Reply #13: I didn't have the total vote to work with, & wasn't asking that Q

[dpbrown]

So I specifically stated that I was using 104 million as the total. The numbers don't have to match exactly - the sample was barely 13000 people.

To the extent the numbers match approximately, it still supports the original analysis.

And the very point was to show where the battleground would be.

In my earlier arguments, I proposed that Kucinich would score stronger among former Nader voters, and so would need no former Bush voters to win - therefore was in a better position to beat the Black Box and electoral vote shift "spread."

The exit polling data bolstered that earlier conclusion, by coming up with nearly exactly the same number of "conservative" Gore voters that I said there would be using the 40/40/20 analysis.

That, in my mind, is the far more startling and compelling jewel in the exit polling numbers.

My earlier arguments were against the assumption, tossed about by the "conservatives calling themselves centrists" that their numbers were so overwhelming that we had to nominate one of their own in order to win.

I used the 40/40/20 analysis to show that they were worth about 5 million votes.

The exit polling data confirms that, for all their bluster, the "conservatives calling themselves centrists" are worth about 5 million votes.

That means I was right.

The point you're bringing up this time is different, and, I would argue, built into the equation.

The comparison of battlegrounds lays it out like this -

A voter who voted in 2000 for the Democratic nominee would be measurably more likely to vote for the Democratic nominee this time around, than would a voter who voted for the Republican nominee in 2000.

That's how you square the caution that you offer above - namely that some of the 5 million conservative voters who voted for Gore but wished he were more conservative might not vote for Kucinich.

That's why the weight of some of those voters is offset by gaining the Nader votes.

As the original analysis showed, 3 million gained on the "left" would mean that the nomineee could lose 1.5 million on the "right" and still beat Bush without needing a single former Bush voter.

I proposed, and still assert, that the Democratic nominee will be in a much stronger position by being able to win, and win decisively, by catering to the Nader vote, and the core Democratic vote (worth almost exactly the number I said it would be), in going up against Bush.

The alternative is fighting for former Bush voters. And that's what all the other candidates offer - betrayal of Democratic values to attempt to "focus group" appeal to voters who voted Republican last time.

Only Kucinich can beat Bush by remaining true to his core, traditional, liberal Democratic roots. He's been a Democrat in politics for over 30 years, he beats incumbent Republicans, and he doesn't have to compromise on his roots to do so.

Kucinich's appeal to Republicans also shows in his take in his district - 50% of the Republican vote.

Compare Dean - who went from 75% in 1992 to just 54% in 1998 and barely 50% in 2000 before deciding to "run for President" - leaving a legacy of a strong "progressive" party and a strong Republican Party and a weakened, niche, out-of-power Democratic Party.

We'll be stronger with Kucinich as the nominee, both against Bush, and concerning coattails, and in preparing the way for future Democratic candidates.

And the numbers back that assertion up.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota