is his time as a golden gloves boxer.

[saltpoint]

107. A primary challenge is always possible for just about

any office, but in this case I don't see anybody who is at once smart enough to present an admirable candidacy and stupid enough to challenge Barack Obama.

Provided Obama wants renomination, I think he'll have it.

[DutchLiberal]

108. What difference does it make? They're all corrupt anyway...

They're all bought by corporate America. They spend half of their times begging on the phone for more campaign money from their corporate donors, and after they've been elected, they do their bidding. Everybody who thinks that all magically changes whenever another Democrat gets in office, is delusional. The chance of that happening died a long time ago (somewhere in 1968, I think).

[Raine]

115. Yeah if they aren't corrupt to begin with they soon

become that way after they take office.

[jmowreader]

110. Not at all

My opinion of such a challenge is if you want President Christine O'Donnell in the White House signing a bill prohibiting masturbation within 50 feet of a satanic altar, run someone against the current Democratic president.

[TK421]

112. Sure, why not? I'm certain Obama would be re-elected anyway

I haven't seen anyone else willing to step up to the plate here

I'm beginning to think no one wants this job anymore, and I really can't blame them

Not only that, I would personally hate being in the public eye 24/7...I would go postal

[eridani]

116. No. Crappy strategy.

Remember 1980?

[The Second Stone]

118. No, I don't want to see a challenger

and I do want to see him run again. I'm disappointed in his constant caving and bipartisanship failures and I'm furious about the constant badmouthing of the left, but I'm not in his shoes.

Now let's go get out the vote.

[WeekendWarrior]

119. Yes. I think it's an important part of the process.

I think part of what got so many people fired up in 2008 was the brutal fight between Obama and Clinton. It really got people energized. And when Clinton finally conceded, VERY graciously giving her support to Obama (in one of the classiest political speeches I've ever seen -- and I was an Obama supporter), I think the Dems demonstrated how they can come together when necessary and bring the fight to the real bad guys, the Republicans.

[MadHound]

120. Yes, I would

And frankly I find it rather interesting that there are so many here saying that it is wrong, that it would allow the 'Pugs to win.

It is that sort of attitude of win no matter the cost that allows our politicians to be held unaccountable for their record. Primaries are, supposedly, where we hold the politicians in our party accountable. No primary challenge, no accountability.

[kratos12]

122. Hell and No

Obama isn't perfect but he is setting the groundwork for future progressive change, undermining him with a primary challenger is stupid.

[BrentWil]

123. WOuld you like a Republican in the White House?

Same question