OK, NOW---The explanation behind the polls.

[rateyes]

I am becoming increasingly convinced that, if things continue going in the direction they are going--based on the polls--that the Democratic Party will nominate Hillary Clinton as our nominee for POTUS in 2008.

However, I am also convinced that she will get the nomination, NOT because the majority of the party wants her to be the nominee. In my opinion, she will get the nomination, even though she is, perhaps, the least liked candidate because she has a base of unwaverable supporters of about 33% of the party. And, with seven other candidates splitting the rest of the vote (like a third party candidate does in the General Election), that base will carry her to the nomination, even though two-thirds of the party will not vote for her in the primaries/caucuses.

In other words, because of the dilution of the vote of those opposed to Hillary, our party will nominate someone whom the majority would rather not be the nominee. (BTW, this could be true if any of the other candidates were the front-runner.)

There are several ways, however, that this could change. That was the reason behind my last round of polls, asking whether or not those opposed to the polls' "most objectionable candidate" (Hillary Clinton) would switch their vote to support another candidate (in this case, John Edwards because he was, according to the polls, the least objectionable) if it meant defeating Hillary Clinton in the primaries--or if they would stick with their candidate even if it assured Clinton's nomination.

To be honest, I was surpised at the results of the last poll. Over 70% of the respondents said they were willing to switch their vote to Edwards if it meant defeating Clinton.

Believing that of all the candidates, Clinton is the most polarizing, if not in our own party, in the nation, I think it important to choose someone else. (However, I will support the nominee, because the alternative, in my view, is worse.)

Therefore, in my opinion, there are several scenarios that could stop Clinton from being nominated. I would like your opinions on the matter:

1. After Iowa and New Hampshire, if Clinton is, indeed, the frontrunner---those who would rather not nominate Clinton could agree to coalesce behind whomever is in 2nd place, and push that candidate through the whole nominating process.

2. After Iowa and New Hampshire, we Democrats put heavy pressure on all but the top two candidates to drop out of the race.

3. We ask a pledge from all the candidates now for ALL of the candidates to remain in the race throughout the primaries/caucuses, leaving NO candidate with enough delegates at the convention with a majority, setting up a situation where it will take several ballots for the convention to choose a nominee....perhaps, a darkhorse candidate that everyone likes.

Regardless, if we run this nomination process as it has usually been done, whomever garners the nomination can win with a small plurality of support. For instance, those voting in April, if everyone but one has already dropped out, will have no voice. I, personally, don't like that.

Of all three options, personally, I like #3 the best. Go to the convention and fight it out on the floor...I think it would be healthy for the party. I don't think that's going to happen. I'm not sure #2 will happen either...but, it could, if we started pressuring our candidates. Beyond that, the only choice we have left is scenario #1.

I am willing to coalesce behind whomever is the strongest candidate to defeat Clinton after Iowa and New Hampshire. The last poll gives me hope that this is a possibility.

And, now the "wildcard." If Gore gets in the race, all bets are off. I'm voting for Gore, and I believe that he will win hands down.

Those who recommended the polls, I humbly ask that you recommend this post, as well---if you like. I know that this won't be a popular thread among the good folk who are die-hard Clinton supporters. Please know, I don't hate Clinton, and will vote for her if she's the nominee---but, in my own opinion, she's not the best candidate we have, and could possibly be the one who will energize the Republicans to get out their vote.

Flame away.

On edit: BelgianMadCow made the suggestion I post a link to all the polls, if you want to take a look. Here they are:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2004921

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2005291

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2005749

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2006005

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2006331

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2006658

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2006938

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2007180

[rateyes]

1. Again, kicking for exposure...appreciating any recs. Thanks.

And, I do want your opinions. I will read them, but will wait a while to respond to let others talk to each other. Thanks.

[liberaldemocrat7]

42. According to political compass John Edwards appears the least conservative of the group

except for Dennis Kucinich.

As for voting your values if the people who have decided to vote for other than Hillary coalesce behind Edwards the least conservative of the conservative Democrats, we can defeat Hillary.

[BrightKnight]

61. The hard left Edwards took will not help him in the general election.

Most voters will not buy it and the MSM will do nothing to sell it. I honestly like Edwards. I have family that worked on his campaign in the last election primary and probably this time too. If he wins the nomination I will do everything that I can to help him.

I don't think that he has the best chance to win and I really really want to see a Democrat in the office. After 8 years of Chimpy someone needs to clean up the mess.

[JDPriestly]

65. Edwards is the only candidate who has the courage and resolve

to clean up Washington, D.C. Hillary won't do it.

[BrightKnight]

67. They did a good job cleaning up after Bush Sr.. The cabinet was solid...

I give them high marks for: Environmental policy, social policy, Foreign Policy, physical responsibility, prosperity, ...

Senator Clinton stands the best chance of winning. Putting a Democrat in the Whitehouse is what matters to me.

He was essentially begging Bush to let him continue working on middle east peace when he left office. Permission denied...

Ask Clark what he thinks of them.

[RaleighNCDUer]

98. Doing things differently is NOT cleaning up.

Cleaning up would mean putting a sizeable number of the previous administrations in jail for the myriad crimes they committed - BCCI, Iran/Contra, looting the S&Ls. That didn't happen. Forgive and forget. And with Hillary, we'll get more of the same. The criminals of this administration (many of whom were the criminals of the previous administrations) will walk without accountability.

The K-Street Project did not just 'happen'. And Clinton did nothing to slow it in his time. He did a lot that was right, but by not taking on the corruption he created his own demise and brought on the Bush years as well.

We will not survive that happening again. It has to stop now.

[dickbearton]

137. NCevilDUer, I agree with you; but...

Who and how can you clean up this state of crime? The Bush
Crime Family should have been busted up and put in jail for
looting the S&Ls years ago. Crime is endemic in the
Republican Party and a large part of the moneyed, ruling class
in America. How can you clean it up?

[goclark]

134. How I would like to think that HC would bring things back to normal

However,

A million things have happened to this country since BC was in charge.
There is no way that BC or HC or anyone else will be able to pull this country away from the Bush Crime Family.

Now that BC/HC are such buddies with good ole Poppy James Carville etc., I just can't trust them, I'm sorry.

[Clark2008]

93. Bullshit.

He's pandering. Why are so many DUers so duped by this man - a man far more conservative in his voting history than even Clinton - and I'm not a Clinton supporter.

[ChiciB1]

101. You Live In The South So You MUST Have Some Idea About HOW

many southerners feel about Clinton! Edwards may not "seem" electable, but because he's from the south I think "on the fence" Independents may find him more acceptable. I don't think THEY feel that way about Clinton!

And even though I hear it all the time that he didn't carry his state, this Edwards has matured and learned quite few lessons in 4 years!! Plus, I have never felt Kerry/Edwards lost the last one! Repukes stepped into the dark dungeon of CORRUPTION after the 2000 FRAUD and just stayed there, without regard to what it meant to America OR it's people!!

And unfortunately I'm beginning to think The Hillary Machine has been taking lessons from this and have an underground strategy working that, while not entirely is the same, it's borrowed some of their oil to roll along!

Sorry to be so negative, but she really DOES worry me!

[JeanGrey]

114. I have to jump in. I do not have one single friend who is a democrat

that will vote for Hillary. NOT ONE. The women especially cannot stand her. I fear that she is a great danger. Just IMHO.

[ChiciB1]

122. Hey, I've Run Into Those Who Are VERY Soft For Hillary... But

somehow, GO WITH THE FLOW, because THEY are being fed the Hillary Crap by the daily HillaryMania Hype!! And don't think there's not a LOT OF MONEY pushing her on us!! A very concerted effort would turn them if they saw someone else had a chance, I'm sure!

I don't know many who really support her myself, but those that do are holding their noses for the most part!

Myself, I DO NOT support her and make NO BEANS ABOUT IT!! I'm willing to work to topple her!!

[dickbearton]

138. That says more about your friends then HC...

Anyone, who would vote for a Corrupt Republican over any
Democrat, including HC, is no Democrat. Your female friends
sound like a group of Republican stooges. 

[JDPriestly]

142. Elizabeth Edwards pointed out (while in Iowa) recently

that the Democrats did not run any television ads in North Carolina in 2004 although John Edwards was the candidate for vice president. Who knows whether they would have carried North Carolina had they tried. Since Howard Dean is head of the DNC, good news, we will be campaigning in all states.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

2. I missed most of your polls earlier

But I did see the last one.

I have to say, I like your style. :)

Oh, and K&R.

[JuniperLea]

3. I'm pretty much with you

Gore is indeed the wildcard. I will not give up hope until the final day to enter the race arrives!

And if you say anything positive about another candidate in a thread that merely mentions Hillary, you automatically become a Hill Hater around here. Buckle up; your bumpy ride begins now~!

:toast:

[againes654]

34. IMO

The Hillary supporters don't have much of a stand in this situation. This thread is not "hating" on Hillary. It is a genuine attempt to make a change.

[rucky]

4. I think #1 will pretty much happen on it's own...

but not any sooner than Iowa. Until then, it's natural that everybody thinks their guy is going to be the one who the strategic voters will rally around, so I wouldn't expect anyone's preference to change just yet - just because Clinton is leading.

[Mojambo]

5. I think you have a pretty good read on this.

And I recommended.

[rateyes]

6. Anybody willing to give one more rec? After that, I don't care

if anyone recommends it. I really do, however, want the exposure of the greatest page in order to, perhaps, solicit the most opinion---especially if you disagree. Thanks.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

9. I've already rec'd it

But I'll give you a kick so someone else will see.

[rateyes]

11. Thanks.

:hi:

[Lone_Star_Dem]

21. I was going to come back and kick for a 5th, but you're up to 20 already.

I plan on discussing this at my next local Dem meet up.

Thank you! :)

[rateyes]

44. I hope we can get this discussion going all over the country...

Thank YOU. :hi:

[rateyes]

7. Shamelessly kicking to see if I can get one more R? Thanks.

[Jackpine Radical]

8. You trigger some thoughts...

First, yeah, if Gore gets in, all bets are off. Jeez, every liberal I know seems to feel this way, on DU and among my personal acquaintances.

Second--assuming no Gore (an assumption I'm not yet willing to make, BTW), the best way to bring off your idea, after IA & NH, of course, is for most or all the other nominees to get together and endorse Edwards. This would only work if, indeed, most of them want to stop Hillary (for whatever reason, unelectability or anti-DLC or whatever), badly enough to end whatever chances they themselves have left and are willing to put themselves on the line to do it. There is always the chance that Hill will win anyway, or that lots of people will bolt the party because of what they see as an unfair tactic. It's a potential career ender for any candidate who does that, and a possible disaster for the party. However, I'm beginning to think that unless someone in this party is willing to take a few chances on pissing off the corporations, there's not much reason to stay on this ship of complicit fools.

[rateyes]

10. It will have to be a concious decision of the people. nt

[creeksneakers2]

143. Why behind Edwards?

Last I saw Edwards was losing support and down to 12%. Why not Obama? He has more support than Edwards?

[RiverStone]

12. tough question to ponder....

I am willing to coalesce behind whomever is the strongest candidate to defeat Clinton after Iowa and New Hampshire.

If I really, REALLY saw a national and unified effort to do as you suggest above, I'd probably ponder a switch; but I also really, REALLY see Dennis as the only Dem who has consistently represented our views on The Hill. He panders to no one and would I be pandering away my support for him if I followed said strategy?

I know what... :think:

Lets just have Al Gore jump in the mix and I won't have to think about it!

[renie408]

13. This is so...interesting.

I will be curious to see the responses to this. It makes sense to me.

Interesting.

[flyarm]

14. #5..k&R...GOOD IDEAS!! Edwards is my guy unless Gore gets in!!

Gore is #1 for me!!

fly

[renie408]

15. About Gore... me, too. n/t

[saracat]

16. I support John even if Gore jumps in. But I would welcome Gore

and have no trouble voting if Al is the nominee!

[Divine Discontent]

62. fly speaks for me n/t

[rateyes]

17. Does anyone know how to rename the links above...

to make them read: Round 1, Round 2, etc?

[BelgianMadCow]

22. yeah use the HTML lookup table

[BelgianMadCow]

23. here it is for the first poll

link:www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2004921|Round one

but you have to put square brackets (a left and a right) around the above. If I do that now, the code is lost :-/

But see if you can copy-paste this :
Round one
edit again : the copy-paste is not gonna work, tried it myself. So use the first method if you still can edit.

[rateyes]

Thanks. I won't do that now, but will remember it for the future...

:yourock:

[Kurovski]

18. K&R. (nt)

[Nimrod2005]

19. Rest assured, she is not going to make it...Edwards wins IA by 2%, Obama wins

everything else...Obama picks Richardson for # 2, the rest will be history.



PRESIDENT OBAMA!!!

[againes654]

27. Can you tell me the TX lottery numbers?

[robinlynne]

20. Rattie, I have to absorb all of that. This calls for coffee! but k&r for sure.

[stevedeshazer]

24. Dennis Kucinich is the ONLY candidate that matches my views on most issues

I concede that he has little chance to win, despite the fervent support of true lefties like me.

Senator Clinton is dead last on my list, even behind Mike Gravel. But hey, I'm one of those wacky lefties. Is it really that simple?

Al Gore is NOT running. Why would he? He's going to go down in history as the guy who was right about global climate change, the biggest problem in the history of humankind; he doesn't need to run for President, his legacy is secure. He knows he ALREADY WON. He's Jimmy Carter and Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King and Jesus H. Christ all rolled into one.

So that leaves us with the present group of Democratic candidates.

You state correctly that HRC is the favorite; don't discount the pushback!

I don't buy the notion that Senator Clinton is the presumptive nominee for the Democrats. The Mass Media Machine is selling this.

Anything can happen.

I like Edwards' chances, and Kucinich has a message that is compelling despite the corporate media refusal to acknowledge it.

[mikelewis]

31. Dennis Rocks

The greatest thing about Dennis is... even if you hate his guts, you can't call him a liar; nor a fool. If you did, you'd prove yourself both. Dennis reminds me of Carter in a lot of way... both are Men after God's own heart.

[againes654]

33. I agree with you 100%

In your opinion, would I be betraying Kucinich to rally behind the #2 candidate to keep Hillary from getting the nomination?

[mikelewis]

36. Betrayal is a harsh word... probably too harsh.

Politics is a compromise with the devil... by even participating in the process we are betraying our own common sense but what can you do? You make the most informed guess you can and hope for the best. I'm sticking with Dennis because he was right and they were wrong... including me.

I don't feel passionately anti-Hilary. I don't care if she wins... nor Obama nor Edwards... they're all part and parcel... cut from the same cloth. They are all bought and paid for candidates that are designed to apply a healthy portion of lipstick on our unsitely pig of a government. This bullshit primary is High School USA popularity bullshit and no amount of our bleating is going to mean dick to the party or to the general sheep because the truth is... we're already hooked. They know that as a partisan, either you're going to shut up, hold your nose and vote for who they say or you're going to stay home and dread a Republican victory. Those are your options... I know it sucks but the reality is the game is rigged... the players are all doping and the ref's are all on the take... this election is going to be about money, over money, for money and with the goal of serving money... who we vote for or what we think should happen ain't going to mean jack shit. The reason... we ain't got no money... I personally don't think it matters who I want to be the Democratic nominee so I stand behind who I wish could be.

[againes654]

37. Well thanks for bursting my bubble

LOL just kidding

[stevedeshazer]

46. Yes

Vote your conscience.

Dennis CAN win.

If you vote for him.

[againes654]

54. Thank you

I will keep this in mind. I really like Dennis, I am just worried that not enough people will get to hear his message, and that rateyes is right, Hillary will probably win with 1/3 support because the 2/3 are split.

[John Q. Citizen]

64. Yes, i would add to that

vote your your brain, vote your issues, vote your heart and vote your conscience.

Dennis is the man.

[cascadiance]

38. If Al Gore enters, the whole equation changes...

Who knows, then perhaps some of those Clinton votes that don't switch to Gore might be willing to align with another candidate to stop Gore too if Gore surges ahead.

I do agree that after the first two races, we should have a significant winnowing down of the candidates and unify more support behind fewer rather too many of them.

However, part of me wants someone like Dennis to stay in, since he represents so many "core value" views of the Democratic Party that NEED to be heard, that perhaps WON'T be heard through the rest of the campaign if he drops out early. I look on him sort of like many did Jesse Jackson, when he ran. Everyone knew he wasn't going to win, but by staying in the race he was a voice for the minority vote that might not be heard otherwise, and his block of votes served as a "power broker" at the end, though I think many of us already know that we wouldn't accept him throwing his weight behind Clinton, and would need it to be one of the other candidates.

Now with the current mix of candidates, I'm not sure if that's needed, unless Gore doesn't get in, and perhaps Edwards backs off of his earlier stances without pressure from Dennis in the race to keep him putting forth the grass roots ideas that he's been campaigning on. However, I think Edwards is smart and won't let those die too much. Need to make sure that things like Universal Health Care are discussed, and if impeachment comes up as a bigger and more relevant issue before the end of next year, they don't shy away from it like they might if Dennis isn't in the race.

I see what you are saying about unifying behind another candidate, but we have to make sure that the one we unify behind also has our best interests at heart too. The person we all get behind needs to not pull any punches when they vocalize the core Democratic values that person wants us to unify behind.

Two candidates might be too small a number too soon after the first primaries (especially if Gore gets in). Perhaps three (maybe even four if Dennis stays in as an "issue" candidate if there is one or two issues the others still need "prodding" on).

[rateyes]

43. I hope you're right about that, Steve.

:hi:

[LSK]

87. Yes Kucinich matches my views the best, but Edwards is 2nd and can win

Thats why I support Edwards.

PS Gore agreed to go to some summit in Feb 2008 so I would say theres less than a 1% chance hes running.

[EVDebs]

126. Great minds think alike ! nt

[againes654]

25. Kicked and HIGHLY recommended

Ok, now for my promised explanation of my opinion.

First, rateyes, thank you so much for this experiment. IMO it is one of the more thought provoking threads that I have read (in my limited experience,). I think in a fair and non-biased way, you present a VALID option to the infighting on DU lately, and to what some of us feel is a genuine problem for the Democratic Party.

I have been very vocal over the last month or so about how I feel about Hillary. I am young 29, and a political baby, so there is much that I don't understand. I made up my mind (more or less) that I would NOT vote for Hillary in ANY election. MANY have been critical, and with their own valid reasons. I have not always been able to back up some of my claims or opinions. I have never, to my knowledge, stated blatantly false facts. In some cases, I have read or heard information that I believed, that later was proven false.

On the other hand, I have strong personal beliefs. I know how my life experiences have played out, and how government decisions affect us on a daily basis. I know that I am anti-war. I know that this country is in a health care crisis, and that my family has no insurance. I know that this country is sliding in to the "old days" of racism. I know that the current administration has shredded the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I believe that all people are created equal regardless of what country they happen to be born into, or what economic situation they are born into. I believe that companies shouldn't be running our government. I believe that our government has a certain responsibility to ALL citizens, not just those that are "rich". I believe that our government and yes, even our Party is beginning to fail us as a people.

Maybe some of that is naive. So be it. All of us have to grow up, and learn in our own manner. Over the last few months, I have begun to dislike Hillary Clinton's stand (or lack there of) on many issues. Her vote on the K/L pushed me over the edge. It is too much like the lead up to Iraq, and she should have learned. How can I expect my President to lead the "greatest nation on earth" if she if fooled twice by the same idiots.

I have read Hillary's "stand on the issues". I don't like it, and I don't trust her with the most important job in this country, if not the world. I can't explain it in the best way. I did make it clear that I wouldn't vote for her. There are many that agree with me, and there are many that disagree. That is usually that case with almost everything.

However, this "experiment", for all those that said it was meaningless, showed me other ways to prevent the train wreck that is HRC/DLC. I am willing to support the 2nd place candidate. I don't give up my vote for Kucinich easily, but I think that he would want the best for the Party, and he knows that isn't Clinton. I do this hoping that Kucinich could still have a chance at VP. With this scenario, I would still have to think really hard about what I would do if Hillary still got the nomination. That, thankfully is something I still have time to think about.

I think having options is always a good thing. A person without any options can do crazy things. So again, rateyes, thank you for this experiment, and giving us all something to think about.

[rateyes]

45. I appreciate that response.... In my opinion,

the laypeople of the Democratic party need to take it back from the politicians instead of handing it over to a presumptive candidate on a silver platter. They ALL should have to EARN our votes. No one should be coronated by two or three states.

[againes654]

57. Exactly

one of the problems that I see is that candidates like HRC know that most Democrats will go out and vote for whoever we select as the nominee. I also believe that she is convinced that she is going to win the nomination, so she is trying to be more centrist. I don't like that at all. That comes off as arrogant IMO.

[Yael]

26. I like the strategic approach

no time to read through the responses now but k n r and marking for later. Thanks!

[MethuenProgressive]

28. You cite small-response DU polls as being representative of the general public?

I respectfully disagree that DU polls represent anything other than how a small sub-set DUers feel.
(For instance, your first poll had only 78 anti-Clinton voter, out of *how many* thousands of active DU members?)

[againes654]

29. But if all those that did participate

tell everyone they know, and they tell everyone they know, it could snowball. Many also didn't see because they don't get on in the middle of the day. That is why rateyes has continually asked for recs so it would get more exposure. Many on here are also very active in various political groups that can really push this issue.

Another reason, I like this is that it takes away the myth that "we don't like Hillary because she is beating our candidate". That simply isn't true, at least in my case.

[mikelewis]

30. It's not representative of the General Public but it is or should be indicative of the possible...

...voting trends among likely democratic primary voters. Primary voters are not generally the sheep... the sheep like their voting to be a nice simple choice... A) or B). Primary voters are more politically astute and that description seems to fit a nice cross section of people on DU. Granted the polls are not scientific but they are consistent with normal trends of political ideology within the energized base of the Democratic party. Also... I hate to mention this but polls are exactly that... polls represent how a small sub-set of people feel and then those ideas are applied to the larger group. DU Polls are not scientific and shouldn't be used as such but his ideas didn't really require hard facts... I would consider these polls a rough general consensus and fair game for discussion.

[rateyes]

49. That's what I was aiming at. Thanks.

[rateyes]

48. No, I don't do that. I started pretty well knowing

that Clinton would be the first to bite the dust. I was also pretty sure that Kucinich would soon follow. I can read the tea leaves pretty well, having been part of the political process for almost 30 years now. I know how politics works, and it works for the politicians, not the people.

The people have to stand up and take the party back. These options, in my opinion, are the last best chance to save our party so that it serves the people. The Democratic leadership are selling us out at every turn. And, if we don't take back the party from those who have hijacked it over the last 15 years, the only alternative will be a third party.

More than ever, I believe that a third party with viable candidates could win the presidency in '08. Think about this: What would happen if Al Gore ran with a Chuck Hagel as his VP on an independent ticket?

See what I mean?

[bpeale]

108. i have been saying that since 2000

the time is ripe now for a viable third party. the democratic party has ceased to represent me and many other americans, but the candidate i support is there & so am i. if that candidate jumped to run as an independent though, i would be right behind him and i think it would create a real surge of jumpers too. a jumper from the dems could make a third party viable. i wish it would happen.

[Squatch]

83. Small sample = larger margin of error

but still, statistically valid. IMHO, this was a very good analysis.

[Blackhatjack]

32. I agree but you have to take into account the compacted primary season this cycle....

Time will be so short between the end of the New Hampshire Primary and Super Tuesday(not to mention other primaries in between) that for this scenario to play out it might have to happen immediately after Iowa, and be planned in advance of Iowa contingent on the outcome there.

Edwards is the strongest Democrat v. Repub in head to head matchups, and would be our best choice to win the General Election.

I hope people realize that if their candidate does not get the Party Nomination, that does not mean they won't be empowered by the winning Candidate's Administration in a multitude of positions.

[Hatchling]

35. Food for thought.

I'm for Kucinich if Gore doesn't enter the race.

I really don't want Hillary to win the primary, but I really want to vote my personal values as well. I need to think about this a lot!

[me b zola]

55. That is how I feel as well

I would really like to vote for Dennis (although I admit that I would vote Gore if he enters the race), but even before rateyes' threads I had already been thinking of a "strategic" vote to at least get a candidate that was more desirable than HRC. I'm really torn and will consider this probably until I cast my ballot.

[defendandprotect]

39. So now we believe "polls" -- and MSM . . . ????

You have 13 months to do something --

[SaveAmerica]

40. Oh my God, that was well said, you'll scare people by making so much sense!!

I think waiting until after the primaries might be too late, though. If there were some way to coordinate this (and first of all everyone needs to C/P the link to this at every progressive/democratic forum they visit) I think it should be done earlier than that to get donations that are going to the candidate who will be 'sacrificed' to the one who is chosen to represent the majority of us.

[rateyes]

50. You're thinking what I'm thinking.

Now, how do we go about this? We've got to get a bigger rock to throw in the pond to get the ripples going.

[againes654]

58. Well I will do what I can to get the idea going

in my Conservative area in Texas

[SaveAmerica]

63. Grassroots, you've planted the seed here. You'll need to find someone

with grassroots organizing experience to make the most of the small amount of time we have. Maybe starting with newspapers in Ohio, see if they have comment sections on their web pages where you can post the main idea of your post here. Maybe LTE in Ohio papers, I truly think for the grassroots effort to work on this, it needs to be posted everywhere Democrats go to discuss politics online.

[SaveAmerica]

41. oh yeah, gladly recommended

[SlowDownFast]

47. No flames here.

I will vote for HRC if she gets the nom, but gawdangit - I cannot stand her.

Unless Gore jumps in, Edwards gets my vote.

Great analysis, by the way.

[Colorado Progressive]

51. Nice analysis, I appreciate it. I have always felt that Edwards was the

most electable, even though Kucinich is my guy.

[JMDEM]

52. This is a very good idea except...

I foresee a 3-way race -- Clinton, Edwards, and Obama. If Obama is anywhere near close, I can't see him giving in for Edwards -- too much ego, too much money spent. Then we have one candidate winning with maybe 38% of the vote, and almost 2/3 of the Democrats unhappy. Wow. What to do.

I sure hope Gore enters the race.

[rateyes]

53. In that scenario, I'm for Edwards and Obama working out

a backroom deal. My preference would be Obama drops out, endorses Edwards, and when Edwards wins, Obama gets the VP slot, from where he can run 8 years later. I think sixteen years of Edward & Obama would not be a half-bad thing.

[marions ghost]

69. Agreed

There's a lot of support for Obama out there.

We --who'd like to stop the Clinton machine --will ultimately be choosing between Edwards and Obama in order to seriously do that, IMO.

I agree that the strategy of going with the one who looks the strongest ASAP...is about the only way to mitigate a situation where Hillary uses the split to edge the 2 others out.

I've been thinking to do this ever since I saw the rise of this "Hillary inevitability" that is just so offensive and manipulative.

[Mister Ed]

56. Of all three options, I also like #3 the best.

"Go to the convention and fight it out on the floor...I think it would be healthy for the party."

Yes. Very healthy. And if the nominee who emerges from that melee turns out to be Hillary Clinton anyway, then we cheer, and hoist her up on our shoulders, and carry her to victory. Same deal if it's Edwards, or Obama, or Kucinich, or wild-card Gore, or any of the others.

I wish every convention could go sorta like that. It would be much, much healthier than what we have now.

[KoKo]

59. I like your Option #3 as well. If they all can't stay in maybe the top five?

:shrug:

[cynthia]

60. I'm for option #3

It has been so long that we have ever had a convention like that, it would be refreshing. I am in one of those states where last time around, Kerry was the candidate before we even got to caste our vote. What a bummer! The whole process of sending delegates to the national convention seemed to me to be a joke! What a lot of money spent on fanfare when the most important job of the convention had been locked up months before!

I would like to see all of the candidates stay in, if only to give everyone around the country a say in the process. Isn't this about choosing the candidate of the people? that means ALL the people, not just those in Iowa, New Hampshire and a few select early states.

[ProudDad]

66. First - 1/2 of 3% of the eligible voters in Iowa

will mindlessly anoint her due to near complete ignorance of her "policies" or the other candidates or their "policies"...but, they recognize her name and have seen her commercials -- threatening no one since she says no thing...

Then that lily-white state of New Hampshire, as representative of the USAmerican people as Iceland is -- will probably also anoint her...same reasons...

The other 99.99% of us won't get a fucking vote or say in the matter.

And the corporate capitalist masters will win again...

[rateyes]

73. And, that's what I'm trying to avoid...

I'm tired of the nominee already anointed, even though he/she hasn't wrapped up the delegate count, BEFORE Super Tuesday. We have to stop that somehow.

[Tafiti]

68. I have no greater hope than Clinton NOT getting the nomination.

If it means voting for Edwards to accomplish that, I'm there. :thumbsup:

Of course, to get people to do this on a national scale - that's the tough part.

[iaviate1]

71. Somehow everybody was pulled together for Kerry.

Not that he was well liked... but it seemed so much better than the alternative at the time. I don't know if people will fall for voting in the lesser evil again, though. I won't be tricked again.

[iaviate1]

70. I supported the lesser evil last time...

And then he gave up the Presidency without a fight. I absolutely disagree with your suggestion that a vote for somebody other than HRC is a vote for a neocon. HRC and the DLC are relying on the loyal dems no matter how far they drift to the right - so in essence, I believe you are becoming somewhat of an enabler. I know we share so many common goals and you're doing what you think is best, but that's just how I see it.

[Tafiti]

109. I don't think that's what he's saying.

The whole point of trying to prevent Clinton from getting nominated is so that we don't have to vote for the "lesser of two evils." With Clinton as our nominee, there will be a lot of unenthusiastic support just to get a Dem in office, like Kerry. The point of getting behind Edwards then is having a nominee we'd all be able to support enthusiastically, and somenone who can bring about some real change for our country.

He's saying that some will be tempted not to vote at all if HRC is nominated, and that will essentially be a Republican vote - 1 less vote for our candidate is 1 more for theirs.

[SlingBlade]

72. The Re-Pugs

Have been calling Hillary the nominee now for several years.
Perhaps they know something that we don't ?

[dragonlady]

133. They know they'd like to run against her n/t

[Laura PourMeADrink]

74. We are totally on the same page RE ! Excellent analysis. I wonder

how many of our candidates would support her when the time comes to drop out (which you know it probably will for some). I would think Biden and Dodd for sure will drop out. They are traditionalists. When the money is dry, they will stop. Also, when they do, they will support the leader and not rock the boat. Some of it may be too that they hope to be selected as a VP so they will make nice with HRC.

Richardson says very nice things about her - he would support her. I think he is a very strong possibility for VP.

So who does that leave? I can not see Kucinich or Edwards dropping out or endorsing HRC, can you?

Who am I forgetting? Obama. I'd put him in the former category too.

So, bottom line - If you add up the support of Obama, Biden, Dodd, and Richardson and add it to the 33%. !!!

Shit. We're screwed.


GGGGGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!! HELP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ninga]

75. Here is my thinking this Wednesday morning. I have hope. That finally. The

grassroots CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE and organize, with a well thought out strategy, and take our political process back.

The very same "instinct" along with the worst president ever (*) has driven some very outstanding Democrats to make a run for the POTUS.

W created the mess and political environment for one of the most important POTUS elections in my lifetime (I am 63).

Why then, can't the grassroots take advantage of this political environment to step up to the plate and not allow this poll driven, MSM, selection process to succeed?????


Where do I sign up? How do we maximize our ability to instantly communicate with each other, and organize for this effort???



:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[caseycoon]

76. Damn, rateyes!

You're making way too much sense here! It would really hurt my heart not to support DK to my dying breath. I believe he is the only candidate who will work for real change. The only true Democrat. Maybe even our last chance. HOWEVER.... I also believe that Hillary Clinton as President would hurt our country more than any other candidate. So yeah... I would go along with this. BUT I WILL CRY!
As for Gore... if he runs... to me he is second best to Dennis. (aaaagh! The flames! The flames!) LOL!

[skyblue]

77. Yes, but if you put up a NYC lawyer (Ghoul) vs. a Southern Lawyer my guess is

that the NYC lawyer would win.

[Ninga]

79. Oh really?? If Edwards is the "Southern Lawyer" his win/loss record fighting for the

underdog trumps the NYC lawyer in my book.


Edwards has grown, gained experience, and is a better candidate because he also listens.....and does not have an arrogant bone in his body. He is a true populist.

If the Gore of 2000 has changed and grown....it must be acknowledged that Edwards has as well.

[skyblue]

80. Polls don't show that he's doing that impressively vs. Ghoul. Don't Get me Wrong: I like Edwards.

I just don't think he'd do that well.

[Ninga]

84. I know. My thought is that Edwards vs. Ghoul in Miss, LA, Tenn, SD, ND

OK, MO, etc.....edge Edwards.

[skyblue]

146. I figure Florida lg num electoral votes for Biden. NYC Metro retirees are not warm and fuzzy.

[Freddie Stubbs]

78. Don't forget superdelegates

About 14% of convention delegates will be superdelegates (Congressmen, Senators, Governors).

[muriel_volestrangler]

81. Your results were so bizarre I don't think they explain anything at all

Just looking at the first 2 rounds: in the first round, 5 people said they wanted to eliminate Gravel, while 32 wanted to eliminate Kucinich. That, on its own, is so far off the general feeling of DU that it may show people had thought about how to skew the end result, rather than admitting who they wanted to go first. Kucinich is pretty popular here, while many people point out how dodgy many of Gravel's ideas are. And then, in the 2nd round, 45 vote to get rid of Gravel, with 40 for Kucinich (except that's the final result - you 'cut off voting' after about only an hour - which meant that random people were voting in each round, rather than a good cross-section of DU).

Finally, I'd question the validity of votes based on "which Democrat do you hate more?"

[TwilightZone]

86. Agreed.

Dennis wins pretty much every DU poll, so it was interesting seeing him voted off the island so quickly.

I think what happened to Dennis is similar to what the OP is suggesting be done to Hillary - the supporters of the other candidates knew Dennis was popular and, hence, a threat, so they voted for him to be eliminated early.

Curiously, that makes Dennis look nearly as polarizing as Hillary.

[Semper_FiFi]

120. Sorry but you make way too much sense.

However, as if stepping through the looking-glass, some DUer's seem to think that the "polling" was reasonable and reflective of the larger body politic. Obviously people who had an ax to grind were actively participating in the polling, while others (who were unaware of the silly game) did the logical thing and ignored it. I have no problem with people dropping support of their candidate and switching over to John Edwards (he would probably make a fine president), but it should be quite easy to see if rateyes' experiment pans out. If by next week Edwards begins to poll in the 40% range (as opposed to a single digit) he will have proved me wrong. On the other hand...

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm

[zalinda]

82. According to a guest on NPR, the repubs want

Clinton as the nominee. They feel that is the only way to get their base to the polls.

zalinda

[DemocratSinceBirth]

94. I Can Certainly See Why

http://quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1109

[TwilightZone]

85. There's a fundamental flaw in your underlying assertions

Your assertions are based on an assumption that Hillary will receive 33% of the vote and that the other candidates will split the other two-thirds. There's no logical basis for this assertion.

At the moment, she's averaging 45% in the national polls. The other candidates and "undecided" are splitting the other 55%. Her lead has been growing the past couple months, and 45% is within shouting distance of a majority, especially if some of the "undecideds" choose to support her.

If she ends up with a majority, it doesn't matter how many people decide to coalesce behind #2. It won't be enough.

Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html

[MonkeyFunk]

89. The othe rmajor flaw

is that DU in any way is representative of Democratic voters.

[TwilightZone]

90. Agreed.

[LeftCoast]

97. To be honest, these polls may not even represent the avg DUer

You could argue that there may be a difference between the type of person who takes DU polls and the type that doesn't.

[TwilightZone]

100. Good point. The time frame is also an issue.

The polls were generally available for only an hour or so before the results were considered semi-official. Obviously, that would only catch a small segment of the daily visitors to DU. Perhaps one poll per day would have been more accurate, though your point still stands in that case. Only a small fraction of the active DUers would have voted in each poll.

[harun]

105. The national polls are irrelevant. What is important is the first

3 primaries. Hypothetically if all of Obama or Edwards supporters would not support Hillary in the Primary in those first few states then if either of them were not to run they would probably beat her easily.

It is all hypothetical and could work against them too but it was the point being made. That Hillary being the most decisive, but with a loyal following (for the ones who do), it leads to some interesting scenarios if everyone stays in or certain people drop out.

[TwilightZone]

107. They're certainly more relevant than 100 people voting in a DU poll.

They are also more relevant than the OP's stab-in-the-dark guess that her support level is 33%. At least my assertions actually have some data to support them.

As far as your hypothetical goes, contrary to DU conventional wisdom, the first three primaries are not the end of the race.

Edit: typo

[harun]

115. Not to the point being made by the OP they are not and that

is what you were originally questioning.

[TwilightZone]

121. The point being made by the OP is apparently that a few DU polls represent

a trend repeatable outside of DU. They are certainly less indicative of "real world" trends than national polls.

[kenfrequed]

106. Useless

Those polls are not polling people that actually show up at primaries. They are polling the population at large, usually by self identification. They are popularity contests at best and at worst exercises in name-brand recognition. Your average primary and caucus attendee will have a different, often more researched perspective.

[NoFederales]

88. Good plan; I will not support HRC under any circumstance. nm

NoFederales

[toadzilla]

91. this is exactly why we need instant run off voting.

it eliminates the who vote splitting effect when there are more than 2 candidates. in the general elections, it could even get 3rd parties in the game without letting someone win without more than 50% of the vote.

[Martin Eden]

124. I've been sounding the IRV trumpet for years ...

... and possibly the best way to introduce Instant Runoff Voting to the public is for the Democratic Party to apply it in presidential primaries.

But this is unlikely to happen because IRV could undermine the 2-party stranglehold if it was introduced in general elections. For example, if people were able to vote Green first and Democratic second they wouldn't be helping to send a repuke to office like the Nader voters in 2000. This could significantly increase third party voting and begin to erode the 2-party system. I doubt the Dem leadership wants that to happen.

[xxqqqzme]

92. Wall street & the corporate media cabal (cmc)

have already decided that clinton is the nominee. There would have to be a monumental co-ordinated effort to overcome that influence. I believe, in part and after reading Assault on Reason, Gore's has been assembling a 'media' to promote issues that concern him. He knows, better than most, he cannot trust the CMC to open the debate.

[MsMagnificent]

95. The simple answers

in regard to Hillary, politics, and this run for the White House are:

1) Politically, Hillary is very much like Bill -- i.e. both DLC'ers. However Bill has that certain je ne sais quois, he naturally attracts people to him with so many, varied attractive attributes: gregariousness, humor, intelligence, downright likableness, etc. It is because of this, and the many positive things he achieved in his political life --even with the many negative things-- that he is still looked upon so fondly (by Dems at least : ), and even lionized. Bill is a character . I think if you look at positions, you won't find any major differences between Bill and Hillary.
Hillary, as smart as she is, does not have that kind of aura. One could argue she has the opposite, but then that may be a built-in sexist bias unfortunately evident in many people.

Hillary just doesn't have that 'star quality', sad to say.
Or is it?


2) Certain Democrats may be attracted towards another Clinton administration, thinking it will be similar if not the same to Bill's.
I have a feeling nothing could be further from the truth. Although I stated that one wouldn't find many differences between Bill & Hill's positions, I feel (and admittedly I really can't back this statement up other than 'feel') that Hillary would not be as flexible on her stances, triangulation and poll-watching or not, because what use is triangulation, really, when one is already the First Citizen of the land?

No, I think it would be her hard-line way or the highway. 'Mommy DLC Knows Best'
And this ex-Goldwater girl seems to be much more Republican --at least pre-Reagan/Bushie era Republican-- than a true Democrat, as 'compassionate' as she is...


For what it's worth, those are my thoughts and feelings ...but I truly do feel they are on the mark.

If you disagree, and have reason, logic and reasons based upon her actual actions and on her voting history, please post -- as a feminist I'd love to change my mind about Ms. Rodham Clinton.
But as of now, I simply cannot get behind her...

[AllyCat]

104. Ed Schultz did a straw poll on Friday asking who people would vote for

and why. Of those voting for Clinton, it was amazing how many said "I'm voting for her because Bill will actually run the place". First off, I was offended that they thought she would not be her own President (it struck me as sexist even). But secondly, all these people thought that she would be Bill. And he wasn't that great! Sure, he was better than what we have now, but jeez, he was not a progressive. And neither is she.

I don't like her and cannot vote for her even in the GE. I'll sit it out before I'll vote for her.

Sitting in WI, we won't get to vote until later in the spring and just like in '04, we'll only have 2 or 3 candidates left thanks to the stupid front-loading of the primaries that pick who the DLC wants.

I want scenario #3, but due to money, most candidates won't do it. Really, I cannot vote for anyone who supports this war and particularly any of the top 3 who say they will keep us in it until at least 2013. That includes Edwards. Some here have responded that his answer might be different with a differently worded question. If that is the case, I am all ears. I'd love to hear he'd end this now, not in 2013 or beyond.

Since I don't hear that yet, I can't vote for him either in the primaries or the GE.

[ChiciB1]

131. I Agree With All You Have Said & I Too As Woman Just Find Her

more conservative than I can deal with!!

It's said she's a very strong woman and can hold her own, and some of it may be true, but I would have felt much better had she not actually "stood by her man" a very long time ago. And it's my feeling that she DID stand by her man to promote her own political agenda! I've heard people say that she's really a lot of fun and has a great personality, I haven't met her myself, but it's been my experience that when you have to be something in public that you really aren't behind closed doors, it leaves it's scars.

As a woman who left a man, and had to deal with hardships and difficulties with two children, I can't respect this part of her. And of course, I'm sure she knew it would hurt BOTH of them and it was a calculated move. There are marriages and there are marriages... my own mother-in-law stayed with her husband until he died even though he drank and ran around on her. She wasn't a happy woman!

Maybe being POTUS will finally make Hillary Clinton a very happy woman, but I'm not going to help her!

[LeftCoast]

96. This thread is proof that lots of people on DU have never taken Statistics

No offense folks, but a small scale sample of DU is simply not the same as a sample of Democratic primary voters. While this methodology may be perfectly fine for determing the opinions of DUers who take polls, it won't tell you anything about primary voters as a whole.

[TwilightZone]

103. Wishful thinking trumps logic.

:)

What surprises me is the number of people suddenly willing to bail on their candidates in an attempt to stop Hillary from winning the nomination. I guess "vote for who you believe is the best candidate" only goes so far.

[ChiciB1]

117. And Desperation Trumps Almost Everything Else!! If I Can Help Stop

Hillary Clinton and this is the only solution... I'm ready to jump in! I keep saying I'm sorry that I feel this way about Clinton, but MSM and the "big guys" have really gotten my dander up!!

[ChiciB1]

113. Every Idea Starts Really Small... Ideas CAN Grow!!! n/t

[ChiciB1]

99. What A Phenomenal Suggestion And/Or Idea!! I KNOW I've Run Into

far too many people who think exactly what you are saying about Hillary Clinton! I myself am surprised at how negative my feelings about her have gotten since too many "higher ups" have DECIDED that SHE WILL be our nominee!

So much so, that I AM wavering more and more about NOT voting in the GE!! I HAVE decided that should she be the nominee and has a big enough lead, then I sit it out! I KNOW I won't campaign for her or help in any grunt work that I usually do!

However, this is going to take some REAL EFFORT to pull this off!! I'm completely suspicious about just WHO AND WHAT is behind this Hillary Machine!! Will we be able to cut into it?? I myself think John Edwards will be the best to pull for. I must add that I DO REALLY like Obama, and it would be interesting if he could become VP. Just doing some research, it shows that so much of Obama's support comes from a younger group who may not "go the distance" in the end. Plus, up until just very recently he hasn't been very aggressive when it comes to Clinton. There is ONE MORE thing that that I detect, and it may just be me, but I'm not sure his wife is totally committed to this yet. I sense it's too much too fast for her right now! They're relatively young and I feel she may want to devote more time to her children before it's "Gung-Ho" time. He does excite many Democrats and as I said I do like him... just not this time around.

And I'm tired of hearing that just because Edwards is hitting Clinton so hard, it MUST be out of DESPERATION! I don't think this at all, I think he's found his voice and isn't afraid to take her on and the Clintonites are doing all they can to denigrate him! Another reason I have turned so far away from Clinton. If he should only come in 2nd in Iowa, then it would be best for us to invite others to join him and take on THE D.C. MACHINE!

Now, how do WE do this???

[Dinger]

102. K & R Like A Sonofabitch!

:kick: :kick: :kick: :kick:

[Duncan]

110. I'm with you.

"I am willing to coalesce behind whomever is the strongest candidate to defeat Clinton..."

and

"If Gore gets in the race, all bets are off. I'm voting for Gore, and I believe that he will win hands down."

[meowomon]

111. Al Gore!

If not, Edwards or Obama. I haven't decided yet. Hillary, only if she wins the nomination. (ugh!)

[Swamp Rat]

119. Ga-Ga Gore!!

:D

[NNN0LHI]

112. But if we had Rethugs posing as Dems on this anonymous chat board they could skew the results

Wouldn't take too many of them to accomplish that would it?

See the problem here?

Don

[ChiciB1]

116. I Think We Already Have Them OR At The Very Least PAID Hillary

supporters! If we don't fight back, then we get what we get! I DON'T like to think THAT will happen!

ABC for me!!

[rateyes]

118. The polls were simply an experiment to judge if I was

correct in thinking that Clinton was the most objectionable on DU. She seems to be from just about all the posts I read on the subject around here.

What I wanted to demonstrate is that, unless we change the dynamic, the Democratic party will actually nominate a person that the majority of Democrats find the most objectionable. I don't think that's a healthy place to be entering the General Election. I'd rather have a candidate that the majority, at least, found palatable to work for, if not enthused to work for, in the General Election.

[TwilightZone]

125. "the majority of Democrats find the most objectionable"

There is no basis for this claim outside of DU.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

141. Stop Making Things Up

Clinton's advantage over Obama and Edwards is also evident in Democrats' basic opinions of the candidates. Eighty-one percent have a favorable opinion of Clinton, compared with a 70% favorable rating for Obama and 69% for Edwards. Clinton's higher favorable rating does not merely reflect the fact that she is better known than Obama or Edwards, since her net favorable rating (which excludes those without an opinion and is calculated by subtracting the percent unfavorable from the percent favorable) also surpasses those of her chief rivals by double digits.

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28957&pg=1

[mastrmassr]

123. DENNIS IS THE ONE

nOTICE WHO THE ONLY ONE THAT IS BEING TOTALLY IGNORED BY THE MEDIA AND THE REPUGS. Dennis is the one we all know is right! The Powers that be hate him the most. The Media machine is busy brainwashing us all that the Republican in sheeps clothing (Hillary), is the one that we the Sheeple should vote for. Wake up People!

[EVDebs]

127. I would support Edwards should he not get the Dem nomination and runs as an Indy

He's way better than Ross Perot was in '92 and is a progressive. But if he renegs and lets HRC get the nod, I'd reluctantly vote for her.

[ecstatic]

128. Her base is larger than 33%. Try 50% nt

[EVDebs]

129. I don't think so. 'An inch deep and a mile wide' commitments off the cuff nt

[TwilightZone]

132. Closer to 50% than 33%. 47% at the moment, on average.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html

[McCamy Taylor]

130. Hillary has what W. had in 2000--name recognition. Clinton/Bush--former president's names help.

[CrispyQ]

135. She will win

because we vote on the same damned machines in the primary as the general. :grr:

However, if Gore runs, all bets are off. He will win with a such landslide that the thieves will not be able to overthrow the will of We the People.

[MasonJar]

136. That's interesting because I live in the South and I and many of my

dem friends like the idea of a woman pres. I like all our candidates and will work hard for whomever the majority selects. That said, however, I am sickened by the continous smearing of Hillary on this website. I want Al Gore most, but if he does not run, then I say let the gals have a go. Hillary is a very brilliant and serious person, who would work diligently to get us out of this predicament created by the guy so many wanted to have a drink with. But so would Edwards and Obama and all the other dems running to save our country and hopefully the world. Give the woman a break, y'all. She's a liberal. She tried to get us a great health care program. The right wing shot her down. She is a fighter for children and always has been. She worked for peanuts after graduating from Yale Law School so she could help children. The list goes on and on. If nothing else, concentrate on how mad Coulter and O'Lielly and their ilk will be with Bill in the White House. Also contemplate a world where a GOPer gets to elect at least 2 Supreme Court judges.

[bjobotts]

139. NO. I'm just as opposed to the #2 as Clinton. Only Kucinich or Edwards

Kucinich is the only real change out there. The others are too much the same as Ckinton...including "would you want the same people handling Katrina to handle your health care" Edwards who also doesn't support impeachment or a complete withdrawal from Iraq. Edwards is only slightly different from Clinton...They are all more of the same on too many issues.
Kucinich is the only candidate who would bring about any real change. I cannot in good conscience vote for anyone else but Kucinich. He is the progressive candidate. Compare Kucinich to any candidate on any issue and he wins hands down...the others aren't even close. He is the only real difference.

[redqueen]

140. Another rec from me...

:kick:

[Mike03]

144. Sensational, thoughtful analysis

I really admire the thought that has gone into your polling and subsequent analysis.

The finding that shocked me the most was the "Who Don't You Want To Win The Nomination" poll. That would appear to speak volumes.

Anyway, I'm still contemplating the enormous work you have done and what the implications may be.

Thanks for your analysis. It truly is work a huge KICK AND REC.

[creeksneakers2]

145. Pulling together all the opposition to Hillary

looks like the smartest strategy to stop her. I doubt it would work though.

CBS polled for just three choices: Hillary,Obama and Edwards.
The latest count from 9/14 to 9/16, 2007 came out:

Hillary 43% Obama 22% Edwards 16%

So Obama and Edwards combined still have less than Hillary.

Fox News/Opinion Dynamics on 9/11 to 9/12,2007 ran Hillary against just Obama and came up with Hillary 53% and Obama 39%. I assume Edwards would do worse.

I don't understand the posters who believe the coalition should be behind Edwards. Obama has more support. Obama supporters would likely be very offended at the idea that their #2 should take a back seat to #3. Some Americans would see the strategy as racist.

Far left voters, like Kucinich supporters, may go for the idea but from what I've observed on DU, those voters get turned off when a candidate doesn't closely approximate their criteria.

Still, if the idea was to stop Hillary, I couldn't think of a better strategy then the one you offer.

[Gold Metal Flake]

147. Kick because Thom Hartman is talking about this post.