A) To see Jerome's prophecy come true: a Republican House and/or Senate followed by the possible major defeats on the Bush Tax Cuts and a continued presence in Afghanistan which might lead to a primary challenge...

OR

B) see Democrats hold the House and Senate by narrow margins and get nothing done followed by no primary challenge in 2012?

I'm not trying to provoke anyone here.  I think there's a great deal of tea-leaf reading going on in (A).  How could we be so sure all of those things would come to pass if Democrats lost the House and/or the Senate?

On the other hand I think with (B) we can at least expect to see the tax cuts expire (whether all or some expire it will still help the overall gigantic deficit so I'll take either of those possibilities) because I think it will be most likely a totally deadlocked two years if Democrats can hold their majorites in both.

All things considered I think I'd rather see (B) happen because I think even if all of what Jerome predicts happens -- complete with a primary challenger in 2012 -- that doesn't necessarily mean progressive causes will be in any better shape than they'd be if (A) happens.  In fact I think both long and short term (B) is a preferable option.

What do YOU think?  Go ahead and start assailing me with "voting out of fear of the Republicans," "apologizing for Obama," etc. but please, if you do that, then do me a favor and tell me how we'd be better off in the short or long term if option (A) happens?

I think it's time for me to donate to Betsy Markey (or which ever Dem you care for).

...Presidential Approval Center I see that approval of Obama among Blacks hovers around 90%.

This implies that support for any primary challenge of Obama from the left would come largely from white progressives.

Now, to say that a primary challenge of a sitting President would be permissible only if it weren't divisive would be ridiculous -- such challenges inevitably will be.

But framing it the way I have suggests that such a challenge would be a particular kind of divisive -- a kind of divisive that might set the progressive movement back a very long ways.

I hope at some point you'll address this point squarely.

Several points to make:

1.  Personally, I favor letting the tax cuts expire for only the top income brackets--but letting all of them expire is better than continuing them.  Will there be 41 Democrats in the next congress
to filibuster?  I doubt it, since there will still be many Blue Dogs in the Senate next year.  Will Obama veto such a bill?  He has to. 

2.  Any primary challenge must not divide the party.  The best scenario is early defeats in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada persuade Obama not to run for reelection--not likely. 

3.  Even if such a primary challenge is successful, getting the AA vote is essential--it could mean the difference in Florida and Ohio.

4.  Right now I don't see anyone with the stature to consider a primary challenge.  I don't think Howard Dean is the answer (primal scream?).  My challenge to MyDD:  who else could primary Obama?
Hillary is the only one--but she's more hawkish than Obama.

I think Obama's first mistake was promising that he wouldn't allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for those under $250K in the first place.  Worked well during the campaign but I don't think it was ever something that was going to get through Congress easily, even with the majorities the Dems have now.  Too many Blue Dogs, too many Nelsons and Conrads.  It was something Obama could avoid for a couple of years while hoping the economy not only stabilized but started to recover at light speed.  But that didn't happen, and if he thought it would he was fooling himself.

That said, allowing all of the cuts to expire is just not something the Democrats can allow to happen.  The GOP would kill them with charges of overtaxing working Americans during tough times and going back on promises not to increase their taxes.  Those attacks would resonate with a lot of voters and would be a political nightmare not only for Obama but for the party as a whole and any hypothetical primary challengers Obama might face in 2012.  What you'd get is larger GOP majorities in both houses and a GOP president in 2012 - guaranteed.  Don't get me wrong - I'd rather see them expire for all brackets than to see them all extended.  And I don't think this would be devastating for any tax bracket.  But I'm not Johnny Average Voter.

It's probably nearly impossible to get legislation through Congress extending the cuts for the top 5% only.  And even if the GOP wins back both houses they probably won't have the numbers to get them extended permanently for all brackets.  So we'll either get a deadlocked Congress, which would mean that the tax cuts would expire naturally for all brackets, or some sort of compromise - say a 2-year extension for all brackets.  I think the latter is the best the Democrats can hope for, but I'm thinking the GOP would rather see the tax cuts expire for all and blame it on the Democrats than accept that compromise.  And if that happens, any primary challenger who might defeat Obama in 2012 would probably lose worse than he would because, as mentioned above, he/she would divide the party and not have the power of the incumbency behind him/her.

Either Petraeus is being more insubordinate than McChrystal was or he's bee given the green light (not that he had to be pressured) by the administration to break the news to the American people that a July 2011 withdrawal ain't going to happen.  I'm going with the latter.  Sadly, though, as long as American soldiers aren't coming home in body bags at Iraq-style rates, I don't think this will hurt Obama much.  The majority of the public has soured on our adventures in Afghanistan but except for activists on both the left and the right I don't think it's a big issue for most voters - they'll say they don't like it but it won't drive their decisions in the voting booth.  That is, as long as casualties stay at "acceptable" levels - and I think Petraeus will be able to do that while continuing the forever war.  Sad, but true.  So while Afghanistan may inspire folks in the Dem base to push for a primary challenge in 2012, most general election voters aren't going to be drawn to a Dem presidential candidate just because he/she promises to get us out of Afghanistan.

All this is me saying that I don't think a 2012 primary challenge is a good idea.

to the question of a primary challenge.  If Obama holds to the Iraq withdrawl timetable - which he has done and which this article omits - there will be little challenge to him from the rank and file in the party on foreign policy.

Frankly whether there is a challenge or not depends on the unemployment rate.  In January of 1983 Ronald Reagan  had an approval rating of 36%.  By the end of the year he was at 54-36 positive, and unemployment had gone from 10.8% to 8.3%.  Conversely in 1991 Bush was at an average of 82% in Gallup.  By the end of the year he was at 51, and in February he was at 41.  In that time unemployment went up 1.3%.  Bush continued to decline all through 1992 even though GDP grew at over 3%.  The problem for Bush was that GDP growth did not translate into unemployment reductions.

Is Obama more like Bush or Reagan?  It will depend on the direction unemployment takes during the course of 2011.  If we double dip, my guess is that he may not even run again.  If unemployment gets below saw 8.5% there will be no primary challenge, and the surprise will be how formidable he appears.  In between those two extremes you may see a primary challenge.  It wouldn't take much: I have written here before on how Iowa and New Hampshire make National Polling irrelevent, and you can mount a challenge in both states with a reasonably small budget. 

If that happens, it won't be because of Afghanistan or tax cuts.  To believe that is to seriously misjudge our political environment.  It will be because unemployment remains too high.  And it is just as likely to come from the right as from the left.

I've lost all faith that we can get anything better in the primaries.

I didn't vote for Clinton in large part because she is a corporate hack. So instead I voted for an alternative....who ended up being a corporate hack. We don't get anywhere trading one for another.

I'm now ready to try "if you Dems keep screwing progressives specifically and the country in general, you are going to be out of a job completely." Probably won't ever help, but I think the ONLY chance we have at this point is if they feel like they have to make us happy to get us to vote for them instead of the GOP.

Not a good situation, for sure. The GOP is downright scary-crazy. But I don't see the situation ever changing if the Dems continue think our votes are automatic and that they just have to pander to the center-right to get elected.

How did you all like the newest middle finger from the White House pointed at the Left and women (and this time, also senior citizens) with their vote of confidence for Simpson?

Those of us who warned a year and a half ago that the Obama stimulus bill was really a sedative bill have been vindicated at this point. Japan tried six of these government spending frauds during the '90's, and it didn't work for them either. Even after Orsag and Mrs. Romer have hit the road, we have to listen to "plugs" Biden---when he isn't walking around bumping into doors--- telling us that this is the Recovery Summer.

Against this backdrop, why do you want to make an issue of letting the Bush tax cuts expire? There should be no tax increase in this kind of an economic meltdown, period; just let it go, for chrissakes. Nouriel Roubini pegs the chance of a double dip recession at 40%; David Rosenberg, former chief economist at Merrill, said earlier this week that we never got out of the first recession, and that we're now in a depression.

You people really need to wake up. Barak Obama has wrecked this economy, and raising taxes will only make it worse.

I realize today is not a good day for Dems. I particularly am disturbed over the Simpson outrage and the Cat food Commission. That being said Jerome, just who do you invision from the Demcratic party will take up your call and step forward to divide and possibly destroy the party. Do you really invision this happening or is this just a personal call to satisfy your dream of vengeance.  Obama is no perfect Progressive but lets be honest Clinton would have been no better.The only people to benefit from an Obama primary is the Rethuglicans and you know it. There will be a lot of seats lost but most of them will be Blue dogs and I say good riddance. We will hold on to both houses in spite of your prophesy.

If Republicans regain the House and Senate, they would simply pass the tax break extension under budget resolution rules, like they did last time.  If the House goes Republican and the Senate has a narrow Democratic majority, they probably also would pass the budget under majority rule -- but it would still give the Republicans plus a few Democrats to extend the Bush tax breaks. 

Social Security! If Obama agrees to go along with the Catfood Commission and cut benefits, raise the retirement elgilibity age, or make other concessions that will weaken and harm Social Security, he will lose a lot of votes, mine in particular. If he does this and is not primaried - and yes, the African-Americans will be pissed - then I will vote for whatever wingnut Republican or more viable 3rd party candidate is out there, just to make sure Obama loses.

This is the gold-plated legacy of the New Deal and is one of the few governmental programs passed by Dems that is well loved by almost all Americans, except for the rightwing politicians. For Obama to be the first Democratic president to actually weaken or harm Social Security would guarantee he will be a one term president. You add this to the other major items Jerome is positing, and I think you can count on a primary challenge, and if not, then a loss at the polls in Nov 2012.

I'd predict that if we get a GOP House, it will be filled with crazed lunatics on a scale we haven't seen - think Orly Taitz crazy. Thus I'd expect their #1 priority would be impeaching Obama, not sending him veto bait. In 1995 they overreached, but that was with a House membership not pushed over the edge by fringe extremists. What they would do in 2011 is hard to predict, other than it would destroy any remaining credibility the Republicans might still have.

Primarying Obama is a silly notion. A GOP House would be one of the greatest political gifts he could receive, and by 2012 he would be politically unassailable. Nothing would get done in 2011 or 2012, but Obama would look so good by the end of it that no Democrat would dare go after him. And just as well; the only thing that could elect a President Palin or a President Huckabee would be a Democratic party torn apart by a devisive primary.

And the betrayal of all working people just to keep the Bush tax cuts.

Fourteen of the 18 members of the soi-disant "Catfood Commission" are rabidly anti-SS. Obama figures it's the cover he needs to screw blue collar America.

Whether he is opposed in a primary or not, he will be a one term President, probably laughing all the way to the bank (Swiss).

is continued high unemployment. 

Soldier death tolls on the nightly news, night after night, or photos and maybe videos of the resurgent Taliban beating women again on the streets of Kabul and a beheading or two.

Not a great political choice, but one has to be chosen. And from what I can tell, we are going with the former.