So who will be the Democrat that pulls a 1980 Ted Kennedy in 2012?

[Gman]

This has shaped up to be so much like Jimmy Carter's first years in office, it's not even funny. The RW, was still very much hurting from Nixon's near impeachment and ignominious resignation. Remember that at the time this group also included the likes of Dick Cheney. They felt Nixon did absolutely nothing wrong and they were out to get Carter. I think it was just as vicious now for Obama, as it was for Carter from the right. Then Carter had to contend with his vicious critics on the left where one would think he should have found friends. Ted Kennedy ran against Carter in 1980. I frankly think the beating Carter took from Kennedy in the primaries contributed greatly to losing the November election to Reagan.

So who will so-called "progressives" run against Obama in 2012? Kucinich (LOL!)? No, it will be somebody that will be viable. And he/she will do great damage to Obama. No, the "she" will not be Hillary. Then, you can probably expect these so-called "progressives" to back a third party candidate and accomplish what they did in 2000 when they supported Nader. Some people just don't learn, do they? But at least "they have their principles (great sarcasm!)"

Tell me I'm wrong and why!

[Jennicut]

1. It is more Reagan's first year then Carter in 1980. We are not close to 2012 yet.

[Cosmocat]

55. DING!

It has all the shadows of Reagen right now ...

[stray cat]

2. Nader was more than sufficent in the general election in 2000

and 8 years of Bush taught many nothing

[tekisui]

7. Nader didn't cause dubya, give it up.

[Gman]

10. Nader most certainly did cause Bush

I wish the denial would stop on this.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

14. Gore won Florida

When are you people going to drop it.

[Gman]

16. Yes Gore won FL, but he didn't get the electoral votes

and he lost several other states by a few thousand votes... or about the number of votes that Nader got. There is not getting around the fact that Nader and his voters caused Bush.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

17. Gore won Florida

Do you blame Nader for Gore not winning his home state of Tennessee? If Gore had won Tennessee he would have been President. There are a lot of what if's.
What if Gore had used Clinton to campaign for him more, which he was basically against doing. What if he had come out more forcefully against NAFTA, which he wouldn't do. I blame the Supreme Court first and Gore second for not running a strong campaign. I don't really blame Nader.

[Gman]

18. There were a lot of things that could have been done differently

with #1 on the list being using Clinton to campaign more. That alone could have been the difference in a lot of states. However, bottom line, Gore did not get the FL electoral votes. The count was close enough that it could be stolen and that's what happened. But for Nader, FL would not have been near as close.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

23. If that makes you feel better about it so be it

But it is not really based in reality.

[leftynyc]

27. I blame Nader - the fucking liar

for campaigning in Florida after saying he wouldn't campaign in any competitive state. Forget all the other issues - Nader LIED.

[tekisui]

19. The real problem in FLorida was Pat Buchanan and the

butterfly ballots. Nader didn't cause it. Gore won anyway. It was the fault of the SCOTUS, not Nader.

[Ter]

28. Has anyone ever done a complete count?

I really would love to see an true total.

[harkadog]

29. Various newspapers counted the ballots.

They said Bush would have won the recount even without the SC decision http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/04/04/florida.recount.01/

[kath]

44. Actually, no. If all the ballots had been counted statewide, especially if overvotes were

counted to determine voter intent (Gore marked on ballot AND written in = Vote for Gore) as well as undervotes, GORE WON.

[harkadog]

45. Where is the link to that?

There were two media counts. I linked to one of them. The other came out on 9/11/01 and was buried by the attack news. Both groups claimed Bush would have won.

[ljm2002]

57. Unfortunately, Bush would have won...

...under the recount that Gore requested. So that is what the newspapers reported.

What they did not report, or rather, may have mentioned in passing but basically hid it as best they could, is the fact that had *all* of the Florida votes been counted, Gore would have won.

Yet another reason to either ask for a recount of all the votes, or don't ask for a friggin' recount at all! Gore found many ways to shoot himself in the foot: don't use Clinton to campaign (this was a President whose personal popularity continued to be sky-high even after the impeachment proceedings); do select the smarmiest, most self-righteous prude as your running mate; don't insist on a full recount but instead try and calculate probabilities and then just recount where you think you might win (backfired badly). Not that it would have mattered -- the SC was just waiting for their chance to jump in, it appeared.

[Gman]

3. LOL! I wonder if unrecs are in double digits yet!

[Dinger]

49. Well I Gave It An Unrec

Wish there was a way to tell how many unrecs there are in a thread.

[Ozymanithrax]

4. Van Halen has refused to run for Senator. Maybe he is holding out for the lead singer position.

[freddie mertz]

5. Whoever it is, I will consider supporting that person.

What we have now is not exactly super-great.

[Skink]

6. I'd say Hillary but I'm not sure want to stay in politics by then.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

25. She wouldn't betray Obama.

[asdjrocky]

8. Why are you knocking Ted Kennedy? nt

[Gman]

11. I didn't really consider this as knocking Kennedy, but

running against Carter isn't one of the more admirable things he ever did.

[asdjrocky]

13. It depends on how you look at it.

I think it's very admirable to stand up for what you believe in.

[Gman]

15. And I think it was less than admirable to cost a sitting Democratic president an election

or at the very least contribute greatly to his defeat. Not a lot different than not supporting a sitting Democratic Vice President running for president and causing an idiot republican to be elected.

[zipplewrath]

9. Innumerable ways

I'm not sure why you "think" that Kennedy was the cause of Carter's loss, even Carter doesn't think that.

But beyond that, and to what your question truly alludes, the only way that a "viable" dem gets in the primary is if there is sufficient support out there to fund the early campaign. Kennedy was begged by many congressional democrats to run. You can blame that on "progressives" if you want but the reality is that it was the Washington insiders that created his candidacy. Unless you think they will do the same thing this time, I'm dubious Obama has anything to worry about, and if they do, it's because Obama is in that much trouble.

Progressives will talk a big game, and I have no doubt that a Nader, Kucinich, or some other candidate will run a third party. But in the end, the real loss will come from Obama not being able to keep the independents on board that voted for change, and perceive that they are getting more of the same.

The polls say that the people want DADT repealed, but Obama waits.
The polls say that the people support the public option, but Obama dumps it.
The polls say that the people want a change in Washington, but Obama cuts deals with big Pharma and gives deals to Nelson and Landreau.
The people want out of Iraq, out of Afghanistan, but Obama waits.
Gitmo is still open, he's still advocating "indefinite detentions", and he argues in defense of DOMA.

If Obama is in trouble, it is because he isn't listening to the people, not because the people are "principled".

[FrenchieCat]

12. I didn't realize that Carter had inherited two wars and a melted down economy

had passed a nearly 1 trillion stimulus, had given 95% of the public tax cuts,
and by the end of his first year, was closest to passing HCR in the last 50 years,
and was doing so all while Black!

Now I do. :hi:

[tekisui]

20. "Closest" to passing anything is meaningless.

He must produce results to be judged effective by the voters.

[FrenchieCat]

22. Ok......

So can we wait a minute.....?

Or do we HAVE to judge right here and now, because?

[Gman]

24. No, but Carter did inherit an economy that

had been in a wartime mode for some 35 years but now war was over and so was the economy, not to mention all the inflationary pressures from Nixon/Ford policies.

All in all, Obama's done pretty damn good, and especially so as a Black president!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

40. I've said it before and I'll say it again... YOU'RE MY HERO, Sister!!

:toast::toast:

[PVnRT]

21. Blah blah, blame the liberals, blah blah blah

Same shit, different day in GD-P.

[grahamhgreen]

26. Obama is a bitter disappointment for all anti-fascist anti-corporatist liberals - he has only himsel

himself to blame for his atrocious policies.

No revisiting NAFTA and GATT as promised.

Still torturing.

Still feeding the war machine.

And now forced crapsurance.

It's not our fault - it's your own for not pressuring your people to throw the base a bone.

[RagAss]

30. Hillary and she'll win.

[Beacool]

36. Wishful thinking my friend.

I wish it would be feasible, but it won't happen in 2012.

:(

[IndianaGreen]

31. Evan Bayh will do his Ross Perot imitation

Has anyone noticed how much noise Bayh is making about a broken political system? The jungenwunder has ambitions!

[madinmaryland]

34. Evan WHO?? Five minutes after he started his "broken politics" schtick

is was over for him.

Bayh got his ass handed to himself on a platter by The View.

Sad, just very sad.

[madinmaryland]

32. I see no resemblance whatsoever with the Carter Administration. I would

compare it more to Bill Clinton in 1993, who lost Congress after passing tax increases, failing at HCR, and various other issues, and came back without ANY meaningful challenge in the primaries, and kicked Bob Dole's ass into a career of pimping an Erections.

[JoePhilly]

33. I'll go with Ben Nelson ... a corpratist who like to vote with the GOP ...

Because the best way to get to vote with the GOP, is to do whatever you can to split the left.

[Beacool]

35. Hillary has been the most popular person in the administration since last March.

But she would never pull a Ted Kennedy. Other than Hillary, I don't think that right now there is another person who could realistically compete with Obama. Besides, his poll numbers would have to be at Bush's level at the end of his presidency for someone to even think of challenging Obama.

:shrug:

[onenote]

37. The reason you are wrong: the absence of a name

The fact that no one has suggested a name for someone to run against Obama in 2012 from the left is probably the strongest evidence that such a run is unlikely. Its equally unlikely that there will be a challenge to him from within the party on the right. The Kennedy challenge to Carter reflected Kennedy's unique position as someone who had a built in nationwide base of support. There is no one on the scene today in a remotely comparable position.

[Hekate]

38. Bayh. Not Hillary, not at all. nt

[CK_John]

39. For all the reasons mentioned I don't think he will run for a second term. We will nominate a woman

not Hillary maybe Gillibrand or Melinda Gates. The GOP will primary Palin and the new Sen from MASS.

[golfguru]

41. Evan Bayh.......n/t

[Aramchek]

42. you're really hopeless, aren't you?

[jenmito]

43. Nobody. They learned from '80. n/t

[depakid]

46. Carter had a large lead in the fall of 1980 which he blew himself

Kennedy's primary challenge wasn't a major influence on the dynamics of the general election.

[jenmito]

48. Doesn't matter. We don't need to put our party at a disadvantage like they did. n/t

[depakid]

50. It wasn't much of a disadvantage- any more than the long primary in 2008 was a disadvantage

Not that I'm advocating a primary challenge.

What I think is more likely (Depa agreeing with with Evan Bayh, yikes!) is a third party candidate along the lines of a Perot- or, to stay in context, John Anderson in 1980.

Both of them siphoned off a lot of votes and it's difficult to say (considering how they altered the dynamics) where those votes would otherwise have landed.

[WI_DEM]

53. Carter never had a large lead in the fall of 1980

check out the polls from gallup archive or google. He went into the democratic convention over 20-points behind Reagan. He gained ground in the convention and he made it a close race until the last weekend when the hostages got back in the news and overnight Carter's numbers fell dramatically.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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

[Arkana]

51. I have to ask why you felt the need to post this

when you KNEW it was going to provoke a shitstorm.

Seriously, what were you hoping to accomplish?

[WI_DEM]

52. You don't know your history very well. It seems more like Clinton's first year with health care

and Clinton was not challenged and won big in '96. Except that Obama's numbers are more stable than Clinton's.

[quiller4]

54. You really need to study history. This year isn't a bit like Carter's first

It actually more closely patterns Reagan's.

I don't expect there to be a serious challenge to Obama's renomination.

[JCMach1]

56. Obama has control over the party in ways Carter could only dream about...

I don't expect a serious primary challenge unless things completely go off the rails.

Even just downhill wouldn't change that picture.

[craigmatic]

58. It's alot more like Clinton than Carter. Carter's problem was that he didn't have a

set of priorities going in and his first years were a series of reactions to problems facing the country. Clinton went in and overreached and tried to change things without a mandate. Obama has a mandate and real solutions to problems. No democrat in their right mind will run against Obama in 2012. Also Kennedy did not beat Carter that much Carter crushed him in those primaries.

[onenote]

59. completely misplaced comparison

Kennedy didn't decide to run against Carter because of Carter's performance in the first year of his term. Kennedy first began to think about mounting a challenge in mid-summer of Carter's second yearn office when polls showed Kennedy preferred over Carter. Kennedy didn't decide to actually throw his hat in the ring until Carter's third year, when Carter was below thirty percent in the polls.

Given that there is no one Democrat on the scene that I can imagine would poll above Obama in a head to head race right now and that situation is likely to still be the case by mid summer, and given that its utter speculation to imagine that Obama's poll numbers in 2011 will be below 30 percent, I'd say the comparison of the two situations is completely misplaced.