Early Thoughts on how you'd vote if the 2012 presidential primary was contested

[Ken Burch]

Poll question: Early Thoughts on how you'd vote if the 2012 presidential primary was contested

Assuming you'd vote for the Democratic ticket in the fall, at this point how would you vote IN THE PRIMARY if the choice were between President Obama and an alternative candidate who supported

1)Universal healthCARE with a robust public option
2)Complete military withdrawal from the Middle East(assuming withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq had NOT occurred by the primary or caucus in your state).
3)Repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act(assuming EFCA were not approved by the time of the primary or caucus in your state)
4)Repeal of NAFTA, CAFTA, all other "free trade" pacts and the rejection of economic globalism.

[Unvanguard]

1. Obama, probably, because primaries against sitting presidents are a bad idea

and because I have policy issues with 2 and 4.

[Meshuga]

2. I agree that primaries against sitting presidents are a bad idea

So I would vote for Obama.

[Ken Burch]

4. The challenger could offer to end her or his challenge

on the condition that the president were to change his position on those issues to the challenger's.

I'm not going to go there on point 2, but I am a bit curious on point 4.

Haven't we pretty clearly established by this point that globalization is a reactionary and destructive thing, especially for those who aren't in the tiny minority of the already-wealthy?

[Unvanguard]

12. But to get to a position where that threat would have substance

they would have to make a massive public issue about a split among Democrats, which would seriously weaken the president's appeal among the public. I mean, the elections of 1968 and 1980 are hardly models to emulate.

As for point 4, this is not an argument I'm inclined to get very far into at the moment, but I think that progressives too often attribute to trade policy what would be more aptly attributed to capitalism's general practice--especially with the shift to the right in US economic policy since the 1970s.

[jgraz]

25. The problem is the primary challenge, not who wins.

As in 1980, all it takes is a strong challenge to weaken the candidate. Carter lost the 1980 election when Kennedy decided to run against him.

[Ken Burch]

29. Carter's chances of reelection were already next-to-none,due to factors entirely unrelaated to that

Carter was doomed by the Iran situation(which, while I admire the man for his post-presidential work, I must point out that he helped cause through his pointless decision to back the Shah to the bitter end) and his insistence, on economic pollcy, on placing the Republican goal of low inflation before the Democratic goal of full employment. That decision allowed Reagan to create the "misery index". Reagan could never have done that had Carter put full employment and the restoration of Nixon's cuts in social service funding first.

[IndianaGreen]

26. Rewarding corporatism and imperialism is a worse idea

[burning rain]

3. Oh man. This is unfortunate.

A primary challenge would tear the Democratic Party apart. Still, it's a possibility we have to face. At some point the logic of half-a-loafism is outweighed by the need to show respect for your political principles by opposing the renomination of someone who flouts them. A challenger would have to be someone of solid and long-established principles and not an opportunist, a newly-minted champion of issues on which the president has offended those Democrats who aren't moderate Republicans at heart. It still seems to me possible to push Obama to the left if we make it crystal clear that moving left would benefit him politically, as it certainly would on basic economic issues, for instance. Those issues more than anything were the engine of the Democratic Party in the New Deal era. Obama has a strong tendency to try and conciliate everyone, but often that ends up serving to alienate your own supporters while enraging the other side anyway. We'll see whether he goes with the people more, and stops catering to corporations and the GOP so much, or if he keeps trying to square the circle. Better to reserve judgment on this one, I think.

So, "undecided."

[Ken Burch]

7. What tore the party apart in the previous times of challenge

was not the challenge itself, but the harsh way the supporters of the incumbent and/or the party establishment DEALT with the challenge.

Had the incumbent/establishment forces fought fair and accepted that the challenge was a legitimate thing deserving of respect, there never needed to be any damage to the party.

[IndianaGreen]

27. We are not even getting a half loaf, we are getting the empty wrapper

with a few crumbs inside.

[Andy823]

5. That's simple

Though I may not agree with everything president Obama has done so far, or with what he will do in the next 3 years, I do know that he has done more so far than any republican would ever do, and that counts for a lot. He "has" accomplished a lot this first year, and even though some other candidate might make all the promises you listed, and more, that does not mean they would follow through, or that they could have any better success at things than president Obama has had, or will have. Politicians make all kinds of promise they can't keep, that's part of the game of getting your vote. I have been around long enough to know that, and long enough to know a good president when I see one. No president can please everyone, it's impossible. No president can get congress to do everything they want. Even with a majority there will not always be those who don't agree on things, and without the support of congress nothing can get done.

Yes, I will still vote for president Obama because I still have faith in him doing good things for this country, even though some of the things I think are a top priority may not get done!

[Hippo_Tron]

6. How would I know that said person who promised those things would deliver?

[Ken Burch]

9. That is always the risk with any candidate's expression of support for anything

You could also look at the idea of a challenge as simply a way to demonstrate widespread support for the proposals in question, and the challenge could be conditioned on the incumbent agreeing to take the challenger's positions on those issues.

It could be a way of keeping those who are currently disenchanted "in the game".

[DJ13]

10. Well its getting obvious Obama probably wont deliver on promises

So its up to you whether you want to continue believing him, or try someone else.

[Hippo_Tron]

21. I gave up on the notion of believing in any politician long before Obama

I supported him because I thought he was the best candidate to keep the insane warmonger out of the White House. Unless he's incredibly unpopular I'll support him again because he's the best candidate to keep the Wasilla hillbilly out of the White House.

[Oregone]

14. You don't, so just think of voting as a cathartic expression

Voting is more about pacifying the masses rather than altering the course of the corporatocracy

[Ken Burch]

18. I've never said involvement should be limited to voting.

There would also need to be grassroots involvement in such a campaign, and in other efforts(such as statewide campaign spending reform initiatives). And nonviolent direct action in new forms would be a major component in any effort to reclaim the country from the corporocrats.

[dkf]

8. Whoever appeals to me gets my vote.

But I'm leaning against Obama right now. I think this health care bill is going to be an albatross around our necks, specifically because people HATE being forced to pay off big business.

Really he is going to saddle us with a tax that goes straight to insurance executives. It makes me ill.

[PolNewf]

11. heh

You should definitely dump Obama and go for the candidate you describe. IF YOU WANT ANOTHER REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT!!

Seriously, some of the people here need to get a grip and deal with reality as it is, not as you wish it was. Your ideal candidate would do amazing with the 20% of the US population that self identifies as liberal but even if you pretend the other 80% doesn't exist they will still vote.

I always thought the blue states\democrats were similar to Canadians and the red states\republicans were the crazy ones. Lately DU (and other "progressive" rants I'm reading in the media) has me considering that perhaps you are all crazy.

[Ken Burch]

17. All four of the positions I listed have majority support in the polls

Globalization was NEVER popular. Neither are the wars nor the escalation in Afghanistan. Neither is the omission of the public option nor the current labor laws.

[Oregone]

13. Who would vote for anyone "No matter what"?!?

Insane country.

Honestly, I think "I would consider both candidates, no matter what" would be far more logical

[Ken Burch]

20. I framed the question that way to measure the depth of committted feeling.

And the results so far, given those parameters, are telling.

[jonnyblitz]

23. cult of personality types,.nt

[THUNDER HANDS]

15. why don't you just ask for oral pleasure, too?

as long as we're making unrealistic wish lists.

[Ken Burch]

19. What's so unrealistic about any of the positions listed above?

ALL have strong support among ordinary voters.

[THUNDER HANDS]

24. and if ordinary voters had anything to do with how policy gets made

you'd have a point.

[On the Road]

16. I Would Support #1

if the platform contained single payer. Just the addition of a public option to the current system would not be a big departure and would probably not result in universal coverage.

[Hatchling]

22. Depends on what Obama does in the next year.

[Ken Burch]

30. Obviously. WHich was why I placed the time references

in the polling question(the assumption that the policies in question had not been put in place by the time of the primary or caucus in the respondents' home state).

[thoughtcrime1984]

28. I think Kucinich would promise those things

but would not be able to win. About the only person I think would have a ghost of a chance of both trying to deliver on your four points and actually having a chance to win would be Dr. Dean. Even then, I think he would lose handily to Obama, and would probably not even entertain the idea of running again, anyway.

[HipChick]

31. Kucinich's Dean's scream moment is taking directions from UFO's..n/t