Anyone else worried that Kucinich is setting himself up for a primary challenge to Obama in 2012?

I'm beginning to suspect he'll run on a platform of President Obama not being 'liberal' enough, to the joy of the Republican Party. Ugh.

But fracturing the party is rarely a good thing.

He is turning into Ralph Nader's minime......:evilgrin:

I love the guy gets out there and brings the issues to the table. I think it's great.

He's of zero political threat, however, when DEMOCRATS don't even vote for him.

and it didn't hurt him a bit. It wouldn't be like Carter v. Kennedy in 1980--Dennis wouldn't carry a single state in a primary.

but not much else each year. Dennis running for president is almost an honorary position for him isnt it?

campaigning only to be shut out of debates by his fellow democratic candidates who are DLCers like in the last campaign.

My crystal ball works just fine as those who know me know.

Nader ran on a third party ticket and knew he wouldn't win. He just wanted to shake up the status quo. Another reason is because Dennis won't run against Obama a sitting President. He never ran against Clinton.

"He's in his sixties. I doubt if he will want to go through the stresses of campaigning only to be shut out of debates by his fellow democratic candidates who are DLCers like in the last campaign."

And 2012 is too far away. There is something we can do: support only those candidates that support the people.

Guess who I will be voting for next year?

for decades to come.

Half the people who'd promised Teddy they'd back him if he ran sold out and voted for Carter, even though they knew Carter was doomed to lose if renominated.

Plus there is the legacy of how this party's handpicked convention delegates voted to lose in 1968 rather than nominate a candidate who reflected the will of the primary voters.

on this bill, you may yourself have a pre-existing condition

Kucinich could very well do just that (mount a primary challenge in '12), but I highly, highly doubt he'd come as close as Teddy did. Especially not after voting with the Republicans on this most important, vital issue. Because the fact is that a vote against the bill IS a vote for the Republicans, regardless of any ideological purity behind it. Shame on him for not being able to see the forest for the trees on this one! :thumbsdown:

But why let facts comes in the way of some good purity?

as opposed to those who voted with Republicans to stay status quo?

...anywhere but here.

In two presidential runs in 2004 and 2008, how many primaries and/or caucuses had Dennis Kucinich won?

Zeeeeero?

Zeeeeeeeeeeeeeeroooooooooooo?

Surely, with the kinds of budget he has he can't expect to win.
However, if he can get some voters & fellow candidates to think
a little more about the issues, maybe thats what he's looking for.

...it's a free country, it gets him out of the house, and everyone needs a hobby. I doubt all the filing fees together amount to as much as the price of a good boat, and campaigns keep a lot of chambermaids and waitresses and such employed -- good especially during a recession.

'04,... '08,... '12... it happens at four-year intervals pretty regularly. Like cicadas. Gives you a sense of the passage of time.

I love Dennis. I don't kid myself that he'll win, but he brings things to the table that would otherwise never be considered. He has a right to run and if he does I bet it will improve the national dialog. Do you want a coronation for President Obama? I bet President Obama doesn't want one. Hard leftists help remind the party of what's possible, even if it's not possible right now. More ideas is always an improvement, it broadens the scope of thought.

It will be laughable and purely symbolic as he'll get less contributions, less votes and even less attention that his last try.

Purity trolls are the teabaggers of the Left and they have even less influence.

n/t

He poses a greater threat if he can obstruct bills in the House of Representatives.

Last time he started thinking it important to run home and defend his House seat.

And there was no reason to even mention Nader in this thread.

Are you ever going to give that a rest?

But he is like Nader now because he worked against the Democrats on a matter of degree because he felt they were not left-wing enough. Expect the cash to roll in of he challenges Obama.

If Obama is challenged from the left, it reinforces the perception that Obama is not a crazed socialist hell bent on ruining the country, which undercuts the picture the repubs are trying to paint.

The people who agreed with him were too cowardly to vote for him last time. And he'd be close to 70 by then, which is way too old to sell yourself as an insurgent primary challenger.

Plus, he remembers how Teddy was abandoned by half the people who'd said they'd vote for him in 1980.

Kennedy was considered a serious potential candidate in the 1970s - if he had not run in 1980, he would have had a very good shot at 1984. Kucinich has never been a serious viable candidate.

My point was that what happened to him in 1980(when tons of people who swore they'd back him sold out and backed Carter even though they knew they were voting to nominate a sure loser)is going to be an inhibiting factor against anybody challenging a Dem president in the primaries.

I'll never forgive the Carter people for organizing those mobs in Chicago to scream "murderer, murderer" when Teddy's motorcade went through town that year. Nobody in Chicago hated Teddy before those rent-a-mobs were organized.

And then there's what happened to Bobby.

there is simply no potential opponent with the stature of Ted Kennedy. In addition, Jimmy Carter was about as far to the right as the Democratic party goes - there was more "space" on his left for a challenge than in Obama's case.

As a test of the lack of a viable opponent, think of the Democrats who would consider running if Obama announced he intended not to run in 2012 - as unlikely as that is. That should get you a full list of candidates, viable and not. Look at that list and then generously identify the ones who would be potentially viable (eliminate Kucinich here), who are to the left of Obama (eliminate Clinton, Warner Bayh here) and finally of those still remaining would consider running against Obama (eliminate Kerry, who has been a strong Obama ally, and Gore, who didn't want to run in the open 2004 or 2008 races, here).

Now consider in addition, that Obama is considerably more popular then Jimmy Carter. Far above 50% of Democrats approve of him. There is NO ONE in the Democratic party who, upon announcing a challenge to Obama, would have above 50% of Democrats approving of them - including ones who have high approval ratings now.

My point was that what happened to Teddy when he had optimum conditions to mount such a challenge would serve as a cautionary tale to anyone considering an anti-Obama candidacy in 2012, especially since Obama is likely to remain more popular than Carter going into that campaign. The one thing that could seriously dent that popularity would be if he were insane enough to actually go through with an escalation in the unwinnable Afghan war. That would have to lead to a tragic LBJ finale for the man.

I suspect that LBJ, if he had a JFK personality, would have won the challenge and unified the party. Also, there were early LBJ/RFK tensions then. It is true that no one would have predicted McCarthy. Not to mention, LBJ was not defeated, but opted out after winning NH. In that scenario, who could play the McCarthy/RFK role? Feingold, could be like a McCarthy, but not an RFK. If there was a major escalation and it went as badly as many think it would, that would change the dynamics of who would lead a charge. I don't see it happening, but I doubt anyone in 1965, after LBJ's landslide did either.

He's going to retain and strengthen our party's equivalent to the teabaggers (though I admit they will have stronger grammar skills).

If he gets a challenger at home just to stick it to all of us.

n/t.

They only like Lieberman as a Democrat.

McCain for years was the Democrat's favorite Republican - yet did he win tons of Democratic votes?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Uh, no.

approval ratings up even more.


Go Dennis Go.

:woohoo:

the rest can accept the status quo as a true Democratic candidate.

Thank god he didn't run in 2008.

:crazy:

:rofl:

If he runs, he'll have my support, as always.

I'm not worried about it.

Whether or not he runs, Obama is no liberal, and I've always known that.

Which is why I never wanted him in the WH.

:scared:

1. Obama (democratic)
2. Pawlenty (repuglican)
3. Palin (CONservatives)
4. Nader (Greens)
5. Kucinich (Progressives)

There is no way that he would come close to being a threat to an incumbent President.

A good friend of mine knows Dennis personally, and he's told me that DK wants to be Senator...

Not President.

If Kucinich is actually going to run, he needs to get going on his campaign.

to back Obama during the primaries:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004103027_apkucinichobama01.html?syndication=rss

He supported Obama when Joe Biden was still running against him. He was also out of the race before the third State. In first, out first.

a slim area in northeast Ohio.

:rofl:

It's about corporations and what the Governments job is.

Do you think this was only a coincidence?

He never gets more than 3% in any primary... ever.


And after yesterday, that percentage isn't going up anytime soon.

eom

His vote against it is one of the very few principled ones.

eom

Dennis is still my hero and will always have my vote. To me he is a voice of reason.

I know some of you look at him as "voting with Republicans", but that's not what he was doing. He thinks for himself. He sees things for what they are.

:eyes:

I'd welcome him doing something stupid like that because he'd get shit assignments to committees from then on...

if he isn't defeated in a primary of his own, that is.

The Democrats have already proven they aren't smart enough to nominate Dennis Kucinich.

he will lose triumphantly just like every other Presidential run he has made.

I worked for DK in 2004 ~~ maybe things would have been different if he had won.

Suppose we don't want to go there . . .

A challenge from Kucinich is like a worm trying to cross a busy highway.

-- I voted for him in the primary when it didn't count -- if you think he stands a chance in hell in getting elected president, you're seriously deluded.

His voice is needed because it's the direction we need to move, but he would *NEVER* win on the national stage. I refuse to give the GOP more time to do further damage the country by running unelectable candidates in the name of idealistic purity.

The primary challenge might be nice.

It is hugely unlikely that Kucinich will run against Obama. Chances almost nil.

I'd be more worried about some other left/progressive coming out of nowhere and getting some attention. But even that is pretty unlikely.

The political reality is that progressives will have no real choice other than Obama again in 2012.

He presses some issues, pushes Obama to the left a tad, and we all go about our business.

let him try, it'll be a gas... :rofl:

at least regarding this issue. I don't give a shit what your "principals" are behind a vote.. a No is a No is a NO.

So, i find it amusing to see all of the DUers applauding Dennis, and screaming at the Blue Dogs in the same posting.