Here's why a primary challenge might not be as bad this time as in 1980

[Ken Burch]

1)The challenger this time(whoever it turned out to be)would not have the personal demons and baggage of the challenger in that year,

2)Since the "personal bad blood" dynamic that existed between Kennedy and Carter would almost certainly not exist between Obama and a challenger to his left, the contest would not have the same level of spite that 1980 entailed.

3)Barack Obama does not define himself, as Jimmy Carter did, as the sworn enemy of the liberal wing of the party, so a challenge based on principles, not personalities could actually have a positive effect on his own positions.

4)We aren't facing anything like the Iran hostage situation this time, nor are we likely to, so the "a challenge could cost lives" dynamic is, at present, out of play.

[stevenleser]

1. LOL, the sad part is you actually believe this, don't you?

Since the 1850's there have been no successful primary challenges to elected Presidents. We dont even know what something like that would look like in the era of TV + Internet and the 24 hour news cycle. In the 1850's, it took news a week or more to reach from one end of the country to the other. Today, the attacks between the two factions would reach each other instantaneously.

The primary challenger would have to declare their candidacy 20-24 months ahead of the election to raise enough money to even hope to challenge the incumbent. From that moment until close to the convention and possibly even to the convention, i.e. 16-18 months, would be the worst political bloodbath this country has seen since the civil war. The party opposite would sweep the electoral votes that election along with every minutely contested congressional and senate race. The President elected would be able to pass laws and appoint Supreme Court justices carte blanche.

And this is something for which you hope for Democrats/Obama? Dear lord.

[Ken Burch]

3. 1968 was a successful primary challenge

And we'd have held the White House that year if only the hacks hadn't let LBJ force them to nominate the only unelectable Dem on the only unelectable platform(and even with that, we lost by less than 1%).

And there could be a slate, rather than a candidate, doing the challenge. You could have a "Peace and Justice slate" on which delegates could be elected in support of an actual progressive platform. This slate could withdraw if President Obama simply did the right thing and adopted enough of their planks. He has no reason not to, anyway, since nothing centrist that he's done has worked so far.

Your "shut up and know your place" attitude doesn't do this party any favors. Silencing people with principles doesn't gain us votes.

[stevenleser]

6. No, it was not. In 1968 the incumbent decided not to seek the nomination.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-FibDxpkb0

And your "shut up and dont tell me the issues with my positions" attitude wont cut it. First of all, you are wrong and you need to have the guts to admit it, and second, you have 0% chance of making me shut up. OK?

[JTFrog]

14. +1000 n/t

[IndianaGreen]

24. We lived thru that period, the poster is wrong!

[apocalypsehow]

111. "We lived thru that period" - The poster is right; it is you that is wrong.

The anecdotes of your memory from "that period" do not the historical facts mitigate.

Please post facts, backed with links to evidence, as opposed to hand-waving "I wuz there!!!!11" bromides. Thanks.

[Ken Burch]

21. Johnson decided that after nearly losing to McCarthy in New Hampshire

And with the polls showing him losing badly in Wisconsin if he didn't withdraw(he still lost solidly there, but it was closer than it would have been).

The "Dump Johnson" movement forced Johnson's decision. Johnson then caused our defeat by forcing the party to back him on the war in Chicago despite the overwhelming "stop the war" mandate of the primaries.

[stevenleser]

128. Even if your mind-reading is correct, it still is not a successful primary challenge

First off, I'll still take the candidate's own explanation of his words and actions over your mind-reading.

A successful primary challenge of an incumbent President is exactly that. It isnt one where before the primary or after one state's primary, they believe it is too difficult to proceed.

[Ken Burch]

135. Why are you taking Johnson's word for it?

He wasn't going to ADMIT that McCarthy's strength in the primaries forced him out.

And even you would have to admit that everything would have been worse without the challenge to Johnson, since Johnson was doomed to lose if renominated.

[IndianaGreen]

23. After Gene McCarthy almost beat LBJ in New Hampshire primary

and Bobby Kennedy jumped in the fray.

LBJ said that he wanted to concentrate on peace talks, so he dropped out, but it wasn't done in a vacuum.

[dflprincess]

44. self delete

I misread your post and thought you said "McCarthy beat.." - I missed the "almost".

[Ken Burch]

25. You have every right to take issue with my positions

what I object to, from you and from others that do it, is the following:

1)An assumption that YOU represent the "grown-up" view and that anyone who disagrees with you is a spoiled child. In any debate, you should treat those you disagree with with equal respect.

2)The attitude in your posts that anyone who disagrees with you does so NOT out of sincere conviction but out of selfishness, or a desire for a "pony" or any of the rest of that. The last thing progressives are driven by is selfishness. We seldom, if ever, stand to gain anything personally in standing for what we stand for.

[Hekate]

30. "The last thing progressives are driven by is selfishness....

.... We seldom, if ever, stand to gain anything personally in standing for what we stand for."

Dear gods. I hope you don't speak for all progressives, because as far as I can tell, the last thing some of the ones who post here are driven by is a grounding in the real world; seldom, if ever, betraying an understanding that when your scheme brings the whole thing crashing down, it will fall on everyone else's head too.

I read your OP and its points. It reads like a college bull session, where the only harm done by daybreak will be to the participants' bladders because they drank so much beer or coffee. I think that's kind of how the Neocons came up with PNAC: it all looks so GOOD on paper. They just have more money.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Hekate

[SoxFan]

11. McCarthy would have beaten Nixon and Wallace?

Yeah, ok.

[Ken Burch]

20. The polls taken at the time said he would have

And, even if McCarthy's peace plank had been adopted, Humphrey would have won because nothing would have happened in the streets that week.

[saltpoint]

53. Humphrey's nomination in Chicago was bumpy but

when the smoke cleared it was Humphrey who won.

Robert Kennedy was murdered the night of his victory in the California primary and Eugene McCarthy did not have the floor strength to deny Humphrey the nomination.

The striking twist of history for e in 1968 was how narrow the margin was between Nixon and Humphrey. Early on Nixon's people likely told him it would be a cakewalk. Humphrey made NIxon sweat there in the last couple of weeks.

[Ken Burch]

54. Humphrey only made it close because he broke with LBJ(at least slightly) on the war

If he'd stayed as indistinguishable from Johnson on Vietnam as he was in Chicago, Humphrey's vote share would have been closer to 30%(the poll ratings he was getting prior to his Salt Lake City speech).

And yes, McCarthy didn't have the floor strength on his own, but the day could still have been saved if only Humphrey had let at least 300 of his delegates vote for the McCarthy peace plank. Humphrey had wanted to do that, according to several sources, but Johnson forced him to run as an arrogant hawk all the way to the nomination.

[saltpoint]

56. There are other variables, Ken. Johnson was out of

the race in March. He knew he could not win and not least, he knew why.

Humphrey was still in the administration so his diction was drawn back and he did not have the benefit of the issue McCarthy enjoyed, but he did have the votes on the floor going in.

McCarthy knew that, and while his dignity on peace was not compromised, his arithmetic was not there in Chicago.

Had Robert Kennedy lived, he would likely have had to forge a coalition with McCarthy's delegates to secure the majority, and it would likely have taken more than a few ballots.

Richard Nixon, had History so decided, might have faced and lost to a second Kennedy.

[Ken Burch]

57. Agreed.

And, from the McCarthy perspective, what the hell were he and his supporters SUPPOSED to do? Yes, Kennedy was dead, and Teddy was hedging about accepting a draft. Therefore staying in and at least trying to get the peace plank passed was the only chance there was, from a McCarthy perspective, of stopping the war. They had no way of knowing that Humphrey was secretly closer to their position than they realized. Nobody from the Humphrey campaign ever sent a back channel message to McCarthy's people to this effect. So there options(after RFK's murder)were, stay in and fight against the odds, or give up on stopping the war at all.

Still, The Democrats WOULD have won if only Johnson had done the decent thing and not tried to impose his choice of nominee and his platform. Why couldn't he just quietly go away?

[krawhitham]

7. +1

[bigwillq]

2. I feel every incumbent

should face a primary challenge. Rs and Ds. For every office. Local, state and national.
May the best man or woman win.

[Ken Burch]

4. That's a legitimate position.

No one should have renomination as a divine right.

[bigwillq]

5. It's the essence of democracy.

Let the people decide. Sometimes I'm with the majority and sometimes I'm not, but at least I had my say.

[IndianaGreen]

26. What's the point of primaries if no one will be allowed to challenge an incumbent?

We have primary challenges all the time in local elections, why should the Presidency be treated any different? We elect Presidents, not crown kings.

[Cary]

8. Oy. n/t

[DevonRex]

9. Well bless your little heart.

:eyes:

[dionysus]

36. this one has given me the vapors so bady, i couldn't even finish a

set of tennis.

i've been writhing on the fainting couch ever since i read it. I do hope Wadsworth does come soon with my snifter of brandy, i rang his quarters ages ago.

[DevonRex]

124. He is getting old, you know. That elevator you got him was a nice touch

but I'm afraid you're going to have to get him one of those moving walkways like they have in airports. :rofl: As IF you'd destroy that beautiful flooring you have. No, I'm afraid you're just going to have to hire a Wadsworth for Wadsworth.

[Oregone]

10. Maybe what was "bad" was that Kennedy lost, eh?

Because the last time I checked, the guy who won that primary didn't clean up in the general



(yeah, yeah, yeah, Im sure Ill be met with the crystal ball arguments that Carter would have dominated Reagan if he wasn't challenged)

[Ken Burch]

22. In hindsight, though I supported Teddy, I don't think he should have run that year

And I don't think he wanted to(he never seemed to have his heart in the contest).

It does go without saying, however, that we'd have done better in 1980 if Carter had withdrawn from the campaign after the hostages were taken. This would have freed the party from the hostages as a political issue, and might have resulted in their earlier release.

[phleshdef]

12. There will be no primary challenge. And if there was, the superdelegates would throw them out...

...on their ass anyway. Get over it. Its not going to happen. You will have to live with that.

[IndianaGreen]

27. No free elections then!

Wow! Defending Plutocracy now!

[phleshdef]

91. I'm not defending anything. I'm just stating facts.

[bvar22]

28. "Get over it !"

Now WHERE have I heard THAT before?

[IndianaGreen]

29. Scalia: Get Over It! (CBS News)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjaB3cxH-XE

[bvar22]

32. Lots of very nasty right wingers paraded around shouting that...

..after the Supremos appointed Bush the Lesser president.
I didn't like it then, and I'm STILL Not Over It!

Early 2001
(gosh, I look so young!)

[IndianaGreen]

33. I am not over the pass given to law breakers in Bush Administration

John Yoo walks free!

:grr:

[bahrbearian]

35. And Obama said get over it.

Maybe he didn't say it, but the silence is deafing.

[NorthCarolina]

31. So, "the people" really have no power to elect their representatives? n/t

[IndianaGreen]

34. That poster has let the cat out of the bag as to who really owns this country

but then, George Carlin was far more forthcoming:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHd_jXtp4Rs

[phleshdef]

90. Yea I let the cat out of the bag about something we all know and have known for awhile.

That in the Democratic party primaries, the party delegates and superdelegates pick the nominee. Wow, big fucking secret I'm revealing there.

[phleshdef]

107. The Democratic Presidential Primary is not the same process as people electing their representatives

Its a party choosing their candidate for national representation and a party has the right to use whatever process they wish. I'm not saying the Democratic party's primaries are perfect, I'm just stating how they work. Other parties do it differently, so if thats a deal breaker, you can always go support another party. When it comes down to people actually electing the person that will hold the job of representing them, Democratic party superdelegates have nothing to do with that other that being voters themselves.

[totodeinhere]

125. If a primary challenger could win enough delegates going into the convention,

the super delegates would not have the votes to "throw them out." I don't think it will happen, but I have learned to never say "never" in politics.

[JoePhilly]

13. The Birthers make more sense. nt.

[Uzybone]

19. +100000

[suzie]

39. +1

[akbacchus_BC]

61. Good response, you have humor too!

[HughMoran]

15. More of this shit

[dionysus]

37. they've really got their hopes up on this one.

[Tarheel_Dem]

48. There has been a sudden rash of these lately, huh? One might think

they were planned/coordinated, if one were given to conspiracy theories. Hmmmmm?

[Ken Burch]

55. I'm not coordinated with anybody, jerk.

And you've got no call to imply otherwise.

My loyalty is to this party, and so is that of almost all who challenge Obama from the left.

[Tarheel_Dem]

81. "jerk"? Hit a nerve, did I?

:rofl:

[Ken Burch]

82. Knowingly false accusations of conspiracy usually do.

You know perfectly well I'm not in league with any nefarious forces, and you were totally out of line to imply that I was.

[Tarheel_Dem]

88. "You know perfectly well". I know no such thing. I based my post on your m.o.

Why you felt the need to start a whole new thread on a topic that's been "spontaneously" debated to death over the past few days, is grounds for specualation, and I speculated. What you're saying, in essence, is that you're allowed to speculate about a potential primary challenge to a sitting president, but I'm not allowed to speculate as to your motives?

It's almost as if these hypothetical "who should primary Obama" threads were designed to divert attention from a major legislative victory this week, which just happened to coincide with the good news that BP had finally managed to cap the well. It seems almost orchestrated to drown out any "good news" so that no one notices that things are actually getting done. Yes, I'll admit it appears a bit sinister for my taste. My spidey senses don't often fail me, and I stand by my original assertion.

[Hekate]

93. ~*~

:thumbsup:

[Ken Burch]

112. All I can say is. I don't "coordinate" witn anybody.

This thread was just me starting a thread.

[IndianaGreen]

122. 'major legislative victory this week?' Are you referring to the crappy financial 'reform'?

I beg to defer on the "victory" adjective to the POS the Congress just passed. It was certainly not a victory for the people! And I am not alone in that point of view:

The New Finance Bill: A Mountain of Legislative Paper, a Molehill of Reform

by Robert Reich

Thursday the President pronounced that "because of this bill the American people will never again be asked to foot the bill for Wall Street's mistakes."

As if to prove him wrong, Goldman Sachs simultaneously announced it had struck a deal with federal prosecutors to pay $550 million to settle federal claims it misled investors - a sum representing a mere 15 days profit for the firm based on its 2009 earnings. Goldman's share price immediately jumped 4.3 percent, and the Street proclaimed its chair and CEO, Lloyd ("Goldman is doing God's work") Blankfein, a winner. Financial analysts rushed to affirm a glowing outlook for Goldman stock.

Blankfein, you may recall, was at the meeting in late 2008 when Tim Geithner and Hank Paulson decided to bail out AIG, and thereby deliver through AIG a $13 billion no-strings-attached taxpayer windfall to Goldman. In a world where money is the measure of everything, Blankfein's power and influence have grown. Presumably, Goldman can expect more windfalls in future years.

Although the financial reform bill may have clipped some of Goldman's wings - its lucrative derivative business may require Goldman to jettison its status as a bank holding company, and the access to the Fed discount window that comes with it - the main point is that the Goldman settlement reveals everything that's weakest about the financial reform bill.

The American people will continue to have to foot the bill for the mistakes of Wall Street's biggest banks because the legislation does nothing to diminish the economic and political power of these giants. It does not cap their size. It does not resurrect the Glass-Steagall Act that once separated commercial (normal) banking from investment (casino) banking. It does not even link the pay of their traders and top executives to long-term performance. In other words, it does nothing to change their basic structure. And for this reason, it gives them an implicit federal insurance policy against failure unavailable to smaller banks - thereby adding to their economic and political power in the future.

The bill contains hortatory language but is precariously weak in the details. The so-called Volcker Rule has been watered down and delayed. Blanche Lincoln's important proposal that derivatives be traded in separate entities which aren't subsidized by commercial deposits has been shrunk and compromised. Customized derivates can remain underground. The consumer protection agency has been lodged in the Fed, whose own consumer division failed miserably to protect consumers last time around.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/07/16-3

[alcibiades_mystery]

60. Mass delusion more than coordination - coordination requires a minimum of thought

Which these primary threads are lacking, utterly.

:rofl:

"Primary challenge from the left."

Who, dear hearts? Where is the challenger?

:rofl:

[Hekate]

94. There is that. I suspect the "challenger" is sitting in a college coffee house sucking up double-caf

... lattes till all hours, expounding how wonderful the world of American politics would be if only everyone would just listen to his great ideas. Or hers; mustn't be sexist.

It all sounds so reasonable at 1:00 a.m.

Hekate

[Tarheel_Dem]

99. May I join you? One has to wonder about the intent of these...

"what if we primaried Obama" threads. Wouldn't it be simpler just to pull another Nader 2000? :rofl:

[Gordan Shumway]

16. Good luck with that

[bigwillq]

17. Hello.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[Gordan Shumway]

18. Hi

Thanks! :hi:

[JI7]

38. Alvin Greene is going to challenge Obama

[Ken Burch]

46. No, Alvin Greene just challenges reality.

Don't try to peg me as a Greene apologist.

[Phx_Dem]

40. LOL. There isn't going to be a primary challenge, Puma.

[Ken Burch]

45. I was never an HRC supporter. Therefore, the term "PUMA" can't be applied to me.

I'm all for party unity. That doesn't have to come at the expense of debate.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

101. Teddy was the ultimate PUMA! Hillary would never betray Barack.

She'd never betray Barack like Teddy betrayed Jimmy.


:grr: at Teddy betraying Jimmy

[suzie]

41. Wow, just wow.

[BlueIdaho]

42. Time is running out, you need a name.

Time to get out of the hypothetical and into the real world of Democratic party politics. You need a name, a Democrat with national stature, someone with money, a large ground game staff, and a desire to run against a sitting President.

The time for hypotheticals is over, if you really want this you need a name.

[Tarheel_Dem]

50. What Blue said. (nt)

[Number23]

120. +10 And not only all of that, but someone able to garner more than 2% of the vote

in previous Democratic primaries or elections. In other words, someone with a legitimate base.

Hillary comes to mind as having all of these characteristics. Too bad she's a smart woman and not a deranged lunatic otherwise, she could have been the challenger the OP was looking for.

[RoadRage]

139. I have a name for him/her: DELUSIONAL (NT)

[Aramchek]

43. what a load of crap!

[Rowdyboy]

47. It took me 20 years to forgive Ted Kennedy for helping elect Ronald Reagan in 1980....Please don't

ask me to go through this shit again. I will not support any effort to "primary" my president. Sorry you feel the need.

[Ken Burch]

49. Actually, I'm agnostic on the idea.

Just wanted to point out that it wouldn't HAVE to be a replay of 1980.

Realistically, I don't think it will happen.

[Hekate]

96. So why in Gods' name are you promoting it with such enthusiasm? Just bored tonight?

[killbotfactory]

51. I am not convinced that anybody to the left of Obama could get anything more done than Obama

Much less elected in place of Obama.

[saltpoint]

52. I'm not seein' it. Who is it who'll rise to challenge

a sitting president who has plenty of cash and significant public support?

Not to mention the abiding loyalty of county-level Dem organizations coast to coast.

If you start running down a list of names of potential challengers you are naming people who likely have more sense than to launch a challenge to President Obama.

[akbacchus_BC]

62. Preach it my friend! How are you?

[saltpoint]

85. Hey there you good-hearted up-north rascal, you!

Good to see ya knockin' around the boards tonight.

:hi:

[akbacchus_BC]

109. Good to see you my friend, rascal I am, LOL. Just love this place

[alcibiades_mystery]

63. So-called progressives don't need cash and organization, silly

They run on the airy vapors of their principles, which they exchange with NBC executives for air time.

:rofl:

That's why they're always clocking in between 46 and 52% of the vote. Oh, I mean 4.6%-5.2%. Same difference, though, in Progressive Principle Land!

[saltpoint]

84. If we were able to have the liberal media the

Republicans are always warning us about, the progressive voice could be heard on a more representative basis.

Absent a major sea change, though, I'm just not seeing the practical components of a challenge to President Obama.

Hi there, alcibiades_mystery. I hope things are well your way. :hi:

[alcibiades_mystery]

58. ROFL

The "primary challenge" nonsense is really reaching a hilarious crescendo this weekend.

Needless to say, it is among the most laughable ideas floated on this board in its whole history, but it really does reveal its proponents for their political naivete and utter lack of historical sense. Plus, it's extremely funny.

[akbacchus_BC]

59. Since you are so smart and you want President Obama to be challenged,

whom do you nominate to challenge him? Am all eyes!

[Ken Burch]

65. I don't have a candidate myself.

I'm simply putting out a few observations.

I'd rather President Obama simply adopt more progressive policies(and speak out for them where he can't implement them immediately)instead of a challenge actually occurring.

If nothing else, he'd lose no votes he has now by calling for large reductions in the war budget. What he's trying to do in the Middle East would be better dealt with through small-scale ops, rather than massive and perpetual troop deployment.

[akbacchus_BC]

66. I asked you a question, whom do you have in mind to challenge

President Obama? That is what you need to answer. The other shit you mentioned are being addressed.

Answer the damn fricking question ... who you feel will challenge President Obama?

[Ken Burch]

67. I did answer. I said I don't personally HAVE a candidate

And, as of this point, I don't know of one. That's my honest answer.

This thread was simply about looking at how, if somebody unknown did emerge, it might NOT be the disaster 1980 was.

Chill.

[akbacchus_BC]

69. Yeah, I noticed that, but if you don't know anyone who can challenge

President Obama, why come on here and spill crap? Are you looking for attention?

Either you have a candidate whom you think could challenge him otherwise keep your delusions of grandeur to yourself.

Man, I would respect your opinions if you had something intelligent to say!

If ya looking for attention, say something silly, we will respond!

[Ken Burch]

70. It's not about ME.

n/t.

[akbacchus_BC]

71. LOL, am a woman! That is your answer after I used up two brain cells

to reply to you.

[Ken Burch]

73. There was nothing in your posts to clue me to that

I don't read the profiles of everyone I respond to.

And your tone sounded stereotypically "macho" and arrogant.

Anyway, it's not about me, so denouncing me personally serves no purpose.

[akbacchus_BC]

75. Heheh, I sound macho and arrogant! LOL. I still want to know who

you can remotely propose to challenge President Obama? Do not steer away from your OP!

[Ken Burch]

77. I don't have to be proposing a candidate for the purposes of the OP

It's more than likely that a primary challenge won't happen in any case.

It was simply a few observations...none of which are threatening to anyone or anything.

[akbacchus_BC]

79. So you come on here to create division? That is so not nice!

[Ken Burch]

80. No, to try to prevent division.

And hopefully, at least originally, to suggest that there might be a way to conduct such a primary contest so that it wouldn't be a repeat of 1980.

I'm still hoping that Obama will break from the corporate-centrist wing of the party before its too late. If he can get his head out of the suites and back in the streets, we still have a chance.

[akbacchus_BC]

83. Ken, I respect your opinion but let's look back and think like normal

people, ok! The SC nominated Bush at the President and I won't go into the fiasco thereafter and then he got elected in 2004 because Americans rally around that tool due to 9/11. That fucker really fucked up for eight years and you want President Obama to fix eight shit years in less than two years. Well, I got news for you buddy, that aint gonna happen. Now the teabaggers want their country back, huh, what the fuck is that? Oh, President Obama took America away from the teabaggers!

So, no you all have a President whom the world respects, the world was happy and you want to primary him. I know you don't have a candidate but when you type shit like this, you will be called on!

[Hekate]

98. ROFLMAO. Yes, it is "about you."

:rofl:

[akbacchus_BC]

102. Now where were you when I needed you? I think I counter him pretty well!

[Ken Burch]

136. Why do you see me as someone who needs to be "countered"?

I'm not the enemy.

[JVS]

117. Wes Clark!

[akbacchus_BC]

64. I unrec. Curious to know who will challenge President Obama?

[akbacchus_BC]

72. Contrary to some, SOS Clinton will never primary President Obama!

Oh the people with wet dreams!

on edit, that was a response to gulf guru

[Ken Burch]

74. I agree that she wouldn't do it.

My prediction is still that she ends up on the Supreme Court at some point. Which would give her more power over a longer period than the presidency.

[akbacchus_BC]

76. That I will agree with you. SOS Clinton is for women's and human rights

and if she gets appointed to the SC, America will be the better for it!

But Clarence Thomas not going anywhere soon and there are no openings yet to the SC!

[jesus_of_suburbia]

104. You are correct... she'd never do what Teddy did to Jimmy.

[akbacchus_BC]

105. That was then, this is now! Hilary will never primary Obama, plain and

simple and if she does, I'll be disappointed!

[golfguru]

68. Hillary is looking good for 2012 if unemployment stays high n/t

[akbacchus_BC]

78. Contrary to some, SOS Clinton will never primary President Obama!

That message was intended for you, not Ken.

Hilary worked her ass for health care and never got a break when she was the first lady!

[golfguru]

131. Hillary will primary Obama ONLY IF

UNemployment remains high in 2012. My guess and hope is unemployment
will be lower than 8% in 2012. That would discourage ANYONE
to challenge Obama. But if economy is still struggling badly
as it is now, you betcha Hillary will take a crack at it.

She has a solid argument...economy was very strong during
Bill Clinton. And usually that is issue #1 in presidential elections.

I made that caveat clear in my previous post.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

86. i think a primary challenger should really be the VERY LAST option

the better option is to push obama and senators to the left

[akbacchus_BC]

89. It's all talk, who out there qualify to primary President Obama? Palin!

Do not think so!

[Chef Eric]

121. What are you talking about? What does Palin have to do with this?

And why don't you know how to conjugate the verb 'qualify'?

[Politics_Guy25]

87. President Obama's approval ratings are through the floor and epically bad

Ergo several things:
1) A primary challenge might be the only way to save the democrats from electoral annihilation.
2) However, a primary challenge as the House-White House spat showed earlier this week, shows a party divided and this results in a further plunge.
3) If President Obama's approval ratings are still through the floor in 2012, the best thing to do would be to not run again and the party can nominate someone else without the bitterness of an incumbent versus challenger battle ala Carter v. Kennedy.

The only way a primary works is if President Obama decides not to run again. Other than that, a primary challenge is a disaster for all concerned.

I am seriously disgusted with the W.H. political/communications efforts and I understand the primary threat. Let there be no mistake about that. I just think that Carter V. Kennedy shows that a primary won't work.

It is up to President Obama what to do in 2012 and no one should try to force him from the job. It won't work.

At this point, I wonder if he even cares that he is so deeply unpopular???? If I were him, I'd be brainstorming with my staff every day ways to get above 50%.

If his approval ratings were above 50%. I'd laugh at and be furious with anyone suggesting a primary.

I should add that the only reason I am so ticked off at him is that he has been incapable of stabilizing his approval ratings since he took office.

[akbacchus_BC]

92. You and your salient points now got me scared! Listen up, the President

inherited shit and he is dealing with it! The keyboard commandos seem to know what is best!

[Politics_Guy25]

95. Dude/m'am....his staff is INCOMPETENT

Their way of dealing with the W.H. press corps is telling them to fuck off. Yay. That's a strategy. lol. Robert Gibbs is not a good face to put on the administration at all. Why don't they use Michelle more to improve the President's image? The communications staff couldn't be worse if they tried. They have done NO MAJOR INITIATIVE to try to get things back on track since Scott Brown won in Mass. They aren't even bothering to help our friends in the House get re-elected.

BTW, his chief speechwriter out having a beer with no shirt on while the gulf was drowning in oil...not a good thing. No adult supervision. The West Wing needs a bigtime shakeup.

Let Obama be Obama. Where are the primetime press conferences, the huge campaign rallies that were his staple, etc?

I think Emmanuel is a large part of the reason why the president is so unpopular and the base is upset. Get rid of Emmanuel with a trusted old party hand and I bet things get better fast. Emmanuel is a neocon thug. I'm sure it was him that killed stuff like the public option.

President Obama's "shop" was run a lot better, i.e, the campaign, until Emmanuel got involved the day after he won. It's been all down hill since. Emmanuel needs to go to hell.

BTW, Nancy Reagan gets how poisonous a chief of staff can be. She fired one of them when he was acting like Emmanuel and destroying everything.

President O needs to do some firing of his own. Mcchrystal was a good start. Policies are fine/Political skills suck.

[akbacchus_BC]

97. I like your spiel, but you are not President Obama? Are you implying

he picked dicks? Not buying that!

[Politics_Guy25]

100. I don't fault him for picking them...

They obviously were very persuasive during the interview process. How was he supposed to know that they were not capable of doing the job and/or were selling him a bill of goods? It'd be like if you signed up for a service that offered you things and then didn't deliver them, it's not your fault for picking them. It's the services.

BTW, the staff would agree that they are letting him down if you asked them I bet.

So, no, I don't blame President Obama for these problems at all. I do blame his staff. It is the communications' office job to draft a coherent message calendar, strategy, etc. Not his.

[akbacchus_BC]

103. When you become the President of the US, contact me! So far, your

answer is BS!

Why the ass you creeps against this President?

[hileeopnyn8d]

138. Why are you

using that right-wing outrage about the shirtless speechwriter having a beer? Who, by the way, was caught in a massive rainstorm and their shirts were hanging up to dry.

Also, his poll numbers are not through the floor.

[alcibiades_mystery]

108. His approval ratings are not "through the floor"

Ergo, your entire post is bullshit built on nonsense.

[akbacchus_BC]

106. Hi Ken, thanks for the debate. Keep well!

[apocalypsehow]

110. What offends most about this OP - and plenty does - is the historical fabrications.

1. McCarthy would have been trounced in November had he gone up against Nixon in '68.

2. Jimmy Carter never defined himself as the sworn enemy of the liberal wing of the party.

3. There was no "bad blood" dynamic in play in 1980: Kennedy simply wanted to run, thought Carter was vulnerable, and fantasized to himself, apparently, that the rest of the country had forgotten all about the events of July, 1969. He was wrong on all counts.

And on and on and on it goes...sad stuff.

[wyldwolf]

116. not unusual for the OP

[ProgressOnTheMove]

113. It's not worth the gamble and the finances it took to challenge Pres. Obama were big...

Barack is the top fundraiser, Barack can get it done if given support than hinderance.

[wyldwolf]

114. Ken, try as you might

You will never burn down the Democratic party and build your fantastical "progressive" utopia on its ashes.

[cleveramerican]

115. " bad blood" can be created with ease

[rucky]

118. I don't see why DU is obsessing about an imaginary primary challenger.

Whether they think there should be one or not. Either way, it's really no big deal.

[DCBob]

119. And the GOPers would just love this.. Limbaugh would probably start up "Operation Primary"..

The donations would pour in from Republicans.. and the clueless progressives would just get suckered in and all they would accomplish is damage the President, the Party and America.

[Jennicut]

123. Tell me the last time a primary challenger defeated the sitting President and went on to win the

GE? Did McCarthy do it against Johnson? Did Ronald Reagan do it against Ford? Kennedy against Ford? Buchanan against H.W. Bush?
Nope. In the modern political era, it just has not happened. In all 4 cases, it did not lead to anything other then party infighting, a weaker sitting President and that President losing the GE. I wish people would learn from past history. If Obama is SO weak come 2012 then it is better for him to drop out then have a primary challenger. However, no President near 50% approval would ever drop out willingly. And W. was at 45% and did not drop out in 2004. It just never happens.

[stevenleser]

127. Exactly right, you have to go back to the 1850's to find an example

And as I noted to the OP, the news cycle and potential for uproar and all of that was definitely not what it would be today.

[JVS]

130. 1968 is a really bad reference point because RFK got assassinated.

Had he lived, HHH would not have come out of the convention as the nominee.

[Ken Burch]

137. Or, at least, RFK would have had enough delegate strength

to make sure the party made a clear break on the war from LBJ's position, and that in itself would have guaranteed victory.

[Peacetrain]

126. Will not support a challenger.. It has hurt us so much in the past

I understand what you are saying..but I guess my point of view is in the long haul.. I am looking for an 8 year run by this President to get it all done.

Of course I have been an Obama supporter since almost day one when he announced.. just to clarify.. I am not making statements as an unbiased observer. I think we have come a long way, and have a much longer way to go.. but using that old quote.

I am not changing horses in the middle of the stream

[AtomicKitten]

129. Of course this is all hypothetical; it's very unlikely there will be a primary challenge.

[golfguru]

132. What's wrong with hypothetical?

Are'nt all political blogs hypothetical? After all no one
knows the exact future. Guessing and hypothesizing is what
makes this and other political sites interesting.

If all we posted was facts, which are only true for what has
already happened, it would be boring as hell.

[AtomicKitten]

134. Some hypotheticals here are passive-aggressive parlor games.

The point is Pres Obama will almost certainly not have a primary challenger regardless of how much some people here want that to happen.

[golfguru]

140. 19 months into Carter's presidency did any one know he would be

primaried? I don't think so! 2012 November is 28 months away...
that is eons in political time span. Anything can happen.

[stevietheman]

133. No. I declare this an obviously bad idea. Let's cut this out and concentrate...

on positive ways to move the country forward.