2012 Primary Challenge over a Public Option?

Umm, no (4.00 / 3)

Take a look at the pattern...

2004 - Bush unopposed - Bush re-elected

1996 - Clinton unopposed - Clinton re-elected

1992 - Bush challenged by Buchanan - Clinton wins general

1984 - Reagan unopposed - Reagan re-elected

1980 - Carter challenged by Kennedy - Reagan wins general

1976 - Ford challenged by Reagan - Carter wins general

1972 - Nixon unopposed - Nixon re-elected

1968 - Johnson challenged by McCarthy - Nixon wins general

1964 - Johnson unopposed - Johnson elected

1956 - Eisenhower unopposed - Eisenhower re-elected

1952 - Truman challenged by Kefauver - Eisenhower wins general

So unless you want to see a President Palin and Vice President Jindahl, I would suggest another course for your opinion to be heard.


Democrats solve problems, Republicans sit and say no.

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:53:20 AM CDT

Adding: (4.00 / 1)

The last two serious nomination challengers to an incumbent President seeking re-election:

• Former President Teddy Roosevelt challenging his successor, Taft, for the Republican nomination in 1912.  Roosevelt lost the nomination, ran as a third party candidate, and beat Taft, but both he and Taft lost to Democrat Woodrow Wilson.
• Senator Ted Kennedy challenging Carter for the Democratic nomination in 1980.  Kennedy lost to Carter, who went on to lose to Reagan.

The last incumbent President to actively seek and be denied his party's nomination was Chester A. Arthur in 1884.  He lost the Republican nomination to then-Speaker James Blaine, who, you may recall, did not become President of the United States.  Democrat Grover Cleveland did.

But of course, Arthur became President upon the assassination of President Garfield; no President who came to office that way won election in his own right until Teddy Roosevelt in 1904.  So who was the most recent elected President to actively seek and be denied his party's renomination? President Franklin Pierce (D-NH), in 1856.  Pierce lost the nomination to Buchanan, who won and presided for four years, after which both the Democratic Party and the United States of America split in half.

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:12:06 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

smarty pants n/t (4.00 / 1)

Democrats solve problems, Republicans sit and say no.

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 12:31:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Perspective (4.00 / 5)

Let us reflect on exactly who just called me "smarty pants" for being full of political trivia.

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 13:25:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh yes, but you should have done that earlier. (0.00 / 0)

I have trouble with this kind of argument. In general, it relys on conditions being similar at those other times. I can't think how to support or oppose this notion. Some things are similar some are different. Second, it implies that those similar conditions are more weighty than the ones which are different. Again, I can't see how to judge this assertion. I am much more interested in what we think ought to happen than what flimsy antecedents indicate to be likely to happen.

Like many here seem to state, from time to time, I was for ending both of the wars which seem to continue. I was for ending the intrusion into our privacy that seems to continue. I was for the immediate end to torture and that seems wishy washy. I was for ending the corporate practices which have resulted in our manufacturing base leaving the country, seems to continue down hill. I was for banking reform with responsibility placed on bankers not tax payers, haven't seen any of that. I was for restoring the restrictions and regulations that had kept us pretty much out of depressions for 80 years, no changes I have seen. What I have seen so far is the appointment of the very people who have caused or at best aided and abbetted in the financial collapse - Bernanke, Summers, Geitner.

I would like to think I am mature enough at 64 to see that this is a big ship and it takes time to turn, but I don't see any turning. It seems to me that my reluctance to oppose "the change I hoped for," often results in our being too late to change anything.  The media is just great at looking back and seeing what should have been done differently to get what we wanted but then acknowledges that it is too late to get that now. I'm just sayin'

---

by: xteeth @ Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 13:00:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Phhht (0.00 / 0)

1952 -- Truman does not seek reelection.

1956 -- Adlai Stevenson vs. Eisenhower? Come on.

1960 -- Sitting vice president loses then-closest election ever.

1964 -- Johnson elected; I think we can agree that Kennedy's assassination may have affected this one a bit?

1968 - Johnson did not seek reelection. Nation in crisis elects "law and order" Nixon.

1972 -- Nixon landslide.

1976 -- Ford loses, narrowly, because of Watergate and pardoning Nixon. At one point, Carter led by 33 points. He won by 1%.

1980 -- Reagan Revolution. Democrats lose seats all over.

1984 -- Landslide Reagan reelection.

1988 -- Sitting vice president wins in the ugliest presidential campaign in my lifetime.

1992 - Bush challenged by TWO opponents in general; Clinton wins.

1996 -- Clinton beats GOP's Mondale, Bob Dole (though it's closer).

2000 -- I see you skipped that one. Primary challenge strengthens Gore as a candidate.

2004 -- Bush wins by one state, and 120,000 votes. Flip one football stadium, Kerry said, and he is president.

All this said, I would be highly unlikely to support an Obama challenger. But let's not throw democracy under the bus for the sake of loyalty.

You're probably right that a primary challenge hurts the president. But if the primary challenge has legs, then it's probably symptomatic of a larger problem.

---

by: JimC @ Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 13:12:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Clinton... (4.00 / 1)

Following the 1994 debacle a strong to challenge to Clinton was a natural. Many of us worked night and day to head that off, having learned the lessons of the past. I am convinced the unity and groundwork of 1995/96 set the stage for our successes and near successes of 1996.  Clinton won NH, Shaheen won, Swett nearly did, Keefe and Arnie came close, we gained on the council, senate and House.

Democrats solve problems, Republicans sit and say no.

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 15:46:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't doubt it (0.00 / 0)

But see my comment below for my bottom line on this one.

---

by: JimC @ Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 16:05:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Big Triple Blech (4.00 / 5)

This diary really makes me angry.

Stop complaining about something that hasn't happened and ask youself what you could be doing to help the Obama agenda. Because this ain't it.
Suck it up and do something constructive, instead of engaging in speculative anticipatory criticism.

And by the way - using Hillary Clinton's name in trying to justify your turning on Obama? Doesn't do a thing for me.  

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 13:23:45 PM CDT

and I decline to be lectured about supporting the president by someone who opposed him in the primary (0.00 / 0)

And, as context, I would offer some insights from John Nichols, a reporter I much admire...

Franklin Roosevelt's example is useful here. After his election in 1932, FDR met with Sidney Hillman and other labor leaders, many of them active Socialists with whom he had worked over the past decade or more. Hillman and his allies arrived with plans they wanted the new President to implement. Roosevelt told them: "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it."
It is reasonable for progressives to assume that Barack Obama agrees with them on many fundamental issues. He has said as much.

It is equally reasonable for progressives to assume that Barack Obama wants to do the right thing. But it is necessary for progressives to understand that, as with Roosevelt, they will have to make Obama do it.

I am merely suggested that we have a responsibility to make (help?)  him do it.  

---

by: measurestaken @ Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 13:48:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I - Don't - Care* (4.00 / 4)

It is exactly because I supported Hillary Clinton in the primary, and then gave my wholehearted support to Barack Obama when she withdrew, that I have every right in the world to lecture a fair weather supporter of the President who is willing to talk about jumping ship and looking for a primary opponent when by your own words you have no reason to do so.

So make that a quadruple blech.

*The Fugitive - classic line by Tommy Lee Jones.

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 14:19:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

apparently... (0.00 / 0)

you confuse asking a question with answering one. I did the former.  

---

by: measurestaken @ Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 14:50:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Toxic Chronic n/t (4.00 / 1)

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 15:18:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Then demand a public option, demand single payer, demand action on gays in the armed service. (4.00 / 2)

But dont engage in attacks on the president, which only makes it less likely that we will see any of the policies we support enacted.

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 14:26:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If you want to move Obama to the left, donate time and money to DFA or MoveOn. (4.00 / 1)

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 17:00:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I had wondered if DFA would fade into irrelevence with the new administration, (4.00 / 1)

but it and Howard Dean have assumed a critical role in cogently presenting a progressive program to the country. While I thought the way the administration treated him in the transition was uncharacteristically boorish, in the end we are perhaps all better off with him retaining an independent status as the progressive conscience of the country.

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 17:11:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That famous story about FDR saying "now make me do it" (4.00 / 2)

That's what DFA is good for right now.

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 18:02:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

So right now we have a President who is trying to bring about critically needed reform in the face of a vicious series of attacks by special interests.. (4.00 / 4)

And his 'allies' think that this is the time to cut the legs out from under him.(Because of something that hasn't happened yet and may never happen.)

Go figure out who and what that helps.

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 13:49:42 PM CDT

In all seriousness, (4.00 / 2)

Obama supports the public option.  If he doesn't get it done (and I still have hope) it's because he can't.  It doesn't mean somebody else would have.

A strong primary challenge is a great way to waste a year of his Presidency and lose an election that should lean our way.  And let's not kid ourselves with the notion that a challenger could actually get the nomination.

Furthermore, while I don't agree with his approach to every policy, I don't see anyone out there who's ready to be a better President right now than Obama.

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 15:29:09 PM CDT

In all seriousness (4.00 / 1)

I stand foursquare behind the president. But arguments against candidates running for office, no matter how logical and sensible they seem, are counterproductive and offensive.

---

by: JimC @ Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 15:54:12 PM CDT

This isnt really a discussion about someone running for office. (4.00 / 2)

Please-- it is only eight months since the president took office and no one in the world is within years of seriously thinking about running against him.

So why talk about it when he is in the middle of the fight of our lifetimes against the most entrenched and powerful economic forces in the country?

People need to focus and keep their eyes on the prize.

When you are in a foxhole and hordes of enemies are attacking, it is not the time to poke your fellow soldier in the backside with a bayonet. The other side wants to annihilate both of you and will have a much easier time doing so if you lose track of who is on your side. Doug Linder said it quite well above:

Obama supports the public option.  If he doesn't get it done (and I still have hope) it's because he can't.  It doesn't mean somebody else would have.

Let's try to help make it happen and not talk about reprisals if it doesnt happen.

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 16:12:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree (4.00 / 1)

Let me put it this way: I think even discussing a primary challenge in (barely) September 2009 is rather silly. It's even offensive.

But I am just as offended by the response it has evoked.

In other words, I don't want to argue the merits of a primary challenge, but I don't want to argue against it. It's too soon to do that too.

Now, why am I making a stink about this at all? Because I'm an idiot. Because the herding rhetoric is divisive in a different way. We need to embrace the diversity of our party, and if we can't air views here, then where can we air them?

We're being told to shut up a lot this week. Next week, those of us who don't like the president's speech (IF we end up not liking it) will be told to shut up about that. And when the bill comes ... again. And when the campaigns really kick in ... again.

All fair in love and free speech, I suppose, but not very bloggy.

---

by: JimC @ Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 16:30:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't think people to Obama's left should keep quiet. (4.00 / 3)

I think it has to be acknowledged that all political analysis in this country is polar.  If you oppose a Democrat, that is taken as evidence you'd rather have a Republican.  If you want to move Obama to the left, put pressure on him on the issues.  Potential primary challengers have a right to run, but if they're genuinely concerned for the issues, doing so would be counterproductive.

Meanwhile, I think it's Congress, not the President, that needs shifting to the left on these issues.

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 17:03:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Good point (4.00 / 4)

and one I thought about before getting into this discussion. In general I try to avoid any criticism of other bloggers because we do want to promote, and not stifle, conversation. But I think in this case we are truly at a critical point and it is truly debilitating to the effort for change when we go at Obama for things that havent happened yet. What that does is put blood in the water for those who wish to cripple the administration early-- it feeds the meme that the GOP is incessantly promoting.

I will be more than willing to engage in Obama bashing when we see the outcome, if it is deserved. Having seen what an extraordinary person he is over the last couple of years, I am fairly certain that if this effort fails at this moment, it will not be because he faltered, but because we faltered.

Let's make sure we never have that discussion.

(How do you do that "I am an idiot" thing with the cross outs so that the dashes go over what you have written?)

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 17:04:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hyphens (4.00 / 2)

I discovered it by accident.

[hyphen]Word[hyphen] displays as Word

---

by: JimC @ Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 17:07:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

gracias. (0.00 / 0)

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 17:13:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Kathy and Raymond are absolutely correct (4.00 / 4)

Kathy said yesterday that "[President Obama]...is a smart man, he will figure out what is right and what is possible, and what can be done without destroying his opportunity to carry out the rest of his agenda."

Pick your battles; losing the presidency over the lack of public option is not the battle to pick.

---

by: Putney Swope @ Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 17:13:42 PM CDT

A beautiful friendship (4.00 / 3)

I feel like I am walking away from a fog shrouded air strip in Morocco, heading toward a Free French camp, smoking a cigarette.  

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 20:05:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm all for primaries up and down the ticket. (4.00 / 5)

That said, I'm going to say "no" to this question.

Based on two scenarios:

1) IF this is an idea spawned as a short term strategic pressure point on getting the President to accomplish meaningful health insurance reform, I don't see how it would work.  A primary challenge requires a primary challenger, and Obama has been president for less than one year. So my answer is no, because it could never work as a realizable strategy to achieving the public option.

2) IF this is not a strategic but a genuine ideological idea, that he should be primaried because he didn't get us a public option during the first year of a four year presidency, then I'd also answer no.  A public option remains a major column of the mansion of things the President brings to us after eight years of disaster, but in my view does not come close to reaching a threshold where I want to put my time and money elsewhere if it doesn't work out. Obama would have to fail badly on four or five such items as the public option for me to consider that, or be shown to have committed malfeasance of some kind.

---

by: Dean Barker @ Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 18:54:24 PM CDT

wow (4.00 / 1)

someone addressed the substance of my post...

---

by: measurestaken @ Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 20:48:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]