Liberals vow to challenge Obama in Democratic primaries (Ralph Nader alert)

The Washington Times ^ | 9-19-2011 | Seth McLaughlin

[Danae]

"President Obama’s smooth path to the Democratic nomination may have gotten rockier Monday, after a group of liberal leaders, including former presidential candidate Ralph Nader, announced plans to challenge the incumbent in primaries next year.

The group said the goal is to offer up a handful of candidates from various fields and areas where the president either has failed to stake out a “progressive” position or where he has “drifted toward the corporatist right.”

[Monterrosa-24]

John Ashbrook challenged Nixon in ‘72 and gained only ten percent of the California Primary vote but...he was one of the Best Jouneyman Conservative Activist Congressman ever.

[untenured]

That is an amazing article, coming out only three years before Unsafe at Any Speed came out.

[ngat]

How I long for the days when the big states (like CA) put up favorite son candidates and the roll calls went on all night ... Everyone knows who the nominees will be before they ever start.

What happened to change that?

I don’t know, but I think it was because of sour grapes from primary voters whose candidates lost. The whole idea of representative democracy vs direct democracy has been under assault for years. Look at the movement to do away with the electoral colege and go to popular vote to elect presidents. Look at the 17th Amendment.

If they would just change the rules to do away with Super Tuesdays and winner-take-all primaries, it would go back to the conventions where the delegates would actually select who the best candidates would be for the party, rather than a big drinking and rah-rah party. I also think the party elite candidates would rather have it decided pre-convention.

[Abathar]

Reparations Party! LOL! That would sure put him on the spot wouldn’t it? Someone campaigning on writing huge checks to whoever has enough melanin in their skin, oh man that would be fun to watch.

In the big cities that candidate would turn heads like a guy with a dog whistle bouncing a tennis ball at a Labrador only dog show...

[The Pack Knight]

Well, no sitting president has been re-elected after facing a significant primary challenge, by which I mean a challenger who can garner at least 20% of the primary vote. In the primary era, that means Reagan in '76, Ted Kennedy in '80, and Buchannan in '92.

On the other hand, sitting presidents are re-elected in the face of weak primary challenges all the time. See gadfly candidates like Harold Stassen in '84 and Lyndon LaRouche in '96. I see Nader as more of a Stassen or LaRouche than a Kennedy or Buchannan - he is a perennial candidate who has never received a significant share of the vote in any election he's run in. Beyond the endorsements of a few eccentric celebrities, he is an electoral nonentity.

Also, to put things in a converse (and less positive) light, no sitting President eligible to be re-elected has failed to be re-elected absent a significant challenger from his own party. Besides Reagan, Kennedy, and Buchannan, see Eugene McCarthy and RFK in '68 and Estes Kefauver in '52.

That means, if the trend holds, Obama is virtually guaranteed re-election unless a credible primary challenger emerges. I can't think of anyone right now who would fit the bill other than Hillary Clinton. The few major polls over the last year or two have her winning over a third of the primary vote.

Of course, to paraphrase Yogi Berra, those sorts of trends tend to last until they're broken.

[yup2394871293]

Enough about those losers for now. Let’s focus on getting a real conservative president and congress that will take a wrecking ball to DC (the one we wanted in 1994) in 2013.

[NFHale]

“...I’ll be cheering from the moment Hussein issues ...”

And I will drink a shot or two of Jack for you and for myself...and a few more for the country as well...

[cake_crumb]

Um, got that one mixed up? Carter was a sitting president, challenged and did lose, to President Reagan...

[rockvillem]

Intended effect of this headline: "There, ya see Marge! I told you he wasn't a liberal! The liberals all want him out! He only seems liberal because of all that scary extremist republican propaganda!"

We think alike, my friend. All these stories about how the far left is disappointed in Obama strike me as the media laying the groundwork for trying to show that Obama isn't the far-left ideologue that he so clearly is.

[cashless]

I think the libtards are running Nader as someone even further to the left than Obamalamadindong. Then they adorn the POS POTUS with the centrist mantle, he makes a series of centrist, populist speeches and leads the Independents out of the Republican camp, tooting his own horn all the way (never forget the sweet tune of the Pied Piper). Remember that the Independents were formerly known as Moderates and historically vote DemocRat when push gets to shove and usually make up their mind AFTER the Republican candidate shots himself in the foot, a very common occurrence every 4 years.

The average voter DOES NOT pay attention until the final month of the race. The average voter was educated in America and we are in the hands of voters who have been taught for 40+ years that capitalism, success, profit, and a high standard of living we enjoy was earned on the back of the poor and oppressed both in this country and the rest of the world. They have been taught to hate corporations and anyone who makes more money than they do. We are in a fight for the soul of this nation and we are in the Minority when it comes to cherishing, Freedom, Liberty, and the Republic. 40+ years of “Socialism is better” teaching will be hard to overcome.

[Forty-Niner]

“That seems like a reasonable explanation for why Baraq the ghost was able to make it through the election cycle unscathed.”

I don’t know.....You may be right, but People select a candidate to vote for the shallowest of reasons, and I think the Clintons recognized that.

I think Baraq wore an invisiblity clock of the historical first black presidential candidate, and it mattered not that his blackness was not from American former slave blood and his “blackness was diluted by a white mother, or that he was untested, unaccomplished, and underqualified. People wanted what was accurately predicted by Biden as a “clean, well-spoken black man.”

The Clinton’s were smart enough to realize that Obama was so ideological and, at the same time, so unqualified, as to be a hugh failure as a President. For them, patience was a virtue, so much so that “See? Ya should have gone with Hillary and gotten us both!” will resonate in the left wing mind.

I don’t think that there are reasons or motivations beyond that. The clintons are hoping that Obama’s expected, and now realized, failure will rebound to their favor. They, however didn’t factor in that Obama’s failure would be so bad as to sour the well for all that tried to come after him.

Additionally, I believe that the Clinton’s hour, on a National level, has come and gone years ago.....in 1998. They just won’t admit it yet.

[Eleutheria5]

Only if you’re an Arab basher. Or is anyone who isn’t an Arab basher now a racist?

[newzjunkey]

I’m not sure Nader counts as a serious primary challenge. Maybe someone else will pop up.

[mellow velo]

Every state that has a contested Democrat primary is one less state where the libs can cross over in their attempt to influence the Republican primaries.

[tanknetter]

I think people are misreading this article.

The goal isn’t to run one major primary challenger, but multiple minor ones, and not as a serious challenge but rather to get various items out onto the Dem agenda. Maybe even score a speaking slot or two at the 2012 Dem National Convention (if the challengers garner a few delegates).

This isn’t really a serious thing, from a challenge standpoint, because all the potential power of a challenge will be diffused across multiple competing challengers.

In fact, it may actually serve to PREVENT a serious challenger from emerging.

[decisis]

It will be interesting to see how this plays out on several levels, I wouldn’t expect much but you never know. First of all, we are expecting something out of extreme left wing liberals, not exactly a group that you can put a lot of faith in. Even if they field a group of candidate(s) they will probably be ignored by Obama and dismissed by the liberal media as if they don’t exist, a lunatic fringe (which they are, but then again, that is what much of the Obama vote is made up of). Fox News might be the only major TV news organization that would televise their debates; and where would these candidate(s) get their money from? The liberal media takes two tacts; they either slam the enemies of Obama (interesting, far lefties will now be the enemy) or they ignore them altogether and that is the tact I expect they will take. But of course Drudge, Fox News, Rush, Washington Times, etc, will give them a platform or at least I hope and expect that they would. There was a time when Obama was thought of as a joke of a candidate and Hilary took the extreme liberal wing of the party for granted and they ended up defeating her (funny how the Tea Party is said by liberals to be in control of the Republican party but the extreme liberals have shown they are in control of the Democratic party for years). We all know Hilary is a credible candidate and could probably win the primary and it’s a shame she won’t run because this is America and in America somebody in her position should run. But I would not totally discount even an extremely liberal, lunatic fringe type candidate from having an impact, perhaps even winning a couple of states and doing some damage. Fired up Nader supporters, for example, might just out vote lethargic Obama supporters in a Democratic primary perhaps in a small state or in a state that allows crossover voting. I don’t think incumbency is an advantage this time around and even some Democrats are seeing it (how can you not when you see Ted Kennedy and Weiner’s seats go Republican?). True I don’t have much confidence in extreme liberals to accomplish anything but I think Obama and the liberal media diss them at their own peril. The truly bizarre part of all of this is that Obama is the most extremely liberal president in history and extreme liberals are still not happy with him? UFB

[bigoil]

Don’t forget John Schmitz’s challenge from the Right.

[UnChained]

While I generally don’t approve of making fun of people by using unflattering photos...

That’s choice. LOL

[Vendome]

WHHHooooooo ...... Scary!

Ralph! STFU.

No one takes you seriously. Heck you don’t take you seriously.

Hell, look at my tag line!

[dynachrome]

Nader/Sheehan 2012!