Does anybody foresee a challenge to Obama from the left?

[cyr330]

I'm just thinking about Jimmy Carter in 1980 with Ted Kennedy challenging him for the nomination, although I don't know who might do that to Obama.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

1. No.

[cutlassmama]

2. no

[DJ13]

3. It all depends on whether Obama moves too far right the next 2 years

I know we like to think he's a shoe in for the nomination in 2012, but if he ends up passing a lot of GOP programs the next two years (while continuing to denigrate the base) I would hope some people here would get the balls to begin searching for a new candidate.

[pgodbold]

21. What he said. nt

[Tesha]

30. He's been "too far to the right" since he named his Cabinet.

(If not since he chose his Inauguration entertainers.)

Half the cost came due on November 2nd; the rest of
the cost comes due in November, 2012 when he gets
his notice that he'll be joining the ranks of the unemployed.

Tesha

[countrydad58]

43. Yep.

Day 1, Rahm & The DLC cabinet& The Goldman Sachs criminals. Rick Warren in the inauguration. A few good things like Min. wage, other than that total disappointment!

[Ikonoklast]

51. I get the feeling you were disappointed with Obama waaaay before that.

Like Nov. 5, 2008.

[Skittles]

69. what difference would that make?

the end result is still the same

[prairierose]

47. Boy, that is true... n/t

[LWolf]

63. Yep. nt

[Toucano]

64. The 2012 campaign will be in full swing by September 2011

If it is going to happen, it will happen by July or August of 2011. That's just 8 or 9 months away.

[zappaman]

4. Nope

No

[apocalypsehow]

5. No. n/t

[kctim]

6. Not one that would have a chance in hell

[Ozymanithrax]

7. I don't think anybody wants a Repulbicans President that much.

The last four attempts to primary a sitting President in such a way has resulted in the President being defeated.

Pat Buchanan's primary attempt on Papi Bush in 1992 led to the Election of Clinton.
Carter was primaried in 1980 and lost to Reagan.
Ford was Primaried by Reagan in 1976 and lost to Carter.
Johnson was primaried in 1968, which led to his resignation, and Democrats lost the White House to Nixon.

Clealry, a serious primary attempt causes problems in the electorate, opens wounds that do not heal easily and leads to the other side winning. It happens to both sides.

[DJ13]

13. I think it depends on who the GOP nominates

The examples you cite our party faced really serious candidates who might have won even if there were no primary challengers.

[Ozymanithrax]

15. Historically, the other party hasn't mattered.

Divisive primaries appear to lead to broken parties. This happened no matter who had the Presidency.

[DJ13]

17. BS, sure it matters

I could tell in 1980 that Carter would lose to Reagan before the primaries even started.

The level of candidate the GOP fields matters very much in the equation.

[Ozymanithrax]

22. Well, I did not for see that, and neither did most of the political thinkers at the time.

This trend has been true in both parties. A sitting President faces a serious primary challenge, and win or lose the challenge goes down in defeat.

At one time the political thinking was that a serious challenge from the left (for Democrats) and the right (for Republicans) led the President of that party to move in a direction favorable by the party. At least that was the belief. But what seems to happen is that a split forms temporarily in the party that does not heal.

It would be a bad idea to primary Obama from the left or the right.

[DJ13]

26. Well I had the advantage of being a Califorinian

I knew what kind of campaigner Reagan was back then.

I do think the MSM is hellbent on promoting Palin for 2012, and against her I cant imagine any half decent liberal Democrat that would lose.

[Tesha]

33. The fault in that analysis is that the Democratic Party is already deeply, completely broken.

We demonstrate that here every day.

Tesha

[Ikonoklast]

53. DU is not representative of the vast majority of the party.

This small corner of the internet doesn't even show as a statistical blip on the radar.

Most Democrats when polled overwhelming support the president.


Just because there are posters here that have issues with Obama does not translate into the Democratic electorate at large being ready to primary the man.


DU may be broken; but I see no large schism within the party itself.

[Ozymanithrax]

56. Which is why a serious primary challenge is a bad idea.

Historically, and for both parties, they are bad.

I don't expect that to change the call by a good size group here to primary him out. They, of course, believe their choice will be able to defy history.

[Tesha]

57. No problem; poll *ANY* of my neighbors here in NH.

Here at DU, we mostly offer "constructive criticism" of/for
the Democrats.

My neighbors, on the other hand, *REALLY, REALLY HATE*
the Democrats and wish we were all dead. The most popular
bumper sticker around here is any of a number of variations
on "01.20.2013: Obama's last day".

Tesha

[cyr330]

32. You got it right.

It does seem to hit both parties in that it weakens the incumbent for the general election.

[frustrated_lefty]

Possibly, if the economy doesn't improve.

[madinmaryland]

8. No. Edited to add: Maybe the "Rent is Too Damn High" Party guy will,

but that would probably be about it.

[LiberalFighter]

9. no!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

More like from the right by someone like Evan Bayh who can't get it out of his head that he is nothing more than an empty suit.

[cyr330]

34. Arrgh! I HATE Evan Bayh!

[LiberalFighter]

41. Tell anyone you know in Indiana that he sucks as a Senator.

Ask them to name one thing he accomplished as Senator. Or even as Governor.

Ask them if they ever voted for him to be Governor or Senator and if they would vote for him to be Senator again.

[montanacowboy]

10. RFK challenged

We do need a primary, we cannot keep up this Bush lite shit. I am sick and tired of it. We need a strong left leaning progressive with courage of his convictions and lots of in your face to reupkians. If not, we are doomed to repukian rule or right of center Democrats who kiss ass at every chance they can. I have had it.

[Ozymanithrax]

14. You may have noticed that the result of Eugene McCarthy

and RFK's challanging Johnson in a primary was to turn the White House over to Nixon.

See post 7 to understand why this is historically a bad idea.

[countrydad58]

50. Kennedy was Assasinated

& most likely would have beat Nixon if he lived.

[Ozymanithrax]

58. Maybe, but he did not. Nixon won after Johnson face stiff primary challanges..

and quit.

The eventual winner lost the support of the anti-war folk.

Nixon walked away with it.

A serious Primary challange is a bad idea. But I am sure there is someone out there who will have the ego and the drive to attempt it.

[JackRiddler]

74. You're blaming the man who was shot before the election for Nixon?

[TexasObserver]

76. RFK would have won if not assassinated.

[grantcart]

11. You do realize that this is the shortest IQ test ever invented?

[emulatorloo]

12. Only if the Republicans secretly fund one. Divide & Conquer n/t

[Smarmie Doofus]

16. Yes. There will definitely be a challenge.

Whether it can seriously contest for the nomination remains to be seen.

Lots of variables there. If the next year and a half are like the last two... I'd say he's gone.

Depending also , of course, on who makes the challenge.

[JTFrog]

39. Roflmao. n/t

[in_cog_ni_to]

89. I certainly hope so! n/t

[backwoodsbob]

18. a serious challenge?

no.i'm sure someone will declare but it won't amount to anything.

[Scurrilous]

19. No. n/t

[BzaDem]

20. Not a viable challenge. There are always primaries, but they are between the incumbent and random

people no one has ever heard of.

Viable candidates won't enter because they don't want to hand the White House to Sarah Palin (which historically is exactly what happens when an incumbent is challenged).

[Toucano]

65. There aren't "always primaries".

That's simply false.

Secondly, the incumbent who gets challenged by his own party has historically lost, but that doesn't prove a cause and effect relationship.

It's perfectly possible that the incumbent who receives a primary challenge is already too weak to retain his office.

[nevergiveup]

23. not going to happen

[pampango]

24. Almost certainly not, unless Obama (and hence the party) looks like a sure loser in which case

someone will challenge (hopefully from the left, not a Blue Dog) to build credentials for 2016.

[earthside]

25. We can hope.

It would be great to have a pro-labor, pro-teacher, pro-peace President.

[blondeatlast]

88. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis is very pro-union.

Sorry to disappoint you.

[Pavulon]

27. No, there is no one electable overthere.

spend time and money where it is effective. Want to piss away money start you own winery.

[Winterblues]

28. No and if Obama doesn't change his style he will definitely be a one termer..

If he allows the wealthy to continue getting their tax breaks from Bush* then it means to me he really is not concerned with America and it's economic problems...He will lose my vote....Period...

[superduperfarleft]

29. No. n/t

[AndrewP]

31. I can see it. I just don't think it'll be anything serious.

I know there are a lot of people unhappy with the President, but I would really hate the see the circular firing squad occur. The way the media is peeing in it's pants over everything Republican, it's going to be hard enough to get traction in the General Election, much less if we are dragging things out until June.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. LBJ spurned the left and then had to quit.

Hopefully, someone will challenge the politics-as-usual centrists from the left.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

36. No.

[Taverner]

37. No I see a challenge from the Right of the Democratic Party

Possibly one of the Blue Dogs who lost recently

[cyr330]

38. Anybody in particular you can think of?

[Taverner]

40. Not yet, although Even Bayh comes up in my mind

Although he was not a Blue Dog who lost in the recent election...

[SoCalDem]

42. Nope.. We'll have a hard enough time without creating more division...n/t

[cyr330]

55. Great cat picture, by the way :)

[countrydad58]

44. Unfortunately no.

The party apparatus won't allow it.

[Kaleva]

45. The challenger would have to concede the black vote right off

Possibly a large segment of the Latino vote and also a majority of the center to conservative vote. It'd be a symbolic challenge and nothing more.

[cyr330]

46. Good Point

I hadn't even thought of whom it might piss off, and you are right. . .

[jgraz]

48. You're making a big assumption about who might challenge him

What if it's Maxine Waters or Barbara Lee?

Hey, a guy can dream... :D

[FrenchieCat]

75. Maxine Waters and Barbara Lee have more respect for Barack Obama

than you may be aware of. Barbara Lee is my Congresswoman, and she wouldn't dream of
running against Barack Obama. But yeah...dream on.

[jgraz]

85. That's what they say in public

But Barbara Lee heads the Progressive Caucus. Listen to her co-chair talking about Obama's weak approach: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x523681

I call Rep. Lee's office quite a bit, and it's pretty easy to read between the lines when talking to her staffers. They're just as sick of Obama's continued capitulation as most Democrats are.

[jgraz]

49. 2012 will be a four-way race

There will be a prominent Teabagger run from the far right, and someone will step forward to run strong from the left. I don't think progressives are going to put up with the status quo much longer.

[Ikonoklast]

54. Hahahaaaaa!!! That's a good one!!

Oh, wait, you were being serious.


Name one strong candidate from the Left.


And, which flavor of the Left?

They all hate each other and do nothing but squabble over who should be Dear Leader.

[NeedleCast]

91. You spend too much time on DU

80+ of Democrats approve of Obama. There will not be a significant challenger from the left. I do agree that there might be a 3rd (tea bagger) running.

[jgraz]

92. Tell me something I don't know

Here's something you don't seem to know: 80+% of Democrats approving of Obama means that 15+% of Democrats don't. How many points does that translate into on election day? Surely it's more than the "official" margin of victory in 2008.

If Obama continues down the path that led to the 2010 electoral debacle, there'll be little question that he'll be a one-termer. Someone is going to challenge him from the left.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

52. HELL NO! n/t

[girl gone mad]

59. Bloomberg..

may run as an Independent.

He's definitely to the left of Obama on many, if not most, issues.

[Ikonoklast]

68. Bloomberg is to the left of Obama?

I thought Prop 19 failed.

[girl gone mad]

81. here you go...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg#Political_stands

Bloomberg supports abortion rights, stating: "Reproductive choice is a fundamental human right and we can never take it for granted. On this issue, you're either with us or against us." He has criticized pro-choice politicians who support pro-life candidates. His comments may have been directed at New York Senator Chuck Schumer, a supporter of abortion rights who supported Bob Casey, who is pro-life, in the 2006 Senate election.

Bloomberg tends to be liberal about his policies towards many social issues. He supports governmental funding for embryonic stem cell research, calling the Republican position on the issue "insanity." He also supports same-sex marriage with the rationale that “I think anybody should be allowed to marry anybody".

On crime, Bloomberg opposes the death penalty, stating, "I'd rather lock somebody up and throw away the key and put them in hard labor, the ultimate penalty that the law will allow, but I'm opposed to the death penalty." As mayor he increased the mandatory minimum sentence for illegal possession of a loaded handgun. In regard to the change, Bloomberg commented, "Illegal guns don't belong on our streets and we're sending that message loud and clear. We're determined to see that gun dealers who break the law are held accountable, and that criminals who carry illegal loaded guns serve serious time behind bars."

Bloomberg has also shown involvement in education reform as mayor, replacing the school board set up by the state with direct mayoral control over public education. He raised the salaries of teachers by 15% while the test scores of students in the city and the graduation rate rose as well. Bloomberg is opposed to the promotion of students to the next grade level for strictly social reasons, stating that students should be promoted only when they are adequately prepared for the next grade level. He favors after-school programs to help students who are behind. As mayor, Bloomberg strengthened the cell-phone ban in schools.

In dealing with global warming and New York's role in it, he has enacted a plan called "PlaNYC: A Greener, Greater New York" to fight global warming, protect the environment and prepare New York for the projected 1 million more people expected to be living in the city by the year 2030. Bloomberg has also been involved in motivating other cities to make changes, delivering the keynote address at the C40 Large Cities Climate Summit and stating, "We now know beyond a doubt that global warming is a reality. And the question we must all answer is, what are we going to do about it?" Bloomberg also talked about how he would go about fighting climate change by reducing carbon dioxide emissions, using cleaner and more efficient fuels, and encouraging public transportation. His ideas have occasionally suffered setbacks, such as the New York State Assembly's recent rejection of his idea for applying congestion pricing below 60th St. in Manhattan.

On issues of domestic and homeland security, Bloomberg has attacked social conservatives on immigration, calling their stance unrealistic, "We're not going to deport 12 million people, so let's stop this fiction. Let's give them permanent status." He supports a federal ID database that uses DNA and fingerprint technology to keep track of all citizens and to verify their legal status. Bloomberg believes that illegal immigrants should be offered citizenship and has supported the congressional efforts of John McCain and the late Ted Kennedy in their attempt at immigration reform in 2007. Regarding border security, Bloomberg compared it to the tide, stating, "It’s as if we expect border control agents to do what a century of communism could not: defeat the natural market forces of supply and demand... and defeat the natural human desire for freedom and opportunity. You might as well as sit in your beach chair and tell the tide not to come in. As long as America remains a nation dedicated to the proposition that 'all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,' people from near and far will continue to seek entry into our country."

etc..

[BzaDem]

82. He just recently called Congress crazy because it wanted to limit China's ability to manipulate its

currency and steal our jobs.

Why would Congress be crazy to want to limit China's ability? Because we shouldn't worry about China, as they allow Americans to buy cheap products.

Sounds liberal to me.

:sarcasm:

He was also one of the main people to say that FinReg was too hard on Wall Street.

[girl gone mad]

87. He's right about that.

And it is the position of many liberals, including me.

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=11828

Between mid-2005 and late 2008, when the Chinese government allowed the Yuan to appreciate by nearly 20 per cent against a trade weighted basket of currencies (their main trading partners). Over this period, the bi-lateral trade balance between China and the US grew from $US205 billion in 2005 to $US268 billion in 2008.

What might have explained the lack of responsiveness between 2005 and 2008 of the bi-lateral trade balance as the yuan appreciated? After all the outcome noted above was contrary to the mainstream textbook model predictions. There are several reasons why the textbook treatment of this issue failed to provide an adequate prediction.

First, it is not commonly understood but China is not a large manufacturing nation. It is an assembly line for components manufactured elsewhere. So a good proportion of the Chinese export to the US are not made in China and so the yuan-sensitive input proportions of Chinese goods are sometimes quite small. That means an appreciating yuan will only alter the export price by a small margin.

Second, China imports similar goods from the US, Germany and Japan – IT items, sophisticated capital goods (for example, jet engines) and so stimulating US exports to China is not a simple matter of appreciating the yuan against the US dollar. The US dollar parity against the Yen and the Euro is more important.

Third, for many low-cost, labour intensive exports, an appreciating yuan will just redistribute the exports among other Asian nations. Countries like Malaysia, Vietnam and Bangladesh are in direct competition with China to access US markets and a relative price change in the yuan against the US dollar would see China lose some of their market share but would not likely reduce the US trade position overall. Further, this would cause job losses and falling incomes in China and reduce their demand for US exports.

A much more sensible strategy – should you want China to grow their domestic market (and be able to support higher imports) – is to put pressure on Chinese firms, particularly those engaging with US companies – to increase the wages they pay their local workers. China is a poor nation overall with a less than comprehensive social security system. By encouraging high wages and more generous pension systems, the West would not only help China escape poverty but also reduce the “cultural” reliance on high private savings. In turn, the local population would have a greater capacity to purchase US made goods and services.

An export-led growth strategy will be doomed to failure in our current environment. Attempting to prop up our economy through staged currency wars is just a massive waste of time; time that the unemployed and underemployed simply can't afford to lose.

[BzaDem]

96. You assume that we can "put pressure" on Chinese firms to raise wages.

Given that this is a complete fantasy, how would you solve the problem?

You are basically saying that one country should be able to manipulate the trade balance in its favor as much as it wants, and that this is a good thing?

[TheKentuckian]

60. If the liberal/progressive movement wants to survive at all then it will challenge this corporate

conservative.

Better to lose an election or several than allow Obama to be painted as the "far left".

If Obama is no challenged then his policies will be as far left as the country will consider for generations and matter will grow dire for the average citizen.

[lib2DaBone]

61. We can only hope there will be a challenge.. or the DEMS are done as a party.

[political_Dem]

62. No.

[Toucano]

66. After that "60 Minutes" interview, I think it's a strong possibility.

So funny.

Last week, that question was asked several times and I always said, "You're nuts."

This week, I'm not so sure it won't happen and I'm not so sure it shouldn't happen.

[Hawkowl]

72. +100

It's coming all right. Obama admitting that his plan was to force "Romney care" in the beginning. Him pushing it's good to have the industry lobbyists help writing the legislation to regulate them. Him saying all the India outsourcing is a myth and all this trade creates US jobs.

This guy is either going to get primaried or simply choose not to run again. I've never seen such a cowardly president in all my years. He makes Jimmy Carter look like a rabid tiger.

[Toucano]

86. Extending the Bush tax cuts will be the final nail.

Compromising on that will get him a challenger.

It isn't about right or left. It's about right and wrong.

[Historic NY]

67. NO

[TexasObserver]

70. I would have said "No" two weeks ago.

If he continues to drift right and forget who voted for him, he may not get the party's nomination in 2012. I've never seen a major Democratic politician fall apart the way he has. I thought we might see something positive after the election, but he seems incapable of learning from his mistakes, or even admitting them, for that matter.

If he continues his downward trend, he may see a major challenge in the primaries of 2012.

[Kaleva]

71. There may be a challenge but I wouldn't call it "major".

Latest polls I saw posted here had 80% of Dems giving Obama a favorable job performance.

[TexasObserver]

73. That's what Jimmy Carter thought, too.

If the president capitulates to the right on more major issues, you can kiss that 80% number good bye. Besides "approval" doesn't mean "first choice."

As the recent election showed, many of his prior voters stayed home or abandoned him this time.


If he continues on his current path, his poll numbers will fall apart by 2012.

[FrenchieCat]

77. Folks will get what they deserve then.......

Barack Obama will get on the speaker circuit, and make millions, maybe even billions.

As for the overwhelming numbers of Black voters? The Democratic party can write them off for years to come....no matter what bullshit tricks White progressives try to pull out of their sleeves to placate them.

I'll be laughing my ass off after arriving back to France....perusing DU over some good wine while it has a massive melt down on January 20, 2013, when the Republican President is sworn in, once its sinks in what that will all truly mean! That's when it will hit home...when unlike what they thought, the folks that were hoping to just get back to the good old 2001-2008 DU period when all of DU could shit on the powers-that-be.....they'll find that they no longer have access to the Internet in the way they had before! :rofl:

And the Folks who said they cared about it all so much, and wanted Obama to have a Primary Opponent? They will be so deeply fucked for such a long, long time, that they will be more irrelevant than ever. That's what happened when folks stop thinking about the ramification of consequences, and just do a whole lot of talking out of spite, thinking that they are gonna show somebody something.

"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice" ....except for when it comes to the truly out of their mind stupids...and right now, I'm not sure which is more that; the teabaggers who hate Obama or those hoping for Obama to have a primary opponent who hate Obama. Maybe they are so similar, it doesn't even matter. :shrug:

[TexasObserver]

78. You are not objective.

Keep reassuring yourself, but if he doesn't pull out of his nose dive, he may not get his party's nomination in 2012.

Your whistling through the graveyard may reassure you, but it won't change things.

[FrenchieCat]

79. I'm not reassured of anything, other than I know how fucking stupid some folks can be......

So as you said, it can and may surely happen.
I've gotten passed trying to change shit,
as I truly believe that some folks just like getting fucked....
with their eyes wide open.

Believe me...by that time, Like most Black folks,
I too won't really give a fuck anymore. I certainly ain't
gonna be sticking around to hear the crazy ass
off-of-the-chart whining the new era would bring....
Now that's something you can be most definitely re-ass-sured of.

[BzaDem]

84. I think FrenchieCat's acknowledging it could happen, but simply saying that the result would punish

Obama's critics "from the left." Not Obama.

If Obama could be assured that a Democrat would take his place in 2013, I'm not even sure he would run. The only reason he seems to want to run is to prevent Republicans from repealing all his accomplishments (yes, accomplishments, notwithstanding the bullshit criticisms of them here that will be long forgotten by their authors in 10 years).

A Republican win would teach his critics "from the left" a hard and painful lesson, just as Bush's win taught Nader voters a hard and painful lesson (so much so that most of them RAN to the polls to elect pro-war John Kerry just 4 years later). Meanwhile, as FrenchieCat says, Obama will be making millions.

The only question is how much damage occurs before a Republican win focuses the mind of Obama's critics "from the left" and makes them regret their actions. That's it.

[DemocraticPilgrim]

80. It would be a pointless excercise and who wants that on their resume, should it go wrong.

[Raine]

83. Unfortunately No nt

:-(

[NeedleCast]

90. This Topic Needs a Fourm

Tired of daily face-palm on these threads.

[Kablooie]

93. There might be one from left field.

[BlueIris]

94. Nope.

Because the Party won't need to. He won't run again.

[MrScorpio]

95. No, not at all

There's too much at stake to start up some more infighting