If Dennis Kucinich had won the Democratic nomination in 2008, would he have beaten John McCain?

[onehandle]

35 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	2 (6%)
	No
	33 (94%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[VanillaRhapsody]

1. is this an attempt to smear President Obama?

Are you saying he won by default?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

4. Looks like an attack on lefties to me.

Saying that we have to field centrists, because liberal candidates will lose to Republicans.

[VanillaRhapsody]

5. so who gets to decide WHO is a Liberal? You?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

7. Gosh, no, it must be YOU.

I was using 'liberals' in the way moderates generally do. But 'liberal' positions are agreed with by something like 70-80% of Americans in poll after poll.

But you're free to use it the way Republicans do, to mean anyone to the left of Ted Cruz.

[VanillaRhapsody]

12. Well I don't try to decide who among those who commit to voting for the winner of the Democratic

Primaries as not being "Liberals".

It doesn't matter if on the issues they are Liberals....they have to vote like it...

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

18. I was speaking of politicians, not voters. nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

23. well then that is just silly of you....

Politicians have records.....and they are judged by overall performance....not just the issues that matter to YOU to determine their Liberal bonafides...

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

24. Overall performance is how I judge them too. nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

28. really now....then you accept the "on the issues" website?

They are judged by all their positions there too....AND they post them there nice and neat for you. Do you know that on the issues Hillary Clinton is nearly as Left as Elizabeth Warren? Of course you will deny that because it doesn't fit your narrative...

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

32. Never been to that website.

Does it discuss HRC's views on free trade agreements, the TPP specifically, drones, the NSA, KXL?

Or does it conveniently avoid issues on which she's to the right?

[VanillaRhapsody]

38. no its all there for you to see...

http://www.ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

45. Is it? Many of the categories seem to have stopped updating in 2008.

I don't see any mention of KXL, for instance, the use of drones, the TPP, the NSA or domestic spying. I do see that she wanted to 'arm Syrian rebels in 2012'. Now admittedly, ISIS has done a great job of arming itself since the US failed to in 2012, but that still would have been a bad idea.

[VanillaRhapsody]

47. and are there things there since 2008?

Just as I suspected you don't care about overall score....just in your pet issues..

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

52. 'Overall scores' aren't exactly 'overall' if they exclude high profile issues.

You seem to be willing to relegate a lot of what I would consider fairly important things to the status of 'pet issues'.

I, on the other hand, don't relegate HRC's very good record on women's issues, for instance, to the level of 'pet issues'. I just think it needs to be compared to her stances on getting or keeping the US in very costly foreign policies, policies that place corporate will over that of labour, and policies that deal with the bill of rights.

[VanillaRhapsody]

98. How much do you think your Pet Issue will move the peg on all THAT evidence...

Even IF such a thing happened....its still not going to change the over all score by that much is it now? And if it is not your Pet Issue....then how does it hold so much influence on its on as to change the outcome against all that unless its a "pet issue".

[Ken Burch]

121. Trade policy and military intervention are "pet issues"?

Those issues DON'T affect all of us?

[VanillaRhapsody]

135. and those are there

I knew you didnt read it! Big surprise NOT!

[Ken Burch]

139. And on both, she's a Republican

being mildly-pro-choice and barely-pro-LGBTQ don't "make up" for being pro-"free trade&quot anti-worker) and only cutting the war budget after everybody else does(even though we spend six times as much on war as any other country.

I know HRC's record already. There aren't any progressive surprises in the link. I was responding to your dismissal of his concerns on trade and war spending as "pet issues"-as if those things sonehow don't matter.

BTW...that link really doesn't say much...it's just a collection of headline-like phrases...some of which are silly("Kisses Mrs. Arafat"?
So what? That hardly outweighs the fact that, in the Senate and as SOS, she had a better pro-Netanyahu score than some Likud MK's).

[Ken Burch]

115. Voting for the IWR, and refusing to apologize for that for over a decade

totally outweighs anything else.

It means you can't want any reductions in the size of our war budget, and that, by itself, means you can't be progressive in any meaningful way(since any real progressive change requires fiscal resources and the war budget eats all of those up).

Voting for the IWR without any public declaration of regret means you've chosen the path of war-forever.

[Ken Burch]

114. Kucinich supporters DID vote for the winners of the Democratic primaries in 2004 and 2008

And they were a hell of a lot more loyal to those nominees than a lot of those nominees' primary supporters would've been to Dennis-a candidate most of them had treated as if he had no right to even run, and whose positions on the issues, most of which were much more popular among the voters than was Dennis himself as a candidate, were dismissed with utter contempt by Kerry, Clinton and Obama supporters, all of whom supported candidates who made sure the party stood for as little as possible in '04 and '08(even though '04 proved, once and for all, that a vague, bland platform doesn't work in the fall).

And the poster you responded to there wasn't even talking about not supporting the Dem nominee, so why did you bring that in to it at all?

[treestar]

20. those polls don't count though

They vote differently.

[Trajan]

40. Actually, he does get to choose who is 'Liberal'

We all do; in the voting booth ...

I must add ... there are a number of newer DUers who have been disappointments since they arrived here ... argumentative ... generally mean and nasty individuals ...

Your assertion against that poster was uncalled for, taking a tone that is ... how shall we say ... snarky?

To say the least ... snarky is putting it mildly ...

[VanillaRhapsody]

41. Oh now snark is against the rules?

Wow now we have snark police on DU!

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

49. I've got my 'big boy pants on'.

I can handle a bit of snark. It very quickly became obvious as soon as I got on site that Vanilla and I disagree on pretty much everything under the sun, so I'm not worried about a bit of aggressive tone from him/her.

Daily Kos was a lot more rough and tumble than I've seen this place get. If the pushback I get from VR is as bad as it gets here, I won't be too worried.

[Separation]

95. Gonna have to agree with you there.

Having been on the end of the nasty/snarky replies it does get old and in my case not engage with them anymore.

[treestar]

15. Don't you think DK would have lost?

Reality it reality. I'd love for a Congress of DKs to exist. Your fellow voters get to vote too.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

21. In 2008? Sure.

And I said so in a comment in this thread 15 minutes before you asked me your question.

[VanillaRhapsody]

25. You are not a very good judge of the American voting public it seems...

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

27. I'm not sure you read all that carefully.

I was asked if I though DK would have lost in 2008. I responded 'sure'.

In the separate reply to the OP, in which I was asked if he would have won, I said no.

Are you saying you wouldn't have answered in exactly the same way to those two separately worded questions?

[VanillaRhapsody]

42. okay....I get it now...

No DK wouldn't have won....sad but true...

[Freddie Stubbs]

137. Or on future Fox News correspondents

[yeoman6987]

103. Absolutely no Republican was going to win in 2008

History shows that it is extremely RARE for the party to main another election after 8 years. No Republican could possibly win in 2008 after George W. Bush. The country was sick of Republicans at that point. Unfortunately 2 years later they were ready for them again.

[VanillaRhapsody]

104. You cannot be serious......You think Joe Lieberman was electable?

Do you think McCain and Palin had NO chance to win? They why wasn't the loss catastrophic? I call bullshit!

MY GAWD the ODS is strong in this room.......it is truely enlightening though when you connect the dots with just who thinks this...

[yeoman6987]

105. Oh Brother....not sure what election you were watching but

Senator Obama won with 365 Electoral votes which is incredible considering the Republicans got 178. You can call bullshit all day long, but I am right. So I will repeat myself....Republicans had ZERO chance of winning in 2008......I find it hard to believe that you are being serious.

[VanillaRhapsody]

107. Not talking about "electoral votes" are we?

Yeah ODS for sure...he won the Popular Vote twice.....but neither was a catastrophic loss for the loser.....In fact if not for McCain's age....he would run again.....and we already hear that Romney would like to give it a try again too......so if the losses were catastrophic because ANY Democrat could win....why is Romney considering another run at all? And don't try semantics.....not going to work....I literally mean that if the loss was sooooooo bad because ANY ham sandwich could have won....why do we still have Romney raising his head again?


So yeah.....Obama won the Popular vote by attrition.....TWICE!!!

[yeoman6987]

109. Well Romney running again in 2016

is not as bad for Republicans running in 2008. Hopefully we will not have a Republican President in 2016 due to our picking the right candidate and getting the vote out again.

[Ken Burch]

141. Nobody was attacking Obama in this thread...the OP is a case of "pro-Obama" baiting of left-Dems.

It's predicated on a ludicrous strawman...I'm not sure anybody was claiming that Dennis would have matched or exceeded Obama's fall showing in '08. It also assumes that Obama made it clear that he'd keep his distance from Kucinich and what he and his supporters stand for (you'd have to admit that Obama made it sound like he'd be much more antiwar and pro-worker during the campaign than he ever was in office) and sets out to imply that it was absurd for anyone to back Dennis in the primaries.

There was no reason to even start a thread like this, and Obama supporters have no reason to be stirring up shit like this.
And it's very telling that the author of this OP hasn't showed up in the thread since.

[Hippo_Tron]

145. There was Republican fatigue in 1988 too but Dukakis still managed to blow a 20 point lead

Yes, history tends to favor giving each party only gets 8 years at a time. But if your candidate is incompetent enough you absolutely can ensure that the other side will get 12 or 16 years.

[Ken Burch]

120. No...it's another "Dennis Kucinich and progressives are silly" thread.

A better poll question might be "How would John Kerry have done in '04 if he'd taken Dennis' stands on the war, trade policy and the Patriot Act in the fall?"

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. In 2008? No. In 2048, maybe.

With each election, more old farts who vote conservative die off. As demographics continue to shift in our favour, we should be able to continue to field candidates farther to the left of the last ones and still win.

And none of the lefty potential candidates being bandied about as possibles for 2016 is a 'Dennis Kucinich' type.

[MohRokTah]

100. Kucinich will look like a right wing radical come 2048

A little bit at a time, and a bit further along each year.

[Ken Burch]

117. Dennis will be 102 in'48.

(...mind you, with the veganism, he won't have aged a minute, but still...)

[LWolf]

3. Armchair psychics with hindsight

will choose one of those answers.

Probability says no. Still, I would have been happy to have had the chance to back a longshot in that circumstance.

[VanillaRhapsody]

6. And risk having Sara Palin for President?

Have you lost your senses?

[LWolf]

9. No,

but I've lost a whole lot else under neo-liberal presidents.

Sara Palin? Not a chance. Where's that arm-chair psychic hindsight with regard to Palin?

[VanillaRhapsody]

11. You seem to forget that McCain didn't lose in a complete landslide my friend...

[LWolf]

13. I haven't forgotten anything,

and I don't respond as programmed to your current talking point.

[VanillaRhapsody]

14. apparently you have....if you think Kucinich could have beat John McCain....

You see....most Americans are not like you....accept that and you will make some headway...

[LWolf]

17. You apparently have a serious

problem with reading comprehension if you really think that's what I said.

[VanillaRhapsody]

29. Maybe along with political judgement.....communication is also not a strong suit...

[LWolf]

31. Oh, I think the communication is fine.

It's the interpretation that is lacking; possibly deliberate, possibly not.

[VanillaRhapsody]

39. and that is what most bad communicators think...

[treestar]

16. McGovern would have been a great President too

It was a long shot.

[LWolf]

22. If I'd been old enough

he would have had my vote and full support.

Nobody worth electing is likely to become the POTUS the way elections are currently structured.

That doesn't mean I'm going to roll over and give up.

[VanillaRhapsody]

33. this is the point "to you" ......

Who are you to say that nobody worth electing? Elizabeth Warren would likely disagree!

[LWolf]

34. I'm a citizen and a voter,

so of course I can say whether or not any candidate is worth spending my vote on. I don't think Elizabeth Warren would disagree with that.

[VanillaRhapsody]

36. and you are only ONE citizen and voter.....Since EW IS a Democrat and a potential candidate herself.

According to some.....and since she DOES support Hillary Clinton....I think she really really would disagree with your contention...

[LWolf]

37. Yes, I'm only one,

which means I'm also the only one who can determine what something is worth to me.

A point you seem to be determined to miss.

I don't think EW would disagree, at all, with my contention that I have a right to decide if a candidate has earned my vote or not.

Whether or not that candidate is HRC, Santa Claus, or Jesus himself.

[VanillaRhapsody]

44. and MOST Americans are not Like us on DU!

If you don't vote for whomever wins the Primary.....then you are not really a Democrat anyways. And since EW IS and supports them....I don't agree with you.

[LWolf]

54. This must be really frustrating for you.

You've dragged in all kinds of stuff, including the kitchen sink, to throw at me because I said I would have supported DK in a general election.

Nothing you are throwing is sticking. I've heard all of those talking points, ad nauseum, every election since I was old enough to vote. They don't work. Not any more. What you are doing is the antithesis of how to get out MY vote, at least, in the direction you would like it to go. Your utter failure at productive argument won't affect my vote one way or another.

This conversation is not about not voting for a primary winner. It's not even close to primary season yet. It's not about whether or not I'm a Democrat, which I am, but is really beside the point, and, unfortunately for you, not up to you to determine. It's not about Elizabeth Warren; I'm not sure how she got into a conversation about Dennis Kucinich, but there you are. It's not about "them," whomever they may be. This conversation is about whether or not DK would have won a general election if he'd won the primary.

It's clear you "don't agree with me;" hopefully, you don't agree with what I'm saying, which is that DK probably would not have won, although that cannot be determined for sure since it's a fictional scenario, but that I would have been happy to have voted for him.

And guess what? I don't give a flying fuck whether or not you agree with me...about anything. I don't wake up and hop out of bed wondering what I can do to make sure VanillaRhapsody agrees with me each day, or go to bed worried about it, or think about it at any point in between.

The best that I can determine, you would have been very, very unhappy with me if I would have voted for DK as the Democratic nominee in a general election for POTUS. I find that pathetic, to be honest.

[VanillaRhapsody]

56. frustrating for me????? You are the one that just penned ^^^^ that trope....

Me thinks thou protesth too much!

[LWolf]

62. Nope.

Mildly amusing. You can't come out and acknowledge that you, in your ludicrously transparent way, have been trying to set up metaphorical scenarios for the inevitable "But do you want <insert any Republican here> to be president!!!!!!!??!!!!" campaign bullying when some Democrats aren't so thrilled with your corporate candidate. Which doesn't work, at least, not with me. So you wildly attack, throwing everything you can find to distract from that failure. Now you've even tried to throw Shakespeare at it, lol.

Mildly amusing, but in the end, pretty damned stupid.

[VanillaRhapsody]

71. No actually I am uncovering WHO the Democrats are.....

A supposed Democrat WILL vote for the winner of the Primary because the other Democrats "decided". Now if you cannot commit to that. ...then you are not a Democrat....what you are is an Independent and an Ideologue.

[LWolf]

92. Which has nothing to do with Dennis Kucinich being the '04 nominee, does it?

As a Democrat, if he'd won the nomination, you'd have been campaigning and voting for him, right?

So would I.

So what's your point? That I'm an independent? I'm a registered Democrat. That I'm an ideologue? Nope. I'm an idealist. There's a difference.

Which is all beside the point. You're having a hissy fit because I said I would have been happy to vote for DK in '04. Your fit is ridiculous. If he'd been on my ballot in '04, as a Democrat, you would have wanted me to cast that vote, correct?

Or are you just too hysterical at this point to make any sense at all?

[VanillaRhapsody]

93. IF

And its a really big one isnt it? i support whoever wins the primary....its quite simple.....if like me youare a true Democrat....not just sour grapes.

[LWolf]

131. Again...

The OP was about DK; whether or not he could have beaten McCain if he'd won the primary. The question assumed a primary win, and that he was the Democratic nominee.

You dove in and started flinging things because I said that he probably couldn't have beaten him, but I'd have loved the opportunity to support him in the effort.

And you got, from that...I'm not a Democrat, sour grapes, etc., etc., etc..

As I said from the first...some very serious problems with reading comprehension.

[madinmaryland]

8. One of the silliest threads I have seen recently. Thanks for the laugh!!

[BootinUp]

10. When I read some of Kucinich's proposals in early 2003

I thought he was the candidate I would support. It was mainly the elect-ability question that made me look around at other candidates. I ended up supporting Wes Clark that year.

[HooptieWagon]

19. I think Lee Mercer Jr could have beaten Grandpa "Get off my lawn" McCain.

Sarah Palin was all in his house with disease.

[VanillaRhapsody]

48. So Obama won by attrition?

is that really what you want to say?

[HooptieWagon]

94. No. GOP had a weak field of candidates, in which McCain won the nom.

He would have lost to most of the Dem candidates. Plus, the republican brand was badly hurt by W's incompetence. Obama ran the best primary campaign by far, but had one of the other Dem candidates done so, they would have beaten McCain in the GE.

[VanillaRhapsody]

97. you cannot seriously believe this and call yourself a Democrat.......for shame

Obama has an impressive ground game......ask the republican campaign managers........he holds currently a much covetted database that is the absolute envy of Karl Rove....he would sacrifice a testicle to get his grubby hands on! as I said many times in his second win....."underestimate him at your peril".

Even going forward......the Repukes still are desperate to smear him before he leaves office because he is so young and WILL continue to hold great influence in the party for years to come...take that to the bank

[HooptieWagon]

102. Didn't I say Obama ran the best primary campaign by far?

And obviously that organization served him well in the GE. Had any primary opponent beaten Obama's primary campaign, it should be pretty obvious they too could have won the GE.

[BootinUp]

26. I wish to modify my answer

If the repuke party couldn't get away with voter suppression
If our mainstream media reported more facts and less crap
If our politicians weren't mostly bought and paid for

Then Kucinich had a hell of a chance.

[MohRokTah]

101. In a fair match up with no voter suppression and not a bit of cheating by the GOP

Kucinich would have lost all 50 states.

On the bright side he would have taken DC.

[conservaphobe]

30. Depends on the influence of his outside help...

[babylonsister]

35. Moot. There's no way in 2008 he would have won. nt

[JI7]

43. no, and McCain would have picked Lindsey Graham to be VP

and Lieberman to be sec of defense.

[NightWatcher]

46. If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle

Is this a Pro or Anti- Hillary thread? I'm too tired to keep up anymore.

[VanillaRhapsody]

50. apparently its anti Obama....saying just any Democrat could have beaten McCain

To marginalize the first Black President...

[LWolf]

63. It's a pro-Hillary thread. I think.

[Ikonoklast]

51. Kucinich would have been steamrolled.

People that support Kucinich are either ignorant of his political past in Cleveland or choose to ignore it.

The opposition papers on him would have had him scrambling to explain his hypocrisies.

Most voters only see one side of the man.

He is not the person they think he is.

[Historic NY]

53. Exactly, he got 4 bills passed in his career...

2 for post offices, one for a museum and one for funding a tv program.....He would have been eaten alive by the opposition.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/03/why-dennis-kucinich-wont-be-missed.html

[Ikonoklast]

65. I'm talking about his support for redlining for his ward when he was a city councilman.

An mostly Eastern European immigrant enclave surrounded by predominately Black population. He told his constituents that he would do whatever he could to keep outsiders from moving into his ward.

And his blatant use of racial politics as mayor in order to keep his white political opponents off balance and retain hegemony over city council.

People think that guy is a saint, he is far from what they think he is.

[MohRokTah]

106. Please, be quiet. Kuchnuts don't WANT to know about all that.

They get so upset when they find out politicians they support are, you know, politicians.

[Hippo_Tron]

152. His Fox News gig basically confirmed everything I already suspected

Kucinich was always in it for Kucinich. He saw an opportunity to raise his profile and he took it. What's sad is that he that opportunity in the first place because there was such a void of people willing to talk about those issues.

[frylock]

88. what's Hillary's record in the Senate?

[Warpy]

55. Hard to say. If Grampy had made the blunder of picking Sarah Palin

as his running mate, Kucinich might have had a slim chance. If Grampy had picked a sensible woman like Hutchinson, putting their antipathy for each other aside, then there is no way Kucinich could have won.

That's how off putting Palin was to working women in this country.

[flvegan]

57. Yes. Next question?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

58. I don't know. But, it would be nice to have found out. Perhaps we'll get a chance with Bernie.

[bemildred]

59. Barney the Purple dinosaur could have beaten McCain/Palin. nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

64. so you ARE saying Obama won by attrition?

As someone on the ground that got to experience his ground game personally......I beg to differ. And you know what....whatever candidate ends up with HIS database will have a HUUUUGGEEE advantage I can tell you THAT for sure.

[bemildred]

67. This is personal for you, isn't it? nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

68. and that makes a difference how?

Yes I did volunteer canvass door to door during the election....what did you do?

[bemildred]

70. It's not for me.

I don't give serious answers to dumb-ass polls.

[VanillaRhapsody]

72. I wasn't polling people....I was convincing them to vote for the Democrat...and asking if they

Needed a ride.....

You were saying....please continue...

[bemildred]

74. No, I think not. nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

75. and yet here you still are....

[Hippo_Tron]

143. The collapse of Lehman Brothers pretty much handed Obama the election in 2008

That isn't to say he didn't run a good campaign or have a great ground game, he did. Pulling out a win in 2012 under much more difficult circumstances, is a testament to his ability as a candidate.

[VanillaRhapsody]

146. You people are sincerely delusional!

Seriously.....his ground game was extremely impressive...AND like I said....Do NOT underestimate that man!

He has a database that the Repukes would kill to possess.....

try pedalling this over at LGF....it might just fly there!

[Hippo_Tron]

147. Where did I dispute that his ground game was seriously impressive?

I volunteered for him in Tennessee. Even in a state where he had no chance of winning, there was serious enthusiasm for him and his campaign and they put that enthusiasm to good use. That ground game certainly increased his margin of victory. Had Lehman Brothers not collapsed, it may well have made the ultimate difference in his election.

[VanillaRhapsody]

149. When you insinuated that ANYONE could have beaten the Republicans....

not true!

And it is dangerous to believe this shit....

I am sure you think they will be easy to beat again too huh? Is that what you tell all your friends and cohorts too?

[Hippo_Tron]

151. Where did I insinuate that anyone could've beaten the Republicans?

I said that OBAMA's victory was guaranteed after Lehman Brothers' collapse. You might also note that down-thread I bring up the cautionary tale of Dukakis for a reason.

[rug]

60. Whoever got the nomination would have beaten McCain.

Bush was that bad.

[VanillaRhapsody]

66. Oh Obama just walked in?

His ground game was no real advantage AT all?

You don't seem to understand as well that Obama didn't wind by a HUGE margin....McCain/Palin came within a heartbeat of winning too....do not be so fucking complacent about our opponents......THAT is how we lose!

[rug]

76. Did I say that? Why don't you stick to what I typed: whoever got the nomination would have won.

Whatever will you do come 2017.

[VanillaRhapsody]

78. then how pray tell....did McCain/Palin get so many votes....by your description

Obama should have walked away with it and walked the dog all over them.....but it DIDNT happen that way did it? So no not ANY Democrat would have won....that is just condescending to the current President whose campaign worked exceedingly hard and well on. You are seriously deluded if you think it would have been a cakewalk for any Democrat. Hardly!

[rug]

80. Obama won by ten million vote. And?

Do you have a point other than reliving the apogee of your life?

And I'll tell you this one more time: if you're going to argue with me, use my words, "won", not your words, "cakewalk".

Now, let me hear some more from you about how I'm "seriously deluded".

[VanillaRhapsody]

81. and that's what percentage?

And I never claimed it was any apogee did I? So who is putting words in whose mouth?

[rug]

82. That's 7+%.

No, your words are seriously deluded".

My words were "apogee of your life".

[VanillaRhapsody]

83. still not a cakewalk so....yeah still deluded.

And not to mention dangerous.....it sounds very complacent to me....that "Oh well....why bother to vote...."insert Republican" can't win anyways".

[rug]

84. Obviously, your understanding of electoral politics is limited to Obama's facebook page.

7% is a very, very healthy margin by any measure. (Only amateurs say "cakewalk".)

Now, about you: you say I'm "deluded", now you intimate I vote republican.

Go for the trifecta.

Go on.

[VanillaRhapsody]

85. a healthy margin "your words" is not the same as "any Democrat could win" is it?

You see if that WERE the case it wouldn't have been anywhere near that close....so yeah still deluded.

But where the fuck did I accuse you of being Republican? I might have mentioned "Independent" some where else though.

[rug]

86. The margin was your inane question. My post was that anyone with the nomination would win after Bush

The OP is not about Obama either.

But you are so concerned, from post #1 in this thread, about a perceived criticism of him that you are making a fool of yourself. Don't let me stop you.

[Reter]

113. Whoever?

Al Sharpton too would have won?

[hughee99]

73. Could Kucinich have ever gotten the nomination, then?

I think that is less likely than DK winning the presidential election.

[rug]

77. No. He was marginalized from the get-go.

The PTB want someone they can work with.

[Hippo_Tron]

148. He certainly could've tried harder

In a caucus system like they have in Iowa, you win by organizing and getting your people out to vote. As with anything money never hurts. But someone with the right message who does the hard work can surprise you.

[treestar]

89. I can agree to a point

But the main factor was Palin.

I said no in the poll but thinking it over, Palin was the problem for McCain. The country might have elected DK. Who wanted that nutcase a heartbeat away? And an over 70 year old one at that.

[rug]

90. Yeah, it was a bad choice that turned out to be worse.

Obama ran an impeccable campaign while McCain was stumbling all over the place.

[treestar]

134. that one never fails to get me

[Hippo_Tron]

150. The collapse of Lehman Brothers was the main factor

Palin was undoubtedly a fucking disaster for the McCain campaign. But the reality is that we never got to actually gauge her effect, since Lehman Brothers collapsed less than 48 hours after Tina Fey's infamous "I can see Russia from my house" skit that began to shape public perception of Palin. McCain could've had Jesus Christ as his running mate and his fate still would've been sealed on September 15th.

[winter is coming]

61. Don't know, don't care. n/t

[True Blue Door]

69. LOL

Not only is the answer obviously "hell no," but if he miraculously did become President he wouldn't pass a single piece of legislation or get a single judicial nominee approved, and the bulk of his Executive Orders would simply be ignored by federal institutions. And if he tried to enforce them by going berserk with firings, he would be impeached and removed from office. Performing the duties of the President does not consist of going through an issue checklist.

[Generic Brad]

79. Ass handed to him is not a choice

In light of that, I selected no.

[JVS]

87. He would have won in 2008. He would have likely lost in 2012.

In 2008 the republicans couldn't win. The recession had started in late 2007 and over the course of the late summer and early fall the bank system and stock market were absolutely imploding.

[Tarheel_Dem]

91. Hell no. If there was no excitement for Kooch in his own party....

how would the GE have been different?

[JI7]

119. but he won a DU poll he also couldn't even win the congressional seat

[Tarheel_Dem]

123. Thank you. His approval in his own home state was somewhere in the 20's.

How the hell do you build a national camapaign on that?

[Adrahil]

96. I love Dennis, but no way he wins the presidency, IMO. NT

[MohRokTah]

99. Hell to the fuck NO!

In fact, he would have handed the entire government to the teabaggers as our nominee.

[myrna minx]

108. In 2001-2002 - Congressman Kucinich was a beacon of hope for many of us

in the cold wilderness of the Dubya regime nightmare. In 2001, after 9/11, he was one of the few voices who spoke out against the powerful shock doctrine hate and war machine and the eradication of civil liberties under the "imperial" Bush/Cheney presidency. He, during a time of crazy rage and rush to war, stood for peace and calm and now he's ridiculed *here* for it. I once found refuge on DU during those dark days, but now I'm so weary of DU no longer being a safe haven for left/progressive ideas.

In 2002, Senator Paul Wellstone, a beloved DFLer (in Minnesota, our party is the Democratic Farmer-Labor Party <---remember farmers and labor?) expressed interest in running for President in 2004.

Senator Wellstone knew, like Congressman Kucinich, that if he ran, it was solely to bring progressive ideas to the debate - at a time when the Democratic Party was in the throes of war drumming and cowering to the radical right wing regarding war, the BS of WMD and the acquiesce if civil liberties to imperial Bush/ Cheney Presidency. They would run to bring ignored issues to the table to confront the top tier Dems who were for the war before they were against it, you see. I guess such ethics are now considered blasphemous to the party machine.

Due to Senator Wellstone's chronic back trouble, he partially ruled it out and his tragic death in 2002 saved the Democratic Party such *embarrassment* of another Democratic anti-war candidate in 2004. I can only imagine the rain of ridicule he'd *now* receive here. Sad days.

[frazzled]

111. In 2001, though, he was solidly anti-abortion

and his voting record had been solidly anti-abortion for years. That wasn't very hopeful. (Please don't respond with "that was because his constituency was conservative on that issue": if it's not an excuse for anyone else, wasn't an excuse for him).

[myrna minx]

116. Yes - and I wholly disagreed with him about that, just as I disagreed

Last edited Wed Jul 9, 2014, 01:10 AM - Edit history (2)

with Senator Wellstone's horrible votes for DOMA and NAFTA.

And - I might add - the only courageous Senator to vote against the foolish "patriot" act was left wing commie (haha) Senator Feingold of Wisconsin. Let's mock him too for not leaping aboard the terra train.


Kuchinich is now pro-choice, btw.


On edit - you were here in 2002 - when there were at most 10,000 duers - do you deny the comfort he provided to many of us here -who couldn't fathom and wrap our minds around the rush to war and the rush to pass the patriot act?

Do you remember when we DUers cheered the ancient Senator of WV - Robert Byrd - yes, a former klansman - when he decried our rush to war? My current Governor, Mark Dayton, was the only Senator to stay behind to keep quorum, when all other Senators fled with their rush to war - in order to allow Senator Byrd's impassioned anti-war speech to be broadcast to, in his words, "the electric eye of C-Span". It was something to behold and it united we DUers when the media, pundits and the politicians were giddy for war. Katie Couric: "Navy Seals ROCK!!!!!!"

This was back then Ari Fleicher told the American citizens to "watch what we say and watch what we do".

How soon we all forget.

[G_j]

124. How soon... is right

great post. And DUers actually chipped in and had flowers delivered to Senator Byrd on the floor.

[frazzled]

133. Well, I guess my response has to be

No, it did not comfort me all that much. To use the phraseology so popular around here, "it was just words." I'm not discounting those words, just that they were meaningless at the time, given the general rush to war. President Obama, then still a state senator in Illinois, gave the most eloquent public speech of all speaking out against that war on Oct. 2, 2002 (see http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99591469) too. And nobody seems nostalgic for him.

In 2002 I was very busy trying to convince my then Senator (J. Kerry) to vote against the Iraq War Resolution. It didn't work. Then in early 2003 I marched with 50,000 people in Boston against the shock and awe. There were many of us who opposed that war vigorously, and Dennis Kucinich was one among them—but in no more position of power, really, than any of us were.

So no, not really on Kucinich. It's not that I want to rag on him, but neither did I ever think he was some kind of hero. I always felt he was too erratic, a little too moonbeamy (the UFO stuff), and his presidential-bid overnight conversion on what was previously a decades-long anti-choice position did not impress me (and still doesn't). And whatever he believes right now is, frankly, irrelevant. Or at least, it's only as relevant as any other citizen's belief.

No politician is perfect, and I do not expect them to be. And I also try to put myself in their shoes: it's not as easy to make choices when you are actually responsible for governing as it is from a chair at your computer desk, or even when you are one of 535 whose minority vote doesn't really change anything. So all I'm left with is questions about character, and intent, and consistency, and general world view.

[Hippo_Tron]

144. As I noted below, Paul Wellstone ran serious campaigns, Kucinich not so much...

Wellstone was a great liberal voice once he got to the Senate. But the greatest accomplishment of his career, IMO, was not in the Senate but how he got there. Wellstone demonstrated that with if the public wants change badly enough, you can run a very successful campaign with much less money than your opponent if you have good organization and use your limited resources wisely.

He goes into this in great details in The Conscience of a Liberal. Wellstone absolutely hated the idea of advertising on television. But when the time came, the consultants asked him simply "are you in this to win or not"? When he told them yes, they explained to him that if he was going to have any chance at all he absolutely had to go on television, there was no way around it. He didn't need to kiss up to Wall Street and raise a gazillion dollars to flood the airwaves, but he had to have some television advertising to get his message out. So he raised enough money to get the infamous "Fast Paul" and "Looking for Rudy" ads on television, the latter only aired one time. Without question, those ads made the crucial difference in his 1990 campaign.

Wellstone, even with the odds overwhelmingly against him, was serious about winning. Had he run for President, I don't think it would've been any different. No matter what the odds, he would've seriously pursued a strategy to get him to the White House. And if he hadn't gotten there (odds are he wouldn't have), the country would certainly still have been better off for him having run.

Kucinich, IMO, never took the prospect of winning seriously. And that's a problem for me. Going into a campaign saying "I'm just here to enhance the debate" is how you ensure that nobody takes you seriously. Going into it saying "I know the odds are overwhelmingly against me, but I have a strategy to win and I'm going to execute that strategy to the best of my ability and if I fail at the very least I enhanced the debate" is how you get taken seriously.

[G_j]

110. I suppose there would have been no drone attacks, perhaps a push for single payer health care,

maybe a hard line on Wall Street. How can one predict how the differences would influence the citizens at large?

[Ken Burch]

112. I voted yes, just because you think the idea was silly.

And really...anti-Dennis threads NOW? What's the point?

It's like attacking Eugene McCarthy in 1978.

[Enthusiast]

138. Thank you. +1. Me too.

[whatchamacallit]

118. No, only anointed protectors of the status quo are allowed to win

You know, capitulating centrists, corporatists, warmongers...

[ZombieHorde]

122. I don't know.

Too many variables.

[WinkyDink]

125. All the "NO" votes, REALLY? I think DK could have made some POWERFUL arguments.

[Renew Deal]

126. He made powerful arguments during the primaries.

Money and other things we dislike in politics matter more.

[WinkyDink]

153. So very true. And so very indicative of how not-Left we Democratic voters really are.

[Adrahil]

128. Unfortunately, arguments don't usually win the day in national politics.

Dennis is not very charismatic, at least not in a conventional way.

His arguments tend to require people to pay attention for more than 30 seconds, and most just can't or won't do that.

Bernie Sanders has a similar problem. I agree with him 90% of the time, but a rumpled guy with a Brooklyn accent who ran as a socialist just won't win the Presidency.

[WinkyDink]

154. ...'tis true 'tis pity, And pity 'tis 'tis true....

[Renew Deal]

127. Was he working for Fox yet?

That seems to be an important criteria for running.

[Iggo]

129. Yep.

[hrmjustin]

130. No I don't think he would of won.

[stevenleser]

132. We're 12-18 years away from being able to elect someone with those policy positions.

I think he loses but the state of the economy would have prevented it from being a landslide. He probably loses 290-248 in the electoral college and 51-49 in the popular vote.

[Ken Burch]

140. We can't get to "being able to elect someone with those policy positions"

By nominating people to the right of them.

2000, where we nominated a candidate on the exact same platform as the anti-progressive Dem incumbent and lost enough ground to allow the SCOTUS to steal the election from us, proves that.

You don't build support for progressive politics by nominating and electing people who are pledged to keep the party as far to the right as possible.

[steve2470]

136. nope afraid not nt

[Hippo_Tron]

142. Depends, would he have taken his own candidacy seriously?

I agreed with many, if not most, of Dennis Kucinich's positions, but I never really took him seriously as a candidate. Sure, it's a game where the deck is stacked against you because you can't raise money like the other candidates and the media doesn't take you seriously.

But there are people like Paul Wellstone who set out to prove that you can overcome those odds with a lot of hard work organizing supporters, using your limited funds on very clever advertising, and enough public dissatisfaction with the status quo.

Kucinich never seemed to be interested in anything more than being a vanity candidate and raising his own profile. He didn't even have a campaign office in Iowa in 2008. He spent some of his limited campaign funds to take a trip to Syria. And now he's a commentator on Fox News, which indicates to me that he's cashed out just like everyone else. Sorry, I don't buy the "I can win over their hearts and minds by speaking on their turf" bullshit. I don't care how witty, intelligent, and argumentative you are, liberals cannot win over hearts and minds on Fox News. It's designed for them to fail.