Kucinich is the best candidate to beat Bush decisively

[dpbrown]

While much is said about the attraction (directly resulting from money raised among activists) for Dean and Clark, there is an argument to be made that progressives ("lefties") hold the cards this election one way or the other. I made an argument like that in History and the Rise of Progressive Electoral Power Make Kucinich a Contender.

There's also an argument that can be made that the Democrats, despite the sway of the power of money driving the nomination process so far, might have actually overshot the peak and are misjudging their "core" and that it lies further to the "left" than they're willing to admit - and using the rule election analysts call the 40/40/20 rule, that the nominee who captures the "Nader" voters along with the real Democratic core will be the only candidate who will be able to beat Bush by greater than the Black Box (and electoral vote shift) margin. I made that argument in Where the Votes Are. I've also made this argument on DU a couple of times - check the archives for "40/40/20" and I'm sure you'll find it.

Not only is Kucinich electable, I think he's our best chance to beat the unelected fraud and keep him from ever getting his first legitimate term of office.

It really amazes me that people who in most other scenarios would consider themselves activists who will fight - to take back the media, for campaign reform, to protect ANWR - seem suddenly and uncharacteristically willing to surrender now and settle so early in the nomination process. I just really don't get why anyone who thinks they resonate with Kucinich won't stick with him to the convention - I mean, it's not like you're going to get Lieberman as an option anyway - why not stick with the best - the real anti-Bush? To really get my feel for the way progressives seem to be selling themselves short this time around, and seem willing to throw up their hands and surrender before they've even begun to fight, check out my short story, The Brainwashed Woman and the New Dawn.

This may be the best chance we'll ever have to throw the Republicans out of power. I hope we don't mess it up.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[Catch22Dem]

1. I wish I could believe you, I really do

But I just don't see how it's possible. The center has waaaaaaay to much of the electorate.

[dpbrown]

3. The "center" is an illusion

It can be shown that "conservative independents" who vote Democrat, and "liberal independents" who vote Republican constitute only 10% of the electorate.

In the 2000 election, that resulted in 5 million vote for Gore from "conservative-leaning independents" and 5 million votes for Bush from "liberal-leaning independents."

Meanwhile, Nader got 3 million and 80 million sat the election out rather than vote for either uninspiring candidate.

With the Nader voters, a Democrat nearly matches the entire Bush take in 2000, and there is no way Bush'll get 50 million again this time around.

That means the safest route is to take the sure progressive votes, and make the election a battle strictly for former Gore voters.

If the Democrat took Nader's votes and Gore's votes, he or she would beat Bush by more than 3 million votes, or 3% - a margin bigger than any scenario contemplated by either one of the "centrist" conservatives running for the Democratic nomination.

I really think taking a firm position with the true core of the Democratic Party and picking a traditional, liberal populist is going to be the best way to beat Bush.

Kucinich is the only candidate who fits that bill.

[AntiCoup2K4]

2. I look forward to a day when Dennis Kucinich IS a viable candidate.

But 2004 is not that day :(

You cannot sell a Department of Peace and the complete pullout of all troops in Iraq to a population brainwashed with fear and lies.

[dpbrown]

6. Fear Ends - that's the message people are dying to hear

Kucinich is the only candidate ready, willing, and able to bring an end to the fear.

And with Bush on the ropes - the 9/11 Commission sitting on information he had knowledge that could have stopped the attacks - the population is ready to vote for a candidate who knows we were wrong then, and we're wrong now to continue to occupy a nation that doesn't belong to us and that we never should have illegally invaded.

Not only that, but the Pentagon isn't keeping us safe, because it doesn't even know where it's spending the taxpayers' money.

The Pentagon can't keep us safe if it can't even tell us what happened to one trillion dollars we gave it last year.

Only one candidate understands that an accountable Pentagon is a Pentagon keeping the American people safe, and knows there is 15% efficiency to be found in doing so.

People are ready to take their brains back from the bought-and-paid-for media - they just need a candidate who's really on their side to help them, other than one who's play-acting one.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[nancyharris]

35. The point you make concerning Congressman Kucinich’s position

on being “the only candidate ready, willing, and able to bring an end to the fear” is a strong one. It is also one I think needs to be fully explored by those opposed to the war in Iraq.

Despite his adamant opposition to the Iraq war, Governor Dean does not (like Kucinich or Sharpton) intend to immediately withdraw American troops from Iraq if elected. Under a Dean administration, American soldiers will continue to die in an unjust cause.

The difference is that in a Dean administration our country would be in the incredible position of having a Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces that has publicly opposed our military presence in Iraq yet lacks the courage of that conviction to immediately withdraw them. Can you imagine how our soldiers, risking their lives daily, would feel if their CIC opposes the war but is unwilling to remove them from harm’s way?

Both Congressman Kucinich and Reverend Sharpton have unequivocally stated that they would immediately remove our troops from Iraq if elected. Yet, many of those who claim to be opposed to the war are unwilling to reward these candidates’s courage with their vote.

[MidwestTransplant]

8. Your words are correct.

You should look at your own candidate with the same view.

[no name no slogan]

11. But you're just buying into the brainwashing and lies

If the war in Iraq was wrong, what could possibly be right about US troops staying there as an occupying army indefinitely?

And why are you so quick to write off the population of this country as "brainwashed" with fear and lies? You're already throwing the towel in, and the fight hasn't even started! You want to give ShrubCo. a 45% lead in the race, and the first vote has yet to be cast!

Do you honestly believe most Americans support keeping our troops in Iraq INDEFINATELY with no plan to get them out? Do you think Americans will agree to another DRAFT to keep supplying the NeoCon war machine with their sons and daughters? In all seriousness, do you really believe that most Americans support this?

I hate to say it, but it's this kind of crushing defeatism that leads us Democrats to nominate "moderate" centrist candidates who we think will appeal to some mythical "moderate" republican bloc of voters who just MAYBE might vote for a Democrat, if the Republican turns out to be the spawn of Satan himself.

This is why we keep nominating the Michael Dukakises, the Bill Clintons, the Al Gores, and the Howard Deans whose platforms are so similar to their Republican opponents that they either end up winning pyhrric victories with miniscule margins or give us resounding defeats.

Why do we think we have to run candidates that appeal to Republicans and so-called "moderate" independents, especially when there's almost 50% of the eligible population who simply REFUSES TO VOTE for President every four years?

What the hell are we Democrats so damned afraid of that we refuse to STAND UP for candidates that support our TRADITIONAL DEMOCRATIC VALUES??? Do we really think that American voters, given the choice between Bush and "not quite as bad as Bush" will REALLY rally behind our candidate?

I hope it doesn't take another four years for us to find out.

[redqueen]

12. Moving towards the center = losing more seats

That's what we've done the past 20 years.

Anyone else ready try something different? :D

[no name no slogan]

30. Me definately!!!

Because I'm getting sick of the Democrats becoming as relevant as the Whigs. :D :toast:

[dpbrown]

31. 2000 Exit Polls show 35% "left of center" in Gore's vote!

That's way higher than even the 40/40/20 rule analysis predicted!

With the Nader voters, Kucinich will make the race a contest solely for former Gore voters!

Kucinich sweep!

Fear Ends.
Hope Begins.
Kucinich 2004.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[redqueen]

32. Oh the irony

The only argument that sticks against Kucinich is the 'unelectable' one.

The numbers, the man-on-the-street opinions (health care, wasteful pentagon programs, etc.), everything else backs Kucinich as the best candidate.

But so many are scared or fooled into believing they shouldn't vote their conscience, they should do what they're told.

If Kucinich gets the nomination, we not only win the oval office by a landslide, but we also get the democratic congress back.

Nothing inspires the base like a candidate who speaks to them and has the record to back it up.

Well... actually... I guess you don't need the actual record of acting on what you're preaching... but then one does need the cooperation of the media to pull a fast one like that.

[Mairead]

21. People vote their pocketbooks.

Kucinich's Medicare-for-all is the preferred solution--even the AARP bozos admitted that to an interviewer. People struggle along without healthcare if they can, waiting to qualify for Medicare. Healthcare is a giant pocketbook issue.

Kucinich's tax plan will result in a more progressive structure with concommitant tax reductions for the majority of people. That's a giant pocketbook issue.

Kucinich's pre-K edu plan will result in immediate relief for working parents with young children who are being viciously pressed by the costs of daycare. Working people frequently don't have a convenient work-at-home relative from whom to get childcare, so they have to unpocket enormous amounts of money. Another pocketbook issue.

Getting your kids killed for oil isn't a personal-pocketbook issue as such, but at least some people are cynical enough not to want to sacrifice their children so someone else can get fractionally more ultra-wealthy. And of course the upcoming draft should make a lot of young men suddenly undergo a realisation.

And I should think that there are a lot of people who would quite like to be able to smoke the occasional joint without having to risk losing all their possessions and going to prison for 10 years, too. Another very serious pocketbook issue.

And then there are the ten percent who would suddenly find that they have full civil rights despite being queer. That's yet another serious pocketbook issue besides being a tissue issue.

Dennis Kucinich is as tough as nails --PROVEN tough--, has wall-to-wall 24/7 integrity, and has only one goal: helping us take back the nation. If that isn't good enough, then we'll damned well deserve to become serfs!

[mouse7]

4. ALL 9 CAN WIN!

Bush '04 = Draft '05

[HFishbine]

5. Dan

You seem to have some skill for analyzing the electorate. I've been trying to get a better handle on that 20%. You offer predictions about them based on an understanding of bell curves, but could you possibly draw more precise conclusions by looking at exit polling data for 2000? (Admittedly, a glimpse of what happened last time, and not necessarily a future predictor.)

Here is some exit polling data: http://www.udel.edu/poscir/road/course/exitpollsindex.html

Looking at the percentages who identified themselves as R's, D's and I's and those who identified themselves as moderates, liberals and conservatives (scroll down), are you able to determine what percentage of independents are M,C, or L?

[dpbrown]

16. Well, let's take a crack at "affiliation" and "ideology"

Of the total, the graph legitimizes the use of the 40/40/20 rule to analyze the electorate.

It says that of the 13157 people polled:

39% self-identified as Democrats.
35% self-identified as Republicans.
27% self-identified as Independents.

(Not far off from the general framework of the 40/40/20 rule.)

Of the "independents":
45% voted for Gore.
47% voted for Bush.

(Roughly half each, as the my analysis pointed out would be the case.)

However, as it related to Nader:
2% of self-identified Democrats voted for Nader.
1% of self-identified Republicans voted for Nader.
6% of self-identified independents voted for Nader.

If we project these percentages to the 2000 election numbers, they tell us that:

There were 40,560,000 Democratic votes available. (I used "40 million" in my analysis) 104m X 39%

There were 36,400,000 Republican votes available. (Wow, weaker than I thought - again, I used "40 million" in my analysis) 104m X 35%

Nader got 811,200 Democratic votes. 40.56m X 2%
Nader got 364,000 Republican votes. 36.4m X 1%
Nader got 1,684,8000 "independent" votes. 28.08m X 6%

(Not far from his total take of about 3 million, so it looks right so far)

Unfortunately, I don't think the "vote by ideology" numbers are as useful as they would be if they were broken down by affiliation, but let's take a crack at it.

First of all, "moderate" used by a Bush voter probably means "more liberal" and "moderate" used by a Gore voter probably means "more conservative" than the candidate they voted for (or that's what they thought the question was that was being asked).

So, projected to the numbers:

20,800,000 self-identified "liberals"
52,000,000 self-identified "moderates"
30,160,000 self-identified "conservative"

Gore got 16,640,000 liberal votes.
Gore got 27,040,000 moderate votes.
Gore got 5,127,200 conservative votes.

Nader got 1,248,000 liberal votes.
Nader got 1,040,000 moderate votes.
Nader got 51,272 conservative votes.

In my bell curve analysis, I proposed that Gore got "40 million" core votes (these would be people who in the above example self-identified as closely related to what they thought the "middle" would be), and then under the rule he got 5 million votes from people who thought he should be more "conservative" and 5 million from people who thought he should be more "liberal."

I projected, based on the 40/40/20 rule that this would be the "shape" of the bell curve, but the numbers from your exit polling data present an even more shocking conclusion - the bell curve is even flatter and even more sloped to the "left".

While the number of self-identified "Democrats" isn't far off the mark from where the 40/40/20 rule proposed it would be (and Bush and Gore both split each other's take, cancelling out each other's affiliation vote), the ideology numbers in the Gore column are really telling.

Fully 35% of Gore's voters identified themselves as to the "left" of the "core" if that is what they perceived as "liberal" in the question of ideology - I'd say it's reasonable, as I mentioned above, to relate the meaning of "liberal" to be relative to vote cast.

In my example, I projected that 5 million, or 10%, of Gore's take voted for him wishing he were more "liberal or populist."

Only 55% of Gore's voters equated themselves with the "core" if by that is meant "moderate" (again, relative to vote cast).

In my 40/40/20 rule analysis, the "core" or "center" of the bell curve is worth 80% - the bell curve is clearly much flatter than the 40/40/20 analysis alone was able to pick up.

Only in the tally of the "conservatives" was my analysis practically spot on. Exit polls show that about 5 million voted for Gore wishing he were more "conservative" and that's almost exactly what I said it would be.

My analysis, putting Kucinich as the strongest candidate, supposed that Kucinich would get all Nader's voters.

From the above numbers, let's shave off the "conservatives" for Nader - if Kucinich takes the 2,228,000 "liberal" and "moderate" Nader voters (remember, I said 3 million), then Kucinich is almost exactly where I said he'd be.

And the exit polling numbers put 5.1 million votes into the "conservative voted for Gore" pile - these are the votes that people say are the "at-risk" voters who wished Gore were more "conservative."

So Kucinich turns out to be almost exactly where I said he'd be based on the 40/40/20 rule analysis - gaining about 3 million (exit poll = 2.3 million), and making the battle with Bush entirely a battle for 5 million previous Gore voters (exit poll = 5.1 million).

All-in-all, this data provides an explicit proof of my contentions:

1. The "progressive" bell curve is flatter and more sloped to the "left" than the DLC and the "centrist conservative" Democratic candidates want us to believe, and

2. Kucinich is still the candidate positioned best to pick up Nader's votes and therefore is the ONLY candidate who can make the fight against Bush entirely a battle for 5 million previous Gore voters - not needing ANY previous Bush voters to beat Bush decisively.

Thanks for providing the link to the exit polling data at:
http://www.udel.edu/poscir/road/course/exitpollsindex.html

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[redqueen]

17. Well done!

:yourock:

[dpbrown]

19. Thanks, I was surprised I was so right on!

The exit poll data shows that Gore's voters are even more liberal-leaning than even the 40/40/20 rule was able to pick up.

Kucinich really needs to be our nominee.

[diamondsoul]

22. DAN! Can I please have your permission

to repost this? Jeez, this is one of the best analyses I've seen ever to show Kucinich DOES have a chance to defeat Bush!

[dpbrown]

24. Go for it!

Fling it far and wide!

Make it into pdfs!

Put it into election consultants' ears!

Hurry!

;-)

[redqueen]

7. I agree

Not based on science and polling and statistics, but just what I hear and see day to day.

Too many people support other candidates but say they dream of having a president like Kucinich.

Give them a chance to vote for someone during the GE and we'll be set for a new New Deal.

Give them a choice between repub and repub lite, and... well... we've been down that road before, haven't we?

[dpbrown]

18. See post #16 for proof of theorem using exit poll data

The 40/40/20 rule is more than validated if we use the exit polling data from 2000 to challenge the assumptions.

Money doesn't mean anything other than people are supporting the wrong candidate if they're really trying to beat Bush.

[comradebillyboy]

9. with all due respect sir

i think this is a case of wishful thinking

where is the actual evidence of this electability? that is money, organization, votes?

your evidence at the moment consists only of opinon pieces that you have authored.

[redqueen]

10. "where is the actual evidence of this electability?"

I know you didn't ask me, but it's hard to avoid answering such an easy question:

He's been elected. :D

Not only that, but he's managed to get elected despite being run out of town on a rail by the corporate-owned media.

Who else has that kind of experience?

[Padraig18]

13. True, but...

... he won't be able to outspend his opponent(s) this time by 100:1, like he did last time. :shrug:

[redqueen]

14. Spending didn't do it

Looking at politics as nothing but money vs. money is ... not as thoughtful as it could be. :)

He was right. That's how he won. He is right again, now. That is how he will win again.

Notice his statement on the stealth addendum to the patriot act. Where are the other candidates' statements / plans?

Notice his actions on behalf of the citizens fighting Diebold. What were the other candidates' actions?

We have a short time before the primaries begin... I hope those who have been so committed to tearing down the best Democrat in the race might consider taking a break until we have some actual numbers in? Heaven knows they've been working overtime so far!

[JohnKleeb]

27. they followed him after diebold

just as they did with Iraq War money. Think about y'all, Kucinich repeats his opposition to giving Bush 87 billion and Edwards who btw is a friend of DK's and Kerry soon there after aunnoce their opposition to the it, Diebold, DK does what he did in the house, and those two senators follow. I am not dissing them, but applauding all 3. Anyhow, fight has yet begun, I dont see victory in Iowa but hell stranger things have happened.

[dpbrown]

20. Please see post #16 for proof of theorem using exit poll data

The 40/40/20 rule is more than validated if we use the exit polling data from 2000 to challenge the assumptions.

Money doesn't mean anything other than people are supporting the wrong candidate if they're really trying to beat Bush.

[LWolf]

23. Are you a student of

Ted Koppel?

No votes have been cast.

On December 9, Congressman Kucinich publicly stood up to big media on a nationally televised debate. Dennis told debate moderator Ted Koppel, "I want the American people to see where media takes politics in this country." The crowd cheered. "We start talking about endorsements, now we're talking about polls and then talking about money. When you do that you don't have to talk about what's important to the American people."

http://www.kucinich.us/abcnews.php

I'll stick with the man who wants to address what's important to the American people.

[Desertrose]

26. again, its the criteria you use

this election is about a way more than $$ & poll numbers.

You will see Kucinch take a huge jump in every measurable way here in the next few weeks...and I don't need $$ and polls to tell me.

Knowing what this campaign is all about and upcoming events for DK..well...just watch...but then the media doesn't and hasn't told you what's going on so far, so maybe you do have to go by what they tell you...too bad...too sad.


This election is about so much more....and Dennis is clued in to what the people want...disregard the media...its all spin anyway.

and BTW...it is not simply wishful thinking or opinion pieces.....

Peace
DR

[LWolf]

28. I believe that.

I'm here writing my letters to send off to Iowa. We are expecting a storm today, so I'll stay home and spend the day writing. My wrist is already swollen and sore, and I've got 25 more letters to go, but that isn't significant. What matters is that I'm putting heart and soul into these 50 hand-written letters. I'm putting a bit of myself in each one, in hopes that someone will take a moment to get to know Dennis. And I'm listening to Dennis in that recent CSpan piece talk about burning a candle 4 ways.

And I know we'll do well in Iowa, propelling us into NH with new energy and new presence.

[dpbrown]

29. I've analyzed this in two different ways now

And each one backs the other.

The 40/40/20 rule shows that the strength for the Democratic candidate will lie in capturing Nader's voters to make the race a battle only for former Gore voters - no former Bush voters needed (but of course there will be many).

The exit polling data from 2000 shows that, if anything, the 40/40/20 analysis is too conservative in its estimate of the strength of the progressive/populist power in the Democratic bell curve.

Kucinich is, truly, the only candidate who can thoroughly beat Bush by much greater than the Black Box and electoral vote shift margin of theft in 2004.

Fear Ends.
Hope Begins.
Kucinich 2004.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[LWolf]

33. If I haven't mentioned it,

I do greatly appreciate your analysis. If you had a single page summary, I'd pop it into the letters I'm sending out!

[redqueen]

34. I'll second that!

These analyses are great... I'd love to include them with my letters as well!

Permission, please, Dan?

[dpbrown]

36. Please include them in any way you'd like

While I hope to make that analysis a stand-alone piece, or tie it up with the original 40/40/20 analysis as one piece (and probably make it available as a pdf), I don't know if I'll get to it today.

So feel free to copy it, take out anything you like, and repost it or include it with letters you write for now.

As soon as I've rewritten it, I'll post it again.

Thanks for the kind words.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[dpbrown]

37. Analysis available rewritten as single piece here -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=42969

By tonight I should have it formatted as a pdf I can post somewhere easy to get ahold of.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[genius]

15. You are absolutely right

Keep up the good postings.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

25. kick for Kucinich

TWL

[porkrind]

38. I saw Kucinich interviewed on C-SPAN

and interviewed on Kuro5hin. He was disarmingly sincere and honest, intelligent, and humorous.

I think he would make a tremendous president.

[LWolf]

39. I agree.

That is the effect he has on people who see or meet him outside of 9-person debates where each person only gets 60 seconds to speak.

I don't think there has ever been anyone like him in the WH; our country will be better for it.

[dpbrown]

40. He is EXACTLY the remedy we need to the BFEE damage

No other candidate comes close to defining what we need to do to definitively regain control of our country and heal the damage Reagan, Bush I, and Bush the Stunted have done to us.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

41. I guess we have to agree there!

Cheers!

:)

TWL

[redqueen]

42. KICK!

:kick: