Who really determines our nominee?

[plurality]

http://www.politicsus.com/presidential%20press%20releases/Kucinich/102903.htm

When Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) entered the race for the Democratic nomination, his supporters had every reason to expect their candidate to be taken seriously by the press. Already acknowledged as the "leader of the opposition"1 to Bush's Iraq war resolution in Congress, with a 100% rating from the AFL-CIO and a record of beating Republican incumbents in a bellwether Midwestern state, Kucinich, the co-chair of the House Progressive Caucus, had obvious appeal to angry, progressive, antiwar Democratic primary voters in battleground races like Iowa and New Hampshire.



But if Kucinich supporters were hoping for serious coverage, they were in for a serious disappointment. Too many campaign reporters decided that their job was to act as gatekeeper of the "top tier" instead of informing their readers about the field. Just two weeks after Kucinich threw his hat into the ring, New York Times chief political correspondent Adam Nagourney was already explaining why the Ohio Democrat didn't deserve as much attention as others. Warning of the "potential for complication" in having too many candidates running, Nagourney wrote: "Ideally, a sponsor interested in organizing a meaningful debate would like to limit it to, say, the six top-tier candidates. But who decides what top tier means?" To answer his own question, he supplied a soundbite from an academic pundit: "With all due respect, Kucinich and Moseley Braun have no chance of getting the nomination."2

snip

"When I asked the reporters on the plane what the value of this kind of reporting was, I got an interesting answer. No fewer than four journalists replied to the effect that unless the electability issue was addressed, 'someone like Kucinich' might get the nomination.



"'Hell, if it came down to a battle of position papers, Dennis Kucinich might win,' laughed Jackson Baker of the Memphis Flyer, incidentally not a horse-racer and one of the true good guys on the plane.



"'I think its value is that it helps to explain to the reader why I'm spending so much time with one candidate,' said Mark Silva of the Orlando Sentinel. 'He needs to know why I'm reporting so much on Howard Dean, as opposed to, say, Dennis Kucinich.'"

Why do we continue to let the media, who we know doesn't have our interests in mind (reference pre-Iraq war coverage if you don't believe me) continue to decide who will be our party's standard bearer? By all means if you don't agree with Kucinich, don't vote for him. But for those who do think his ideas are good, but still don't support him, why are you allowing yourself to be manipulated like this?

[Ficus]

1. It's a paradox

...unelectable is just a word that people use to make candidates unnominatable. Any of our guys (or gal) are electable, given a good campaign where we all do our part.

:dem: :dem:

[plurality]

2. 'Unelectable' really means...

Unacceptable to the elites who 'know what's best for us.'

Why people haven't figured this out yet is beyond me.

[caledesi]

3. It's not who, it's what. It's the money!

[plurality]

4. Dean had no money when the press caught on to him.

Dean is the 'anti-establishment' establishment candidate. He is a saftey net for all the guys running the show to make sure all the pissed off people out there don't do something really wrong by voting for someone who's an actual outsider.

[JackRiddler]

13. This is basically true!

However, I doubt he's the establishment's choice. He's a fallback they'll be stuck with if no one else prevails, not fully inside, but on the edge thereof, and ideologically compatible. But unreliable; he'll need to be disciplined. But he's learning to play the game, of course.

Based on organizational affiliation and track record the "real" insiders are Kerry (who has some of my sympathies but voted for the war), Lieberman, Clark. Dean has managed to inspire the grassroots more than any of the rest of them, that is the key, much as one may prefer Kucinich's politics.

In the end it's likely progressive politics will lose as usual. What can you do against this machine? I do think Dean is honest and speaks from conviction, at least more so than the rest of the "top tier."

[plurality]

14. agree in part

although I feel his grassroots support is due in part to snowballing once the media began to cover him.

and i also agree with the losing part. i think that dean will probably be the nominee and then get stomped by bush, 'proving' the DLCers right that we have to nominate 'centrists' to win.

where we diverge though is the honesty part, i've seen WAY too many 'misstatements' to believe that.

[RichM]

5. There was a recent thread on why DK doesn't get more support. The

most common answers, IIRC, were 1) he isn't tall & handsome enough 2) he isn't electable, & 3) he is "too far left."

Now, this was on DU - a site frequented by mostly middle-class educated Americans, far more interested than average citizens in politics, & bearing a generally liberal orientation.

If any conclusions can be drawn from this about the political insightfulness & courage-of-convictions of this demographic group, they couldn't be too flattering.

My interpretation would be: American culture produces conformists who are obsessed with winning, & terrified of appearing to be "out of the mainstream." Education doesn't weaken this tendency; on the contrary, it probably reinforces it.

[ComerPerro]

6. Its amazingly complex

After all the candidates are decided, then our nominees go to the studios where they record the show "The Price is Right". Each candidate gets a spin on the big wheel. They try to get as close as they can to 100, or $1.00, as possible but without going over. If they are not satisfied with their first spin, they have the option of spinning again, and then whatever number they get the second time is added to their first number.
Once everyone has spun, whoever managed to come closest to $1 without going over gets to go on to the Showcase Showdown.

[janekat]

8. By God, I think you've got it!

n/t

[janekat]

7. It's the sheeple who are being manipulated - not us...

n/t

[plurality]

9. don't be so sure...

I did a poll here a few weeks ago asking opinions on Kucinich. A full 40% said they agreed with him on everything but didn't support him because he's 'unelectable'. Sounds like a large degree of manipulation to me.

[veganwitch]

10. hey Boy! check your email.

and back on topic...

a reporter once said, and i will have to get back to you on the specifics, that they had to do that (in reference to pumping up dean in specifics about how he was going to paint his house) else otherwise "some like dennis kucinich would win."

its the same fluff that they media gave bush giving him the "personability" factor without being critical to the fact that he was evil. (not to imply that dean and bush are on the same level so lets not go there.) pop-politics is bull-shit and has lead the country to where it is today.

[RichM]

11. I did a similar poll on Oct 1. The question was, "Which candidate do

you support, based PURELY on positions & ideas." DK won going away -- more than triple anyone else's total.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=451145

[plurality]

12. interesting

yet people still refuse to believe the media has manipulated their choice based on the false factor of 'electability'.

[plurality]

15. Funny how few people care about who the media chooses for them to nominate

n/t

[veganwitch]

16. a kick for the early afternoon folk.

lalalala