"Field of Dreams - Why Obama won't face a primary challenge."

[Pirate Smile]

Field of Dreams
Why Obama won't face a primary challenge.

This is the inaugural edition of Ed Kilgore's new political column, the PERMANENT CAMPAIGN. Check back every week for obsessive coverage of the 2012 contest.

It's time to smack down, once and for all, the idea that President Obama will face a serious primary challenger in 2012. This trope has been popping up ever since the 2008 general election, when horserace-hungry pundits speculated that Hillary Clinton would try to knock off the Democratic nominee four years down the road. And it's only gotten worse with the rise of the "angry left," which thinks Obama has been too eager to compromise with Wall Street and the Republicans, and considers itself the representative of the Democratic base.

-snip-
Sounds pretty dangerous for Obama, right? Well no. For a substantive primary challenge to occur, a coherent bloc of Democratic voters—whether liberal or moderate—would have to sour on Obama and coalesce behind another candidate in such a way that threatens the president's hold over his base. There's just no sign of that happening. For instance, the very same AP/KN poll shows that three-quarters of Democrats want to see the president re-elected; i.e., they're not really discontented with Obama and they just like the idea of a primary that gives them options. Likewise, the McClatchy/Marist survey doesn't show a single bloc fed up with Obama and preparing to bolt for a latter-day Howard Dean: Given a choice of hypothetical challenges, 39 percent of Democrats and leaners preferred a candidate from the left of the president, and 40 percent a candidate from the right.

What's more, Obama's straight approval ratings among rank-and-file Democrats are very high. According to Gallup’s latest weekly tracking poll, 81 percent of self-identified Democrats give Obama a positive job approval rating. Among liberal Democrats, who are supposedly the most likely to rebel, the number rises to 85 percent. Let's compare that to the last three Democratic presidents, two of whom faced serious primary challenges: At equivalent points in their presidencies, Bill Clinton had a positive job rating among Democrats of 74 percent; Jimmy Carter's rating was 63 percent; and Lyndon Johnson had a rating of 66 percent. And Carter's and LBJ's numbers had to fall by ten or twenty more points before either attracted another contender.

The racial politics of the Democratic Party also make a serious primary challenge less likely. Sure, some progressives have been raging at Obama as of late. But anyone credibly threatening to topple Obama would have to pry away a significant chunk of Obama's support among African Americans—and in case you haven't noticed, Obama is the first black president. His job approval rating among African Americans is currently 89 percent, and it has not gone below 85 percent at any point of his presidency. Can you conceive of a left-wing revolt that runs directly counter to the manifest wishes of the largest and most loyal segment of the Democratic base? Imagine Hillary Clinton launching her 2008 candidacy without any of the goodwill that her husband's presidency had engendered among African Americans.
Above all, primary challenges to incumbent presidents require a galvanizing issue. It’s very doubtful that the grab-bag of complaints floated by the Democratic electorate—Obama's legislative strategy during the health care fight; his relative friendliness to Wall Street; gay rights; human rights; his refusal to prosecute Bush administration figures for war crimes or privacy violations—would be enough to spur a serious challenge. And while Afghanistan is an increasing source of Democratic discontent, it’s hardly Vietnam, and Obama has promised to reduce troop levels sharply by 2012.

Most importantly, who would run? Hillary Clinton has ruled it out categorically. Al Gore’s electioneering days appear to be long over. There’s been talk of Russ Feingold running (mainly based on a misunderstanding of an “I’ll be back” statement he made on election night which seems to have referred to a future Senate race). Dean would win headlines, but has a poor reputation in Iowa, where any progressive challenge would have to be launched. There are no guaranteed primary vote-getters out there like Estes Kefauver in 1952, and certainly no one close to the stature of Ted Kennedy. And there's a reason no incumbent president has actually been defeated for re-nomination since the nineteenth century.

So that's it. What we are likely to see is a marginal opponent: a Dennis Kucinich, or a Harold Ford, or some celebrity who hasn’t held office but is willing to spend some money. More serious comers will be chased away by the hard, cold reality of what it would take to mount a presidential campaign against the White House in places like Iowa and Nevada and New Hampshire and South Carolina. And President Obama will be left facing challengers similar to Pete McCloskey or John Ashbrook, who came at Richard Nixon from the left and right, respectively, in 1972. To the extent that these candidates are remembered at all, it’s as roadkill on the way to Nixon’s renomination.

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/7953...obama-2012

[spazito]

Good read! The whole 'primary Obama' is beyond ludicrous and is being spread only to try and cause further division among Democrats, it will fail miserably and so it should.

[MineralMan]

This makes perfect sense to me.

[SeattleGirl]

That's a great piece! And so nice to see the high numbers the President still enjoys among (real) Democrats!

[Cha]

Good! I just read a blurb on the net that Dean said.."Obama won't win in 2012 unless he wins back the base"..I'm thinking.."I'm his damn base..we're his base and we say he's going to win".

The jokers I've seen ..never were his base.

[jaxx]

(12-01-2010 08:34 PM)Cha Wrote:  Good! I just read a blurb on the net that Dean said.."Obama won't win in 2012 unless he wins back the base"..I'm thinking.."I'm his damn base..we're his base and we say he's going to win".

The jokers I've seen ..never were his base.

The jokers are the ones who have been screaming primary him from the go. I believe the joke is going to be on them.

[Capn Sunshine]

Key phrase:

Quote:" a coherent bloc of Democratic voters"

I see NO coherency at places like FDL and DU. They are leftty examples of the loud vocal types on the right, but most of them aren't now nor have they ever been registered Democrats.

I think it is this lack of regular exposure to the REAL party as participating members that gives them the notions they have about things.

[Treestar]

(12-01-2010 09:56 PM)Capn Sunshine Wrote:  Key phrase:

Quote:" a coherent bloc of Democratic voters"

I see NO coherency at places like FDL and DU. They are leftty examples of the loud vocal types on the right, but most of them aren't now nor have they ever been registered Democrats.

I think it is this lack of regular exposure to the REAL party as participating members that gives them the notions they have about things.

And they'd never settle on a candidate anyway. They're for Hillary, Kucinich, Feingold, Grayson, Dean, or their latest hero of the day.

[dionysus]

+1

[Devon]

(12-02-2010 12:50 PM)dionysus Wrote:  +1

[suzie]

(12-02-2010 01:03 PM)DevonRex Wrote:  

(12-02-2010 12:50 PM)dionysus Wrote:  +1

"Dude", gotta love it.

[CTLawGuy]

(12-01-2010 06:55 PM)Pirate Smile Wrote:  Field of Dreams
Why Obama won't face a primary challenge.

This is the inaugural edition of Ed Kilgore's new political column, the PERMANENT CAMPAIGN. Check back every week for obsessive coverage of the 2012 contest.

It's time to smack down, once and for all, the idea that President Obama will face a serious primary challenger in 2012. This trope has been popping up ever since the 2008 general election, when horserace-hungry pundits speculated that Hillary Clinton would try to knock off the Democratic nominee four years down the road. And it's only gotten worse with the rise of the "angry left," which thinks Obama has been too eager to compromise with Wall Street and the Republicans, and considers itself the representative of the Democratic base.

-snip-
Sounds pretty dangerous for Obama, right? Well no. For a substantive primary challenge to occur, a coherent bloc of Democratic voters—whether liberal or moderate—would have to sour on Obama and coalesce behind another candidate in such a way that threatens the president's hold over his base. There's just no sign of that happening. For instance, the very same AP/KN poll shows that three-quarters of Democrats want to see the president re-elected; i.e., they're not really discontented with Obama and they just like the idea of a primary that gives them options. Likewise, the McClatchy/Marist survey doesn't show a single bloc fed up with Obama and preparing to bolt for a latter-day Howard Dean: Given a choice of hypothetical challenges, 39 percent of Democrats and leaners preferred a candidate from the left of the president, and 40 percent a candidate from the right.

What's more, Obama's straight approval ratings among rank-and-file Democrats are very high. According to Gallup’s latest weekly tracking poll, 81 percent of self-identified Democrats give Obama a positive job approval rating. Among liberal Democrats, who are supposedly the most likely to rebel, the number rises to 85 percent. Let's compare that to the last three Democratic presidents, two of whom faced serious primary challenges: At equivalent points in their presidencies, Bill Clinton had a positive job rating among Democrats of 74 percent; Jimmy Carter's rating was 63 percent; and Lyndon Johnson had a rating of 66 percent. And Carter's and LBJ's numbers had to fall by ten or twenty more points before either attracted another contender.

The racial politics of the Democratic Party also make a serious primary challenge less likely. Sure, some progressives have been raging at Obama as of late. But anyone credibly threatening to topple Obama would have to pry away a significant chunk of Obama's support among African Americans—and in case you haven't noticed, Obama is the first black president. His job approval rating among African Americans is currently 89 percent, and it has not gone below 85 percent at any point of his presidency. Can you conceive of a left-wing revolt that runs directly counter to the manifest wishes of the largest and most loyal segment of the Democratic base? Imagine Hillary Clinton launching her 2008 candidacy without any of the goodwill that her husband's presidency had engendered among African Americans.
Above all, primary challenges to incumbent presidents require a galvanizing issue. It’s very doubtful that the grab-bag of complaints floated by the Democratic electorate—Obama's legislative strategy during the health care fight; his relative friendliness to Wall Street; gay rights; human rights; his refusal to prosecute Bush administration figures for war crimes or privacy violations—would be enough to spur a serious challenge. And while Afghanistan is an increasing source of Democratic discontent, it’s hardly Vietnam, and Obama has promised to reduce troop levels sharply by 2012.

Most importantly, who would run? Hillary Clinton has ruled it out categorically. Al Gore’s electioneering days appear to be long over. There’s been talk of Russ Feingold running (mainly based on a misunderstanding of an “I’ll be back” statement he made on election night which seems to have referred to a future Senate race). Dean would win headlines, but has a poor reputation in Iowa, where any progressive challenge would have to be launched. There are no guaranteed primary vote-getters out there like Estes Kefauver in 1952, and certainly no one close to the stature of Ted Kennedy. And there's a reason no incumbent president has actually been defeated for re-nomination since the nineteenth century.

So that's it. What we are likely to see is a marginal opponent: a Dennis Kucinich, or a Harold Ford, or some celebrity who hasn’t held office but is willing to spend some money. More serious comers will be chased away by the hard, cold reality of what it would take to mount a presidential campaign against the White House in places like Iowa and Nevada and New Hampshire and South Carolina. And President Obama will be left facing challengers similar to Pete McCloskey or John Ashbrook, who came at Richard Nixon from the left and right, respectively, in 1972. To the extent that these candidates are remembered at all, it’s as roadkill on the way to Nixon’s renomination.

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/7953...obama-2012

Very good article! What the 15 percenters want is someone who is going to yell and scream at the Republicans, as if that is going to make any difference. They are brainwashed by cable news and the professional left whose bread and butter comes from riling people up. Democrats, by and large, are in favor of President Obama and any 15 percenter-backed candidate would get crushed.

[CraigGrant]

(12-02-2010 05:58 AM)CTLawGuy Wrote:  Very good article! What the 15 percenters want is someone who is going to yell and scream at the Republicans, as if that is going to make any difference. They are brainwashed by cable news and the professional left whose bread and butter comes from riling people up. Democrats, by and large, are in favor of President Obama and any 15 percenter-backed candidate would get crushed.

How did 674 stoned reefers get to 15%?

[Joan Ruaiz]

(12-02-2010 05:58 AM)CTLawGuy Wrote:  Very good article! What the 15 percenters want is someone who is going to yell and scream at the Republicans, as if that is going to make any difference. They are brainwashed by cable news and the professional left whose bread and butter comes from riling people up. Democrats, by and large, are in favor of President Obama and any 15 percenter-backed candidate would get crushed.

I understand that the President is back up to 48% approval (it should be 60+%, but I undertand the bad economy is certainly a factor in the lower number).

But yeah....anyone who wants to primary this President, is actually toying with the idea of losing elections for the next 20 years, cause unfortunately for them, Black folks as well as many others aren't going to be going for the Okey-Doke on how the First Black President was treated by so many. IMO, that is why there are some who are trying to put out so much hate out there, they hope it will desuade this President from running again. But to their chagrin, they will find out that this President is no a quitter......like that Palin!

[nofurylike]

this is a great piece, Pirate Smile. thank you for posting it!

[Devon]

Changing the subject line is easy now that I've figured it out.

[The Capitol Punisher]

Dude, Dennis Kucinich is totally legit, and he's going to win the nomination in 2012! Just you wait and see!

Okay, so what do I push to get the sarcasm smiley on this thing.... Ahh! Here it is!

[Peadar O Suileabhain]

But...but...but...A-HA! KILGORE WORKED FOR THE DLC! DINO! EEEEVIL!

You know that response is coming, despite the fact that Ed is 100% correct.

[azmouse]

I can't wait to see the faces of those fools who want to primary Obama in '12 when he not only is renominated by Democrats but wins the WH again. Sweet.

[firedupdem]

(12-01-2010 06:55 PM)Pirate Smile Wrote:  Field of Dreams
Why Obama won't face a primary challenge.

This is the inaugural edition of Ed Kilgore's new political column, the PERMANENT CAMPAIGN. Check back every week for obsessive coverage of the 2012 contest.

It's time to smack down, once and for all, the idea that President Obama will face a serious primary challenger in 2012. This trope has been popping up ever since the 2008 general election, when horserace-hungry pundits speculated that Hillary Clinton would try to knock off the Democratic nominee four years down the road. And it's only gotten worse with the rise of the "angry left," which thinks Obama has been too eager to compromise with Wall Street and the Republicans, and considers itself the representative of the Democratic base.

-snip-
Sounds pretty dangerous for Obama, right? Well no. For a substantive primary challenge to occur, a coherent bloc of Democratic voters—whether liberal or moderate—would have to sour on Obama and coalesce behind another candidate in such a way that threatens the president's hold over his base. There's just no sign of that happening. For instance, the very same AP/KN poll shows that three-quarters of Democrats want to see the president re-elected; i.e., they're not really discontented with Obama and they just like the idea of a primary that gives them options. Likewise, the McClatchy/Marist survey doesn't show a single bloc fed up with Obama and preparing to bolt for a latter-day Howard Dean: Given a choice of hypothetical challenges, 39 percent of Democrats and leaners preferred a candidate from the left of the president, and 40 percent a candidate from the right.

What's more, Obama's straight approval ratings among rank-and-file Democrats are very high. According to Gallup’s latest weekly tracking poll, 81 percent of self-identified Democrats give Obama a positive job approval rating. Among liberal Democrats, who are supposedly the most likely to rebel, the number rises to 85 percent. Let's compare that to the last three Democratic presidents, two of whom faced serious primary challenges: At equivalent points in their presidencies, Bill Clinton had a positive job rating among Democrats of 74 percent; Jimmy Carter's rating was 63 percent; and Lyndon Johnson had a rating of 66 percent. And Carter's and LBJ's numbers had to fall by ten or twenty more points before either attracted another contender.

The racial politics of the Democratic Party also make a serious primary challenge less likely. Sure, some progressives have been raging at Obama as of late. But anyone credibly threatening to topple Obama would have to pry away a significant chunk of Obama's support among African Americans—and in case you haven't noticed, Obama is the first black president. His job approval rating among African Americans is currently 89 percent, and it has not gone below 85 percent at any point of his presidency. Can you conceive of a left-wing revolt that runs directly counter to the manifest wishes of the largest and most loyal segment of the Democratic base? Imagine Hillary Clinton launching her 2008 candidacy without any of the goodwill that her husband's presidency had engendered among African Americans.
Above all, primary challenges to incumbent presidents require a galvanizing issue. It’s very doubtful that the grab-bag of complaints floated by the Democratic electorate—Obama's legislative strategy during the health care fight; his relative friendliness to Wall Street; gay rights; human rights; his refusal to prosecute Bush administration figures for war crimes or privacy violations—would be enough to spur a serious challenge. And while Afghanistan is an increasing source of Democratic discontent, it’s hardly Vietnam, and Obama has promised to reduce troop levels sharply by 2012.

Most importantly, who would run? Hillary Clinton has ruled it out categorically. Al Gore’s electioneering days appear to be long over. There’s been talk of Russ Feingold running (mainly based on a misunderstanding of an “I’ll be back” statement he made on election night which seems to have referred to a future Senate race). Dean would win headlines, but has a poor reputation in Iowa, where any progressive challenge would have to be launched. There are no guaranteed primary vote-getters out there like Estes Kefauver in 1952, and certainly no one close to the stature of Ted Kennedy. And there's a reason no incumbent president has actually been defeated for re-nomination since the nineteenth century.

So that's it. What we are likely to see is a marginal opponent: a Dennis Kucinich, or a Harold Ford, or some celebrity who hasn’t held office but is willing to spend some money. More serious comers will be chased away by the hard, cold reality of what it would take to mount a presidential campaign against the White House in places like Iowa and Nevada and New Hampshire and South Carolina. And President Obama will be left facing challengers similar to Pete McCloskey or John Ashbrook, who came at Richard Nixon from the left and right, respectively, in 1972. To the extent that these candidates are remembered at all, it’s as roadkill on the way to Nixon’s renomination.

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/7953...obama-2012

[firedupdem]

Excellent Read