An Analysis on Kucinich Electability

[FloridaPat]

From: http://www.democrats.com/ Please note last sentence.

An analysis of the 2000 election based on the generally-accepted 40/40/20 rule -- 40% Democrat, 40% Republican, 20% independent -- shows that there are only about 5 million so-called "centrist conservatives" who voted for Gore. In a further commentary, Dan Brown uses Voter News Service's (VNA's), exit polling data, to prove the earlier analysis â?? there are barely more "conservatives who voted for Gore" at risk than there are Nader voters - the real strength of the Democratic Party lies in its left-leaning populists. More importantly, it means that only Dennis Kucinich or another core, liberal, traditional Democrat can make the race with Bush a race solely based on retaining previous Gore voters. Dennis Kucinich can beat Bush by three million votes or more without needing a single 2000 Bush vote to do it. No other candidate has this advantage against Bush.

[underpants]

1. Uh yeah and we like to think the Dems don't have enough problems already

Note that this little gem is originally from imwithdennis.com

[dpbrown]

17. No, it's from Democratic Underground

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=38328#38736

Thanks for playing.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[HFishbine]

20. I wouldn't discredit it because of it's source

I've read it thoroughly, it makes some informed assumptions, and I don't think it utlimately proves that only Kucinich can win (too many other factors are not considered), however, I think the point that there are more votes to be gained on the left than in the "center" is valid, at least in light of how the 2000 electorate behaved.

[dpbrown]

21. Thanks, the key is really the sides and center of the bell curve

I've tried to make clear my contention that Kucinich, or some liberal populist like him, will be the best candidate to seize the opportunity presented here - lest someone decide I've drunk too much of the Koolaid.

The "conservative centrist" support is the weak link for the Democrats, despite what the DLC and all their money have been trying to tell us.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

2. True, DK is the pragmatic choice

He can appeal to not only traditional Democrats, swing voters, and Green-types, but also McCain voters, Buchanan fans, and many Reagan Democrats and Perot voters. Even Dean has been critical of NAFTA/GATT/WTO and the rest of the "Free Trade Agreements" - Kucinich could clean up on this issue and get 20% of swing voters and many disgruntled Republicans and independents.

[Bandit]

3. If he gets the nomination I will vote for him.

:-)

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. Me Too!

I think he's great! :yourock:

[drdigi420]

5. I personally would love nothing more

than a Kucinich presidency.

It would be nice to be respected in the world again as a shining example of peace and freedom instead of feared and reviled as we are now under shrub.

And I agree that aiming for the center is keeping the solid left base home on election day. Kucinich seems to be able to fire up the base. I just don't think he has the fundraising ability to take on Dean.

But, of course, I'll vote for whomever the Dems run against Bush.

[jsw_81]

6. You can use statistics to prove anything

I recall freepers using a similar analysis to "prove" that Gary Bauer would win the presidency in 2000.

Now people on the far-left are trying to "prove" that someone like Dennis Kucinich will be elected. It would be kind of funny if it weren't so sad.

[underpants]

7. Thank you for stating the obvious

and better than I did.

Kucinich electable? Talk about an oxymoron.

[Nadienne]

12. Ah, yes, and tell me how Dean will win against Bush?

[iowapeacechief]

30. Anything including a Dean victory?

[leyton]

8. The fact is...

Kucinich might pick up 3 million Green votes. But he would certainly lose just as many who voted for Gore originally. There are plenty of Democrats who voted for Gore last time who weren't certain they would do it again, and those that are considering Bush would certainly be pushed over the edge by the nomination of Kucinich.

What centrist voter, with loyalties to neither party, would vote for Kucinich? I'm a Democrat, and I wouldn't.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[leyton]

13. I have nothing

against Kucinich personally. I think he's a great guy, and we need voices like his in the House. But I think he would not make a good president, because I disagree with his policies. Sorry for not holding exactly the same views as you.

[redqueen]

10. Just backs up what we should have learned in '00 and '02

We're losing, folks. Losing losing losing.

How long has it been since Democrats have been out of majority status in both houses? You can thank centrist 'logic' for that.

Eventually people will 'get it'. Will it be too late to matter?

[Bobby Digital]

11. I don't know about him

Kucinich has a likeable character but I don't think he's got a better chance than other democrats against bush. My guess is that most of the Nader voters are so frustrated with Bush that they will vote pragmatically to get him out of office, rather than try to make a statement like they did against gore. Plus, Kucinich is far too liberal for the taste of most of the conservatives that are frustrated with bush. I, who have been called conservative, will almost certainly be voting against bush, but Kucinich is my least favorite democratic candidate. I think you guys would be best off with Liberman.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

14. It's not the Nader voters that are Kucinich's big plus

You're right - I expect most of them to be ABB in the end. It's the Perot and Buchanan and McCain voters that Dennis can pick up that's the real plus to his campaign.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[Nederland]

15. Double Counting Leftists

As I pointed out in the original thread on this analysis, Dan Brown makes the error of double counting leftists. The 40/40/20 rule applies to ALL voters. In his analysis Dan Brown assumes that Nader voters are somehow outside this group (which is curious, because if Nader voters aren't part of the 100% of all voters, where are they?) As a result he counts the 3 million Nader voters twice. Once when he assumes that all Nader voters will vote for Kucinich, and again when he divides up the 20% of the electorate that is independent.

Account for Nader voters properly and his own analysis shows Kucinich loses.

[dpbrown]

16. The VNA exit polling data showed the same 5 million "conservatives"

And bolstered the analysis from the 40/40/20 analysis. Your "double-counting" theory doesn't hold up.

I've taken two completely different sources of information and found that they corroborate to an uncanny degree.

The straight 40/40/20 analysis projected a curve looking like this:

10% wishing Gore were more conservative (5 million votes)
80% at the "core" or "the porridge is just right" level (40 million)
10% wishing he were more populist or conservative (5 million)

But what the VNA exit polls showed was a real left-leaning bell curve:

10% wishing Gore were more conservative (5 million, just like I said)
55% only at the "just right porridge" level (less than 30 million "core" votes)
35% wishing he were more liberal or populist (between 15 and 20 million!)

And 80 million people didn't vote.

How many didn't vote but thought if Gore were more liberal or populist they might have voted for him?

It's very easy to project, given the low slope of Gore's bell curve, and taking as one end Gore's 5 million "wishing he were more conservative" votes, and at the other end Nader's 3 million "liberal idealist" votes - a bell curve including year 2000 nonvoters that would dramatically rise right up over the middle between the 55% and the 35% - that's exactly how this sample would be weighted if someone were to do an analysis of where the real core strength of the liberal bell curve lay.

I think that's a key "take-away" from this look at the 40/40/20 rule backed up with VNA's exit polling numbers from 2000:

The real progressive core voter available to Democrats in 2004 will come from voters (and nonvoters) whose positions are more populist or progressive (more to the "left") than Gore's and therefore the Democratic Party's stated positions.

Kucinich is still the candidate who will resonate most decisively with those left-leaning voters and nonvoters to make his defeat of Bush in 2004 a resounding slap-down of the Republicans - and that is the only acceptable response to the BFEE and their insane plans for world domination.

There are way more people who will vote for a progressive Democrat than there are potential "switch" Republican voters.

Appealing to Republican voters is the wrong way to beat Bush!

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[Nederland]

23. A simple question

Do you think Kucinich is to the left of Gore?

[stickdog]

18. DK would be eaten alive. He's the Repuke's quintessential ultra-liberal

bogeyman.

Sorry, but this isn't Fantasy Island.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

19. Ah, but he cannot be criticized as

"an out-of-touch northeastern elitist."

Growing up poor and working in broadcasting and business as well as politics gives him a background and an ability to relate to people in person that is truly impressive.

[stickdog]

22. Anti-gun, pro-big government, soft on defense, soft on crime, single,

vegan, new age, strident, radical ...

I don't need to go on, do I?

[TeeYiYi]

24. "pro-big government". . .

. . . what do you mean by that stickdog? Can you tell me where I can read something about this? Thanks.

TYY

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

25. well, he WILL have to get married

Let's take it one at a time:

"Anti-gun" - true, he'd have to work on that.

"Pro-big government" - uh, he's running against Bush, Mr. Biggest Government Ever. That one won't stick.

"Soft on Defense" - no way. Dept of Peace has to be renamed Dept of IR, like Clark suggests.

"Soft on Crime" - no way, Kucinich is *tough* on corporate crime and a "Law and Order" candidate.

Strident? (see Bush again).

Vegan? Well, at least we know he won't get Mad Cow Disease! :evilgrin:

[Terwilliger]

29. so Repuke talking points are your specialty now?

Could you provide any specifics for the broad-brush generalizations you're doling out?

[Armstead]

26. Unfortunately it's the messenger, not the message

I like Dennis K and I hope he attains a leadership position in Congress. or becomes a senator to fill the void left by Wellstone.

I also believe he is the candidate woith the best positions for our nation and the world.

But as a presidential candidate, he doesn't cut it. He is absolutely brilliant -- and IMO absolutely correct -- in discussing issues in venues where he has a chance to stretch out and really explain himself.

But he is shrill and too easily cractured in the venues that most presidential candidates are seen, like the debates. I've often seen him go off on his tirades in the debates and grimaced and said "Calm down Dennis and take a chill pill."

And alas, his physical appearance and things like being a vegan don't overcome that.

[Scott Lee]

27. Some of Kucinich's supporters are his worst enemy.

DK himself has always been admired by me.

What do they say about the company you keep?

[Terwilliger]

28. like whom?

let's see some specifics

[crushbush04]

31. This message

is a copy of the one I posted on the "why isn't Kucinich polling well thread?"...

The problem websites like these face is what I call the odd perception of self associaton. We sit by our computers and type away with mostly like minded people and similar veiws and develop this odd perception that what we say here is the general view or should be more accepted. Kinda like Dan Quayles campaign staff. "Sure Dan you have a great chance to be president..."


DK is seen by most people I know ( I try to have as wide a range of friends as possible and my girlfriend is a raging conservative) as some kind of nut. I really dont mean to be insulting but anybody who doesnt see this is living in that encapsulsed world of odd perception. As proof of my analysis ask yourself this question honestly..."Do I know anyone besides a radical who even considers voting for DK?" I admire zeal but this DK stuff is ridiculous.


Lets get serious folks, there are three major candidates with chances of beating Bush and they are Kerry, Dean, Clark. The rest should really pack their bags. Kerry was my personal choice but I don't think I have ever seen a candidate sink faster in public esteem. Dean seems to reflect the mood of the party, is a much better campaigner and I dig the fact that he is real. Clark is starting to get much stronger and I am beginning to think he is the best to offer a real challenge to the bushman. I could vote comfortably for either one.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

33. Kerry is not a major candidate

He's polling below Sharpton. If it wasn't for the fact that he's in the Senate, he'd most likely be below Kucinich too.

Most people I know - and I know a lot of people from diverse backgrounds - don't think about Kerry at all, much less plan to vote for him.

Kerry should drop out - he's not a serious candidate. Just because he has a rich wife doesn't mean he should be taken seriously.

[crushbush04]

34. I'll grant you that....

You are right...So it should be really just a two man race at this point

Kerry's weakness and quite frankly his own cowardice in making his true feelings known sank him faster than Enron stock. His failed campaign is a lesson for all potential politicians on speaking your mind and standing up for what you believe in.