A Challenge to Obama in the 2012 Democratic Primaries?

Michael Lerner has been arguing recently (see here) that a Democrat should run against President Obama in the Democratic primaries. He recites the failures of Obama to respond to his progressive base and he outlines an attractive progressive program in its own right. He observes that half of the Democratic party voted with its feet by staying home in 2010 (though he does not indicate what percentage usually stays home in midterm elections).

I do think that a primary challenge could get traction if we are still fighting in Afghanistan in 2012 without a serious withdrawal later this year. Democrats are now opposed to that war, and an anti-war candidate could gain significant support. The media has dismissed Lerner's suggestion by suggesting no serious candidate is out there. But the anti-war movement has always produced candidates in the past. It is likely that Obama will be challenged in the primaries in 2012 and that challenge could be serious.

Comments

[Steve Shiffrin]

Kevin
I think you make a powerful case. I disagree on the extent of
dissatisfaction among progressives (whether they are right is beside
the point) and the potential for Iowa and New Hampshire to be anti-war
states (particularly Iowa). Lerner threw out a lot of names as
possibilities. Some candidates come out of nowhere. I agree with many
of your other points and recognize that you may be right. We will see.
Thanks for your comment.

[J. Kevin O'Connor]

I consistently enjoy your blogging, but I think it's HIGHLY unlikely Obama will see a serious challenge from the left, even if things get worse in Afghanistan.

Generally, I think the progressive dissatisfaction with Obama is overstated. Yes, there are opinion leaders on the Left who are disappointed but I don’t think there are many who put forth a credible explanation for how Obama could have enacted a substantially more progressive agenda (that would hold up). In many cases, I think frustration with Obama is really just a manifestation of frustration with the conservative tilt of the American political landscape. I would wager that most of the progressives who disapprove of Obama’s first term still basically like and respect the President, in sharp contrast to, for instance, McCarthy supporters’ feelings towards LBJ.

Another thing to consider is that, usually the easiest way for a primary challenger to make a statement is to do well in an early primary like New Hampshire. I don’t think anti-war/progressive anti-Obama sentiment is particularly high (relative to other issues) in IA, NH, etc.

Also, I can’t think of a candidate who could really rally the progressive left. Kucinich is an also-ran. Feingold and Dean definitely won’t (and have said so). John Edwards.

Lastly, I get the sense that the anti-war left isn’t particularly mobilized right now from an institutional perspective. Moreover, I would guess the Obama 2008 campaign staff have strong ties to many of the leaders of that crowd.

[Steve Shiffrin]

Mike, you could be right. But if the general is about a fight for the center as it usually is, then Obama could profit by having opposed and defeated a candidate who outflanks him on the left. On the other hand, if he is so bloodied that a significant part of the base stays home, he is doomed. This is why I root for Palin to win the Republican nomination. No one stays home then!

[Michael Dorf]

I share much of the underlying substantive dissatisfaction and I think Steve may be right in predicting a primary challenge. But thinking about 1980 (the last time a Democratic incumbent faced a primary challenge), I worry that the challenge would fail but weaken Obama for the general.