"Electable" thread 2:

[LWolf]

I noticed the previous thread getting full. I find the "electability" discussion to be intensely irritating at times; I browse but don't linger. And here I am starting a thread. Why?

I keep thinking that if we want democracy to be about issues and about the people making decisions based on issues, we ought to focus our vote on just that...issues. And I keep being told, over and over; it's too bad, but that's not the way it is. Some tell me kindly. Some tell me sadly. Some are patronizing. Some are derisive. But all just keep telling me that reality is not about the issues.

So here's a piece I ran across today: "The Triumph of Image"


http://www.bouldernews.com/bdc/editorials/article/0,1713,BDC_2489_2362789,00.html

In a better world, presidential candidates — and their chances of election — would not be measured by their stature, "electability," money or military service. Instead, they'd be measured by the their ideas, and their abilities to carry out those ideas. Looking at the 2004 presidential election it doesn't look as though the world is going to change much. President Bush already has hauled in more than $100 million for his campaign, and that's all some analysts need to know to pronounce him the inevitable winner.

Meanwhile, the nine Democratic hopefuls spend much of their time posturing. Through the media, we learn that former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean is "too short" to be elected. Gen. Wesley Clark is credible simply because he is a soldier. But the "credible" candidates aren't talking boldly about some important issues.

Case in point: A new ABC-Washington Post poll finds that 54 percent of Americans are dissatisfied with the overall quality of U.S. health care; 62 percent prefer the idea of a universal, government controlled insurance plan. Why? Because under the current private insurance system, costs are rising, businesses are shifting more of the burden to employees, and Medicare is heading for crisis. Yet "credible" candidates are too busy polishing an image to care much. In fact, only U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio advocates the kind of system that nearly two-thirds of Americans prefer. And he's already been pronounced "unelectable."

Maybe so. No, probably so. But that says more about our obsession with image than it does about Kucinich.

Some of us are driven by the issues; we'll make our choices that way. I hope that, whichever candidate you vote for, you make your choice based on the issues and not the polls. If we all did that, our country would be a better place. And we would have the satisfaction of knowing we had a hand in making it better.

We need a raised fist emoticon! If I could find one, I'd put it right here, standing proudly for the issues.

[MuseRider]

1. I will stand

along side if you do not mind. His issues are so non inflamatory that I simply can not see why some feel the need to find these threads and belittle us or mostly DK. If we end up with a centrist as our candidate we will need to pound right back and be sure we are heard and our issues considered. DK has much to offer if only people will listen, and I think they are beginning to.

[LWolf]

2. You are welcome to stand with me

any day, MuseRider.

:hi:

[JohnKleeb]

3. Can I stand with both of you

because I think we have made a great choice.

[LWolf]

10. Of course, John!

We're all standing together!

:hi:

[JohnKleeb]

20. Thanks

You know, I know as you all know its gonna be damn hard but I also know its damned right. Thank god we have people like him out there, win or lose I think history will remember Dennis Kucinich in a great light.

[MuseRider]

15. I would

love to stand next to you John! All of you. I know this all sounds kinda silly but the cause is so positive I get that fuzzy feeling. (((HUGS))) to all of you.

[diamondsoul]

4. I'll stand with you-

I just sent out a Statewide mailing for the first time tonight. I've had a grand total of 4 remove requests.(organization around here has faltered badly so I'm jumping in.)

Brand new coordination efforts and I've already had double the positive replies as negative in less than 4 hours time.

He's electable.

:toast: :yourock:

[Desertrose]

6. Go diamondsoul!

What state are you in?? I'm in 'Zona...yeah...things need to be kept alive & active- no matter what it takes. I have my local meeting scheduled here tomorrow nite...we have some cool things planned.....if anyone wants some ideas...please PM me & I can tell you what we are doing here...maybe you can share your ideas, too. :)

this Sat we are calling it DVD day...DENNIS VISIBILITY DAY

Saturday, October 25...Day of Peace, Healing and Remembrance in Support of Peace and the Troops
(this is also a National Day of Protest Against the War)
5-7 pm, Lawn in front of City Hall
Rally to be followed by candlelight vigil. Please bring signs for the rally
(with a positive message about peace or the troops), lanterns or candles in
jars for the vigil and warm clothes just in case it gets chilly. And send
information about this event FAR and WIDE. We want lots of people there!
Co-sponsored by Northern Arizonans for Kucinich, Flagstaff Center for
Compassionate Communication, Flagstaff Veterans for Peace, and Flagstaff
Coalition for Peace and Justice.


DK is totally electable!!!

Great new bumpersticker website....http://www.carryabigsticker.com/Kucinich.htm

Peace
& hope
DR

[diamondsoul]

18. I'm in

Indiana, and I'm finding a lot of people are just glad to hear SOMEthing from someone about Dennis. Urgh!

I'm looking into a couple of events to get Denis to here (finally!), and contemplating setting up some thrown together fund-raising rallies.

Will PM you a bit more when I get back from running a couple of errands.

[MuseRider]

14. Good for you!!!

I am still patiently (?) waiting to hear from national, it has been over a month now and I am getting very anxious to start something up. You go! If there is anything you need help with that a person in Kansas can do please let me know. All of you. I want to help.

[diamondsoul]

17. Muse, I'll see what I can find out for you.

If you like e-mail me your contact info and I'll get someone to contact you by phone, asap. OR since we're total strangers, I can find out who is the coordinator and e-mail you with that. I keep in pretty regular contact with Cleveland which is how suddenly found myself the new State Campaign Coordinator. LOL

I don't wear that in my sig here, because this is where I keep my debating skills in use.;-)

[Desertrose]

5. Me too...count me in !

I reeeeally have a hard time considering another candidate other than Dennis.The threads that ask us to choose another or if we will vote Dem if ourcandidate doesn't get nominated...they just drive me crazy. I am not even remotely ready to go there yet.

And really...why can't we change things? The only reason we can't is because too many believe we can't.

Kucinich is the best one to come down the pike in a long long time .....

Peace & hope
DR

[hippywife]

7. Most definitely!!

Not selling my soul for superficiality!! :)

[leftbend]

8. I want to stand with Dennis

I would be proud to stand alongside anyone that supports Dennis Kucinich and his platform. I just wish I could find someone to stand with here in Central Oregon.

[LWolf]

9. Hello to central oregon!

I visit your neighborhood a couple of times a year; my mom lives in La Pine.

She is currently lobbying to convince me to move that direction; we'll see. Have you thought about starting a DK meetup in Bend? My first meetup had 3 people; now up to 30 or so. I'm still driving an hour to get there, but it looks like November may see us start up locally with 2 or 3, and grow from there!

[leftbend]

11. Hello

I went to a meetup but no one else showed. I haven't been available on the meetup date since then, I will keep trying to connect, I feel it is important. I was just feeling a little frustration, Bend is supposed to be the most liberal place in Central Oregon but I feel very alone sometimes. Meanwhile I am doing what I can by donating, forwarding e-mail, and talking to people. I am ever thankful for DU, it keeps me inspired reading the comments from the DK supporters.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

12. Former Oregonian here

I haven't been in Bend for years, but I would suggest putting signs up in coffee shops, natural food stores, and other places where liberal people might hang out. The Meet-Ups are kind of hard to find if you're not looking for them or aren't otherwise plugged into Internet political discussions.

[LWolf]

24. If I make it back to bend before the primaries,

I'll "meet up" with ya! I was just there in August. I'm not sure when the next trip will be.

[leftbend]

27. DU people are always welcome

in Bend, but especially DK supporters. I'll make sure of that.

[redqueen]

13. Another 'electable' topic? Not surprised!

I'm a volunteer Kucitizen here and that's one thing I hear all the time. It's so frustrating, but it is also encouraging, because I know when I hear that, that the person I'm speaking with has their heart in the right place, at least! And a few have committed to voting for him in the primaries already. :D

I'm also seemingly always busy during meetup nights, but hoping that will change soon. I also want to thank all you Kucinich supporters' on the net for all your positive messages, which helps keep me energized.

There was also a great piece in The Nation, which is apparently only available in print, but here's a few paragraphs -- I heard about it and bought it, and called and told them that this was the sole reason I'd bought it! It's wonderful... :)

It's called Who's Afraid of Dennis Kucinich

In Concord, the Edwards ground staff worked out another stunt designed to bring people into the lunchtime meeting in front of the State House: They gave away free hot dogs. The booth where the hot dogs were being given away had a sign next to it that read as follows: Free Puppy Love Hot Dogs! I went to the front of the line and got my hot dog. At the booth I asked the volunteers if maybe the choice of the word "puppy" wasn't a little unfortunate. "Why?" a twentysomething woman with a Southern accent asked. "Well," I said, "when I'm eating meat, I'm not sure I want to be thinking about puppies." She frowned and stared at me like I was crazy. "But people like puppies," she said, seeming hurt.

Fast-forward three days. Dennis Kucinich is giving a speech in a classroom at the University of New Hampshire, in Durham. It is a wide-ranging talk that is remarkable on a number of fronts. John Edwards may be the "Youth" candidate, but it is the congressman from Ohio who is at home in front of college students. It is the other candidates who too often treat even grown-ups like babies, feeding them condescending platitudes and implying at every turn that we voters are simply not mature enough to handle anything beyond a flag, a photo op and a few vacuous paeans to "jobs" and "unity" and "leadership."

But here is Kucinich in a crowd full of 19-year-olds, explaining the intricacies of our militarized system of government and inviting his audience to join in a movement whose roots date back to Thoreau and Emerson and Gandhi. He outlines a revolutionary plan, centered in his creation of a Department of Peace, that would "make nonviolence an organizing principle of society." He quotes from Jung, Barbara Marx Hubbard, Thomas Berry, Morris Berman. Dennis Kucinich is the only presidential candidate whose speeches need to be annotated.

After the speech, I went through the crowd and spoke with some of the students. The majority had signed up to volunteer immediately. But a few held back. One, 27-year-old Dave Wilmes, said that he liked Kucinich but wasn't sure he could support him. "He's everything that I personally would want in a President," Wilmes said. "But I don't think he can do it. It's going to have to be someone like Kerry or Edwards." "Why?" I asked. He shrugged. "It's probably going to have to be someone who's tall," he said. "I mean, Kucinich is great, but this just isn't serious." Welcome to the Dennis Kucinich paradox. The congressman is not serious precisely because he is serious. Because he wants his victory to mean something, he is said to not really want to win. Pundits and journalists talk a lot about Kucinich's height and his decidedly non-Hollywood looks as the main reasons he cannot be considered a contender, but on the campaign trail, it sure looks like Kucinich's chief "problem" is that when he talks, he means it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

16. One of the things I like about Dennis

is that he's very bright and well-read and manages to stick all these allusions and quotations into his speeches but never comes off as a hoity-toity intellectual.

[LWolf]

25. When he talks, he means it.

And his speeches need to be annotated. This is where he catches the support; the fact that he is, in no way, business/politics as usual. And we are so ready for this!

[Mairead]

19. I'm in

I know we're onto something when nobody can contest us on the issues, and nobody can point to a better record of backbone.

I'm completely unwilling to do ABB because that's an implicit admission that it's all just a beauty contest, and that everyone will eventually knuckle under to the 'most popular', even if 'popularity' is determined with the 'help' of the GOP.

Since Smirk is running unopposed, all the Republicans need do is re-register as Dems and vote for the opponent they want. If that happens (and why won't it?), we'll never know we've been poisoned til election night, when our King Of The Prom turns out to be The Guy Most Likely To Lose To A Psychopathic Australopithecus.

It seems to me that the only hope of avoiding that fate is for everyone to focus on substance instead of glitz, and back the person whose policies and record are easiest to explain, hardest to attack, and easiest to defend. Then at least we know that we've done our very best, and if we have enough people turn out to make him the nominee, then even all the GOPers playing head games won't be able to rig it against us.

Does that make any sense at all?

[redqueen]

21. Makes perfect sense to me!

And with Dennis's demonstrated ability to confound even his Republican colleagues who have no choice but to respect him for his principled record, I can't feel any way other than supremely confident!

My (conservative) Democrat Dad admonished me last night because of the anti-Bush vitriol coming from the leading candidates. He knows I'm an activist and was railing at me that we're alienating moderates and Repubs who are recoiling from Bush. I related to him Dennis's response to the ranting he heard from the woman at Tom Harkin's town hall meeting (was on Road to The White House on C-Span), where he told her the answer was not to attack the opponent, but to present clear and positive solutions, and his eyes got wide and he nodded his head. 'Exactly!' was the word he used. I think I finally may have converted him! :D

Video archived on this page (from July 27).

[Lydia Leftcoast]

22. Yeah, the positive (pardon the expression) "vision thing"

The Republicans present a clear vision of a Leave It to Beaver America. To the people who are anxious and angry because they know that something is wrong but they don't quite know what, they promise a return to an imagined golden age when everyone was happy in their place, peaceful, and content to follow conservative morality. It's a fairy tale, of course, since the 1950s were neither as peaceful or as contented as the old TV shows indicate, but it's an attractive and coherent fairy tale.

Most of the Dem candidates put forth no coherent vision of what America could be like. They have a patch for this problem and a patch for that problem, and a crumb for this group and a crumb for that group, but if they have a core vision for the future of America--and I'm sure that some of them do--they fail to articulate it. Maybe they don't get back to their home districts often enough and are so caught up in the trivia of passing this bill and that bill that they've lost sight of why they went into politics in the first place.

[MuseRider]

23. I'm glad you said this

I have been worried about the Republicans picking our candidate at the primaries. Is there any way to know?

[Mairead]

54. "Is there any way to know?"

I've wracked my brains but can't think of any, Muse. Unless a lot of them admit it during exit polling, I can't imagine how we could tell without a lot of intensive nationwide investigation (checking voter-roll changes for recency and direction, etc).

Maybe someone else can think of something.

[Cogito]

26. People seem not to understand how elections work.

IN this Democratic primary facing this republican incumbent electability is pretty much the ONLY issue. Now that doesn't mean that we shouldn't care about the issue positions each candidate articulates. But the right way to evaluate the candidates and their issue positions is to ask whether the candidate's issue position makes them more electable in the general election.

I don't understand those who confuse "being driven by the issues" with voting for the candidate whose issue position most closely mirrors their own. Voting is NOT about expressing your opinion, it is about trying to get the best possible policy outcome you can. A vote for Kucinich in the primary is a wasted opportunity to help choose the actual nominee of the party.

I don't understand how anyone can write I hope that, whichever candidate you vote for, you make your choice based on the issues and not the polls. If we all did that, our country would be a better place. And we would have the satisfaction of knowing we had a hand in making it better.
Suppose that there are five candidates running for election: Kucinich, Jesse Jackson, Ralph Nader, Mahatma Ghandi and Bush. Now, suppose that 15% of the population likes Kucinich best on the issues, 15% likes Jackson, 15% likes Nader, 15% likes Ghandi and 40% like Bush. If everyone votes for the candidate they like best on the issues then under our electoral system Bush would win. This even though 60% of the electorate prefers any of the other candidates to Bush. How in the world would anyone take satisfaction in that result? How in the world could anyone think they had done their civic duty failing to unite on a single candidate to oppose Bush? How in the world could anyone think that by failing to coordinate on a single candidate the left was making the world a better place.

[Mairead]

28. "If everyone votes for the candidate they like best on the issues"

Well, you know, that's where the idea of rational choice comes in. Yes, if people choose on some irrational, ideosyncratic basis and vote that choice, then it's a mess, no doubt about it.

What's an 'irrational basis', you ask? Anything based on 'electability'. For example, 'my candidate's plan for X can get passed, but your one's can't' (translation: my candidate's policy is electable, and yours isn't). Similarly, anything of the form 'I just think X will be better for the country', with no factual reasons.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but the effect of some policy should be easily explainable in factual terms. We should be choosing the candidate to support based on those facts, not wishful thinking.

Being able to explain to people why they should vote Dem next November depends on having such facts. Reagan won although his policies were horsecrap because neither Carter nor Mondale had nothing to offer. So both times it was a battle of no-substance, won by a combination of image and criminal activity.

I think that if we carefully go through all the policies and the record, the winner will be Dennis Kucinich. I'm sure that's no news flash. But this might be: I don't care if it's Dennis. I want the best policies and the best record of integrity, not a particular individual. I firmly believe based on the analysis I've already done that that person is Dennis, but if on further analysis it turns out to be someone else? Fine! I'll immediately switch my support.

How many other people are willing to say the same? All ABBers certainly should be, because they claim they really aren't committed to anything but getting rid of Smirk. But I suspect 'should be' is one thing, while 'are' is quite another.

How many people really are willing to put a facts-only magnifying glass on their candidate's policies and integrity record? How many people are really ABB?

[Cogito]

32. are you serious

In this world Kucinich has effectively NO CHANCE to beat Bush. You would like to live in a different world than the one we currently inhabit. I would too. BUT....BUT, changing the voting behavior of between 10-20% of the population that likes Kucinich's policies better than Bush is NOT going to be enough to win an election. All it would do is guarantee an electoral victory for Bush on the order of 80% to 20% with a wipeout in Congress thrown in for good measure.

Here is another way of thinking about it. Currently, everyone drives on the right side of the road. Somewhere around 20% of the population would prefer that everyone drive on the left hand side. The leftists suggest that if only all the lefties would start driving on the left hand side of the road we could change the world so that everyone would drive on the left. BUT, unless everyone both right and left goes along for the switch what we end up with is a huge car wreck. To change the world we need to win office. To win office we need to compromise on our dearly held, but minority, policy views. Failure to compromise is a prescription for disaster.

[Mairead]

37. What makes you think you know more than we do?

Do you have some unusual credentials or experience, that we should trust your unsupported opinion over our own experience and intuition? Because all you're doing is waving your hands in an agitated way. Your argument amounts to 'I'm right!!'. That's not convincing. So why should we believe you?

[redqueen]

38. You know, 'conventional wisdom'

Polls, fundraising, name recognition, etc. All the things which are so easily influenced by the media, which we all know has been sabotaged as it is now (thanks to the Telecommunications Act) mainly owned by mega-corporations.

This cartoon says it best, to me... why more people aren't cognizant of the support for Kucinich, and therefore consider him 'unelectable':



But this only applies to those who agree with his policies the most, but still support, with time or money, other, more media-friendly candidates.

I doubt I said this very well -- but I hope my meaning is clear. No offense meant to any.

[Mairead]

40. I agree--that cartoon says it all

And I understood your point perfectly! People have no trouble seeing what a complete lie 'the liberal media' is, and they watched said 'liberal media' anoint Smirk from the off while simultaneously trumpeting every bit of rubbish going about Gore. Yet those same people can't seem to imagine why that same Media Inc. might ever, ever want to marginalise Dennis and Al Sharpton. No, Media Inc is telling the real story this time. At least about the candidates. Not about anything else, mind, but about the relative positions of the candidates? Absolutely!

(Let me offer another welcome to DU, btw)

[Cogito]

45. actually I do have some credentials

but my argument has nothing to do with credentials.
If you really believe that Kucinich is the most likely to beat Bush then I would like you to convince me that is the case. I look at the poll numbers and I see just the opposite. If we lived in Sweden, Kucinich might be a great candidate...but we don't. Advising all leftists to behave as if they lived in Sweden is bad advice. Even if the 5-10% of the population that thinks Kucinich is best were to vote for him in the primary he will not win. Even if Kucinich were to be annointed as the party's nominee and the 30-40% of the population that prefer him to Bush were to work their tails off in the general election Kucinich would lose to Bush. The loss of the election in itself would not be such a bad thing if there really was no chance of beating Bush. One might argue that nominating Kucinich could be a useful protest. But, in fact, with a candidate who appeals to enough moderate voters we CAN beat Bush. That makes the strategy of supporting Kucinich not only wasteful but potentially tragic for the hundreds of millions of people around the globe who are desperately counting on Americans to find a way to get rid of Bush. As Graham Greene said in The Quiet American innocence is a kind of crime. The argument for Kucinich embodies just such an innocence. We have a profound moral obligation as Americans to not reelect Bush. If we fail in that task we deserve to be judged harshly as Democrats, leftists and progressives. We will certainly be judged harshly as a nation.

[Mairead]

47. "my argument has nothing to do with credentials"

Well, it apparently has nothing to do with evidence or experience, either, so what's left, hot air? Because that's all you've produced so far. Sorry to bust your bubble, but no sensible person gives credence to hot air.

I'll repeat my question: why should we believe you rather than our own experience and calculation? Why should we believe you?

[Cogito]

48. never mind

Poll results don't impress you. Past election results don't make an impression. Events in California (successful recall) and Alabama (tax increase supported by republican governor fails by 2-1) don't register. The 2000 election in which if folks who voted for Nader had voted for Gore instead we wouldn't have this mess leaves you non-plussed.

Just what WOULD you accept as evidence Mairead? Just what is the basis of your experience and calculation?

[Mairead]

52. So you have no reason for us to believe you, except your wish that we do?

I didn't think so.

Okay, when you say 'you won't believe this, you won't believe that' what that boils down to is 'there is only one way to interpret this data, but you are refusing to accept that'.

Tell us why there is only one way to interpret the poll results, the past election results, the recall, and the failure of the Alabama tax increase.

I'll give you one for free: I don't believe the self-positioning items ('are you liberal, moderate, or conservative?') in surveys because the surveys never define the bounds of the continuum. That's why all such items, if the survey has any pretense of credibility, are flagged with 'self report' or words to that effect. We can see here at DU the impossibility of reliably placing oneself on undefined continua. Does it include only the Dems, the Dems and GOP, or the Dems, GOP, Greens, Socialists, CapLibs, Commies, Uncle Tom Cobley and all? Or something completely different? Who in hell knows, unless it's specified.

Your turn. Why should we accept your interpretations?

[Padraig18]

57. Maybe because...

... they translate into objectively-verifiable political realities/events? :shrug:

[Mairead]

59. To be wise after the fact is trivially easy.

Since you claim to be unable even to understand why self-placement on an undefined continuum yields invalid results, I'm sure you'll excuse me if I don't take you seriously when you claim to understand more complex processes.

[Padraig18]

60. You're excused.

I also excuse your completely warped understanding of where the American political spectrum is currently.

[Cogito]

33. rational choice

Well, you know, that's where the idea of rational choice comes in. Yes, if people choose on some irrational, ideosyncratic basis and vote that choice, then it's a mess, no doubt about it.

What's an 'irrational basis', you ask? Anything based on 'electability'. For example, 'my candidate's plan for X can get passed, but your one's can't' (translation: my candidate's policy is electable, and yours isn't). Similarly, anything of the form 'I just think X will be better for the country', with no factual reasons.

I am as big an advocate of rational choice as you are likely to find. But your claim that "anything based on electability" is an irrational basis is topsy turvy.

In a primary election we are selecting a candidate to oppose Bush. If we like the candidate's policies but he has no chance of beating Bush (is not electable) then it is irrational to support that candidate when there are others who we prefer to Bush and who might also beat him.

I am all for policies that are easily explainable. Sound bites are great. But we should be very careful not to OVERESTIMATE the information that voters use to make thier decisions. Most voters know four or five things about a candidate and from there INFER the policies they think that candidate will pursue.

I am more than willing to put a facts based magnifying lens on all the candidates. For me ALL of the Dems are vastly better than Bush. The only question I am interested in is which of them gives me the highest probability of winning in the general election. If that is Kucinich then that is who I support. But Kucinich has staked out a platform so far to the left that he cannot win the general election. So, end of story on Kucinich.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

43. "so far to the left"

Please define your terms.

[Mairead]

29. Oh, and 'electability' is a non-issue

Apparently this never sinks in: someone is 'electable' only if we elect them. If we don't elect them, they weren't electable. That should be obvious. Saying 'well they really were, it's just that....' is nonsense. It's like (true story!) the computer-company VP who said of a failed product 'it was a very successful product, except in the marketplace'. Say what?

Whether someone is or isn't 'electable' is up to us. Or the crooks.

[Cogito]

34. sinking in

Apparently this never sinks in: someone is 'electable' only if we elect them. If we don't elect them, they weren't electable. That should be obvious. Saying 'well they really were, it's just that....' is nonsense. It's like (true story!) the computer-company VP who said of a failed product 'it was a very successful product, except in the marketplace'. Say what?

NO. Someone is elected only if lots of people who are NOT "us" vote for him. There are not enough of "us" to elect someone that everyone else does not prefer to Bush. Whether someone is electable or not is up to suburban housewives and Nascar dads. If they like Bush better than our candidate then Bush wins.

[no name no slogan]

41. Just as I thought-- Al Gore was UNELECTABLE

I'm so sick of the "electable" meme. It's the same damned things the Dems have been spouting for a decade, and is part of the reason the Repubs keep handing them their butts each election cycle.

Remember Michael Dukakis? I do. I was an early supporter, even organized a couple of precincts for him at the caucus level. I supported him because he was "electable", although on the issues I was probably closest to Paul Simon or Jesse Jackson.

What a mistake that turned out to be. Dukakis was too timid and let himself be defined by Lee Atwater, Roger Ailes and Shrub's Daddy. But at least he was "electable". :eyes:

Paul Wellstone was "unelectable" too. I also organized a couple of precincts for him in 1990. He was NOT supposed to be the nominee-- some white suburban "moderate" lawyer was hand-picked as the sacrificial lamb that year against the big-money Rudy Boschwitz machine. HOWEVER, Wellstone's grass-roots organization flooded the precinct caucuses, and Paul got the endorsement. Being a delegate on the floor of the MN State DFL convention during Paul's acceptance speech is still one of my greatest political memories...

"Electability" is meaningless, especially if the "electable" candidate has more in common with his opponent than with his own party's platform. The Dems should have learned this by now, especially after 2000 and the 2002 debacle.

[eridani]

30. You are talking about GENERAL elections

I'll compromise if I have to then. Meanwhile, I'll vote for the policies I want.

[LWolf]

31. I'll try to help you understand.

IN this Democratic primary facing this republican incumbent electability is pretty much the ONLY issue. Now that doesn't mean that we shouldn't care about the issue positions each candidate articulates. But the right way to evaluate the candidates and their issue positions is to ask whether the candidate's issue position makes them more electable in the general election.

I don't agree with this statement. I believe GWB is eminently beatable, based on his own record in the WH. I believe we can beat him with almost any of the 9 if we run a smart campaign.

I don't agree that we should be evaluating candidate's issue position on electability. I believe we should be evaluating the positions on merit. The whole point of democracy is to have a voice in the direction the country goes. If I muffle my voice, and speak for someone or something I don't believe or support, the point is gone. It doesn't do me any good to "win" if what I've won is a direction I didn't want to begin with.

The pragmatic vote is essential in the general election. But the primary is where I can voice the actual direction I want to go, and vote for something I actually want.

I don't understand those who confuse "being driven by the issues" with voting for the candidate whose issue position most closely mirrors their own. Voting is NOT about expressing your opinion, it is about trying to get the best possible policy outcome you can. A vote for Kucinich in the primary is a wasted opportunity to help choose the actual nominee of the party.

Here's what you don't understand: a huge number of eligible voters in this country don't vote at all. Or they've abandoned the democratic party for 3rd parties. And this is why. Because they are convinced that their voice/vote doesn't count. That it doesn't mean anything. So why bother. Telling us that our vote is not about expressing our perspective on the issues is telling us not to bother.

If I believe that Dennis Kucinich is the man to achieve the best possible policy outcome, then I will vote for him. It is not a wasted opportunity. It only helps to have his voice out there in the fray as long as possible.

I don't understand how anyone can write "I hope that, whichever candidate you vote for, you make your choice based on the issues and not the polls. If we all did that, our country would be a better place. And we would have the satisfaction of knowing we had a hand in making it better."
Suppose that there are five candidates running for election: Kucinich, Jesse Jackson, Ralph Nader, Mahatma Ghandi and Bush. Now, suppose that 15% of the population likes Kucinich best on the issues, 15% likes Jackson, 15% likes Nader, 15% likes Ghandi and 40% like Bush. If everyone votes for the candidate they like best on the issues then under our electoral system Bush would win. This even though 60% of the electorate prefers any of the other candidates to Bush. How in the world would anyone take satisfaction in that result? How in the world could anyone think they had done their civic duty failing to unite on a single candidate to oppose Bush? How in the world could anyone think that by failing to coordinate on a single candidate the left was making the world a better place.

Well, since I wrote it, and I am somebody, I'll try. I wrote it because I believe it. I believe that the way to change what you don't like is to, with your words, thoughts, and deeds, move the direction you want to go.

As for your example: GWB is not running in the primary race. In the general election, he will not have 4 other democrats facing him. He'll have one. That would, with your "play" numbers, make it 60 % -40%; George loses. Even if you siphon some off to 3rd parties.

In the democratic primary, you must be assuming that there is a candidate as bad as GWB currently that far ahead of everyone else. I don't see that. There are a few candidates I don't care for, but I'm spending my vote on what I do care about; not what I don't.

[Cogito]

35. more

I believe GWB is eminently beatable, based on his own record in the WH. I believe we can beat him with almost any of the 9 if we run a smart campaign.

I don't agree that we should be evaluating candidate's issue position on electability. I believe we should be evaluating the positions on merit. The whole point of democracy is to have a voice in the direction the country goes. If I muffle my voice, and speak for someone or something I don't believe or support, the point is gone. It doesn't do me any good to "win" if what I've won is a direction I didn't want to begin with.

Electability IS a merit.

I agree with the statement that voice is important in Democracy but voting is not the right mechanism to naively express your voice. Think of it like this. Voting in this primary election is kind of like driving a car backwards. If you want to increase the chances that the car will turn left then you should turn the steering wheel gently right. The idea that somehow turning the steering wheel left will cause the car to turn left, as intuitive as that may seem, is simply wrong. The idea that one has some kind of moral duty to turn the steering wheel left when that produces a rightward turn is ludicrous. This is not a question of muffling one's voice it is a question of knowing how to express oneself in the voting booth. In the primary election voting booth (as in the car backing up) gently right means left and left means right.

Now in the general election we will be driving the car forward. There, subject to voting for one of the competitive candidates, voting left turns the country left.

[Cogito]

36. my analogy of driving the car is wrong

I meant to use the analogy of driving a car WITH A TRAILER. Duhh.

[Mairead]

39. Don't worry about it: it would still have been wrong.

Voting has hardly anything at all in common with driving a car. And to the extremely limited extent it does, the connection is only with going forward, not backward. Because the one thing one absolutely does not do to 'move the vehicle of state leftward' is 'vote to the right'. That's utterly silly.

(You still have quite a low post count. It's not too late to re-register as 'non cogito'.)

[Cogito]

42. silly?

Let me give you two choices.
1. Jesse Jackson versus Bush I
2. Bill Clinton versus Bush I

Now if you choose option 1 then the result is Bush I is elected.
If you choose option 2 Bill Clinton is elected.

Who do you like better, Bill Clinton or Bush the elder?

You would recommend that everyone pick option 1 because Jesse Jackson is more liberal than Bill Clinton. But voters don't have a choice between Jesse Jackson and Bill Clinton. The ballot says Jesse Jackson but the result is Bush the elder. The choice voters have is between Bush and Clinton. Frankly, as someone with leftist values I find it outrageous than any fellow traveler would advize those that share my values to act in a way that is so startlingly immoral and counterproductive.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

44. I voted for Bill Clinton in the 1992 general

but I voted for Jesse Jackson in the 1988 and 1992 primaries.

Did I think he had any chance of winning? No, but it was my statement against the direction that the party was taking.

I honestly don't know how DK will do in the primaries, except that I believe that he will do better than the pundits and pollsters expect. The media have been blindsided before, most notably by the time Pat Robertson won the Republican caucuses in Iowa a couple of elections ago. Of course, Pat Robertson didn't win the nomination, but his victory in the Iowa caucuses was a clear signal that the fundies had arrived.

The Democratic establishment already has its preferred candidates: Lieberman, Gephardt, and Kerry, and in previous elections, most Democrats would have shut up and listened to daddy and voted for the candidates whom the big boys deem to be electable.

But that's not happening this time out. Voters are dissatisfied with the official choices. If you go to a community event, you are likely to find enthusiastic volunteers for Dean, Kucinich, and more recently Clark setting up tables and handing out buttons and literature. You rarely see volunteers for the others, and even then, it's only one or two people. I see Dean and Kucinich bumperstickers, none for any of the other candidates.

In other words, it appears as if the politically aware are looking over the officially approved primary candidates and yawning. All three "unofficial" campaigns report that they are drawing support from independents, third party members, and former non-voters.

The vitality is with the upstarts.

[Mairead]

46. Yes, silly. You must be very young

Who says that Bush will be elected if I vote for Jackson? Because it's over and actually happened? There's nothing easier than to be wise after the fact. What would the outcome have been if all the people who wanted change had got off their bums and spent their weekends knocking doors? You don't know, do you. You can't know. You want to see it come out a certain way, so you invent reasons why it always must happen that way. But that's not convincing anyone except you and those who also want it to come out your way. If you were being honest with yourself, you'd say you don't know, that circumstances alter cases and whether this happens or that happens depends on future circumstances you can't predict.

There were a helluva lot of bookies who lost their shirts when 'Jimmy who?' was elected.

[Cogito]

49. I don't know that I won't survive going over Niagra Falls either

I don't know if Jackson couldn't have won. You are right.
I don't know if I would survive a plane crash, or being struck by lightening, or being thrown out of a car at 80 miles an hour. How could I know whether I could survive those events since they haven't happened?

But, I am not going to choose to go over Niagra, be in a plane crash, get struck by lightening or be thrown out of a car at 80 miles hour to find out. Apparently, we have much different attitudes towards risk.

[redqueen]

50. When do you risk?

That question is, I think, key to the decision a lot of us have made regarding supporting Kucinich.

More Independents and Libertarians and yes, even Republicans, are more disgusted with this party's actions than ever before.

That being the case, and if you think progressive, leftist ideals are something we want to have implemented nationwide, and not just locally, what better time could there be to put forward someone like Kucinich?

edited for clarity

[Mairead]

51. "Apparently, we have much different attitudes towards risk."

No, we have different perceptions of what's risky.

That's what we're all trying to tell you: we have no wiggle room left. We are at the edge of The Pit right now. What's 'risky' is to vote for someone whose public statements reflect instability of purpose --or worse, commitment to someone else's purposes rather than to ours--and who has a poor or no record of serious backbone. That's the very essence of risky, because it puts our wellbeing in the hands of someone whom we cannot trust not to sell us out.

Whereas backing the person whose goals are our goals, and who has a solid record of integrity -- that leaves success in our hands to the maximum possible degree: all we have to do is to work our bums off. Then, even if we lose, we have done all that anyone can do.

[diamondsoul]

53. Um, even with your correction, you're just wrong.

A. A car going backwards with a trailer attatched does NOT go left if you nudge the steering wheel right. The TRAILER will go left, the car will go right, thank you. We are not trying to drag a trailer along here, we're trying to get everyone into the main vehicle.

More importantly in your analogy, even IF the trailer turns left while the lead vehicle goes right, that only lasts briefly. Eventually to get that combination of vehicles going left, you have to turn the lead vehicle left as well.

So you can play but you can't lead. Ah well.

[LWolf]

55. It's this kind of faulty analogy that has me pondering.

What do democrats really want? What does "the party" really want? Do they want all of us along for the ride, or not? Do they want to complain about and/or bash the folks who have left for 3rd parties, or are they willing to respectfully wish them the best, since they've chosen to take the party in a different direction?

What I'm hearing from some, including those folks who keep trying to tell me that my vote is wasted when I vote for the candidate I prefer, is that democrats aren't concerned with disgruntled, discouraged, "left behind" voters on the left. They impatiently want us to shut up and move to the right with them, or just go away. So many have gone away. And then they are the bad guys/gals.

I'm beginning to think that democrats have a bigger problem than GWB. It's an internal problem. How it is handled will ultimately shape the party, for better or worse.

Meanwhile, no matter how the media and the opposition chooses to portray him, I don't see Dennis as so far to the left that he can't win. I think he can bring in plenty of centrist votes. Why? Because I'm further to the left than he is. I recognize the difference.

[Mairead]

56. "I'm further to the left than he is"

Bingo! Well said. He's slightly left of center, but not much. He only appears to be far left because everyone else is fighting to be a 'kinder, gentler, more intelligent' Smirk, as the Political Compass evaluation pointed out

[LWolf]

58. That's correct.

I don't have a problem with the democratic party wanting to be "centrist." I just have a problem with shifting everybody and everything so far to the right that right becomes center. Leave the center in the center, damnit!

[Mairead]

61. Right on!

What'll you bet that most of the posters who imagine Dennis to be 'far left' are (a) too young to remember anything but right-wing government, (b) too privileged ever to have known want, and (c) are members of some religion generally regarded as traditionalist?