JONATHAN CHAIT JULY 8, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
[Guest post by Matthew Zeitlin]
In a somewhat odd post for the Atlantic, libertarian-ish Conor Friedersdorf suggests that left-wingers disappointed in the Obama administration ought to support a primary challenge so that they can get Obama to stop taking the left wing of the Democratic Party for granted:
Is there any way out of this cycle, whereby every president is virulently hated by the opposition and proceeds to betray his ideological allies, who submit for lack of an alternative? Are we condemned to a political establishment that has failed all of us?
…
What I'd like to see, apart from everything else, is a return to strong primary challenges against sitting presidents. It's easy to understand why they don't happen. But hard to argue that we wouldn't be better off if President Bush had been forced to worry a bit more about fiscal hawks, and President Obama was worried a bit more about anti-corporatists and the anti-war, civil libertarian left.
It’s hard to see who would support this primary challenge. The visible left-wing activists and writers who are criticizing Obama from the left are not representative of the actual voters that a primary challenger would try to appeal to. Obama is less popular than he was at his inauguration, but among those subgroups that make up the Democratic base, his appeal has been persistent.
National Journal has a good feature looking at Obama’s performance among a wide range of demographic groups, comparing his approval rating in May of this year, August of last year and exit polls from the election. Obama has a uniform dip from the election through summer of 2010, but since then, has stabilized among nearly all groups, especially among those groups that a left-wing primary challenger would appeal to. The Gallup data largely shows the same trend.
So Friedersdorf is trying to summon up a primary challenge when the groups that make up the Democratic Party and its base—self identified Democrats, self identified liberals, women and ethnic minorities—are largely satisfied with Obama and approve of him the most, meaning that the actual voting population for a primary challenge from the left is basically nonexistent.
There’s also the riskiness of opposing Obama before what is sure to be a close election. The history of primary challenges to sitting presidents after their first term is not pretty. Ford in 1976, Carter in 1980 and Bush in 1992 were all weak candidates. That they were primary-challenged may have more to do with their preexisting weakness and unpopularity rather than having been cause of it. However, it certainly can’t help to have to tack left in an election where your base is supposed to be what you count on.
This is different than primary challenges in congressional races, where a serious primary challenge to one or a few congressmen can have a wider effect on the entire caucus. Losing a presidential election for the sake of making Obama win over the base is something few Democrats would want to risk, especially those voters that Friedersdorf thinks should support a primary challenge in the first place.
The party base’s leverage over its president peaks in the primary campaign before his initial nomination. After that, a primary challenge is only useful for self-destruction.
24 comments
I like Conor Friedersdorf quite a lot and he has been gracious in his email re;plies to me but he is off base here. A primary challenge to Barack Obama would likely get no traction. To the extent that it would, it could hurt him in the end.
- liberalref
July 8, 2011 at 8:57pm
actually, you guys are both wrong. the polling that suggests obama is fine among those who wouldn't support a challenge is misguided and misleading, it turns out. for a democratic president to be THIS anti-jobs and THIS pro wall-street is pretty insane with 9.5% unemployment. you know what the tell with you guys is? using the phrase "the left," it kind of means you're hacks. it's not just some nutty fringe that thinks cutting spending and bartering away the social safety net in the face of huge unemployment while simultaneously rewarding wall st. is horrible policy, lots of people think that. by the way, not that this should matter, but I've been a staunch obama supporter from the beginning of this candidacy and continuing for most of this term.
- mmathog
July 8, 2011 at 9:22pm
Conor is correct. An economy ruined by BHO and the Repubs in 2011 asap--rather than in 2012 as they are both preparing to do-- may be the best hope for Progressives AND the country. That gives some time for a primary challenger to appear. An in those circumstances may well start with 20-25% of all voters and 30-40% of all Dems. Pray for failure of the debt negotiations and a crisis sooner than later
- drofnats1
July 8, 2011 at 9:22pm
Yeah. It's a pretty bad idea.
- Curran1
July 8, 2011 at 9:29pm
It's a pretty bad idea if you want to get a Democrat elected - but if you're a non-partisan progressive, or a progressive who isn't too hung up on Obama the man, then you really have nothing to lose. Over the past year, Obama has tacked further and further to the right on key issues (especially the budget), and it's looking like he has already completed any progressive achievements he's ever going to pursue. The only way a primary challenge could come back to hurt progressives is if the GOP winds up winning both chambers of Congress while defeating Obama.
- whyamihere
July 8, 2011 at 10:06pm
Did anyone ever see Moonstruck? I'm having this Cher moment when she smacked the crap out of Nicholas Cage and exclaimed, "Snap out of it!"
- VBKim
July 8, 2011 at 10:17pm
What I would like to see, apart from everything else, is for Matthew to ignore self-serving libertarians, whatever they are.
- rayward
July 8, 2011 at 10:55pm
You know who else called for a Primary challenge against the president? Marty. Just because he didn't espouse some fringe hawkish foreign policy crap he was pitching. Cooler heads prevail.
- RJSampson1
July 9, 2011 at 1:21am
- The challenger would not only lose while hurting Obama, they'd be remembered as a Quisling within the party. What Democrat wishes to go down in history as pulling the plug on the second term of the first black president? But "The visible left-wing activists and writers who are criticizing Obama from the left.." don't have & can't agree on a candidate anyway. Ed Schultz or Rev. Al? Olbermann, Maddow or Colbert? I suppose Hillary or Cuomo would be the best 2nd choice or a favorite in '16. If they make a move now they're the NFL scabs who played in the '87 strike season.
- michaelg
July 9, 2011 at 9:05am
There is little likelihood that a primary challenge will happen for the main reason that, as Zeitlin suggests, the likelihood of such a challenge being successful is pretty much zero. If you're a 98 pound weakling you have to be either insane or in desperate need of attention and notoriety to step into the ring with Mike Tyson. Still I think both Zeitlin and some of the posters here are missing Friedersdorf's point, that point being that primary challenges can be a powerful tool for advancing a particular agenda--the right's aggressive use of the tactic at a state and congressional level provides numerous examples--and that in a different world where such challenges were more usual, Obama's hard swerve to the right on economic issues might have been checked somewhat had he been forced to contemplate the likelihood that he would be challenged on his performance within his own party. The fact that such challenges hardly ever do happen is arguably bad for democracy. It means that a first term president--of whichever party--can pretty much take his own party's support for granted. If anything, it is in such a president's best interests to take up positions designed to appeal to the opposing party's voters since they constitute the biggest pool of persuadables. Personally, I'd love to see a challenge. I know it wouldn't be successful, and it might hurt Obama's re-election chances a little, but seriously, if all a guy has to do to earn my support is hang a sign around his neck that says "Democrat" of what value is my vote? The only imaginable challenger I can think of with enough stature and fund-raising potential to make Obama sweat would be Al Gore, but climate change aside, Gore is no liberal. Also I've read something about some charges that were or were not laid against Gore regarding "unwanted sexual contact" with a hotel massage therapist in Seattle, and so as much fun as a Nobel vs Nobel presidential smack-down would be to watch, I don't see it happening.
- AaronW
July 9, 2011 at 10:06am
I am with Curran and VB. The very fact dro is for it means that it is ipso facto a terrible idea.
- liberalref
July 9, 2011 at 10:08am
liberalref, how many times must you be asked to desist with the personal attacks? If you disagree with drofnats's position, by all means offer up your arguments, but if your comments are to be limited to "I agree with that" or "I think that is stupid" it adds little if any value to the thread. None of us on these boards has any authority. We can't. We don't know who each other are. If Paul Krugman says he agrees with something or that he thinks something else is stupid, that is useful information; even if he doesn't detail any related argument his authority gives me reason to pay attention. But if liberalref--or AaronW--says he agrees with something, it doesn't signify. And when you couple such insignificant comments with one of your typically unfunny digs on other posters it ceases to be merely irritating and turns truly unpleasant.
- AaronW
July 9, 2011 at 11:38am
- Peter Hart (the Dem half of the NBC/WSJ Poll) on why BHO is far from finished. And, who would Gore pick as the VP half of his suicide squad?
"The only way a primary challenge could come back to hurt progressives is if the GOP winds up winning both chambers of Congress while defeating Obama." Oh, is that all? Other than that, Mrs. Kennedy, how was your drive through Dallas? It was perfect convertible weather, right? When the "only way" things could go wrong is, in fact, a thing that is very likely to happen -- or, at least, most definitely in the realm of realistic possibility -- your "only way" argument is pretty freakin' bad.
- W_Bombay
July 9, 2011 at 12:47pm
- Oh, drof claims "[a challenger] may well start with 20-25% of all voters and 30-40% of all Dems.". Fine, with the latter we'll see wasted dollars on a loser in a primary. (However, Obama has 85% approval with likely Dem voters so the challenger won't start out with "30-40% of all Dems." Further, "20-25% of all voters" may apply to any 3rd party choice. I'd prefer the 67% of Republicans who don't like their choice side with a break way and steal 25% from their team. But go ahead, cite Obama as the problem as the GOP does the same in their effort to hold both chambers. If anyone has excess political energy but isn't in love with BHO, use it to hold the Senate and retake the House. Progressive legislation requires an effective Congressional majority (this current session is Exhibit A).
- michaelg
July 9, 2011 at 12:51pm
Matt Zeitlin is doubtless right about the polling thus far. But if Obama comes back from negotiations w/ Boehner et al with a debt limit deal that cuts trillions in entitlement and discretionary spending with no revenue increases or only paltry ones, and thus sparks a revolt among House Democrats, the dynamics could change. Obama could come away from this hold-yourself-hostage negotiation with Democrats feeling he's betrayed their values and the national interest. That could tempt someone.
- adsprung
July 9, 2011 at 1:26pm
You are just another one of the colossal BSers out here, Aaron. Dro has repeatedly lashed out at me and he has called me a Blue Dog innumerable times (anyone with an IQ over about 80 should be able to tell I am not a BD), yet you have said not one word about this. Roid has repeatedly sworn at commenters (something I have never done) and he has been incredibly abusive towards them at times, with nary a peep out of you that I have seen. Correct me if I am wrong. Therefore, you lecture me on personal attacks only because my ideology is out of line with yours. Same with the others who criticize me. Absolutely priceless, Dr. Bombay. More comments like this, please.
- liberalref
July 9, 2011 at 1:32pm
Libref, I sort of think that what Aaron's getting at is that, on this point, on this thread, you chose to oppose Drof not by arguing against him on the subject of policy, but by attacking him on personal grounds. Of course, I think that on this point, your, position is very clearly correct, just to be clear! Whyamihere: Followers of recent discussions will note that I am in no way blindly enamored of Obama, far from it. So you're making an innaccurate, to-the-man argument, there. All that said, I'd very much like to drag Obama to the left on economics, but to do so by splitting the party could be a disaster. Remember 1980? In its long-term consequences, it was the greatest electoral disaster Liberalism has seen, and it might've been avoided if Liberals had sucked it up and supported that centrist jackass, Carter.
- Curran1
July 9, 2011 at 2:43pm
I suppose that should be 'greatest political disaster,' not electoral.
- Curran1
July 9, 2011 at 2:44pm
Ok lib. In your book anyone who at least occasionally gives reasons to support his/her opinions is a bullshitter, whereas your vacuous thumbs-up, thumbs-down statements and lame insults are the height of civilized discourse. I suspect you are beyond help. I shall ignore your posts in future.
- AaronW
July 9, 2011 at 6:51pm
michael et al, we're arguing past each other. You're given lots of reasons why a challenge won't happen and why it would harm Obama's reelection chances if it did. I have already conceded all those points. My argument--and Friedsdorf's, if I'm interpreting him correctly--is that primary challenges to incumbents are a potent form of political speech/action and that by failing to follow the example of the conservative movement by employing this tactic, the core Democratic base of labor unions, urban progressives and racial minority voters has unnecessarily relinquished much of its influence on the party and its leaders.
- AaronW
July 9, 2011 at 8:23pm
- AaronW et al, (nothing personal) but my consistent point has been a primary challenge in each party has proved to hurt the incumbent to the point of ending their term: LBJ in '64, Ford in '76, Carter in '80 & Bush in '92. Further, the example of the conservative movement in the '10 Senate races is the GOP lost Nevada, Delaware and Colorado because the influence of the base was only potent enough to produce a loser in the general election. Closed primaries generally favor the challenger who appeals only to a narrow base and that is not a formula to take to the Fall. The goal is to engage and motivate the base but not exaggerate their influence so they nominate a loser in the general or leave them pissed off and pouting (and at home) if their challenger fails in the primary. All the data I've seen suggests Barack Obama will maintain his electoral votes in blue states in spite of his base being less satisfied. However, he can afford to lose damn few states that he won in '08 and that margin was in states where an engaged Democratic base failed to elected a winner over the decades.
- michaelg
July 10, 2011 at 10:19am
But that is precisely the point: the threat of a second-term-denying primary challenge orchestrated by the party base has value in keeping first term presidents mindful of the concerns of their own party members. If no such threat exists, are free to abandon their own parties and court voters from the opposing party by adopting policy positions that are anathema to his own party. This is precisely what Obama has done and what Clinton did to a lesser degree. You don't see this happening so much with Republican presidents. Bush I was by natural inclination more liberal than the GOP base, and then when he violated Republican no-taxation orthodoxy, he got primaried and lost the GE. It will be a ling time before another GOP prez defies his base like that.
- AaronW
July 10, 2011 at 6:01pm
Should have read "presidents are free..."
- AaronW
July 10, 2011 at 6:02pm