If the disaffected non-voting progressive majority won't push Kucinich over the 5% primary mark...

[LoZoccolo]

...then why should we expect them to show up for the general for a less-centrist more-progressive candidate there?

[KingFlorez]

1. You can't compare the general and the primary

Because Kucinich has almost no name recognition and no base, that's why he won't win. It's not because of any ideological problem.

[LoZoccolo]

2. So you are saying someone with no name recognition will do better in the general?

What are you saying?

[MrCoffee]

3. I like Kucinich, and I acknowledge the fact that he's unelectable

i like that he's going to bring the debate left.

[LoZoccolo]

4. That sounds a lot like another 2004 candidate...

...who turned out to be funded and guided by a Republican dirty tricks operative:

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0405,barrett,50745,1.html

Sounds like the Republicans want us to bring the debate left as well.

[MrCoffee]

5. that's the funniest comparison i've seen in a long time

also, one of the worst comparisons i've seen ever.

[LoZoccolo]

9. There are differences; I will acknowledge that.

Kucinich probably couldn't attack from the left as effectively because he couldn't as readily use race baiting as Sharpton employed more than once. I also don't believe Kucinich would knowingly ally himself with a Republican operative; I'll give him that. But I think the basic fact remains that the Republican know they can win a national election by just a sliver, the kind of sliver that could be pulled off the left if the candidate who does win is properly attacked from that angle.

[pennylane100]

7. You have to be joking,

or not very well read. He is the most anti republican politician I know, and even though I do not believe he will win, I think he will do a lot toward keeping making sure the other candidates keep the debates honest, and do not gloss over their past mistakes, specifically all the ones that voted for this stupid war.

I have never voted for him but if I might to so if it turns out the all his opponents jumped onto the anti-war wagon much later in the game and not at the beginning.

[rock]

8. Electability is a will-o-the-wisp

Anybody (literally) can get elected/installed.

[Old and In the Way]

6. His electability has less to do with his ideas and much more to do

with his public image. He won't get the media oxygen and focus to be taken seriously. Personally, I hope he'd be in line for a cabinet post, maybe HHS...I think he could do a lot of good running that Department.

[ulysses]

10. the 25th best thing about another Kucinich run:

more illogical posts from the Dem right. :D

[LoZoccolo]

11. Care to take a crack at the question posed? n/t

[ulysses]

18. I don't tend to ever get answers to questions I pose to the

bankruptcy bill wing of the party, so no.

[wyldwolf]

12. ha! Good point

[Radical Activist]

13. Kucinich does much better among those who know who he is.

The problem is Kucinich's inability to get media coverage and other exposure. That is partly the medias' fault and partly due to the fact that he ran a very poorly organized campaign.

His failure is not because his ideas lack support. Polls show that he is much closer to majority opinion than Bush. In fact, one might ask how on earth a candidate blocked out by the media even managed to get 5% support nationwide.

[robcon]

17. I think this is unbintentionally funny....

"Kucinich does much better among those who know who he is.

The problem is Kucinich's inability to get media coverage and other exposure. That is partly the medias' fault and partly due to the fact that he ran a very poorly organized campaign.

His failure is not because his ideas lack support. Polls show that he is much closer to majority opinion than Bush. In fact, one might ask how on earth a candidate blocked out by the media even managed to get 5% support nationwide.

How do you know? Kucinich was famous, IMO, in 2004 for recommending a Department of Peace, and I think America recoiled at such a stupid idea.

[Radical Activist]

19. The Dept. of Peace was never the major focus of Kucinich's campaign.

He was known for opposing the war in Iraq, which a majority of the public now opposes as well. He's known for his stance on trade, which also enjoys majority support. He had a very strong enviromental platform, also popular. Polling shows that his positions are usually majority ones. He also championed Single Payer Universal healthcare but I doubt a majority of the public could define what that means right now.

[LWolf]

14. You can expect them to show up for

a progressive candidate in the general election, whether the Democratic Party fields one or not.

Then, after the Democratic Party makes a conscious choice to go "centrist," abandoning progressive voters in order to woo moderate republicans, you can expect non-progressive voters to rage, foam at the mouth, and place all blame on those progressive voters who didn't shut up, give up, and vote the way the centrists ordered them to. Those centrists won't take any responsibility for losing the progressive vote; they'll spin it as "betrayal," as if progressives owe the centrists their votes.

[LoZoccolo]

15. Is that why Nader in 2004 got less than 17% of what he got in 2000?

Seems to me like a lot of people realized that it isn't "progressive" to render yourself powerless by losing. And that the idea that there wasn't a difference between the parties is a lie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2004

[LWolf]

16. I don't know. I never voted for, or followed, Nader. n/t