Can Edwards beat Kucinich?

[ProSense]

He did last time, despite the IWR.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

1. Yes

the mainstream can't handle Kucinich. :(

[Alexander]

2. Yes, unfortunately.

FDR would have frowned on some of Edwards' Senate votes.

Unfortunately it seems the best we can get is a watered-down New Deal. :(

[PresidentObama]

3. Absolutely. n/t

[mike_c]

4. it really makes you wonder, doesn't it...?

The most cogent argument against Kucinich is that he's too weird, or that he's unelectable, or whatever. But when you examine his politics he is most faithful of the democratic party hopefuls to the long time party ideals. His policies are most consistently right for America-- even while admitting that, dems say they couldn't vote for him. There is a real contradiction there, a glaring disjunct. The most unabashedly democratic democrat is the one democrats won't vote for. What does that say?

[Mojambo]

7. It says the corporatists have this party wrapped up.

Maybe not as tight as they have the Republican party, but they've got the Democratic party good enough.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Capn Sunshine]

22. for Example, it was Murtha who killed the ethics bill

and Conyers who just gutted the lobbyist restrictions bill.

And they are among the good guys.

[elocs]

9. In the real world the point of getting the nomination is to get elected.

If Kucinich got every single Democratic vote (something Gore couldn't do in 2000) he would still need to get votes from independents and whatever Republicans he could to get elected. This is where real life intrudes upon fantasy even if that fantasy is based upon truths. Too many Americans would look upon Kucinich as being a flake. (Let me add that I admire him and admire his stances even if I do not agree with them.)

The other reality intruding upon Kucinch as being the perfect candidate is that there are a number of other candidates whose backers also believe that their choice is the perfect candidate. Such is life in a democratic republic. Not always perfect, pretty, or fair, but it is what it is. Reality is a bitch though, isn't it?

[mike_c]

11. so you think that the democratic party cannot be true to its ideals...

...because that would alienate independents and moderate republicans? What is the point in having democratic ideals if that's the case?

[elocs]

12. The point of getting nominated is to get elected.

We have all seen what happens when you do not get elected and your party is out of power. I think that the backers of Clinton, Edwards, and Obama would argue that Kucinich has a corner on democratic ideals. A candidate too far to the left might be the poster candidate for us Liberals, but just can't get elected. As a Liberal I can accept that reality in order to have a Democrat in the White House. I'll take what I can get and not demand all or nothing or my definition of Democratic ideals (different Democrats have different ideals-that's what makes us Democrats).

[NoPasaran]

16. I don't think Kucinich has a corner on anything

Gravel has even outflanked him on the crazy front.

[elocs]

17. If a Republican is elected, then I will likely get nothing I want.

And quite likely to get a lot of things I do not like or want. If a Democrat who is less than my perfect and ideal Liberal gets the nomination I will probably not get everything I want, but I will get a good many things. I will take what I can get and go from there. Nobody has a corner on anything, but getting elected is the point. I got an early lesson in political reality when I cast my first presidential vote for McGovern in 1972. Take what you can get and go from there with a candidate who has a chance of actually getting elected.

[mike_c]

5. dupe reply, self delete....

DU has the hiccups tonight.

[Czolgosz]

6. Ideologically, they are the two best candidates. Ideologically, Kucinich is the better, but Edwards

is the more electable. Obama, who's probably the third best candidate ideologically from a progressive standpoint, is - perhaps - more electable than either Kucinich or Edwards. We'll see.

[mike_c]

10. this is just what I was questioning up thread-- the recognition that...

...Kucinich is the most democratic of the democratic party candidates, posted alongside the tacit admission that he's the least electable. It makes no sense at all. What do democrats really want if not the democratic ideal?

[Czolgosz]

14. Don't ask me, I'm voting Kucinich (but if I lived in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, or South Carolina,

I suppose I could see voting for the best candidate who had a realistic shot at the nomination instead of the best record as a terrific progressive).

[MannyGoldstein]

15. Is There A Second Edwards In The Race?

The only Edwards in the race that I know of co-sponsored the IWR, and voted for permanent 'free' trade with China.

[MannyGoldstein]

13. Give It Up - The IWR Doesn't Matter

Ask people if it matters, they say "Of course!"

But when you ask why they support a backer (or co-sponsor!) of the thing, they come up with some excuse as to why their candidate's vote didn't matter.

Most people, even on DU, really don't give a flying crap about the IWR in practice.

[venable]

25. No matter how much you'd like the IWR vote to make it his war

it is not. It is Bush's war. You can't change that reality no matter how many times you repeat it.

The only Democrat who can take any responsibility for this war is Lieberman. It is Bush's war.

Righteous indignation and billions of links can't change this reality.

Why do so many anti-war voters support Edwards? Are they not as smart as you?

[Clark2008]

27. Because they don't know that he co-sponsered the damn thing.

And, when they find out... it's disillusioning.

I, personally, have steered many Edwards leaners away by just making that fact known. And I'm damn proud of it.

[Orangepeel]

18. In a footrace? At checkers?

:shrug:

That's kind of an odd question given that -- as you point out-- he did last time, and that he currently polls much better. It would make much more sense to ask if Kucinich can beat Edwards (my belief is "no," although anything can happen) or if Edwards can beat Clinton, given current poll numbers (my hope is "yes").

[jillan]

19. I hope not.

[Buzz Clik]

20. Here's the list of things that Kucinich can beat:

1. The morning rush.
2. The pavement.
3. The clock.
4. Them at their own game.
5. Around the bush.

However, the list of presidential contenders that he can beat in a primary is considerably smaller.

[LWolf]

21. Why do I care?

I don't. I don't care if he CAN. Any candidate CAN win; it's a matter of compelling votes and software controllers. It's not like the Democratic Party wants a candidate who actively seeks change in the status quo and power structure. I care that he shouldn't. I won't help him do so. Whoever wins the nomination will have gotten there without my assistance, because I don't believe that any candidate I find worthy would be acceptable to tptb.

I've accepted that. That doesn't mean I won't put my time, attention, and energy into a worthier candidate. I win either way; I help put a better representative into the race, into the WH, or I work for what I believe in, and have no regrets.

[dogman]

23. Yes, because 3,422 American lives don't matter.

655,000 + Iraqi lives don't matter. Just like Bloody Babs, a large number of Democrats don't want their beautiful minds bothered.

[venable]

24. Bush's war

It's Bush's war not Edwards or Hillary's or anyone on this side of the aisle beside Lieberman.

[dogman]

28. Edwards and Lieberman were cheerleding co-captains on the Dem side.

He can apologize but he can't change history. The facts remain. There was a clear difference between Edwards and Kucinich. Most don't give a shit, as evidenced here in another highly recommended post. Most are delightful of the fact that a couple of GOPers are changing their stances, on a number of issues, out of political expediency. I'm sure many on that side love to see the same in our "top tier".

[KingofNewOrleans]

26. Kucinich actually helped Edwards in Iowa

He encouraged his supporters to caucus with the Edwards supporters if the Kucinich backers couldn't reach the threshold needed to qualify for delegates.

Kucinich seems to personally like Edwards.

[Colobo]

29. LOL!

[Oldenuff]

30. I sure hope so

No offense to you Edwards supporters,but Edwards creeps me out.I'd vote for a 3rd party candidate b4 I would vote for Edwards..(or Hillary for that matter).