Bernie Sanders says Obama needs primaried?

[redcommander]

I disagree with Sanders on everything, but I love him still. He is the opposite of Ron Paul in a sense. He sticks to his convictions.

Switch Sanders's and Paul's names there and I agree verbatim. If somebody like Paul could start some robust and electable paleocon (or even actually prinicipled neocon) outfit in Texas or somewhere that was anything like what Sanders did for Vermont when he helped found the Liberty Union Party (now doing business as the Vermont Progressive Party in all but name), I think that the political discourse would benefit tremendously.

Why doesn't the Progressive Party try and expand nationwide? I know many Democrats wouldn't want it to since they share some similar positions, but it would be better for the country if there was a viable third party. Plus the Progressive Party has in the past had success winning with Republicans like TR and  La Follette did.

[Landslide Lyndon]

I think that was rather predictable.  The hard left of the Democratic party hate the president, think he is a traitor and practically a third-term Bush '43, and they want to get somebody like Kucinich or Sanders himself to primary Obama.  This is not that last time we'll see a call for a Dem primary challenger this year, and who knows?  Someone might step up just to make the liberal case.

Come on dude, chill out. The left wing of the Dems might be dissapointed or displeased but they certainly don't "hate" Obama. Not even David Broder's ghost would say something so ridiculous.

And in case you haven't noticed, Kucinich isn't exactly Mr. Popularity among the Kos crowd.

[anvi]

Well, Lyndon, whether one prefers the word "hate" or "displeased," if they prefer to stay at home rather than go to the polls next year, Obama will be toast.  They want to air their grievances, in any case.  I'm just saying that holding a "summit" where they would get to do that would be a better idea than running a primary challenger.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I disagree with Sanders on everything, but I love him still. He is the opposite of Ron Paul in a sense. He sticks to his convictions.

Switch Sanders's and Paul's names there and I agree verbatim. If somebody like Paul could start some robust and electable paleocon (or even actually prinicipled neocon) outfit in Texas or somewhere that was anything like what Sanders did for Vermont when he helped found the Liberty Union Party (now doing business as the Vermont Progressive Party in all but name), I think that the political discourse would benefit tremendously.

Why doesn't the Progressive Party try and expand nationwide? I know many Democrats wouldn't want it to since they share some similar positions, but it would be better for the country if there was a viable third party. Plus the Progressive Party has in the past had success winning with Republicans like TR and  La Follette did.

It's because Vermont is too small a base for the VPP to expand nationwide from. The Liberty Union Party was an outfit founded in 1970 by former Congressman William H. Meyer (the only Democratic Congressman from Vermont, ever, until 2007) which Sanders joined within the first year of its existence and almost immediately became the face of. It never won any statewide elections but it managed to elect a lot of local candidates during a period of immense social change in the state. Sanders resigned from the party leadership before his first election as Mayor of Burlington in 1981, after which it entered a period of decline and lost ballot access in the nineties. At that point Sanders, who was in the House of Representatives by that point, founded the VPP, along with a bunch of rural-working-class Republicans who felt alienated by the national party (think Jim Jeffords, though he himself wasn't involved). Right now there are I think five Progressives in the Vermont House, and their chief function is to introduce radical-seeming concepts that Democratic majorities end up passing years later (gay marriage and the nascent public option in Vermont started this way). This would definitely be a good idea at the national level, but it's so far been impossible to export even to New Hampshire and Massachusetts except on a very limited local level (Franklin, Hampshire, and Berkshire Counties in Massachusetts have a lot of these sorts of people, who tend to run in the Green-Rainbow Party there), because the conditions that created this coalition of leftist indies and alienated ancestrally-Republican farmers really don't exist outside the region. tl;dr The gods of the valley are not the gods of the hills, and you shall understand it.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Well, Lyndon, whether one prefers the word "hate" or "displeased," if they prefer to stay at home rather than go to the polls next year, Obama will be toast.   They want to air their grievances, in any case.  I'm just saying that holding a "summit" where they would get to do that would be a better idea than running a primary challenger.

I really think that will be the #1 decider in the election anvikshiki.......We can have lots of fun making ev maps and such showing every pub candidate vs. Obama.....but all those projections are useless if a Dem turnout is in the tank.

["'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"]

A "summit" to express liberal dissatisfaction with Obama sounds exactly like the kind of meaningless, ineffectual gesture Obama himself would employ. So I wouldn't be surprised to see liberals embrace it.

[anvi]

Well, Lyndon, whether one prefers the word "hate" or "displeased," if they prefer to stay at home rather than go to the polls next year, Obama will be toast.   They want to air their grievances, in any case.  I'm just saying that holding a "summit" where they would get to do that would be a better idea than running a primary challenger.

I really think that will be the #1 decider in the election anvikshiki.......We can have lots of fun making ev maps and such showing every pub candidate vs. Obama.....but all those projections are useless if a Dem turnout is in the tank.

Agreed, Gramps.  I don't know exactly where independents will be next fall, but my money is on independent support for Obama definitely being down from last time, and other demographics may be slightly down too.  If liberal turnout is lackluster, and with unemployment still high and the whole spectrum of the GOP fired up to oust him, it's hard to see how Obama can win. 

[Torie]

What percentage of voters who voted for Bush in 2004 and Obama in 2008 will vote for Obama in 2012 do you think?  Just asking. I actually know someone who did that.

[Bull Moose Base]

What percentage of voters who voted for Bush in 2004 and Obama in 2008 will vote for Obama in 2012 do you think?  Just asking. I actually know someone who did that.

I'm curious what % of voters who voted in both elections did that and what their party affiliation is.  As you probably have seen elsewhere, the number of actual swing voters is smaller than advertised.  2/3 of "Independents" are actually partisans.  But between actual Indy swingers and soft partisans who can stray, I don't think the voters in play are all that much, but not insignificant either.

As for liberal turnout for Obama, I bet the state of the economy will affect it more than Obama's centrism.

[anvi]

What percentage of voters who voted for Bush in 2004 and Obama in 2008 will vote for Obama in 2012 do you think?  Just asking. I actually know someone who did that.

Good question.  Some of that cross-section of voters were probably conservative Democrats who were worried about security in 2004 and then swung back in 2008.  Obviously, some of that population must have been self-identified independents, with some shape of a default persuasion, too.  Probably most of the first group of conservative Dems will stick with Obama in 2012.  But, since the economy and not security will be the most important issue next year, I'd venture a guess that, as long as the GOP nominee isn't a nutter, maybe somewhere around a half of the independents in this group will either vote for the GOP nominee or sit the election out.  The independents in this cross-section are a bigger group, so their votes or abstentions will have more of an impact.

[Torie]

What percentage of voters who voted for Bush in 2004 and Obama in 2008 will vote for Obama in 2012 do you think?  Just asking. I actually know someone who did that.

Good question.  Some of that cross-section of voters were probably conservative Democrats who were worried about security in 2004 and then swung back in 2008.  Obviously, some of that population must have been self-identified independents, with some shape of a default persuasion, too.  Probably most of the first group of conservative Dems will stick with Obama in 2012.  But, since the economy and not security will be the most important issue next year, I'd venture a guess that, as long as the GOP nominee isn't a nutter, maybe somewhere around a half of the independents in this group will either vote for the GOP nominee or sit the election out.  The independents in this cross-section are a bigger group, so their votes or abstentions will have more of an impact.

Actually my theory is that the cohort are mostly well do to RINO's. Thus my CD had one of the strongest trends to Obama in the nation, by about 10% or double the national average. CA-48 went 59% for Bush 2004, 49% for McCain, and 59% for Meg Whitman. I was one of those voters.

[All Along The Watchtower]

What percentage of voters who voted for Bush in 2004 and Obama in 2008 will vote for Obama in 2012 do you think?  Just asking. I actually know someone who did that.

Good question.  Some of that cross-section of voters were probably conservative Democrats who were worried about security in 2004 and then swung back in 2008.  Obviously, some of that population must have been self-identified independents, with some shape of a default persuasion, too.  Probably most of the first group of conservative Dems will stick with Obama in 2012.  But, since the economy and not security will be the most important issue next year, I'd venture a guess that, as long as the GOP nominee isn't a nutter, maybe somewhere around a half of the independents in this group will either vote for the GOP nominee or sit the election out.  The independents in this cross-section are a bigger group, so their votes or abstentions will have more of an impact.

Actually my theory is that the cohort are mostly well do to RINO's. Thus my CD had one of the strongest trends to Obama in the nation, by about 10% or double the national average. CA-48 went 59% for Bush 2004, 49% for McCain, and 59% for Meg Whitman. I was one of those voters.

In other words, HW Bush Republicans.