Would you rather have a fight or smooth sail to nominate our presidential candidate in 2012?

[RiverStone]

Poll question: Would you rather have a fight or smooth sail to nominate our presidential candidate in 2012?

Of the 32 years I have been eligible to vote, I'd say I've gone Democratic 95% of the time - the other 5% would be for the rare Independent vote - but NEVER republican.

On DU, I have only advocated for a Democratic candidate or cause, albeit with healthy and vigorous debate (see primaries 2008).

I believe what differs us Dems from the righties is we don't walk in lock-step, and celebrating diversity is part of what makes our big blue tent unique. We can be Democratic on DU, but still differ in which Dems we support.

Some people may say a very competitive primary gives ammunition to the other side; on the contrary, I believe it holds our elected officials more accountable - and fine tunes the regional organization needed for the general election.

Using the Democratic Primaries of 2012 as an example...lets see what this poll says. For the record, I chose choice #2.

:hi:

[JuniperLea]

1. The less fuss, the better...

We always get into trouble when we beat each other up prior to beating up the GOP nom. Always. Always, always, always. Think back to the primary... we're still suffering from the Clinton/Obmama wars... and I'm not just talking DU either.

[RiverStone]

3. I'm not so sure....

Granted, the Clinton/Obama wars both on DU and out there were BIG - but Obama kicked ass in the General and we have a stellar Secretary of State in Clinton.

[DFLforever]

2. Were you born yesterday or the day before?

Are you aware the Kennedy challenge to Carter helped elect Reagan?

[RiverStone]

4. And Dr. Dean's 50 state strategy was born out of competition n/t

[Oregone]

11. So you're saying in another world, Carter would of beat Reagan without the challenge?

We don't know that really.

In another world, Kennedy may of won the nod and destroyed Reagan.

Oh, there are so many possibilities, and we can't help but only know the answer to the reality that came to be.

[quiller4]

32. I am quite certain that without the Kennedy challenge, Carter

would have narrowly defeated Reagan. Democrats were disheartened and Democratic turnout in 1980 dropped significantly. In my state it cost us a senate race and a gubenatorial race. The Democratic turnout in many precincts in the western part of my state was lower in 1980 than it had been in 1978, an off year.

[Oregone]

34. Im am quite certain you have no crystal ball

[breadandwine]

42. DFLforever, I'm not sure the Kennedy-Carter competition is relevant to the current situation.

I think Obama needs a progressive spine transplant and a little competition could give it to him. I also think it depends on whether the competition gets dirty or sticks to the issues. If it comes down to character assassination it softens Obama up for the GOP and that's bad. But if the competition is saying Obama is not progressive enough, it does him a big favor by making him look comparatively moderate going into the general election.

Under such circumstances I think a primary challenge can be extremely good for Obama and good for the country too. It forces him to pay attention to the base instead of the brain-dead consultants who have no faith in the popular appeal of a populist progressive agenda. If Obama responds to the competition he can undermine it in its infancy and then he has nothing to worry about.

I think the best thing that could happen would be for competition, even right now, with progressive Dems "hinting" they might challenge him right now. The result would be that Obama would have to move left NOW to undercut them and prevent an eventual primary challenge. Thus, we win and the country wins.

You watch. Let any serious challenger even so much as HINT now that he might run against Obama in 2012 and INSTANTLY you would see Obama doing one progressive thing after another to head that guy off at the pass. For months many progressives have been complaining that Obama has been caving in to the Republicans much too much. One little WHIFF of 2012 competition NOW and you will see Obama make a radical shift left to cover his left flank for a change. This would do more than all the criticism we've seen for months.

Let the challengers come forward. If Obama starts taking the base seriously instead of this nauseating triangulation, he has nothing to worry about.

[RiverStone]

48. Very well said and as a tactical strategy - right on!

:hi:

Yet only 1 in 3 DUers agree that competition from within is good (per this unscientific poll). I really believe that will change as we draw closer to 2012. We are too left of center here not to!

[DFLforever]

73. Do you know that one of the reasons Kennedy ran was

because Carter wasn't considered sufficiently liberal? Pretty funny when you consider who succeeded him, Reagan.

And what 'progressive' political figure do you think would be willing to challenge Obama?

The problem with your argument is that the political forces who oppose Pres Obama and against whom we struggle are not on the left but the right.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. There's not going to be a fight.

Even if somebody is foolish enough to run in a primary, they're going to get steamrolled.

[Radical Activist]

6. I'm comparing Clinton '96 to Carter '80. Or Bush and Buchanan in '92.

I know your point has been repeated often since the Hillary camp argued that a long, bitter primary was good for the party. But, there's no evidence to support that claim. It's a soundbite to make excuses for candidates who don't have a realistic chance at winning. There are limited resources in a Presidential campaign and a competitive primary doesn't result in a smart allocation of time and money. And, not all losing candidates come around to campaign as enthusiastically for the winner as Hillary did. That can cause more problems in the general.

If you're worried about holding Democrats accountable then focus on the Senate. They're pushing the agenda right. The Senate does have power and there are races that matter besides President. The left doesn't have any problems attacking Obama when he doesn't follow through on campaign promises or even when he does.

[DJ13]

7. You dont get concessions when theres no competition

The bigger the fight, the better for the Dem base.

[RiverStone]

25. I agree. Harry Reid is a concession I'd love to change.

Rethugs got the dirty fight down pat - we need a little more whoop ass from our elected Dems. Think Russ Feingold...

[Arkana]

8. The GOP's going to go balls-out to beat Obama in two years

unless he cures cancer--and probably even then they'd blame him for putting oncologists out of business.

Smooth sailing in the primary so we can crush the GOP in the general. It's one thing to not be lockstep when talking about an agenda, it's quite another to put the guy we have through the wringer and badly damage him for a general election in which the GOP nominee will be to the right of Hitler.

However, I'll be in the minority, so I don't care.

[WeDidIt]

9. If a primary challenge is mounted against a sitting president

that sitting president will lose the GE.

Period.

End of story.

I would vigorously oppose ANY primary challenge to Obama.

[Xithras]

37. But once one was launched...

...if the challenger was actually a better Democrat and a more progressive candidate, would you support the challenger, or support Obama on principle?

[WeDidIt]

54. If one was launched and that candidate was 100% where I am on the issues

I would support Obama.

I would also consider the other candidate my sworn political enemy for life.

[Warpy]

10. I think we can do without a fight after the Hillary Wars

We can go back to ripping each others' heads off in 2016.

We deserve a break.

[Arkana]

12. Exactly. Wingnuts got their break in 2004 cause they already had a guy.

We had three election cycles to rip each others' heads off. Obama would have to be REALLY bad to chase me away in 2012.

[KonaKane]

13. You can bet that the GOP will be unified to take back power in 2012

So any fighting we want to do amongst us will be quite welcome to them.

I guess that's your choice.

[Forkboy]

74. While true, that doesn't change the fact the we can always improve purselves as a Party.

Fighting the Right doesn't mean never questioning ourselves. Repubs never seem to question themselves. While this makes them stronger does it make them right?

[DefenseLawyer]

14. Ewww look at me! I don't walk in lock-step!

No, you walk your own way, right off a cliff. Kudos for being so mavricky. As frustrated as one might be about the overall tone of the administration, the President has done NOTHING that would warrant the mounting of a futile, destructive primary challenge. One can be as critical as one chooses about policy, but when it comes to the election, put down the pipe and get a grip on reality.

[RiverStone]

18. There is nothing futile about the fight for what goes into the party platform...

I'm old enough to remember Kennedy's challenge to Carter in 1980 - though Ted did not have enough delegates to win the nomination, he did have a very positive effect on the platform.

Historically, it's not been in the cards for anyone from either party to kick a sitting president out for his 2nd term - but don't underestimate that some of the business as usual bullshit (see Ken Salazar cozy with the oil industry) will be given a free pass.

I'll vote Democratic regardless and not all challenges are destructive, particularly if they represent the will of the majority in the party.

Right off a cliff eh? Damn, what originality. :hi:

[DefenseLawyer]

47. Uh, are you old enough to remember that REAGAN WON THE FUCKING ELECTION?

Great example there sport. Historically speaking.

[RiverStone]

56. Kennedy might have won the election...

We will never know the answer.

IMO, Carter was doomed to lose - I liked him, but he lacked universal appeal and the hostage situation in Iran greatly weakened his chances. Too bad the party insiders were so bent on playing it safe.

This is an entirely different time. The electorate is far more communication savvy and news is instant. You assume that people don't notice how good ol boy bullshit (in bed with the corporations) remains virtually unchanged from past to present administrations.

I'm voting Dem regardless, but I sure hope it is a Dem that works to demonstrate that he (or she) free from corporate paybacks and favors. Obama can do that, but it will take some work.

[geek tragedy]

51. The Democratic Platform of 1980 is one of the most irrelevant

documents of the past 35 years.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DefenseLawyer]

16. Did you vote for President Clinton in '96, oh pure one?

I'm quite curious to know if a good and pure Democrat like yourself thought enough of Mr. Clinton's "progressive" bonafides to vote for his re-election.

[DJ13]

17. Mr. Clinton's "progressive" bonafides

Clinton really wasnt a progressive, more like a fiscal conservative with a smattering of socially moderate positions.

[DefenseLawyer]

45. Duh. n/t

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

53. I notice you didn't answer the question.

It's OK, the vote is secret.

[DJ13]

61. The question wasnt posed to me

But no, I refused to vote for Clinton either time he ran as I didnt believe in his free market policies.

[KittyWampus]

20. "speech magic"? Nice republican talking point. Sick of it.

[KittyWampus]

21. Oh, and Obama's popularity is doing just fine.

[truedelphi]

22. Our electoral system is nothing but an auction

At least at the higher levels.

We have no one who will really step forward and be a leader. Obama has a focus only on the pretense, widely accepted as reality, that there has been nothing that he can do - the Tea Baggers are forcing his hand. Never mind that if he had not capitulated, maybe he'd have more support. The TB's were only about 6% of the population to begin with - and in the Obama vacuum of Leadership, they will see their numbers grow.

In the state of California, we are going to have a gubernatorial election come November. Neither candidate indicates anything that stands out as a reason to vote for them. Others think that way also -even the San Francisco Chronicle had an editorial about a month ago that not one of the three who want the spot of governor are making substantive statements about what to do regarding our huge deficit here.

Poizner lost in the primary, as his message was about following AZ lead on immigration. Meg Whitman won using her millions fromposition inside EBay to give her the equivalent of a TV station's worth of advertising every day. She is all about cutting the "expensive entitlements" like food stamps. Jerry Brown is running as the anti-candidate - "Me Jerry Brown. I am too important to have to say anything at all about what my administration would do.") Neither Brown or Whitman indicate any understanding of how important it might be to demand that Californians quit receiving only 73% of the money we send off to the Feds. If that number was boosted by a mere 10% -- this state could go into recovery mode.

[RiverStone]

24. OK, then who do you propose?

While I don't disagree with all your criticism - just slamming Obama without offering up a winning strategy is counter-productive. Like shouting in outer space...

I believe we can have a constructive debate that still creates a winning platform in 2012. So as a long term Dem notesdev, tell us what individuals or entities within the Dem party you would like to assume more leadership?

Is there some common ground for you on DU - what is it?

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WeDidIt]

52. Obama remains incredibly popular. 86% job approval amongst liberals

So you may think he won't run, but I suspect you'll be sorely disappointed.

[WI_DEM]

55. Where do you get your statistics? already unpopular? He's at 49% in Gallup which is better than

Reagan or Clinton at a comparable time in their presidencies. Did you know that Reagan was at 35% approval rating in January of 1983, just the year before the 1984 elections which he won with 59% of the vote? Also, Obama is very popular with Dems--even liberal dems, according to EVERY poll.

[karynnj]

59. no flame - just an example of your completely wrong previous predictions

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=114&topic_id=68834&mesg_id=68838

I hope no one took your advice and took their money out of the market in August 2009 to avoid that 30% crash.

Obama is higher than Clinton or Reagan at this point in time.

[Arkana]

65. Mark Penn, is that you?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. I'm hoping the left will field a candidate, or candidates, against Obama.

He isn't likely to change much if there is no challenge from the left.

[bvar22]

23. I will continue to challenge him from The Left,

and I hope there is a national spokesperson who can carry an Issues Oriented Progressive message in 2012.

[Swamp Rat]

29. Yeah you rite!

Alan Grayson comes to mind.

... though, I REALLY REALLY REALLY miss Paul Wellstone. :(

[catgirl]

26. Oh paleeeeze spare us of this crud.

[Swamp Rat]

30. Telling progressives to shut up is not helpful.

More than likely, it will elicit a powerful reaction formation, which will have the opposite effect.

[bvar22]

43. AND,

as far as I can parse out Skinners New Rules, this type of post will not be allowed.

[catgirl]

70. My opinion does not break any rules

Challenging Obama in the primaries would be a mistake and republicans would cheer
over this. It would make them VERY happy.

When I replied, I didn't notice that it was you posting (my fellow gardener- square
ft gardener at that!). Maybe I wouldn't have used the crud word. :-) I just disagree,
that's all. Hopefully there are no hard feelings.

[catgirl]

60. I AM a progressive

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

63. If so, why would you be against a progressive running against a centrist?

:shrug:

[catgirl]

67. I like my president

And he's not a centrist.

[WI_DEM]

57. I don't even think Dennis K would even challenge the president.

[JDPriestly]

27. I haven't decided yet. Much depends on how Obama handles

Social Security and the budget deficit. That is the supreme issue for me personally. If the stolen (or borrowed if you will) Social Security taxes are returned to the Social Security fund, then I will probably support Obama although I disagree with some things he does. But if not, then I cannot afford to support Obama. My income is Social Security. I saved money when I worked, but it is not producing any income to speak of.

[gleaner]

28. I took 3 ...

A very competitive Democratic primary with Obama losing and a Democratic candidate like Grayson or Dean winning and running for the presidency. I think it would be the best shot at taking the party to the left and helping to undo some of the damage I think that this administration has done.

[JTFrog]

31. Vote Obama = Vote Democratic.

Why would you differentiate the two?

[RiverStone]

36. No difference. Vote Democratic = Obama or another (unknown) candidate

I could have said vote for Obama or someone else who the Dems have not nominated yet.

Not enough room.

Like I said, I'm voting Dem regardless - I just hope the fight for what's on the Dem platform at the convention makes some folks in the party (inside the beltway) establishment wake up! That will only happen if we have a damn good debate about what's really important.

[Swamp Rat]

33. I believe we NEED an even more competitive primary than the last.

I want Obama to be SHOVED to the left as far as possible by progressive candidates, forcing him to make and keep promises for a second term, IF he decides to run again.

[rucky]

41. I'm not sure a competitive primary will do that.

If he wins handly, he can still ignore the left, look more like the centrist he is, pull in some independents. After all, our person would've lost and who else would we vote for?

I think we have to focus on the House and Senate, get them more liberal (and actually able to pass stuff). Obama won't veto.

[Swamp Rat]

69. good point. eom

[Blue_In_AK]

71. Swamp Rat, have I ever told you that

:yourock:

Seriously.

[Spider Jerusalem]

35. We have an incumbent. Unless he steps down, we have a de facto nominee for 2012.

Factionalism and infighting will only lead to defeat.

[RiverStone]

39. Infighting shapes the party platform at the convention!

Believe me, as DU is generally left of the party establishment; ya sure as hell will see lots of DUers in the fight come election time.

Without a clear identity for what the heck we stand for, we appear weak.

[Godhumor]

38. There will not be a credible primary if Obama chooses to run again

Any thoughts otherwise are fantasy.

[RiverStone]

40. Who do you prefer then as our Dem nominee?

While I encourage debate from within, we also need to identify who can beat whatever piece of jetsam the rethugs choose out of their convention.

[geek tragedy]

50. We have a 2012 nominee. His name is Obama. nt

[breadandwine]

64. As it happens there's ANOTHER Nobel Prize winner out there and HE won on the environment...

How 'bout him?


At least Gore knows what's happening on the netroots. Obama hasn't a clue what the netroots has been trying to tell him for months.

[RiverStone]

72. The man that should have been prez instead of shrub!

How old will Al be in 2016? I'd vote for him anytime, against anyone.

[WI_DEM]

44. Obama will not be challenged for renomination. He is popular in the Democratic party.

That is what is different about now and 1980. Jimmy Carter had half the party or more disliking him and giving him poor approval ratings. Obama is strongest among Democrats with approval ratings of more than 80% and--surprise, surprise--strongest most with LIBERAL democrats.

[geek tragedy]

49. There will be no meaningful primary challenge,

The only possibility of a primary challenge exists on the right from Blue Dog LieberDems.

Anyone who thinks otherwise really needs to live on Planet Earth.

[highplainsdem]

58. Other. It's simply too early to think about this.

And I'm on DU because I'm a Democrat and a liberal.

:hi:

[SlipperySlope]

62. I voted "3"

I voted "3" because picking between "1" and "2" is a tough choice.

A bruising primary could hurt the winner more than it helps them.

So, "if" it looks like Obama is going to win the primary anyway, then it could be more damaging than it is worth.

But who know what the poll numbers will look like then. It might be that a challenging primary is exactly what we need.

[oldlib]

66. Of Course.

Obama has earned it and he deserves our support for re-election. No other individual should even be considered.

[Uzybone]

68. There will be no fight

6% of disaffected democrats ( a large swath of them don't even participate in the process when it comes to doing actual work) is not enough to force any fight.

There'll be plenty of fights on blogs and message boards, but none in precincts, voting booth, caucuses, GOTV meetings and conventions.