Thursday, December 17, 2009

Have Things Really Gotten This Bad for Democrats?

[Click to Enlarge]

Are liberals serious about this? FHQ is sure some are -- there are only 35 votes on that poll -- but c'mon. I don't understand the purism on the extreme end of both parties. If you want to get something -- anything -- done, you have to have members of your party in power (And yes, that means members of the same party with differing viewpoints.). Undercutting this president or any other is simply political fratricide. All or nothing is no way to approach American politics. It never has been, and in a supermajoritarian body like the Senate, it never will be.

Recent Posts:
Who's Happy with a the Parties' Tentative Outline of a Primary Calendar for 2012?

USA Today Presidential Approval Tracker is Now in FHQ's Side Bar

Public Policy Polling: December 2009 Presidential Trial Heats In Depth


Seth Masket said...

An unscientific poll AND a small sample? Don't lose sleep over this one.

Jack said...

It's a secret, don't tell anyone, but liberals are planning to support the insurgent campaign of Evan Bayh.

Unknown said...

Seth makes two good points. But I suspect another factor at play. Keep in mind that for many people on the left, tolerance and open-mindedness are basically orthodoxy. To give an emphatic "No" to the notion of supporting a primary challenger to Obama is to say that no one could possibly be better than Obama. To say that is closed-minded. And one can not be closed-minded; therefore, one can not say they would not be open to supporting a Democratic challenger.

Robert said...

I fully expect Russ Feingold to challenge Obama if he doesn't come through on the draw-down of troops in Afghanistan in July, 2011. If Al Gore had become President in 2001 and proceeded along the same path as George W. Bush, I firmly believe that there would have been either a Democratic challenger or an Independent running in 2004. I doubt the Republicans would have supported Gore's actions. Instead they would have claimed that he was not hawkish enough. Ah, the world of what might have been.

Josh Putnam said...

I was hoping this one would get people talking a bit. I'm sorry it has been kind of slow this week.

Good points, all!

No sleep will be lost.

...not over that anyway.

Jack said...

Robert, why would any liberal in his right mind support Feingold in 2012? Sen. Feingold was the most liberal senator in the 107th Congress. He was tied for 17th in the 108th Congress. He was also the most liberal senator in the 109th and 110th Congresses. As of the end of July, he was the 57th most liberal senator in the 111th Congress.

Feingold voted against the budget and a lot of other liberal stuff. He's really a libertarian at heart, and while I appreciate his vote against the Patriot Act, as a relatively communitarian and stridently anti-libertarian liberal, I really would much prefer Obama.

Robert said...


I think many in the party would support Obama, but Feingold is the most consistent anti-war Democrat out there. He is someone who could coalesce the anti-war movement and force Obama to be less hawkish and more dovish. A vote for Feingold would be more of an anti-war protest vote than a liberal vote. I view it as an insurgency much akin to Buchanan's run in 92.

Jack said...

Yes, I agree with your argument, Robert. I just felt like ranting.

Robert said...

So do I, Jack. Happy holidays!

Jack said...

And the same to you, Rob! And to Josh, and all the readers of FHQ, except the ones that regularly disagree with me.

Nah, I'm in a charitable mood. Them too.

Sewer Socialist said...