Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Today Sanders AFFIRMED that he said that there should be a primary opponent to Barack Obama. [View all]Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)76. Why not?
If a sitting president has a primary challenger, it gives that president some practice for debating with Republicans.
I see nothing wrong with an open airing of new ideas. In fact, this used to happen more often than it does now. It's not a personal issue.
I see this as no big deal, but I'm familiar with history.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
199 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Today Sanders AFFIRMED that he said that there should be a primary opponent to Barack Obama. [View all]
Vattel
Nov 2015
OP
I supported Obama, but his stand on Social Security was a real problem for me.
JDPriestly
Nov 2015
#153
Also the one who campaigned as a progressive and governed as a "moderate Republican."
Scuba
Nov 2015
#86
Straight up I asked if that was his reason, why didn't he call for a primary of Mr. DLC.?
bravenak
Nov 2015
#174
Well, there is a very likely reason why Clinton didn't get the same scrutiny
TiberiusB
Nov 2015
#177
Yep, which is why I find the idea that he should have been primaried absolutely offensive.
askew
Nov 2015
#143
I'll raise you one that is real that does not come with a disclaimer and is based on methodology
Dragonfli
Nov 2015
#89
I think most Democratic presidents have had challengers even on their second term.
LiberalArkie
Nov 2015
#95
^ Absolutely. Especially after his forgotten 're-negotiate NAFTA' campaign promise...
AzDar
Nov 2015
#150
Sure, every president on our side should be subject to review about what they've done for 4 years
Hydra
Nov 2015
#29
Oh, so we're not allowed to review our candidates when they are seeking rehire by us?
Hydra
Nov 2015
#39
They don't do political strategy. It doesn't exist in their version of reality.
stevenleser
Nov 2015
#186
Perhaps his supporters should....My God if Hillary had of said that.....
VanillaRhapsody
Nov 2015
#22
Inconvenient fact, ignore the actual racist campaign and pretend Bernie is the one with a problem.
beam me up scottie
Nov 2015
#104
I would expect nothing less from Bernie and Obama did tell us to hold his feet to the fire.
beam me up scottie
Nov 2015
#129
Bernie needs to own the fact that he wanted to primary Obama and that he has been
askew
Nov 2015
#113
He did own it and he has also been very honest about his opposition to some of Obama's policies.
beam me up scottie
Nov 2015
#121
He hasn't owned it. He said that's he's been loyal and worked hard for him which just isn't true.
askew
Nov 2015
#142
And I disagree about the loyalty, I stand by Bernie and his reasons for suggesting it.
beam me up scottie
Nov 2015
#144
I don't think he's racist, but I think this quote sums up a lot of issues w/ some white progressives
askew
Nov 2015
#161
No offense, but people have to stop stretching the facts a bit about the "wanting to primary" thing
TiberiusB
Nov 2015
#171
I think Bernie is the one bending the truth here....that is what we are pointing out
VanillaRhapsody
Nov 2015
#24
Then, stand up and say that. Don't cling to Obama now and pretend that you are big
askew
Nov 2015
#77
So which is it? In another OP Sanders supporters are vigorously arguing he never said it.
stevenleser
Nov 2015
#16
I happen to think you are right and the other Sanders supporter is wrong. But what this shows is
stevenleser
Nov 2015
#25
The "so what" is your first sentence in your message text. And remember you said it, not me.
stevenleser
Nov 2015
#49
It's not an offensive sentence, it is asking you to defend why it is relevant
JonLeibowitz
Nov 2015
#57
Looks like the Bernie supporters in that thread are saying that Bernie did say it
Autumn
Nov 2015
#40
The words "Sure what's wrong with a primary situation" means I said no such thing
Autumn
Nov 2015
#20
You mean the non Democrats...the same people now claiming their loyal to BS...
Historic NY
Nov 2015
#66
If it is much ado about nothing, then why is Bernie trying to play it down and pretend
askew
Nov 2015
#81
your position isn't going to be shared by Dem base who know that primarying the first AA
askew
Nov 2015
#110
Seriously? Primarying the first AA president because he isn't "left" enough would absolutely
askew
Nov 2015
#118
Just having a group of white progressives backing a white savior over Obama would have
askew
Nov 2015
#195
they say "don't vote third-party, vote in the primaries!" then they foreclose on primaries or
MisterP
Nov 2015
#83
Okay...that explanation I posted.... just means you run fake Primaries against them?
VanillaRhapsody
Nov 2015
#116
Because you don't understand the dynamics of being a member OF a party...
VanillaRhapsody
Nov 2015
#122
Its just not done....generally speaking....and when it is...its pretty extreme.
VanillaRhapsody
Nov 2015
#131
Well, upthread people are claiming it would have destroyed the entire party. (nt)
jeff47
Nov 2015
#133
Exactly and THAT is practically verboten....its frowned upon....hardly ever happens
VanillaRhapsody
Nov 2015
#145
The discussion is WHO is to the Left of Bernie Sanders that has run for President
VanillaRhapsody
Nov 2015
#147
"The 1 Percent’s Earnings Could Be Stagnating — At $671,000". Whew, better. So, back to Dancing with
jtuck004
Nov 2015
#124
This "loyalty" stuff is getting silly. Liberals question authority. It's how we roll.
Spitfire of ATJ
Nov 2015
#158