Why Are Progressives Not Primarying Obama?

Politics & Elections
1

Ok, it’s almost inevitable that Obama will be the nominee, but I think he needs to face as strong a primary challenge as the progressive wing of the Dems can manage.

Like a lot of other progressives I am really disheartened and sickened by Obama’s performance, but I’m freaked out by the prospect of having one of those crazy-ass Republicans in the White House again. It’s clear the Democrats have no interest in listening to progressive voices, their legislative record these last four years has been a long and plaintive trail of giving the Republicans everything they ask for and then caving and giving them more when they ask for more.

So what can we do to influence the Dem leadership? Show them we mean business … get behind a single progressive candidate for office and throw all our support his way. Let Obama and the other Dem pols know that there’s a large wedge of progressives out there who are pissed off enough to vote for a candidate other than him.

Sure, the progressive candidate would be very unlikely to win or even make a competitive showing in the primaries, but it’s what comes after that counts. The Dem leadership loves to cave, having a progressive to cave to would give them more caving opportunities. Progressives might actually get some of that leverage they’ve had none of!

Why is there no sign that progressives are using this rather obvious strategy?

2

Because it’s moronic to publicly challenge a well-liked President who is doing a good job?

3

Where would 'The Progressives" get the money to run against Obama? Who is going to support them?

4

Our party is not split. Obama is well-liked generally. Disappointments don’t mean that we want to take away his chance to make things better. He just ended a war this week. He’s had a pretty good year when he’s been in charge. Why would I want to vote for someone else?

5

I voted for Ralph Nader twice when I was young(er). I’m a Socialist and often wish I lived in a more liberal country. I thought we could show Democrats that we meant business! I thought we could move our party to the left like fanatics moved the Republicans to the right.

I learned my lesson.

Obama 2012, baby.

6

What Obama needs is not a challenge from progressives. What he needs is for progressives to cultivate, support and run fellow progressives in enough races to restore progressives to power in the Congress. I have a feeling that with enough support in Congress, you’d see that Obama really is quite progressive.

7

From this side of the pond, the problem is not Obama but the Republican majority in Congress.
They are terrified of the Tea Party* and the Religious Right* and have effectively all taken an oath not to raise taxes.
No other policy matters. No thought of compromise or considered reasoning.
Just a bunch of fanatics.

Just compare Obama to GW Bush, Palin and Bachmann…

*Probably I’m repeating myself :rolleyes:

8

This. The real fight is not for the White House, it’s for Congress. Although a lot of the Tea Partiers who were elected in 2010 are in relatively safe districts, and although the states are going through redistricting, there is still a lot of ammunition that the Dems can use against the Republicans; the current fight over a middle-class tax cut and extended unemployment isn’t making the Republicans look good, for example, and it hits most of us where we live. (Arguing over how to pay for a tax cut for the middle class? Really?)

9

Because it is a stupid strategy. Progressives, naive, misguided souls that they are, aren’t going anywhere. They are going to vote for the Democratic nominee, or they are going to waste their vote on a third party candidate who has zero chance of winning, or they are going to stay home. The second and third options actually help the GoP nominee. Mounting a primary challenge would only force Obama to expend resources he could use in the general election.

Progressives are insignificant as a political force. They simply do not have the numbers or the money be taken seriously by anyone that matters.

10

If you hadn’t noticed the rampant cannibalism in the Republican party as they all try to clamour for the golden ring, that should be enough to dissuade any incumbent party to shy away from the scene. I can’t imagine such an untidy display doing any benefit for the candidate nor the party. I equivicate the primaries to nights of drinking and one night stands. You had fun during it but have lots of regrets from the things you said and did afterwards. Not that I would know, of course

11

Also, progressives love Obama. His approval among very liberal Dems is still in the 80s.

That you personally dislike him doesn’t mean the group you identify as feels the same way.

12

Why not? Because it would be a foolish move. Obama may not be as progressive as we’d like. He started his term all full of himself and naively thinking that he could be a post-partisan president, all the while the Republicans were openly vowing to oppose anything he favored. If he said he liked puppies, you can be sure that Michele Bachmann would call a photo op to throw some puppies into a wood chipper. He still doesn’t seem to “get it” that politics is a contact sport and he needs to use that bully pulpit.

All that being said, a second term of Obama is infinitely preferable to a millisecond of a Romney, Gingrich, Paul, Bachmann, Perry, etc. presidency. Anything that we could do as progressives to diminish Obama’s chances for a second term would be cutting off our noses, plucking out our eyes, and sawing off our ears to spite our faces.

13

That is the answer. When the possible outcome is so terrifying, even marginally weakening the presumptive nominee is not an acceptable risk for a marginally more progressive stance.

14

It would do nothing of value. It would not move him to the left.

Lets say a Kucinich or a Nader tried to primary him (uugghh). That candidate would be ignored. No debate - nothing. They would be the Buddy Roemer of the Democratic Party reduced to a few insignificant TV interviews.

A serious Democrat (like Hillary Clinton) would just harm the party and ruin any future chance of their running.

15

This is interesting, because as a conservative, although naturally I’d like to see a Republican in the White House as a general principle, I am not hugely dissatisfied with Obama’s performance and given the current crop of GOP challengers, I’d say it would not be a terrible disaster if he wins a second term, as long as the House and Senate flip my way.

16

FWIW: I received a robocall from the Draft Hillary Campaign this week.

17

Probably paid for by Karl Rove’s PAC.

18

Given that she’s shown no inclination whatsoever to running this time around it should be more accurately called the Shanghai Hillary Campaign.

19

Hillary would hardly be any more progressive than Obama, anyway.

The answer is because we don’t have the numbers to let the great be the enemy of the good - and because there’s no point in putting a real progressive in the White House when there are only a handful in Congress. We’d just be setting up some poor guy (or gal) for four years of impotence.

20

Well first of all, I agree that we do not have the numbers to actually beat Obama with a progressive candidate, and that it might not be a win for progressives if we did. But we could DEFINITELY mount a campaign against Obama, and SHOULD, because it’s rather obvious that right now progressives have ZERO clout, or something close to that, with the Democratic leadership.

The Dems leaders will not pay the least bit of attention to the wishes of progressives until progressives threaten to take votes away from their preferred candidates. If THAT happens, THEN you will see some serious attention to progressive causes.

And the time for progressives to be pushing their beliefs is RIGHT NOW, not later. The message of income inequality and lack of economic growth has FINALLY gotten through to the electorate, and these are NATURAL issues for progressive candidates.

What has Obama accomplished in the White House, really? With majorities in both houses of Congress he was barely able to push through a health care bill that did nothing to control rising health care costs and which did not include single payer or a public option. He was not able to stop the Bush tax cuts from continuing. He was not able to get the capital gains tax restored. He signed off on the Dodd-Franks bill which does make some minor improvements in how banks are regulated, but does NOTHING to prevent the abuse of CDOs which was what made the 2008 financial collapse happen.

Obama has been Tim Geithner’s stooge, allowing him to siphon huge amounts of money to his Wall Street buddies with no accountability. Obama’s Justice Dept. SOMEHOW can’t find ANYONE on Wall Street to prosecute despite all the massive fraud that has been alleged in the build up to the 2008 collapse.

Now Obama is making noises about making “adjustments” to Social Security and Medicaid in order to get the budget balanced, and given Obama’s past negotiating strategy – give the Republicans everything they want from the get-go and then ask them what else they would like – that should be sending shivers of fear up everyone’s spine.

Didn’t close Guantanamo, didn’t shut down Homeland Security, though Obama DID get us out of Iraq … on Bush’s timetable. Seems in no hurry to get out of Afghanistan.

The Democratic leadership only responds to threats, which is why the Republicans have been so threatening even though they only hold one house of Congress. Well, progressives need to start threatening too. Maybe the prospect of a division of the Dem voters might get them thinking progressive concerns need to be addressed. Because just sitting down and shutting up is not cutting it. That’s why the kids occupied Wall Street. If we do as virtually everyone on this thread has advised, we will continue to be ignored.

I do not think we have to worry about a primary challenge to Obama costing him the election. Just as the vast majority of Tea Partiers will no doubt hold their nose and vote for whomever wins the Republican primary, so the vast majority of progressives will hold their nose and vote for whomever wins the Democratic primary.

But there is a vast difference in the mindset of a candidate who goes to the White House unchallenged in his own ranks and one who goes to the White House knowing a large portion of his supporters were so unhappy with him that they tried vigorously to unseat him. He just might have some fence-mending on his mind under those circumstances.

And yeah, sending more progressive candidates to Congress is an excellent idea, but c’mon, it’s not an either/or thing, is it?

Finally, I’m not surprised that Bricker is OK with Obama. He is absolutely the best Republican president ever, if you are a fiscal conservative/social liberal kind of Republican.