Is there a really truly viable candidate out there who can beat Obama in '12?

[Bluzmann57]

I don't really think there is, no matter how hard anyone tries to push a certain man or woman. The Obama machine is oiled up and rolling now and will only continue to gain momentum as 2012 approaches.
Disclosure- I have been griping a LOT about the headlines stating "Obama may cave on SS and Medicare", etc. But I cannot even imagine what a teabagger type President would be like. And since there is likely no honestly viable progressive candidate (or RW candidate for that matter), Obama will likely get my vote next year.
Should the two party system be changed? Yes. Will it be by 2012? No. But if people keep plugging away, maybe there will be viable alternate parties in about 6-8 years.

[mmonk]

1. The process of fielding progressives needs to start somewhere

and sometime in our lifetime if things are ever to change. Unlike the primaries that got him elected with the media only allowing "centrists" to speak for any real given length of time, a challenger to an incumbent within the Democratic Party would get coverage. It's not as important that a progressive win this time as it is to get the ball rolling for the future.

[swilton]

5. But in many ways the internet

circumvents the media. Is it possible that this could happen with an election?

[Honeycombe8]

15. The only thing a primary challenger will do to an incumbent is make him weaker. No chance...

of a progressive winning a primary over an incumbent President. None. Zero. Zip.

That sort of thing can be done in off years, when there is not an incumbent of the same party.

Example: Very popular Teddy Kennedy primaried very unpopular and likely-to-lose Jimmy Carter. Carter won handily (the primary), and as expected, lost the election in a landslide.

Party members will simply not turn their backs on their party leader for an upstart. There's a time and place for that sort of thing. Challenging an incumbent who won't agree not to run simply can't be successfully done. The only chance is to get the incumbent to agree not to run. The Dem Party asked Carter not to run for re-election. Everyone knew he'd probably lose. Carter refused.

The only thing the Kennedy challenge did was make an already weak President even weaker for the general election. That locked in a Reagan win, and the rest is history. You could even say it resulted in the economical crisis we have now. Maybe that's going a bit far, but not waaaay far from the reality. If only Carter had not run for re-election. If only Kennedy hadn't challenged him. If only, if only.

[ThomWV]

25. Not true, a primary challenger will also point out his weaknesses

and anyone who would continue the Bush Tax Cuts certainly has his weaknesses. Anyone who would not stand up for Single Payer certainly has his weaknesses too. Not for me of course, I don't need to see them pointed out. Maybe you don't either, but I suspect the difference is that you will vote for Obama despite his weaknesses I will not. I welcome a Democrat running for the Presidency, its been far too long since we saw one.

[Honeycombe8]

33. You just made my point. He makes a weak President seem even weaker.

The point you mention doesn't help a weak President get Independent and moderate votes. After all, they would be in FAVOR of what you and I call his weakness. What is does is eat away at the base Democratic vote. So whatever votes would've been there to begin with, are lessened by a primary challenger.

But no matter. There will not be a primary challenger. As I stated...it just doesn't happen. The Kennedy-Carter thing was an anomaly, brought on by the very unusual circumstances at the time, and Kennedy's HUGE popularity. He thought he could take Carter on. There is no hugely popular Democratic leader, except for Obama.

[mmonk]

26. It's hard to make him any weaker in my eyes.

In fact, damn impossible.

[Honeycombe8]

35. Oh, it's possible to me. Were you around in the Carter years?

Interest for home loans was 22%, meaning middle class and poor people would not be able to buy homes. Car loan interest rates were even higher. The economy was very out of whack. Inflation was sky rocketing at an alarming rate. You could go to the grocery store to buy bread, and the price of that bread would increase in a matter of days. Carter was HUGELY unpopular, and lost in a landslide to Reagan. Many democrats voted for Reagan that first time. There really wasn't much choice. Carter couldn't handle the economy. If only he had chosen not to run for re-election, as the party asked of him. But something happens to these guys when they get in power positions. They just don't want to give it up.

Carter was weak in almost every area, domestic and foreign. A really nice guy with good intentions. But he just couldn't lead or ... I'm not sure what his problem was exactly. Obama is not at all that weak, although I'm ticked at things he's done and might do. But he has accomplished a lot, and the recession is not something he caused...and it has gotten better in his term. Totally opposite of Carter. Obama is still HUGELY popular and well liked.

There won't be a primary challenger. In 2008 there were some, incl. Kucinich. If there was ever a time for a progressive to get the nomination, that would've been it. There is no hugely popular progressive in the Democratic Party.

[MilesColtrane]

54. "The Dem Party asked Carter not to run for re-election."

I have never heard that before.

Can you kindly direct me to a link that substantiates this?

[Cal33]

48. Yes, we could start "fielding" for Progressives right now, and when we

do find one, prep him/her up for 2016. In the meantime Obama, whatever you may think of
him, could fill the role of preventing a Repub. from becoming president for another 4
years. To have a Repub. for president in January, 2013, means death of democracy in
our nation. The Repubs. are doing their best to make a dictatorship of the USA, and
with themselves as the lords and masters. This is worthwhile preventing from happening.

In fact, we MUST prevent it from happening, if we are to survive as a democracy!

[Demeter]

2. Rabbi, we've been waiting for the Messiah all our lives...

Wouldn't this be a good time for him to come?"

(Rabbi) "We'll have to wait for him someplace else. Meanwhile, let's start packing."

------------------------------------Fiddler on the Roof

[InkAddict]

19. In anticipation of Sunday "talk"

(Tevye)
Accept them? How can I accept them?
Can I deny everything I believe in?

On the other hand, can I deny my own daughter?

On the other hand, how can I turn my back on my faith, my people?
If I try and bend that far, I will break.

On the other hand--No There is no other hand.

---Fiddler on the Roof


Then again: Yubby dibby dibby dibby dibby dibby dibby dum

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBHZFYpQ6nc

[Cal33]

20. Most Progressives are waiting for the Messiah to arrive, but the circumstances

that exist at the present time (infighting and splitting of the Democratic Party) make
it a far bigger risk than if the Messiah were to delay his coming to 2016. We are
all weary of waiting, yes, but a little more patience would be well advised.

The primary effort should be directed at seeing that the Repubs. do not win the
2012 election. If they did, there most likely would be no further elections in
this nation of ours -- or only fake elections. Don't you see that the goal of
the GOP is to be the one and only Party ever in power in the USA again?

If you're not convinced that the above is so, just look at the behavior of the
Republican governors of Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, New Jersey, Florida...etc...
It's a foretaste of things to come if the Repubs. should win the presidency
in 2012. Does that make sense?

[MH1]

3. You will not have viable third parties until you do away with the two party system.

That won't happen in 6 - 8 years, certainly not at the federal level. Maybe a local level or a state level (VT maybe) - IF people started putting a huge effort into making it happen.

By doing away with the two party system, I mean you would have to change the current "plurality wins" approach. You would have to (at least) require the winner to get a majority of the votes, via a run off system. Since holding separate physical runoff elections would be costly and you wouldn't get the same pool of voters, you are looking at instituting an instant runoff type of voting. But then to count the ballots you would probably want an electronic counting system. Here we go .... (although I personally see nothing wrong with optical scan ballots where the ballots are retained and the count can be verified by a manual count later).

In case someone doesn't get 'why?': simply look to 2000. Whether you blame Nader or not, I think it is clear that some who wanted to vote for Nader, voted for Gore out of fear of Gore losing. In an instant runoff, they would have voted 1 - Nader, 2 - Gore. The measure of Nader's support would have thus been far more accurate.

As long as the fear of the worst candidate getting in prevails (and I sure hope it does when the republicans are putting up extremist nightmares like Bachmann), third party candidates will not get a significant portion of the vote in major elections.

[KittyWampus]

12. Or Run-Off Voting.

[alc]

4. Only Obama can beat Obama

But, as you say, he has a well oiled machine. Everything he does from here to the election will be with an eye toward re-election so I don't think he will do anything to loose (which is not good since it means moving middle/right).

The two party system won't change until voters start voting for the best candidate (of any party) rather than for their favorite party. If that happened a 3rd party probably wouldn't be needed since the primaries would be meaningful rather than a step in electing the party favorite. I don't see any chance of a 3rd party getting any significant # of candidates in federal office.

But, a third party would not need to win or even have candidates to have influence. In most districts, 5% of the population can change the election - they can cause a 10% swing and most congressional elections are under 10%. If they agreed to "elect" their candidate (R or D) before the real election, then followed through, they would be the deciding factor. If 10 districts worked together they could cause a 20 person swing in the House which would make the parties need them for a majority most of the time.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Johonny]

22. I agree

[NeedleCast]

7. Pretty Much Anyone Can as Long as Jobs Stay In The Toilet

[treestar]

8. People get obsessed with the Presidency in the dumbest way

Even if St. Dennis were elected President, he's still have to deal with Congress, compromise and would end up disappointing and betraying and all that.

Why don't we work to get Obama a more progressive Congress? That might work.

But no, people insist on the easy way. The President can do all - we just need a left wing President and all will be fine is the attitude.

[Bluzmann57]

29. Very good observations

I admit that I got caught up in whjat a President can or can't do as well. But you are correct, we really need some real progressives (liberals) in Congress. So let's pull together and work our tails off for that to happen in 2012.
Peace and prosperity to you. Thanks for stating the obvious. Sometimes I, and others can be a bit dense.

[demwing]

42. Thats simplistic

First, Presidents have shown that they go to war when they damn well wish, hell with Congress. Second, Presidents have veto power. Third, Presidents have power to appoint, and if Congress balks, the POTUS can make recess appointments, also, the POTUS has the power of the pulpit. Do you think a Bachmann or a Palin would worry about using any of those tools?

Why is it that when Obama is less than effective, we blame the congress and diminish the roll and powers of the POTUS, but when Obama get criticized from the left, all we hear about is how damn important the Presidency is, and if we don't give it up for Obama, we'll be responsible for a Bachmann in office?

Which is it? Is te Presidency critical, or not?

[treestar]

47. I am talking about how people get obsessed with it and focus on it

Because it is easier, since it is one person.

Of course we want a D President. That doesn't mean he can do it all alone.

Again, if Dennis K were President, he'd still have to deal with Congress. We need a Democratic Congress or a Democratic President doesn't get anywhere, and can only veto the evil stuff a Republican Congress passes.

It is just as crucial to have a Democratic Congress. Equally so. And both so that the Court does not get packed with right wingers.

[demwing]

55. Sorry, I shouldn't have snapped at you

I was having a crappy day. My apologies.

[still_one]

9. Russ Feingold for one. /nt

[somone]

10. 10% unemployment

[Walk away]

11. It seems to me that the problem isn't electing a Progressive President..

but electing someone who already has a powerful governing machine in place. However you may feel about the Clintons, if Hillary had been elected she would have been up front and in charge from day one. Sure, they would be doing their deals along the way but that's how things get done and at least we would have some real health care reform and maybe even a Democratic Congress.

Anyone going up against the republican machine is either going to need to play in their league or have the full and active support of at least half the country. That's unlikely for any Democrat. Once we elect them we don't like them anymore.

The Clintons are out of elected politics and the Kennedys are gone. We may be able to find a candidate and possibly get them elected but in the end they'll be just as powerless as the current administration to push through reform.

Who are these people that are pure Liberals with a totally Progressive agenda who can actually run this country full of wingnuts, teabaggers and corporate thieves?

[DonCoquixote]

36. a tired argument

if Hillary had been elected she would have been up front and in charge from day one. Sure, they would be doing their deals along the way but that's how things get done and at least we would have some real health care reform and maybe even a Democratic Congress.


Look, it has been proven that Clinton was considering ss cuts and was only stopped because he needed progressives to avoid impeachment. The quote has been printed on DU, but i will get you it. Would the person who made nafta, dadt, and killed Glass Steagall admit that when she and the hubby were in charge, they made grave, mortal errors? And let's not forget her threat to "obliterate" Iran.

Hillary is not, nor ever will be a liberal, period.

[Walk away]

40. Well then...name another Democratic President in the last 30 years....

who lived up to your ideals as a Democrat totally. There isn't any because Clinton is the only one. Don't you get it? Not every Democrat is a Progressive. You are crying now because this current President isn't a Progressive either. I am far to the left of my party but I realized along time ago that I have to live in a country filled with people to my right.

[DonCoquixote]

44. I never said anyone did

But I am tired of the "we shoulda voted Hillary" types. No, if there is one thing, and perhaps only one good thing out of 2008, it is that we did not give the stamp of approval to the duo that helped push this party to the right.

[Walk away]

56. So you hate the Clintons and you are disgusted with Obama.

Let's see...in 2008 that would have left us with Edwards or Kucinich. I can only imagine the past two years being governed by John McCain and Sarah Palin.

[Horse with no Name]

13. Not from our side because we are a side of cowards

In all honesty.

However, the Tea Party crazies have taken over the republican party--I fully expect to see them nominate some loon like Bachman or other such freak.

That being said--I think if a third candidate were to emerge it would come from that side with someone that seems fairly mainstream...I actually heard that they were trying to recruit Chuck Hagel to come out of retirement and run as an Indy.

If they do that...we will lose.

I don't think we should primary Obama...I just think we should present a different viewpoint with a candidate that best represents us.

[Shagbark Hickory]

14. There's not enough votes to share between obama and some liberal new candidate and still top the

republican. Especially with so many racists turning out this year.

A primary OTOH, may be a different story. But you have to get it down to two. The American brain is only wired for two candidates at at time.

[TheKentuckian]

16. Unknown but I am certain that a different vision can be presented and workable solutions

to serious problems can be laid out.

The spectrum of ideas must be expanded, Obama's rehash of old, rejected, and failed Republican ideas cannot be permitted to stand as the "far left" of our national dialog because if he losses unchallenged then we have rubberstamped his politics and if he wins with our endorsement then the party further realigns to the right and we also loose.

Obama does not represent our vision and makes no bones about it, so if we do not primary him then we endorse him just like the Republicans did with Bush in 2004.

I do not endorse his corporate vision but rather oppose it with virtually no less vehemence than I do with the Republican corporate vision. The direction is not acceptable and I will not by anymore stock in it. Better to present an alternative and lose than to rubberstamp what is going on out of fear of worse because at least then when the nightmare is rejected, there is a compelling alternative.

I'm done with game theory politics because there is no winning such a game save for the wealthy and powerful. The way out of the hole is not to dig a bit more slowly.

[bvar22]

17. Almost nobody knew who Bill Clinton was until the convention.

He was completely Off the Radar.

That is one of the things worrying me about the Republican Clown Car Media Circus that is sucking up all the oxygen. There are some pretty scary Republicans who are avoiding public scrutiny waiting in the wings.
They could seem positively Moderate & Acceptable if they wait until the last minute to walk out on the stage with a phony Populist campaign.

"YES America. I have heard you!"....

[Spider Jerusalem]

18. A viable candidate to defeat a sitting president in a challenge from the left of his own party?

Or from a third party? (I am assuming you don't mean "is there a Republican who can beat Obama".) The answer to your question is, no there really isn't and such things almost inevitably end badly. See: Reagan's primary challenge to Ford in '76, Ted Kennedy's primary challenge to Carter in '80. The last such semi-successful attempt was by Theodore Roosevelt in 1912; he outpolled Taft, but split the GOP vote to the extent that Woodrow Wilson won the election. The moral here? Be careful what you wish for because you may end up with something much worse.

[metalbot]

21. Contrast to 2008

After 8 years of hate on the Bush administration and with a very charismatic candidate, the Democratic party got out the vote big time to elect Obama. If they fail in that effort next year, the Republicans will win regardless of who their candidate is. This isn't going to be an election about the Republican candidate, it's going to be a vote of no confidence in Obama.

[coalition_unwilling]

23. Romney will flatten Obama if the unemployment rate (U2) gets to 10%. With

14 months to go, the clock is already ticking and not in Obama's favor.

[Cal33]

24. And the Republican corporations are making sure that the economy

will go worse, instead of improving. The have trillions of dollars available,
and could easily employ more workers, and the economy would go up almost
immediately. But that's the last thing they'd do. They want to destroy
our democracy first, and turn the American people into servants -- and with
themselves as the masters. And they had the gall to call "Traitors"
those who didn't agree with Bush, when he was in power. We can see now who
the real traitors are!

[CakeGrrl]

43. And where do you think the unemployment rate will go if that happens? -nt

[coalition_unwilling]

50. Sorry, didn't see your response until just now. There's absolutely

no doubt in my mind that a Romney administration would preside over Great Depression v 2.0. We're talking U2 of > 20%, physical contraction of the economy by > 10% and so on. The misery for the masses would be unbelievable until at least 2014.

That said, Obama's embrace of the need for deficit and debt reduction in 2011 is exactly the wrong approach at exactly the wrong time. We need a massive increase in government spending to make up for the anemic consumer and business spending that characterizes today's economy. Otherwise, it's anyone's guess where the unemployment rate will be on October 31, 2012.

[AverageJoe90]

27. I agree with basically everything you've said..........

Although I do disagree on one slight detail: I can't see any viable parties gaining too much power by 2020. Maybe another decade after that, though. ;-)

[JI7]

28. i think Michelle Bachmann has a chance of beating him

Romney is a bigger threat.

but people need to remember it's not just the candidate themselves but the whore media that will try to prop up whoever runs against him.

it's not like most americans will only read and watch what the candidates themselves say and then make up their minds. most of them will hear what the whores are saying .

[Bluzmann57]

30. I worry more about Romney than Bachmann

Bachmann is not lunatic fringe crazy, she's all the way crazy and I honestly believe that most Americans are perceptive enough to see that. Good point about the media though. This has been one of my gripes for some time.

[Liberalynn]

57. Don't know what will happen in the general election

I still think Obama will win. Especially if the PUKE candidate is Bachman. I think she is too looney for most other loonies.

I am predicting though that their candidate will be as Stephanie Miller calls him "Mittens." Unless some unknown factor throws his/her hat in at the last minute. It might be closer but I still predict Obama wins because of the "lesser evil factor" and all that.

[ProfessorGAC]

39. "The Whore Media" As You Put It. . .

. . .has yet to put its klieg lights and microscope on Bachmann. As the primaries kick in, if she is a serious Repub contender, they will start roasting her, and she'll be done in no time.

The lunatic fringe is not going to get "their" candidate.
GAC

[adigal]

31. Yes...Obama

I cannot imagine that many of us will be fired up to vote for him if he continues to cave on SS and Medicare.

[yellowwood]

32. No

No

[robcon]

34. Nobody can/will beat Obama. No appeal to independents.

Dems will vote for Obama. Repuglicans will vote for the GOP candidate.

Independents will favor Obama by a large margin. The victory will be greater than in 2008.

[eridani]

37. IF the economy seriously tanks, a totally unqualified asshole could beat Obama

If things just chug along and don't get too much worse, I think he'll be OK. I think that progressives should be focused on building local farm teams.

[SoDesuKa]

38. The Numbers Aren't There

Obama would take New York, California, Illinois, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Democrats there are just not volatile enough to vote for a challenger. Smaller states, maybe. But not the big ones with the in-place party machines.

[TroglodyteScholar]

41. If a well-known liberal joins the race as a 3rd party candidate to the left of Obama...

...we will be inaugurating a new Republican president once again.

[gkhouston]

45. Not right now. If this debt ceiling BS goes down badly, that might

change. Who knows?

[Lisa0825]

46. Aw jeez....

[crazyjoe]

49. obama is going to have a very difficult time getting re-elected.

And pretending he's a shoe-in is not going to help. The people that put him in office are disappointed in his performance, just look at the mid terms. Instead of closing Guantanamo, it's still open for business, instead of ending these stupid f**kin wars, he starts another one. Now he's talking "shared sacrifice"? I think we have sacrificed enough.
I'm of the opinion we would be better off with a primary challenger. (Hillary would be my choice)

[MilesColtrane]

51. Aquaman

He can communicate with fish.

[bigwillq]

52. If jobs/economy are still poor

then I think Obama could be in trouble.

I don't think the GOP truly has a viable candidate, but it's going to come down to the state of the economy and Obama could be vulnerable if the economy does not improve.

[Taverner]

53. Nope. Don't expect one for a while.

And despite my frustration with Obama recently, he's the best we've got.

[DearAbby]

58. GENERIC REPUBLICAN

if they ever find that fecker, I will really be worried.

[Ishoutandscream2]

59. No, there's simply no one out there

I can't see Obama losing in 12.