I got the same call this morning and my very first thought was it was by Republicans trying to foment discord.
You’ve already got the House, and the Senate is (from a Republican perspective) at worst unable to pass any legislation, and actually probably more likely to pass right-leaning things since:
a) that’s the only thing getting through the House
b) many Democrats are terrified of being run at from the right, so they vote as mid-90’s Republicans anyway
Presidential races have been a corporate endeavor for a very long time.
If someone has the cash, like Perot, he’s likely to be on the conservative side rather than the progressive.
I don’t think it will ever be possible again for a progressive candidate to become nationally visible without a direct cash injection at the level of formal Dem or Repub campaigns.
Actually, the time was three months ago, before the filing deadlines.
OK, the thing is that, since 1968, there is an exact correlation between the incumbent party losing the White House and a serious primary challenge. It may not be causal, but do you want to risk President Paul? Or Gingrich?
I’ve certainly been disappointed with Obama, but Progressives have not done the real work necessary to have a better President. The conversation is only changing now. The victories in '06 and '08 were reactions against an incompetent President, and not a mandate for another vision of government.
The correlation/causation may be backwards from what you assume (i.e. weak incumbent presidents tend to be primaried more, vs. primarying creates a perception that the incumbent president is weak and thus is more likely to lose the general election).
Or, he might be nationally visible because he represents a rising progressive movement that has, previously, put a lot of work and years into making itself visible at the local and state levels.
Nope. Those two issues were Senate related only and they still had the majority (which they still hold on to). They had the house until 2010’s elections.
Two years. Majority House, Majority Senate, Complete Executive Branch. And they didn’t pass (nor did they try to pass) much because they were worried about being filibustered.
Screw em.
With logic like that, my side is doomed.
Good point, but it still does not answer my questions. Progressives do not have a voice in the Democratic Party, why aren’t they primarying to get a voice, a hand in, a place at the table? Do they like the curb?
I no longer have much faith in Obama. He is not a Republican, but he is MUCH closer to being a Republican than he is to being a progressive. Nothin from nothing leaves nothing.
I’ll agree with most of that. But what voters don’t seem to realize is that Bush’s incompetence wasn’t the product of the man, it was the product of the Republican ideology behind his decisions … which has not changed.
Well given your total lack of counter to the logic presented, yes, doomed.
I already gave my counter. I have no desire to damage Obama. I have a desire to damage the current Republican party. There’s one guy standing between us and a Republican president, and that guy is Barack Obama. You want to hamstring him, then claim that you’re doing me a favor. Keep your favors.
No, there’s four or five at the moment, and they ain’t all guys.
What part of no realistic chance of gaining anything, while potentially costing the Dems the election are you having trouble understanding?
Progressives are a fringe element–with no money, no visibility, no influence. They are going nowhere. They are an insignificant tiny minority. If they were to succeed in moving Obama to the left, they’d pretty much guarantee he loses in November. Going left = losing.
The choice is to accept that Obama is the most liberal candidate with a real chance of winning, and at least not hurt him…or throw a primary candidate out there, make Obama spend resources better spent in the general election, give the GoP some tasty sound bites to use against him, and weaken his chances of winning. It’s that simple.
It’s hard to know, but I’d hazard a guess they outnumber the Tea Partiers and their sympathizers.
A little late to be asking this, but how do you define a progressive? Not only the OP but any of the rest of you involved in this discussion. Is there a commonly agreed upon definition among those who are politically active?
Yeah, that’s why they progressives over the House last Fall. Oh wait…
In my book, progressive = extreme liberal, kinda like Tea Partier = extreme conservative. The difference is the Tea Party has organization, and more importantly, money backing it. Therefore, they are a force to be reckoned with in ways progressives are not.
Interestingly enough, I just received an email from MoveOn asking me to run for local office and saying that this is how the Tea Party became a force to be reckoned with – by building up from the grassroots. So it looks like they’re finally realizing that they need to build from the bottom up. Probably too little too late for 2012 but might start to show some growth in the future.
They weren’t “afraid” of being filibustered - they were constantly filibustered (in the modern meaning, where no one actually has to stand up and talk). Even when they had 60 votes, neither Lieberman or Ben Nelson could be counted on to support the caucus.
Yes, this is how Progressives can gain power. Not quickly. And not by attacking President Obama.
My mayor, state rep & senator & US rep are all Democrats. (Sheila Jackson Lee–I wouldn’t mind a better Democrat, but there’s no way a Republican will get that seat.) We can hope that Perry’s misadventures might lose him some votes when he runs for Governor again; alas, there are too many Texans who don’t realize he’s a Bad Aggie Joke. Kay Bailey Hutchison has promised that she will not run again in 2012; our former Mayor Bill White declined to run for the spot & I fear the Tommy Lee Jones candidacy is only a dream…
In the meantime, I subscribe to the Texas Observer & support the Texas Freedom Network.
What’s Evil Captor’s local situation?