We should not only welcome a primary challenge, we should CALL for one!

[CTLawGuy]

***I know this won't be a popular sentiment here, but hear me out. Perhaps you might change your mind***

By "call" for a primary challenge, I simply mean we tell the PL/frustrati "ok, you don't like Obama, put your money where your mouth is. Run someone against him in the primary, if you're serious." It doesn't mean I WANT a challenge, I don't, but I think the onus ought to be placed on the complainers.

This would do several things:

1. One of the joys of being one of the frustrati/PL is that you don't actually have to accomplish anything. Which is nice because they suck at it (e.g. Dennis Kucinich). They are lazy, cynical complainers who can get by on dragging other people down, because they are accountable to no one. They don't have to put their ideas out to be judged in the electorate; they don't have to pass their ideas through Congress. This "call" would take that away advantage from them and put the pressure on them to actually stand up for their principles. And frankly, no one will challenge the president. Nobody with any credibility is that stupid. The call would go unanswered and the frustrati/PL would be left humiliated.

2. Democrats support Obama at a 70-80% clip. Liberal Democrats support him at a 75%-85% clip. Any primary challenger, in the unlikely event one came forward, would be humiliated, getting at best 30% of the vote (losing by 40 points). Ever been to a sporting event where fans of a losing team start talking smack but the fans of the winning team reply "score-board! score-board! score-board!"? We supporters would gain this "scoreboard" card when the frustrati/PL start talking about what "the people" or "the base" want from Obama.

3. It would help Obama with the middle and neutralize a big GOP talking point. If the loony left is running someone against Obama, it's hard to say that he is beholden to the loony left. The voters in the middle will see that he is disliked by both extremes and will be conclude that he is a reasonable person.

4. If the frustrati got a chance to mount a challenge, I believe it would be less likely that they would mount a much worse third party challenge or stay home altogether. They would say: "we got our chance to express our disappointment to him, we lost badly, let's come together to at least keep Rick Perry (or whomever) out of office."

5. Lastly, primaries, in general and when done appropriately, are good and we shouldn't be afraid of them. They keep politicians accountable to the party base and make components of the base feel like they matter, rather than that they are just taken advantage of. They are a chance to have our intra-family squabbles in a safe environment, so we can be unified when it matters.

Again, I know this won't be popular but I hope I at least brought forth some food for thought.

[jaxx]

To my way of thinking the last thing we need is some disenchanted 'Democrat' out there dissing the Presidents accomplishments. And that is what they would have to do in order to challenge him. It would be a gold mine for the rightwing, highly divisive to the Democratic Party, and undermine the President in so many ways.

We hear enough from the wingers and the PL on fail and cave and other crap. Can you imagine the debate? I'm no longer interested in placating the far left who spew the hatred and then piss & moan they might not vote. Either they will or they won't, there is no reasoning with them other than complete capitulation to their way of thinking.

No thanks, I want us to win in 2012!!!

[Dimwitted Fool]

(08-15-2011 10:03 AM)jaxx Wrote:  To my way of thinking the last thing we need is some disenchanted 'Democrat' out there dissing the Presidents accomplishments. And that is what they would have to do in order to challenge him. It would be a gold mine for the rightwing, highly divisive to the Democratic Party, and undermine the President in so many ways.

We hear enough from the wingers and the PL on fail and cave and other crap. Can you imagine the debate? I'm no longer interested in placating the far left who spew the hatred and then piss & moan they might not vote. Either they will or they won't, there is no reasoning with them other than complete capitulation to their way of thinking.

No thanks, I want us to win in 2012!!!

Well said!

[azmouse]

A challenge will never get off the ground.
Democratic politicians know challenging a sitting president would get them no love when they inevitably lose, and would ruin any chance they'd have of running in 2016.
In their hearts, anyone wanting a challenge to Obama knows this. It's pure spite that makes them keep saying it when they know it can't happen.

[Julie]

So in other words, you suggest we tell the frustrati to "bring it". Works for me.

Julie--who has no fear of powerless keyboard commando types

[CTLawGuy]

(08-15-2011 10:59 AM)Julie Wrote:  So in other words, you suggest we tell the frustrati to "bring it". Works for me.

Julie--who has no fear of powerless keyboard commando types

Yes! I know they won't do anything. Who is going to run against Obama? These people have no clue what it takes to get things done. They are only good at whining. Let's call them out on it. When we win, probably by default, their credibility will be severely diminished. It will be evident to the world that these people are all talk, no action.

[johnhp]

The 1979 Democratic Primaries did a great job for Jimmy Carter.

[CTLawGuy]

(08-15-2011 11:04 AM)johnhp Wrote:  The 1979 Democratic Primaries did a great job for Jimmy Carter.

Kennedy got 38% of the vote to Carter's 51%. He won CA, AZ, NM, AK, ND, SD, PA, NJ, NY, CT, RI, and MA. And this was before the internet, and the power of the blogosphere to marshall the grassroots (IOW party machines were much more powerful). There was REAL division in that Democratic party; it wasn't a bunch of "keyboard commandos" as Julie calls 'em fueling Kennedy.

Any Obama challenger wouldn't get half of the vote that Kennedy got. An Obama challenger would not win ANY state. The malcontents are small people with disproportionately large megaphones.

There was actually a primary poll done by PPP. It was in VT and paired up Obama with Bernie Sanders. In liberal VT, against its liberal favorite son, Obama led 52% to 33%. Bernie Sanders wouldn't even win his own state!!! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/04...18674.html

[johnhp]

(08-15-2011 12:45 PM)CTLawGuy Wrote:  

(08-15-2011 11:04 AM)johnhp Wrote:  The 1979 Democratic Primaries did a great job for Jimmy Carter.

Kennedy got 38% of the vote to Carter's 51%. He won CA, AZ, NM, AK, ND, SD, PA, NJ, NY, CT, RI, and MA. And this was before the internet, and the power of the blogosphere to marshall the grassroots (IOW party machines were much more powerful). There was REAL division in that Democratic party; it wasn't a bunch of "keyboard commandos" as Julie calls 'em fueling Kennedy.

Any Obama challenger wouldn't get half of the vote that Kennedy got. An Obama challenger would not win ANY state. The malcontents are small people with disproportionately large megaphones.

There was actually a primary poll done by PPP. It was in VT and paired up Obama with Bernie Sanders. In liberal VT, against its liberal favorite son, Obama led 52% to 33%. Bernie Sanders wouldn't even win his own state!!! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/04...18674.html

The lesson is not for the party, but in the general. What would a challenge say to voters?

[MandelaObama]

It's still a risky venture. Look at Eugene McCarthy's challenge to President Johnson in 1968. The political environment, even with Vietnam and all the domestic tensions at home, was such that as late as mid-to-late 1967 it seemed like President Johnson would be a shoo-in for the Democratic primary nomination. The left wing actually had to fish around for a challenger because all the high profile names opted to stay out of the race in deference to President Johnson.

Then McCarthy signed on, gained a grassroots momentum, forced Johnson to withdraw and played a role in splitting the party and helping Nixon win the election.

Or look at Joe Lieberman. In 2005 there was no one willing to challenge Lieberman and all the indicators were that his victory in the Democratic senate nomination was guaranteed. Several high profile CT Democrats were approached by the left wing establishment to challenge Lieberman and all demurred. Then Ned Lamont stepped up and ended up defying the odds to win the Democratic primary. Of course that was statewide and not nationwide so it probably isn't the best example but my point still stands

Things have the potential to spiral out of control. Now, in all likelihood, a challenger to President Obama in the Democratic primaries would eat the dust -I agree that this is a small but vocal minority. But the risk is still there when you launch one of these movements that it torpedoes into something beyond control. And, like in the cases of Lamont primarying Lieberman and McCarthy primarying Johnson, the end result could be destructive

[OptimistesMaddie]

If so much were not at stake I would say it's possible.

I just can't justify spending that kind of money on a challanger and then have to turn around and fight the Repugs. We need every dollar we have..

[janedrake]

How would we have felt if a Republican had announced they were going to enter a primary against Bush? I would have felt great, because it would have meant a very public fracturing for the GOP, and the media three-ring circus around it would have provided endless entertainment at the expense of the Republican Party.

I think that's a reality that's missing from this scenario. "The media" would have a field day over this -- magnifying the importance of a primary candidate against Obama -- I understand where you're coming from CT, but remain unconvinced it would ever be a good idea in any way.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

I posted a similar OP last week. It's frustrating to hear some people go on and on calling for a primary challenge to President Obama without just wanting to tell them to put up or shut up. I also have some discomfort with the idea of "coronations" for candidates and, technically speaking, if somebody wants to put up a primary challenge and does what needs to be done in order to do so, then I would not want to see that undemocratically squashed.
However, I am 100% in agreement with the rest of the posters here that launching a primary bid against President Obama would not only be a useless gesture- with only approximately 20% of people potentially supporting it (though that number would likely be cut down even further depending on whether the primary candidate is a liberal Democrat or a conservative one and whether those whom disapprove of Obama's performance actually support a primary bid or not)- but also likely would damage the Democratic Party at a crucial juncture and when we need unity against the Republican Tea Party the most.