NO one who ran for the Democratic nomination before should do it again.

[Ken Burch]

We need a different nominee.

The incumbent can't regain his popularity, and can't win Congress back for us. Without a Democratic House, it can't be worth re-electing a Democratic president since that Democratic president can't DO anything Democratic if the House stays GOP(the last Democratic adminstration proves this).

The runner-up is committed to all the things that have made this administration unpopular(she STILL loves globalization, STILL thinks we need "pro-business" economic policies, STILL wants us to stay in Afghanistan indefinitely, STILL wants to bomb Iran even though nothing but misery can come of that, STILL wants a massive war budget).

Dean is a good man, but better as an organizer than a candidate.

And Dennis whom I still regard as a hero, will always be picked apart over trivialities.

We need someone else.

If we don't GET someone else, we're doomed in 2012.

[doc03]

1. It all depends on one thing, the economy, stupid.

[Amonester]

4. which the stupid 'boner' house will make sure 'viewing' to it...

will NOT improve whatsoever at every turn.

But impeachment WILL sure be "ON THE TABLE" each and every depressing day...

[Ken Burch]

10. And the rich will keep on deliberately holding the economy down

Until the current administration is out of office. And this administration will never have the guts to stand up to them(even in the way JFK did when he stood up to Big Steel on the price increase)because believers in "bipartisanship" never have any core values and never fight for anything.

[grasswire]

2. how about Brian Schweitzer?

I guess the problem is that the nominee needs to be from a state that has strategic importance, and Montana doesn't.

What I don't want again is someone with zero track record who is propelled to the front simply because he is malleable and fungible.

[xxqqqzme]

19. Schweitzer is in love w/ 'clean' coal.

He was singing the praises of the fantasy notion when he was elected governor.

[jmowreader]

42. Schweitzer is running the state with the fourth largest coal deposits

What he's really interested in is the Fischer-Tropsch process for converting coal to diesel.

I think we really need to have a two-part litmus test: can the candidate win a red state, and can he bring the Republicans in line. Schweitzer looks good on both counts.

[BzaDem]

3. Obama will likely win the nomination unapposed by any serious candidate. And regardless of the

ultimate outcome of the general election, he will likely win 90%+ of Democrats and liberals. More Democrats approve of Obama (in percentage terms) than any Democratic president in 50 years.

[kentuck]

9. Obama will be the nominee..

..and he will be re-elected. That is what the powers-that-be want.

[Radical Activist]

44. It's what most liberal Democrats want.

[Hawkeye-X]

92. Not I

I'm as liberal as you can go.

I don't want Obama. I want him primaried to the left and taught a very hard lesson about betraying the Democratic principles. A primary will teach him that important lesson.

I know he will be re-elected, but I want him humble and remember who ELECTED him, not the corporate fatcats.

[texshelters]

116. Agreed

and agreed.

He is a Goldwater Democrat. It's sad.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[Amonester]

7. Sheesh... There's a 'hide thread' button available.

Had a bad day, uh?

Happens.

[pnwmom]

39. And there is an alert button available. n/t

[Ken Burch]

11. I want a Democratic victory in 2012.

But that's only worth having if it includes big gains in Congress. We know Obama can't make THAT happen.

[BzaDem]

13. Just by the distribution of Senate seats up for election in 2012, there is no actual way to make

gains in Congress to even come close to the majority we just had (unless you think states like Idaho are about to elect Democrats).

[Ken Burch]

15. We can make them in the House though.

And it can't be worth holding the White House if the lower house of Congress stays Republican. Having a Democratic president who just fights defensive battles is no different than having a Republican president.

Defensive battles can't be worth fighting and can't lead to later gains.

[BzaDem]

22. "Having a Democratic president who just fights defensive battles is no different"

Actually, no. First, there is an entirely distinct branch of government from Congress and the President (the judiciary), and the President appoints judges to vacancies. Second, of the major bills that passed in 2010, there is VAST amount of discretion left to regulators of the executive branch, which allows the President to do a lot of quassi-legislating (rulemaking) provided that it is consistent with the law. This is a huge amount of power to affect outcomes.

Though I wouldn't get your hopes up about the House regardless of the nominee. While it isn't mathematically impossible to retake the House, there is very little chance this will happen in 2012. Republicans control redistricting completely in a HUGE number of seats, and they will be able to solidify many of the gains they just made using redistricting alone.

[Ken Burch]

26. Those judges all have to be confirmed by the Senate

Given that a Republican Senate(or a narrowly-divided one as we are going to have for the next two years)won't confirm Obama judicial nominees no matter what, why does his appointment power still matters?

And it doesn't matter if he gets them confirmed, if they have to be sharply to the right of his Supreme Court appointees to get confirmed.

Centrist nominees will all just swing to the right after confirmation. We'll never see another Earl Warren-type progression in an American judge.

[BzaDem]

27. The last Republican Senate still confirmed many of Clinton's judicial nominees.

And they weren't sharply to the right of his Supreme Court nominees.

We may never see another Earn Warren, but that doesn't mean vast differences between two nominees to the right of Warren are insignificant.

[notesdev]

29. Unlikely

among the less heralded but perhaps most consequential of the 2010 election results is that we handed 2/3rds of the state legislatures to the GOP. And since it was a census year, they get to do the redistricting. And on top of that quite a number of Congressional seats have migrated south into Republican states from Democratic northern states.

If the average Democrat understood just how devastating this election was to our cause, everyone would be demanding the heads of every party "leader" who got us into this mess (which is all of them). It'll likely be minimum 10 years before we see a House majority again, and the Senate majority is almost certain to evaporate in 2012 (we have 2x as many seats up for re-election this time around, as it will be the 6-year cycle that started in 2006. 2014 will be just as bad in the Senate for the same reason (defending seats won in 2008).

The thing that will be most difficult to get past is Nancy Pelosi demonstrating that our party can't be trusted with the public purse, that the moment we get our hands on it all discretion in spending is out the window and it's throw money at anything that moves time. Our deficit basically doubled the moment the first budget passed while she was speaker and has remained at grossly elevated levels ever since. There's a whole Marie Antoinette "let them eat stimulus" aura about her, as if she either doesn't know or doesn't care that, once filtered through the bureaucracy, almost all of the money allocated to such things is diverted to the politically connected.

[karynnj]

72. Yes it can - veto power is important, things are done via executive orders,

and foreign policy and war policy are areas where the President does matter.

Having a Democratic President, fighting Republicans controlling Congress is better than a Republican President with the same Congress (sounds like 2005 - did you like the bankruptcy bill? Obama would have vetoed it - Bush wanted it.)

[Ken Burch]

79. But Obama's already proven he never WILL fight them

The tax thing proves he'll just sign anything they want.

Defensive battles are pointless. The only things worth fighting for are gains.

Settling for just Obama and a GOP Congress is the same as surrender.

[karynnj]

160. Defensive battles are important

Had the Democrats not filibustered drilling in ANWR several times in the Bush years, the land would have been destroyed. There were also EPA rules that Bush unilaterally suspended or weakened that were put back in place. Not to mention, he immediately removed the world wide gag rule - that prevented US money going to anything that even tangentially supported birth control or abortion.

Not to mention, Obama did not bomb Iran. Would you have wanted to risk a republican doing so?

As to "settling for Obama and a GOP Congress, whoever said to do that? YOU argued that if there were a GOP Congress, that there was no good out of having Obama as President. Anyone here would argue that we need to work hard to potentially win back the House and to try to keep the Senate.

The point is you ALWAYS need to fight - in Republican dominated times, for small victories stopping some really bad things - in other times, balancing the REAL options to do the best we can - and working for gains (as we did in 2009-2010) in Democratic times.

The tax bill showed that given a choice of breaking one of two campaign promises, he kept the promise to not raise taxes on the middle class and working poor over the promise not to extend the tax cuts for the wealthy. The votes were not there to have both. In addition, he got unemployment extended for 13 months and several other measures that will stimulate an economy that needs stimulation. It was not the way he - or most Democrats wanted it, but it may turn out to be called one of his best decisions for two important reasons.

One is that if it is enough with other things that could be done to improve the economy, that will be important - both for Democrats getting re-elected and for making the lives of many better. The other reason is that without that, we would not have passed DADT, which is significant civil rights legislation, and the START treaty, which had it failed would have undermined Obama internationally.

But go ahead and dream of how much better Dean or Kuchinich would have been. The fact is that they would very likely have faced the same choice - and I would bet they would have made the same deal. Politics involves compromise.

[Foo Fighter]

32. Well, they had the majority and didn't do shit with it

so why the hell would yet another Dem majority (or Supermajoriy or Super-dooper majority) change anything?

Face it. Both parties (and I use that term loosely) are bought and paid for by the rich.

The names and faces in DC might change but the ownership never does.

And therein lies the problem.

[cali]

46. the only way to have a dem victory is if Obama runs

as for big gains in Congress, that's not gonna happen no matter who runs, and it certainly won't happen in the unlikely case that there's a dem other than Obama as the nom.

[Ken Burch]

78. It can't be worth it to settle for a Dem president and a GOP Congress

That dooms us and makes further progressive gains in the future impossible.

It can't ever be worth anyone's time fighting defensive battles. Those are always pointless and don't give anyone a reason to get involved.

[BzaDem]

111. Why do you assume you have a choice in the matter?

Lots of people have to settle for things they don't like. Life often doesn't ask if you are thrilled about it.

I think having Obama on the ballot would obviously maximize Congressional gains, and that having anyone else on the ballot would seriously dampen turnout among African Americans, liberal Democrats, and other core constituencies (probably resulting in more losses in the House). After all, these constituencies approve of Obama at rates of 91% and 91% respectively.

But even having Obama on the ballot isn't going to win us back the House. Why do you assume there is a way to get what you want here?

[Ken Burch]

114. Your whole post is just the message "surrender and shut up".

Some of us aren't willing to just let the right take the country, which is what settling for Obama and a Republican Congress means. Settling for that this year means accepting that we'll never get Congress back. Which means settling for being nothing more than a junior partner in a center-right corporate coalition regime for the rest of eternity.

Why are you CONTENT with that much defeatism?

[BzaDem]

119. Did you actually just say that not getting the House back next year means we will never get it back?

I mean, I would say basically all your generalizations (not just about this subject) are wrong. But this particular generalization is a real whopper. I wonder if there is a single other person on DU that would agree with you, that not getting the House back in 2012 means we will "never get Congress back."

"Why are you CONTENT with that much defeatism?"

Who said I was content with anything? This is getting ridiculous. If you didn't like the fact that gravity attracts objects to the surface of the Earth, would you similarly be shouting at people who suggested that you accept reality rather than deny it? There is a difference between not being in denial about reality and being happy about reality. I don't like the fact that we won't have a liberal Congress in 2012. That doesn't mean we will have a liberal Congress in 2012. There is a difference between wanting something and getting what you want.

[Ken Burch]

123. It DOES mean that,.

We CAN'T be in the minority there for four or six or eight more years and ever be in the majority again. You KNOW that.
And even if we were, it couldn't be WORTH getting the majority back if we had to spend a long spell in the minority again. Too much damage would have been done and none of it could be repaired.

My point it, I don't want politics to be meaningless. Fighting defensive battles is meaningless. Conceding whole legislative chambers in one election means giving up on getting them back in the next. It really IS that simple, and it's destructive to this party for people like you to be saying that it's no biggie if we DON'T get the House back or that an election where we CONCEDE Congress from the start could still even be worth being involved with.

Only big victories are worth fighting for. Only gains are worth fighting for. Defensive battles are just surrender and can't inspire ANYONE to think that politics matters.

[BzaDem]

127. I'm curious: can you find ONE additional person on DU that agrees with you, that we will not get

back the majority in any future year if we do not get it back in 2012?

I think basically every sentence of your post is incorrect, but that particular assertion is so wrong that I am really curious to see if you can find a single person to defend you there.

[Ken Burch]

129. I'm not playing that game

There are likely a lot of people who secretly believe it but are scared of saying it out loud.

But we need to campaign like taking back the House is an achievable goal, or no one will willingly support Democratic congressional candidates. Nobody's going to want to get involved in a "lose less badly" campaign.

[BzaDem]

131. "There are likely a lot of people who secretly believe it but are scared of saying it out loud."

Oh yeah. Got it.

"But we need to campaign like taking back the House is an achievable goal."

Where do you get the idea that they aren't going to campaign as if taking back the House is an achievable goal? Do you think I'm the DCCC chairman? EVERY national House campaign is run on the premise that one can win, regardless of whether it is true. Nancy Pelosi was literally stating ON ELECTION DAY that we would keep the House, even though everyone knew that was obviously false.

[Odin2005]

28. The primary is an election, not a coronation.

[Union Scribe]

37. The poster is talking about electing a Democrat (capital D, btw)

So kick rocks.

[Ken Burch]

41. That's exactly what I'm talking about.

Thanks for the support.

[Skittles]

49. ye of little faith

:rofl:

[treestar]

64. +1 The OPs idea will never come to pass

OP can organize the 20 people who feel that way and see where they end up.

[nadinbrzezinski]

75. Use the hide thread

Management allows for this discussion... or are you Skinner?

They have made this CRYSTAL CLEAR. So either use the ignore button... so you can avoid that poster, or the HIDE THREAD.

[MadBadger]

6. This is a comical OP

[Kahuna]

53. It made my day.

:D

[Arkana]

8. The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

[Ken Burch]

14. The sky fell already

And a Democratic administration that goes further right(as this one inevitably will for the next two years)can't be popular and can't be worth re-electing.

We only win when there are clear differences. We can only win in the future if we fight for everyone the Republicans leave out. This administration doesn't ever do that.

The guy had his chance. He failed. He can't ever succeed again and can't be worth losing alongside with.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[Skittles]

50. no, he is not

if Obama screws with SS, watch the fallout

[Kahuna]

54. He won't screw with SS. At least not for the near future. He is smart

and he knows that that is the third rail of politics.

[Skittles]

56. LOL

you DO realize - he already HAS screwed with SS - right?

[Kahuna]

76. Screwed You? You're practically old enough to start collecting now..

How are YOU screwed? :shrug:

ETA, Lol, as that seems to be your favorite retort. See. I can do it too. :eyes:

[Ken Burch]

82. If he caved on taxing the rich, he HAS no core values

He proved he doesn't care about SS by creating the Commission. If there were no Commission, there'd be no threat to SS. The
'Pugs wouldn't dare initiate an attack on it directly like they did in 2005.

[defendandprotect]

89. And you can guarantee that ... ???

For a GOP president it was the third rail --

obviously, they've now sent in a Dem to do the dirty work Bush couldn't do --

[Ken Burch]

93. Not only can't he guarantee it.

When Obama DOES kill SS, that poster will DEFEND him for it(it'll get down to "nothing matters but 'choice' and 'The Court'". People like him were the ones who were ok with Clinton EXPANDING the death penalty in a decade when the murder rate was plummeting without it being expanded. But people like that would say that was ok, because the prison started a recycling program too.

[defendandprotect]

96. Agree --

excuses and alibis go on here, but only a handful now --

and proud of the way that liberals/progressives have handled this "pink pony ride"

over the last two years -- arguing it patiently for the most part.


IMO -- either there will be a contender against this president in 2012, or there will

be nothing left of the Democratic Party --



:)

[Art_from_Ark]

157. Clinton expanded the death penalty? How, exactly?

There were no Federal executions during Clinton's two terms, and states have had jurisdiction over executions at the state level since 1976.

[Ken Burch]

158. He signed the GOP bill expanding it, rather than doing the right thing and vetoing it

And this was when Clinton had already established that he was pro-death penalty, so he had no reason to cave to the right on that.

It was a bill that, among other things, made it a capital crime, for example, to murder a federal poultry inspector(something that nobody ever did, as far as I know).

And it's not even clear that Clinton's original pro death-penalty stance actually GAINED him any votes.

[stevedeshazer]

21. Who would you suggest?

:shrug:

[Ken Burch]

25. Feingold is one option.

I'm open to others.

Perhaps someone who's from the activist world.

[cali]

47. no he is not. He's already said he's supporting Obama.

[Kahuna]

55. Feingold? How can he run when he didn't even win reelection?

I never thought he was stupid and it would be stupid for him to do so.

[Arkana]

66. You mean the same Russ Feingold who unequivocally announced

that he WOULD NOT run against Obama?

[Ken Burch]

77. Remember the annoucements RFK was making in 1966 and 1967

And he was just one option.

I'm open to names emerging from other sources.

[defendandprotect]

97. ... and we should well remember also that violence is the ready response of right wing .....

it's a reality we have been living with -- at least out in the open -- since

1963 which took not only JFK but our "people's" government, as well.

We have to understand what we're up against --

there is only one way the right wing can rise and that's via political violence --

stolen elections -- and lies.

[Arkana]

105. Seeing as how I was born in 1985, no--I don't remember those announcements.

But RFK did that in a time before the Internet and 24-hour cable news.

[Ken Burch]

107. Politicians STILL say they won't run and then STILL change their minds

That didn't stop with the Internet, kid.

[Arkana]

109. How many of them ran for President after losing a bad Senate reelection race

to a nutjob?

[onpatrol98]

155. Didn't think about that...

I didn't think about that. I was thinking primarily of other democratic politicians. I think name recognition would be a problem. I think the public would need to already be somewhat familiar with this individual in order for him/her to take down a sitting president in a primary.

[LuvNewcastle]

12. That's a tall order to fill.

The candidate must be liberal or progressive in order to contrast Obama and rally the base.

The candidate, while being liberal, must connect with independent voters.

The candidate must be acceptable to black members of the party, who voted for Obama in overwhelming numbers.

The candidate must be a natural leader with a clear vision, a vision that is clearly in opposition to Republicans.




I can't think of anyone who comes close.

[somone]

17. "This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal"

You don't want another Kodak moment like that? Geeez.

[snot]

18. Sorry, but I totally disagree. I want someone with a long record, who I KNOW is on our side --

and to me, that means Kucinich or Dean.

[Ken Burch]

33. I love Dennis, and supported him twice

But they'll just bring up the UFO thing and his being a vegan...even though neither of those things should matter.

[flvegan]

38. I can't possibly accept that we can't beat "UFO" and "vegan" on the grand stage.

If we can't, then let's just all hang it up.

[jmowreader]

43. There's a third thing we'll have to work on with Kucinich

And that's his term as Cleveland mayor.

[Ken Burch]

88. He was RIGHT not to sell off the municipal electrical utility to the rich

No actual Democrats still think he should have, and it was later proven that that would have cost Cleveland massive amounts of revenue.

That was the only reason he was defeated. And every mayor Cleveland has had since then was a right-wing failure.

[jmowreader]

149. That's not the only thing that happened, though

The Repukes will cast his refusal to sell the power company as hatred of the private sector, and I'm certain they'll talk about Cleveland going into default during his term, that he's the only presidential candidate in US history who ever had Mafia hit men after him...and you know they'll try to work the Cuyahoga River catching fire into their attacks. Never mind it didn't catch fire while he was mayor, the fact that it did is enough.

If, at this juncture, Ronald Reagan decided to run for president the Republicans would go after him. Assume there is a unit of conservativeness, and we'll call it the Nixon because, by today's standards, Nixon isn't very conservative. Basically, someone who's as conservative as Nixon gets one Nixon. The standard 2010-model centrist Republican is two Nixons to the right of Ronald Reagan. Teabaggers are off the chart.

[Ken Burch]

151. Well, it's not his fault the Mafia was after him.

That would normally be a sign that you're a pretty good person. And the default happened because the local banks deliberately drove the city's finances down to FORCE him to sell the utility. He'd have ceased to be a Democrat if he HAD sold it.

[NorthCarolina]

68. It's a tough battle against the beltway media who determine the "acceptable" candidates

from which me may select. I agree with you that the UFO charges are trumped up, as is the spin against Kucinich in general, but the anti-Kucinich media campaign would be relentless. Hell, even here on a supposedly progressive site like DU, you have a regular and well defined contingent of big "R" Dems who work feverishly to defame anyone or anything espousing even a hint of "Liberal", and they would turn out in force to marginalize Kucinich as they did before. The game is rigged to preserve the status quo, and there is no champion of the people in a place of power sufficient to change the rules of the game.

[Arkana]

67. Also the fact that his views on abortion changed almost as quickly as Mitt Romney's.

[Ken Burch]

87. He switched to the GOOD side.

You can't really hate somebody for that.

And Kerry wasn't a real pro-choice guy, because he didn't challenge the idea that women who get abortions should be stigmatized by everyone else.

Dennis' change on that issue was NOT a justification for supporting people who were to his right on everything ELSE. Clinton claimed to be "pro-choice"-but nobody still thinks that was worth settling for his right-wing bullshit on the MAJOR issues.

Besides, without support for federal funding for abortion, reproductive rights is a moot point. It doesn't matter if you "support the right" if you also make sure that only the wealthy can afford it, which is the situation now.

[gmoney]

120. His seat is likely to be "disappeared" by the new Ohio senate

Ohio's losing 2 House seats due to the census, and with pukes controlling the house and governor's office next year, the plan is to absorb Dennis' district so he'll be out of a job... not a good position to run from.

Plus, he's just a little too odd I think for the mainstream American voter.

George Clooney is about the only Democrat I know of that has the charisma to win, but obviously he has no actual political experience. Plus he probably has plenty of skeletons in his closet that will keep him out of actual politics such as running for congress or governor someplace, not least of which is appearing on "The Facts of Life."

[onpatrol98]

20. No rational democrat

No rational democrat will run against Obama in 2012. An irrational democrat may run against President Obama. But, that individual would lose badly. Raising money would be a nightmare. With both President Obama and "mystery spoiler" attempting to ask the same people for money, I don't see how the mystery challenger would get the finances necessary to mount a challenge.

Not to mention, the only thing a primary challenger would tell the general public (democrats uninterested in a challenge, republicans, and independents) is that our party is attempting to self destruct.

----------------------------------------

Ralph Nader will run. Perhaps some other 3rd candidate will run. But, I'm doubtful that any legitimate democrat would run. Now that I think about it, I don't even think Kucinich would run against President Obama. It would simply leave a bad taste in the mouths of too many people. What platform would the contender have...that would be different enough from President Obama's to even justify a challenge?

I just don't think this is possible. It would damage the current sitting president AND the contender. It would be better for them to just wait until 2016.

[stevedeshazer]

23. Nader will be 78 years old in 2012

Harold Stassen thinks Ralph is too old to be president.

[onpatrol98]

24. no spring chick...

He's no spring chick, but I'd be surprised if he didn't run.

[Ken Burch]

94. Nobody here really wants Ralph.

Give it a rest.

[onpatrol98]

128. Never stopped Ralph before...

I'm not suggesting Ralph run. He just usually does. I'm suggesting it would be a democratic nightmare to have a primary challenger for President Obama.

[Ken Burch]

130. A primary challenge, if it could be conducted on high-minded terms

(as opposed to, say, 1980, when Jimmy Carter brought up Chappaquiddick to use against Teddy even though that was totally inappropriate)could strengthen the party.

The reason the challenge years went badly was because the incumbents being challenged didn't just go gracefully. Clearly, once the embassy in Tehran was taken, Carter should have realized he could never be popular again and immediately withdrawn. Equally clearly, LBJ, once he HAD withdrawn in 1968, should have felt obligated not to intervene in the choice of his successor at all, and should certainly never have insisted on forcing his chosen successor to run as an all-out hawk until a month before the election, when Johnson HIMSELF knew the war was unwinnable and that he had no chance of getting North Vietnam to surrender at the Paris Peace Talks.

[onpatrol98]

154. Excellent Points...

You make an excellent point, but if a challenger seemed to be gaining the upper hand, would the current President simply walk away. I think its doubtful. Perhaps there is one thing that you force me to consider in terms of high minded ideals. A challenger would push the President to the left...but, temporarily. I just don't see how one wins.

I don't see a primary challenge as a winning proposition. Even if the primary challenger actually won the primary, I think it would alienate an important part of his base. I could be wrong. But, I think the current president is still a very popular president. Perhaps he has truly angered progressives, I'll concede that point. But, I think moderate democrats are frustrated but content with Obama as president. I think many in the African American community would see this as an opportunity to knee cap a president that it still very popular in the African American community. It doesn't mean there isn't frustration. But, I can't imagine many that would actually welcome a challenge. Rather it would be seen as petty and proof that prejudices exist even within the democratic party. Perhaps a progressive tea party. After all, Clinton ticked off a boatload of democrats...but he wasn't thrown overboard.

Independents...love them or hate them, are needed to win the White House. I could be wrong, but I don't believe this group is looking for President Obama to lean further left. I think they really are tired of the bipartisan bickering and I think the president probably made more headway with this group in the last two weeks than he did in the last two years. What democrat would this fickle bunch pick over President Obama?

And, finally...what other democrat do you really want to carry that banner. Step right up...which of these lucky politicians actually sees a positive outcome in challenging the First African American US President? I think the only group besides die hard progressives and a few media types that would be happy would be Republicans. Republicans have a slim to none chance of getting anywhere near the White House in my humble opinion in 2012. Not because the economy may improve, but because they have losers in their lineup. They simply won't choose any candidates better than President Obama.

1) Why force a democratic president to fight for financial resources against another creditable candidate during a primary, when we have the White House?

2) Why force him to move (in theory) to the left, when Independents are signaling more than ever that they're not there and they're needed to win the White House. It's not a love them or leave them proposition.

3) Why give Republicans the gift of a weaker candidate? Although, sometimes a primary challenge can strengthen a candidate. But, if your goal is to remove him (not you specifically), I don't see the primary challenger in a sweet position either.

4) Why force other democratic politicians to choose between the current sitting president and a new possibly losing candidate? How is this a winning strategy? Which dimwit currently sitting in office would actually support the primary challenger? For two years, they'd be ducking and dodging the media. It's a career killing question in this current atmosphere. If you say the primary challenger, you tick off democrats that still find the president popular. If you pick the current president, you tick off progressives.

5) Finally, where's the challenger? We would have to already know the person who wants this job. They would already need name recognition. Bernie Sanders? I don't believe he'd challenge Barack Obama. About the only democratic politician that I can think of that would be even willing is Anthony Weiner. I think he'd love a shot. But, I think even he recognizes that in a popularity contest (and it still is one), he'd lose easily. Howard Dean wouldn't. Kucinich...I don't know, but I lean to no. He's already lost and lost badly. Why try against a popular democratic president? Maybe the guy with the Taliban Dan commercials, Grayson. Perhaps he would be willing. But, he's all over the place. One day he's brilliant, and the next...he's putting out Taliban Dan commercials.

6) Not that we should probably care...but I think the rest of the world would think we've lost our minds.

I think the candidates that could win...wouldn't run. I hope candidates that we all know wouldn't have chance in the world, should just say no and walk away.

I do think you're right. If the president walked away, most of this would be avoided. But, if democrats that were still fond of the president smelled a rat (behind the scenes effort to boot him unjustly), I think it would just split the party further. I think that was part of that whole puma problem. They perceived a rat, a setup, and some of those folks aren't coming back. Would he walk away cleanly? I just don't know. I had pondered whether or not he'd run. But, since he says he is...I don't see him bailing later.

[stevedeshazer]

143. You're still humping this thread? Really??

Do you realize that you look really, reaallyy bad here?

[Ken Burch]

152. No, I don't. And I don't care if I do, because in the end, it isn't about ME as a person.

It's about the ideas that need to be raised.

And a major idea that needs to be raised as that we need a real Democrat as our nominee in 2012. The current president stopped being a Democrat when he caved on the tax thing, since that made it impossible for anything progressive to happen for the rest of his administration. Progressive politics require money, and tight budgets make social change unobtainable. You can't have progressive politics AND austerity budgets, and we're doomed to austerity budgets the rest of the way in because of the fiscal hole caused by the rich continuing to not have to pay any meaningful taxes.

[Major Hogwash]

30. Okay, I'll do it!!

I gots to write a book first though. I'll call it "The Audacity of Dope" and preach how smoking pot will save this country. And if it doesn't, everyone will so stoned they won't care anyway.

[defendandprotect]

91. The president has damaged himself and the party ... time to move on ...!!!

[Foo Fighter]

31. Regardless of who anyone wants to nominate, the only one that will win

is the one that has the approval of the top 1%.

It doesn't matter what the other 99% want. The top 1% are the only people that matter.

[snappyturtle]

36. Bingo! nt

[Pirate Smile]

34. Delusional

[gkhouston]

35. Fine, I nominate Kurt Vonnegut. n/t

[pnwmom]

40. Obama has ALREADY regained his popularity.

His numbers are higher than Clinton's or Bush's at this point in their Presidencies. And he is the only candidate who can beat the Rethug in 2012.

[salin]

59. and that's even before the newly elected crazies start their House Show

I think a number of upset (w/status quo) will become a little queasy when the show gets rolling. I mean.... Bachman on the Intelligence Committee? Forget the obvious punchline to that joke... how fast before she goes off the reservation - but this time while sitting with some real power to act on her crazy?

[Arkana]

65. He already looks like the only adult in a government

full of petulant children, and most people will respect that, even if they're not dyed-in-the-wool Democrats.

[onpatrol98]

73. Agreed!

I don't see a better choice.

[cali]

45. no one will run against Obama in the primary who has even a ghost of a chance

[BlueIris]

48. I can't agree. I think the only people fit to lead are those who have enough national presence,

foreign policy credibility and experience in government to justify asking to run an entire country.

I can see why some want an entirely fresh face--anyone who was involved in this administration isn't just going to be politically unpopular, s/he is going to be politically radioactive. But as a voter, I just can't trust the White House to another unknown.

[JCMach1]

51. there are many former Presidents

who would not qualify under your rule...

[Ken Burch]

139. FDR's dead, though.

Seriously, it wouldn't be an improvement to bring The Big Dog back.

[Kahuna]

52. Ummm. What are you talking about? The President leads all GOP

contenders. Poll after poll shows that. You might want him to be a doomed candidate, but at this time it just isn't so. The very things that you dislike about him are probably what makes the independents he will need to win like him. That's the way it goes. Elections are not won on the extreme right or extreme left, they're won in the middle. The more the professional left lambasts him the more he will appear to be reasonable and safe to the electorate in the middle. So keep it up. You are helping him tremendously. :patriot:

ETA, Thanks for the morning entertainment. :hi:

[rucky]

57. I agree with your analysis, but not your conclusion.

"Without a Democratic House, it can't be worth re-electing a Democratic president since that Democratic president can't DO anything Democratic"

Then we should work on re-taking the House, and clean up the Senate if that's even possible. As corporatist as Obama seems to be, we have no reason to believe he wouldn't sign progressive legislation if it came across his desk.

[robcon]

58. The president will win more easily in 2012 than in 2008.

There's no chance for the GOP.

[leeroysphitz]

62. For all the good it'll do us...

[robcon]

71. It will be a wonderful 8 years for the country.

n/t

[Ken Burch]

80. it can't be wonderful if we concede a GOP Congress for his second term

as half the posters here are ready to do without a fight.

That can't be an outcome worth fighting for, since it can never lead to gains and can only enshrine the corporate order forever.

[onenote]

100. delete wrong location

[rucky]

122. That's great, but

if the tax compromise is any indication of what's to come in the next 2 years, we really need the House back.

[Ken Burch]

142. I meant, he wouldn't do anything Democratic IF we had a Republican Congress

After 1994, Clinton was just the Republican Party's prison bitch.

[PBS Poll-435]

60. Doomed! Doomed!

It is all over!

We are screwn!

Apocalypse!



Please try again with a reasonable OP.

[Ken Burch]

101. You always wanted to end up with a Dem president facing a Republican Congress

That's been your objective the whole time.

Why would ANY Democrat ever want the post-1994 Clinton era back? That was a dead zone.

[PBS Poll-435]

110. I alerted on this post

And actually did it.

I am offended and feel you need to:

1. Make sure the sky isn't falling.
2. Make sure the sky isn't falling.
3. Treat all of us here with a little more respect.
4. Make sure the sky isn't falling.
5. Try to modify your all or nothing mentality.

[Ken Burch]

112. I'm NOT "all or nothing".

I'm "you've gotta stand for something".

Those who ALWAYS defend compromise stand for nothing.

And your whole posting history has been a concerted push to move the party to the right. That's what "centrism" is...just another word for conservatism.

[PBS Poll-435]

115. I am again offended by your tone

What is your deal?

[Ken Burch]

118. Fine. Be offended

I'm just telling the truth.

Your whole posting history has been an unending campaign to push the party further and further to the right(and that's what calling for centrism means, it means supporting conservatism and defeat)and of implacable hostility and derision towards anyone who actually CARES about working people and the poor(no "pro-business Democrats" have any compassion, because you can't have a heart AND be a fiscal conservative).

You've done nothing but take the DLC line in every post you've ever made here. You have the right to do that. But you can't claim to be persecuted when people simply pick up on what you're doing.

[PBS Poll-435]

121. I don't like being unfairly insulted

And I can sure as hell call you out on your NOBODY SHOULD DO THIS or ANYONE THAT DOES THIS BELONGS IN A MENTAL HOSPITAL or even ANYONE THAT DOESN'T BELIEVE EXACTLY WHAT I DO IS A SARAH PALIN KISSING, NEWT GINGRICH LEG-HUMPING Conservative.

[Ken Burch]

124. Feel better now?

:eyes:

By the way...is there such a thing as being FAIRLY insulted?

[PBS Poll-435]

125. Much better

I am not an all-or-nothing citizen. I don't believe BS from FDL or HuffPO.


Yes, being fairly insulted is when you are being a douche and the collective opinion is that you are being so. Like a crowd at a party. :)

[PBS Poll-435]

104. .

Derp.

[HughBeaumont]

61. You'll get an alien president before you'll get a progressive president.

The Money Party won't allow it . . . unless they're running for their lives.

[treestar]

63. Completely dumb. There is still value in having a D President

even if Rs hold both houses of congress. Unrec'd for sheer dumbfuckery.

[Ken Burch]

84. The Nineties proved that wrong.

Clinton made his second term pointless by refusing to fight for a Democratic retake of the House in 1996, when the government shutdown should have made such a retake a slam dunk.

Obama will be exactly the same, and it's insane to want someone who will be exactly the same.

[defendandprotect]

95. Trade agreements are what also killed jobs here ... obvious that was going to happen....

at the same time Clinton overturned 60 years of Welfare guarantees --

with a nod from Gore, btw!!

The whole government is contaminated by corporatism --

This may seem shocking, but if you read the posts here at DU these two

years we have moved into a post-Democratic Party and now post-Obama era --

[Ken Burch]

98. Some of the posters here sound like they're members of what "The Onion"

once referred to as Bill Clinton's "Loyal Demopublican Guard".

[defendandprotect]

132. Many are hanging on ...

it's a lot to realize -- especially when they will have to make

decisions about what to do about it when they stop denying it.

[robcon]

69. President Obama will be re-elected easily in 2012.

I support him.

[ClarkUSA]

70. Weren't you the one who was outraged that Pres. Obama bowed to the Emperor of Japan?

This OP is just as nonsensical as that other one.

[Creative]

74. He may not be able to help win the House back, but he can win reelection.

[Ken Burch]

83. Without the House, re-electing a Democratic president can't be worth anything

It gave us a dead zone in the late Nineties, and that HAS to be what happens again.

It's sickening that anyone would want that, rather than try to fight to actually BEAT the right, which we can only do by making re-taking the House an equal priority.

Defensive battles can't ever be worth fighting, and can't build a party.

[defendandprotect]

133. Agree with you .... but think it is very difficult for some to absorb ....

We have long years of losses that have to be recognized.

[Ken Burch]

138. And some, sadly, seem to want us to settle for being a "junior partner"

In a center-right coalition of elites(led by the pundit-industrial complex, of course).

[dionysus]

81. you're goingto be awfully sad when he wins comfortably in 2012 aren't you?

so much delusion in that OP it's hillarious.

[Ken Burch]

85. No, I won't be sad

It's just that, with a Republican House, it couldn't be anything to be happy about.

We have to fight to dethrone Boehner. If we concede the GOP control of Congress, we're surrendering for the rest of history. We can't GET Congress back in the future if we concede it for the next four years. It will all be over.

[defendandprotect]

86. Let's try to draft Bernie Sanders ... he can run on a Dem ticket ....

And many outside WH/Congress who could run on Dem ticket --

Tom Hayden --

What we have to notice is that we do need liberal/progressive leadership --

and it's not coming from the WH or Congress!!

[Ken Burch]

90. Those are some ideas.

Thanks.

[AtomicKitten]

99. Slate did some polling on this.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2010/12/17/poll-obama-ekes-out-71-point-lead-in-possible-bernie-sanders-primary-challenge.aspx

Barack Obama - 59 percent
Hillary Clinton - 28 percent

Barack Obama - 78 percent
Howard Dean - 10 percent

Barack Obama - 79 percent
Bernie Sanders - 8 percent

------------------------------------------------------------------

Face it, even though some here despise President Obama, his popularity is still huge and he will almost certainly be the unopposed Democratic nominee in 2012.

[Ken Burch]

102. There were polls showing LBJ with leads like that in early 1968.

n/t.

[AtomicKitten]

106. Well, alrighty then. Have fun storming the castle! nt

[defendandprotect]

134. Another president who supported perpetual war ..... until he was finished ...

and while I'd question the Nixon/Humphrey "win" because we had computer voting

coming in by then -- but Humphrey's support for the war didn't help him any either.

[Ken Burch]

140. The truth is, Humphrey was privately AGAINST the war

(and, according to the recent "American Experience" special about him on PBS, actually questioned it at the first Johnson Cabinet meeting he attended, which led to LBJ freezing him out for the rest of the term)but Johnson FORCED him to run as the "more of the same" candidate.

When Humphrey finally did move away from Johnson's position on the war, in late September of '68, he erased a thirteen-point Nixon lead in a month. Unfortunately, thanks to LBJ's pointless arrogance on the issue, Humphrey didn't have enough time to get the message through. To me, this supports and proves my contention that LBJ didn't WANT the Democrats to hold the White House after he was beaten in the primaries.

[defendandprotect]

146. Agree ... yes, it's true re Humphrey ... but we're likely looking at a GOP steal ...

we also had the assassination of Bobby Kennedy - who would have been president --

and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. who was a strong anti-war opponent, as well --

And, we had the behind the scenes treason by Nixon to keep Vietnam peace talks from

going forward -- (LBJ, I'm sure you recall, had stopped the bombing to give the

peace talks a chance.)

Nixon was proposing through private channels that if he were president, they'd get

a better deal.

Much like the Reagan/Bush "October Surprise" --

Populist messages are what bring voters out -- peace and anti-war messages a large part of it.

[apocalypsehow]

103. LOL!

:rofl:

[onenote]

108. I've read through this entire thread and haven't seen anyone named who would have

longer coattails than Obama in terms of how Democrats will do in the House. And that's not even taking into account how badly the Democrats prospects for picking up seats would be hurt by a divisive primary battle involving a President who has the overwhelming support of African American voters whose enthusiastic support would be essential to Democrats doing well in Congressional contests.

[Recovered Repug]

144. How about Saint Jude?

[texshelters]

113. I predicted the Biden nomination in June 2008, and I predict

that Obama will run and win again.

Don't confuse the prediction with a desire like people did with my Biden prediction.

I think many people who ran should run again, like Dennis Kucinich. Even if he loses, he brings up issues that others don't and he's honest and not full of corporate propaganda.

And as others have pointed out, it depends on the economy.

Our two party monopoly sucks. Ooops, I'm looking to be banned. Seriously, I wish more Democrats cared about me. I hope the Dems return to being the party of the people.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[Ken Burch]

117. I hope you aren't banned, Tex. You speak the truth

Those who want this party to be "centrist" want it to be meaningless. There are no longer any important differences between "centrism" and conservatism.

If you're right-wing on economic issues you can't really be progressive or even humane on any others.

Some people here don't get that.

[defendandprotect]

135. Biden has been pushing Israel to attack Iran for more than a year ....anyone want to vote for that?

For more than a year now, Biden has been calling for Israel to attack Iran ...

saying "Israel would be justified in attack Iran" -- !!

Is that really what you want?

[Ken Burch]

141. I think that poster was referring to Biden's nomination as VP

not calling for Biden to be our presidential candidate next time.

[defendandprotect]

145. Yes, of course -- but when you vote for Obama, if you do, you're also voting for Biden ...

[texshelters]

161. You missed my point

I didn't say I wanted that, but I think it will happen.

Those are two different things.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[onpatrol98]

156. Party Monopoly

You're right. The party monopoly does suck! The media and big corporations picking our candidates sucks too.

[ecstatic]

126. A different nominee would never win. Period. nt

[defendandprotect]

136. You wouldn't vote for Bernie Sanders if he ran on a Dem ticket ...?

[onenote]

137. I'll vote for the Democratic nominee

But if there was a primary challenge (and there won't be) I will vote for the Democrat that has a chance of winning the general election,which wouldn't be Sanders, it would be Obama. Plain. And. Simple.

[ecstatic]

147. Not if he ran in 2012

The only presidential nominee getting my vote in 2012 is Barack Obama.

[Name removed]

148. Deleted message

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

[Ken Burch]

150. The question was about whether Sanders ran AS A DEMOCRAT.

n/t.

[Blue-Jay]

153. DOOOMED!

how cute.

[Ken Burch]

159. In electoral terms, not immediate physical survival

Just as we were doomed when Carter insisted on running for re-election even though he knew the hostage thing had made him permanently unpopular.

[craigmatic]

162. Not really. Obama can still win and help take back a number of seats.

Besides, there isn't anybody else on our side who could win and unite the party like Obama has.