• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Liberals seeking primary challengers to Obama

Abdul Alhazred

Philosopher
A
Joined
Sep 4, 2003
Messages
6,023
twplogo125x20ta1.jpg

Liberals seeking primary challengers to Obama

... Ralph Nader ...
Click to expand...

:whistling
 
The group said Saturday it is seeking six “recognizable, articulate” candidates who would not mount serious challenges to Obama, but “rigorously debate his policy stands” on issues related to labor, poverty, foreign policy, civil rights and consumer protections.
Click to expand...

Seems fine to me.

Nader said Saturday it is “very unlikely” he would challenge Obama, and that he is gauging the interest of former lawmakers and governors, academics, authors and labor leaders.

“I just want all these liberal, progressive agendas to be robustly debated. Otherwise, there will be a de facto blackout of their discussion” during next year’s campaign, Nader said.
Click to expand...

So why are you singling him out?
 
Personally I want to work on promoting a strong progressive liberal base in Congress for the next election. Strategy wise I think we need to wait till 2016 before putting forth a more progressive candidate. However, I do like the idea of forcing politicians, including Obama, to discuss those issues we find important during the election. I firmly believe if we stick to our guns, explain our selves and our ideas, as well as show a little more back bone when it is necessary without giving up willingness to compromise we can make future gains in this country.
 
I'm also more interested in whether Obama will get a new running mate for this election. I think that choice will have a significant influence on the 2016 election.
 
The Fallen Serpent said:
Personally I want to work on promoting a strong progressive liberal base in Congress for the next election. Strategy wise I think we need to wait till 2016 before putting forth a more progressive candidate. However, I do like the idea of forcing politicians, including Obama, to discuss those issues we find important during the election. I firmly believe if we stick to our guns, explain our selves and our ideas, as well as show a little more back bone when it is necessary without giving up willingness to compromise we can make future gains in this country.
Click to expand...

This seems like an interesting sort of strategy. On the one hand, even a non-"serious" challenge costs time and money to the candidate. If they're not intent on the presidency, it seems like they would be wasting a lot of resources, just to give Obama an opportunity to advance his own "serious" candidacy. On the other hand, this could be a great chance for up-and-coming politicians to make a name for themselves, setting the stage for serious candidacies in future contests. Those who put in good service as a foil for Obama now, might see themselves rewarded by the party in 2016.

But it does raise a few questions in my mind.

If the goal is for Obama to better articulate his policy goals and values, why can't he hold a press conference? If it is necessary that he be challenged on his positions, why can't the press do this? Indeed, he already has plenty of critics; can he not simply answer the critics he already has? But finally if he is not already doing a satisfactory job of addressing the criticisms already directed at him, if he is not already explaining himself and his ideas, how will having ersatz primary opponents help him?
 
The group said Saturday it is seeking six “recognizable, articulate” candidates who would not mount serious challenges to Obama, but “rigorously debate his policy stands” on issues related to labor, poverty, foreign policy, civil rights and consumer protections.
Click to expand...

LOL! This would be a gift to Obama. By putting six candidates up, they would guarantee that nobody would get significant traction. In addition, they would allow Obama to play the role of the sensible moderate.

It is also unexplained why Obama or the media should pay any attention to candidates starting out with an admission that they are not mounting a serious challenge, other than the above reason.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
I'm also more interested in whether Obama will get a new running mate for this election. I think that choice will have a significant influence on the 2016 election.
Click to expand...

Biden hasn't done anything particularly wrong or bad, has he?

Or are you thinking of just getting someone new in as VP to shake things up a bit?
 
theprestige said:
This seems like an interesting sort of strategy. On the one hand, even a non-"serious" challenge costs time and money to the candidate. If they're not intent on the presidency, it seems like they would be wasting a lot of resources, just to give Obama an opportunity to advance his own "serious" candidacy. On the other hand, this could be a great chance for up-and-coming politicians to make a name for themselves, setting the stage for serious candidacies in future contests. Those who put in good service as a foil for Obama now, might see themselves rewarded by the party in 2016.
Click to expand...
I am not so sure that would work. It could, but I suspect anyone who directly challenges him in this primary would lose political pull if Obama wins a second term. Republicans seem to operate more on a "its their time" process, Democrats more on a "who gets us energized today" system. Being too loud now would use up their steam if you will. I also think framing is highly important. As a prospective Democratic President one can run with "I'm not the previous guy" if it is a Republican, but if the previous guy is a Democratic President policy can still be in oposition to the previous administration but needs to be framed more as "here is how we can improve the office."

But it does raise a few questions in my mind.

If the goal is for Obama to better articulate his policy goals and values, why can't he hold a press conference? If it is necessary that he be challenged on his positions, why can't the press do this? Indeed, he already has plenty of critics; can he not simply answer the critics he already has? But finally if he is not already doing a satisfactory job of addressing the criticisms already directed at him, if he is not already explaining himself and his ideas, how will having ersatz plrimary opponents help him?
Click to expand...

Well, I would agree this is not the most effecient way of achieving these goals. More effecient would be base and confidence building for us Progressives before taking on the current direction of Democratic leadership. Presenting a Progressive presidential nominee would be lackluster if first we do not inspire public confidence or party backing. Presidents can be overcome, the House changes with the wind. The big area that Progressives need to gain advantage in to see our policies move forward is the Senate. Blue Dogs have suffered heavily under the past few cycles and now is the time to strike for the long term gains.
 
bikerdruid said:
i wasn't aware that you had a Liberal party in the u.s......
canada does, but they are dying, replaced by a socialist party (NDP)
Click to expand...

We have a liberal bloc of a centerist party that historically swung center left. In practice, the two big American parties are more akin to permanent coalitions. Due to recent losses in the Blue Dog caucus the Democratic Party is probably at its most liberal since before the Clinton era. Due to the political set up and the lag of leadership it doesn't always look that way. Hopefully we gain some more spine in upcoming elections and can make a proper showing.
 
Wangler said:
Biden hasn't done anything particularly wrong or bad, has he?

Or are you thinking of just getting someone new in as VP to shake things up a bit?
Click to expand...

Primarily, I think Biden would be a lousy presidential candidate in 2016. He (or someone like him) was sort of necessary to answer the "experience" challenges in '08.

Also, I don't think shaking things up could do anything but help Obama in this election. But I really think it's Obama's election to lose, so the Democratic Party can afford to think beyond it to some extent.
 
A primary challenge is a dead cause. It would just be ignored, Obama would be chosen without the slightest hint of a campaign. And wisely so.

A credible threat of a third-party candidate would make much more sense. This should then be someone who is crazy enough that Obama can't be 100% sure that he or she will fold, credible enough to be able to get at least 1-2 percent of the vote, but also sane enough to withdraw unless Obama performs a serious move to the right. Such a candidate might not receive much attention, but definitely much more than any primary challenger.
 
Abdul Alhazred said:
Nobody yet noticed the obvious problem.

Since when is Nader a Democrat?
Click to expand...

Anyone can be a Democrat, we have decentralised parties here. Obviously he is not a party favourite, but I am sure he votes for Democrats more often than Republicans.
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
Anyone can be a Democrat, we have decentralised parties here. Obviously he is not a party favourite, but I am sure he votes for Democrats more often than Republicans.
Click to expand...


Nader is absolutely despised by Democrats. If he wasn't on the ballot in 2000, Gore would have won a few more states (any one of which gives him the victory), including Florida by an unquestioned margin.

He has also made it clear for many years that he considers the Democrats and Republicans to be the exact same problem (corporatist parties). It is ludicrous to consider him a possible primary challenger to Obama.
 
hgc said:
Nader is absolutely despised by Democrats. If he wasn't on the ballot in 2000, Gore would have won a few more states (any one of which gives him the victory), including Florida by an unquestioned margin.

He has also made it clear for many years that he considers the Democrats and Republicans to be the exact same problem (corporatist parties). It is ludicrous to consider him a possible primary challenger to Obama.
Click to expand...

Hm, perhaps I am reading it wrong, but I interpreted it as him supporting a liberal challenger, but not himself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom