Would you vote for an Edwards-Kucinich ticket??

[The Sushi Bandit]

Can they work together?
Can they reconcile the differences between their health care proposals? Or is Edwards too close to the medical-insurance industry?
Will Edwards get rid of NAFTA and WTO like Kucinich?
Will Edwards support a department of Peace?

[MADem]

1. No. No. No. Maybe. Maybe, but probably not. Hell no. nt

[Greyhound]

2. Yes. If that were somehow to become the ticket I would vote for it. n/t

[yellowdogintexas]

3. yes, definitely.nt

[Dawgs]

4. I would, but we would lose with Kucinich.

[The Sushi Bandit]

6. Why??

[Tesha]

69. He sounds too much like an *ACTUAL DEMOCRAT*, don't'cha know? (NT)

[Hieronymus]

5. It's very unlikely that we would have such a ticket. Edwards/Clark would

be an excellent choice.

[Clark2008]

17. ROFLMAO

Like THAT will ever happen.

[Buzz Clik]

7. Yes, along with about 150 other people nationwide.

[cobalt1999]

8. Yes, but with my nose held tight and with trembling hands.

However, I'd probably be the only one in my county to do so.

Kucinich is death to any ticket.

[MonkeyFunk]

9. No

because it would mean one of two things had happened:

Either Edwards had lost his everlovin' mind, or some indescribable catastrophe had killed all other natural born citizens over the age of 35, in which case, I wouldn't be alive to vote.

[zulchzulu]

10. Just how would Kucinich get rid of NAFTA and WTO?

What would be the steps?

Not cartoon world steps...real world steps...name the steps.

:popcorn:

[penguin7]

23. Kucinich answered that question

A president is allowed to withdraw from treaties as Bush did with the ballistic missle treaty.

[The Sushi Bandit]

46. The President has the power to withdraw from treaties

Kucinich says he will do it on day one

[havocmom]

11. Not a very balanced ticket, but if that was the DEM slate, yeah.

Two men heavy on domestic and light on foreign would NOT be a dream team. Balance would be better.

Kucinich in a DEM cabinet would be a much better use for the man than as VP and Edwards needs to stand with someone strong on foreign policy/military affairs along side him.

Edwards/Clark with Kucinich on the side up for a cabinet post would be a damn good thing.

[onewholaughsatfools]

12. Hell yea, but i would much rather see a

Kucinich-edwards ticket

[Jim__]

13. I'll vote for whatever the Democratic ticket is. What's the alternative? - n/t

[SaveElmer]

14. I will vote for whoever the ticket is...but any ticket with Kucinich on it...

Would go down in flaming defeat...

[CaliforniaPeggy]

15. Yes, I would vote for this Dem ticket!

I think they would work together just fine...

Because they would see that their collaboration would be able to fix the many problems that the current idiots have left in their ungodly wake...

These two would work out their differences for the good of the country...

Because they are both honorable men...

:patriot:

[Clark2008]

16. No. I can't bring myself to vote for Edwards.

I'll probably end up voting for Kucinich, though, unless Gore, Clark or Feingold gets in the race. I haven't gotten anything to lose. :shrug:

[PresidentObama]

19. You won't vote for Edwards if he wins the nomination?

Guess you want the Republicans to have another eight years to fuck up our country some more.

[GreenArrow]

53. I won't vote vote for him either

One look at the smug fake fuck in your sig pic only solidifies my resolve.

[Hieronymus]

57. Look forward to 8 more years of republican rule.

[dmallind]

18. Yes to the first

No to all the rest.

I would just hope John was in very good health.

[Honeycombe8]

20. Kucinich? Bwahahahahahaha! That was good. Got a serious question?

Seriously, though....Kucinich is not a serious candidate. He would bring nothing to a ticket with him as V.P. (or President, for that matter). He has some good ideas...maybe even a few great ideas.

But he's the stereotypical "girly man" Democrat that could never ever....ever...in a million years...get nationally elected to anything. He's small, slight in build, has a highpitched voice, is extreme (compared to the mainstream) in his ideas, and has an ego that is much bigger than his body. Add to that the impudence of him thinking that being married to a woman half his age is a GOOD thing politically...well, you see the writing on the wall. He's in the race at this late date for one reason only: the same reason Nader stayed in, even after he saw he was sucking money and votes from the Democratic candidates.

As for Edwards.....who? Oh, that guy who needs a job? Cute man. Good speaker. Cute kids. He's done well for himself. But he really has no experience to be a nationally elected official, as far as I can see. He has a few years in the Senate...and his constituents say he was terrible at it (for those few times that he showed up).

The only real Democratic candidates are Clinton and Obama, as far as I can tell. The only real Repub candidates are Romney, Ghouliani, and now Thompson.

[PresidentObama]

21. Clinton and Obama are the only real Democratic candidates?!?

I guess Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, and "I'm leading in Iowa" John Edwards dont count?

[Honeycombe8]

25. Not as far as I can tell. Just going by the facts...the polls.

Leading in one state is not really winning. As far as I know, only Clinton and Obama are leading in most of the early states. Edwards, Richardson, Kucinich, Biden...they don't have serious numbers by voters in any of the states...except Edwards is doing well in Iowa because of the unions.

So unless something changes...there are only two main candidates, as far as I can tell. If Edwards doesn't win Iowa, his candidacy is over (same is true for the other candidates). Not so for Clinton and Obama.

[PresidentObama]

30. Polls? HAHAHA. Remember who was leading this time in 2003?

Wasn't our 2004 nominee, John Kerry.

[Forkboy]

22. Well,that's nice.

Not too patronizing or anything.

[Honeycombe8]

27. Hey, I'm sayin' I LIKE it that way. That's just the way the numbers read, as far as I can tell. nt

[Forkboy]

32. The numbers tell you someone is seen as a "girlie man"?

Must have been one hell of a poll.

[Honeycombe8]

64. The numbers tell the picture....Kucinich has about 2 people supporting him...

Okay, that's an exaggeration. But the number of supporters is an indication of how a candidate would fare in an election...and Kucinich doesn't have many supporters, when compared with Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Romney, Guiliani, and Thompson. He's pretty far down the totem pole.

As far as a "girly man," that was a takeoff on Ahnold's comment, but I think it's pretty sure bet that one of the strikes against Dems in a general election is the thought that they are not as tough as Repubs with enemies, and that they are more like "girly men" than Repubs. Kucinich is the picture perfect of how Repubs paint the Democrats. America has never elected a small, slightly built man with a high pitched voice to be President. You can blame the messenger, or the observer, but those are the facts. If you want a Dem to win in '08, it would be wise to at least admit which candidates are more likely to win a GE than others.

There is a reason, I'm sure, as to why certain physical characteristics are more likely to be considered authoritative enough for a leadership position. I guess being tall or having a deep voice just exudes more authoritativeness, more confidence in a leader's ability to be the leader of the pack, so to speak. But whatever the reason, Kucinich doesn't fit the bill. Add to that the wackiness factor...he has some great ideas, but some of them are just not in line with mainstream America....and mainstream America elects Presidents. Don't blame me. Blame America, if you don't like that.

[Zorra]

26. Yuh, right. Just like Fox News is the only "real" TV news program.

:sarcasm:

[penguin7]

24. Edwards is not electable

[Forkboy]

29. He's far more electable than DK.

And DK is my first pick,and also who I voted for in '04.

[PresidentObama]

31. Edwards is a LOT more electable than DK.

Edwards has a warm and likeable personality, and has lead the campaign when it comes to big and bold ideas that mainstream Americans will look at and like. He's our best chance against any and all of the Republican candidates.

[penguin7]

35. Why did Edwards do so poorly in his debate with Cheney?

If Kucinich debated Cheney, there would be blood on the floor.

I am so hungry to see a debate between Kucinich and a GOP opponent I can taste it. The only obstacle is the ignorance of the great majority of the Democratic party.

[PresidentObama]

36. I actually thought Edwards did well against Cheney.

And if I remember the polling data correctly, so did the American people. And thanks for calling a majority of our great party ignorant. You really know how to gain support for your guy, huh? Well here's one for you...I'm sick of the cocky attitude that Kucinich supporters have. Some of you, not all of you, but some of you seem like cult members instead of candidate supporters. And you cry foul when we don't drink the magic Kool-Aid.

[penguin7]

38. I watched the debate, and the debate helped Cheney

The polling data is pretty meaningless. That was the American Idol vote. Edwards did not touch Cheney.

What word is there besides ignorant?

[last_texas_dem]

40. Can you offer any proof that the debate helped Cheney?

Besides your opinion, I mean. Personally, I've always liked Edwards, and I was slightly disappointed by his debate performance against Cheney. But the only statistics I remember seeing regarding the debate showed that people thought Edwards did slightly better.

[penguin7]

54. I am finding polling data that says Cheney won that debate

Polls declare different victors in VP debate


http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/05/debate.main/index.html

A Debate Win
Cheney Gains With Help From His Friends
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/Vote2004/vp_debate_poll_041006.html

[last_texas_dem]

63. Interesting; I think I'm remembering the CBS poll

The ABC poll (in terms of the group being sampled for that poll) does have a slight Republican bias, while the CBS poll is a slightly smaller sample than I generally like to see. It was focused on undecided voters at least, which may have been significant.

[PresidentObama]

41. I forgot....Kucinich supporters know everything.

Sorry. I didn't know you knew more than the American people about who they thought won a debate.

And just because we don't all have "Kucinich 2008: Lose Trying" buttons on, doesn't mean we're ignorant. Again with the cocky attitude of Kucinich supporters. "Kucinich is the ONLY anti-war candidate, Obama isn't" (even though Obama has consistently been against the war) and "Kucinich is more electable than Edwards" (even though polling suggests otherwise) and "My candidate is better than yours"

Stop trying to force feed your magic Kool-Aid down our throats.

You guys know how to build support for your poor performing candidate, eh?

[penguin7]

43. If I was asked after the debate who won, I would have had to say

Edwards even though I thought he did very poorly. Cheney was not very popular and the debate polling merely reflected this.

[PresidentObama]

45. That's absolutely bullshit.

Find me the polling data between Bush and Kerry. Wasn't Bush leading Kerry and had been since the end of the summer when the first debate happened? And Kerry wiped the floor with Bush, and he still got the favorable poll numbers when asked who won the debate.

Edwards did well in the debate with Cheney.

[penguin7]

49. Do you honestly think voters are well informed?

[MonkeyFunk]

39. To believe

that Edwards is not electable, but Kucinich is... well, it's just laughable.

[PresidentObama]

42. AMEN!!! n/t

[Hieronymus]

58. Thom Hartmann, Bill Maher, and I think he has the best chance of

winning against any republican challenger. :applause:

[Zorra]

28. Yes, I'd be very happy with that ticket. n/t

[DiverDave]

33. Yes

and as for either being "unelectable", I dont buy it.

Just because the "liberal" media is licking Hillery's and obamas asses they are the "front runners?

I voted for Edwards last time, and will do so again.

Is he perfect?, no, but who is?

He speaks for me and mine...and would make a fine President.

If you want the rethugs to win, vote for clinton, she will bring out the base of the repukes and will lose by a landslide.

[ProudDad]

34. Yes

I believe that Kucinich can convince Edwards that Edward's program is un-passable and doesn't provide Universal coverage nor could it provide Health Care at a reasonable cost since it allows the for-profit health insurance mafia to remain at the table...

Then Edwards would sign HR676...

[last_texas_dem]

37. Yes, but I think Kucinich would actually be able to have more influence

as a cabinet member for whoever does end up getting the nomination than as VP. I'm not sure how popular he is statewide in OH, so I'm not sure strategically if he would be the best choice for VP. (At the same time, I think picking someone from a wanted state for strategic reasons to be the VP nominee has rarely panned out, anyway.)

[AnotherGreenWorld]

44. No, and I really like Kucinich.

[LWolf]

47. Yes, but I'd prefer Kucinich/Edwards! :) n/t

[Hieronymus]

60. Kucinich doesn't have a snowball's chance.

[LWolf]

65. Neither does Clobama.

Not a snowball's chance in hell of earning my vote in any election.

Based on experience and consistency, DK is the obvious top of the ticket with Edwards.

Of course, there are plenty of those out there who prefer style over substance, and then you'd get the flip of that ticket.

Hint: Perhaps you should be happy I said I'd vote for a ticket with your candidate on it, instead of making confrontational remarks that leave a bad taste connected to Edwards.

[GreenArrow]

48. I won't vote for any ticket with Edwards on it.

.

[plusfiftyfive]

61. I think I agree!

I don't know why.....but John is not much of an image for America in my book.

[Apollo11]

67. Great news for the GOP !!

Some Democrats don't really want to take back the Whitehouse !!

Whether or not they vote will depend on who becomes the nominee.

After 8 years of Bu$h-Cheney - whodathunkit? :eyes:

[Hieronymus]

70. If Edwards is the nomiee, you'll vote for a republican? Brilliant.

[GreenArrow]

73. not nearly as brilliant

as your non sequitur reasoning.

[Hieronymus]

78. Not at all, who will you vote for if Edwards is the nominee?

[saltpoint]

50. There is significant affinity between these two camps of Democrats.

It goes back a ways, too.

[Orangepeel]

51. I will vote for the Democratic ticket (and be very happy about it if Edwards is at the top)

but he will pick someone with foreign policy bona fides. It could be an Edwards/Richardson ticket.

[rjones2818]

52. No.

But I could support a Kucinich/Edwards ticket.

I'd rather the president be right the first time!

:)

:hide:

[illinoisprogressive]

55. hey, if Obama doesn't get the nod, I'd be happy to back those two.

[calimary]

56. I wouldn't mind that at all.

[plusfiftyfive]

59. Only if I wanted the Republicans to win

Edwards and Dennis.........no way 50%+1 would vote for these two idealists, one with a $400 haircut.

No way!

[Vidar]

62. Hell yes !

[Apollo11]

66. We don't get to pick the running mate

In the primaries we will get to pick who should be the nominee for President.

Then the Presidential nominee gets to pick his or her running mate.

Then all of us (hopefully) will vote for the Democratic ticket on November 4th, 2008.

If Edwards is the nominee, and if he picks Dennis as his VP, then I guess all of us will be voting for an Edwards-Kucinich ticket in November 2008.

If not, then your question does not arise.

Logically yours, Apollo11

[Tesha]

68. Absolutely yes.

I can unconditionally support *ANY* of the Democratic
contenders except Clinton, and the presence of Kuch
on the ticket would be a *BIG* positive for me.

Tesha

[rinsd]

71. I will vote for whomever the nominee is.

But I think Kucinich drags that ticket down.

[Debs]

72. In a heartbeat

It would be the happiest voting day of my LIFE.

[Cleita]

74. Yes. n/t

[CANDO]

75. That's my dream ticket!

Hell yes! I would settle for Edwards/Obama. Hell no to Hillary, though. I am on record here at DU that I will sit home and not vote if Hillary is our nominee.

[defendandprotect]

76. Only if the didn't stand next to 6' 5" Thompson at any time -- !!!

[EndElectoral]

77. Prefer Kuccinich-Edwards but could vote for the other, or Gore-Kuccinich

[barack4prez]

79. When Hell freezes over

But, don't worry. If it comes to that, I'll be gone to Ireland, proving that the runways haven't frozen over!
Jeez. You must be outta your mind!!!

[midlife_mo_Jo]

80. I really don't see that as an option.

It's not going to happen.

My post is in the wrong place. Sorry.

But anyway, I really dont' see hell freezing over, either. :evilgrin: