could everyone that likes Kucinich explain me why is going to vote by

[Charlls]

"someonelse"...??

wasnt the plan to apply the "someonelse" to GWB??

Is that people doesnt believe anymore in primaries??

I Dont Get It!!

:shrug:


..... or am i just stupid?!

[Padraig18]

1. I think you are seeing a very vocal minority of DK supporters.

I think the vast majority of DK's supporters are good, loyal Democrats who will support whoever our party nominates to run for POTUS. :)

[BJ]

2. However, when it dawned on me...

...that perhaps the reason for Lieberman, Gephardt and Kerry's aye vote on the Iraq War Resolution a little over a year ago had more to do with securing fat contracts for the major defense contractors they represent (General Electric, United Technologies, Boeing and Raytheon respectively)than national security and a palpable fear of imminent attack by Saddam Hussein, I find my loyality wavering.

[Charlls]

3. aha.... and who likely would that be?

Sure it wont be the candidate addressed by Gore?

[Padraig18]

5. I think they will support whoever is nominated.

DK himself has said he will do so, and I have no reason to believe that most of his supporters feel differently. They seem to be a very loyal group. :)

[ElsewheresDaughter]

12. i will vote for any nominated democrat except lieberman

[blondeatlast]

6. If he is the Dem nominee, he gets my vote. Period.

ADBB (Any Dem but Bush)

[BJ]

11. A choice between Tweedle-Dee & Tweedle-Dum?

[blondeatlast]

4. This one will. I'm realistic about each candidate's chances.

[tinanator]

7. I didnt know you liked Kucinich

otherwise you woudnt have replied. right?

[Padraig18]

9. I don't *dislike* any of our candidates, to be honest.

Dean simply 'fits' me better, but I could support any of them without reservation. :)

[redqueen]

17. This post is asking why those that like Kucinich's policies better

are not going to support him in the primaries.

[LeahMira]

8. Because...

... I think the primaries are the opportunity to vote for your personal favorite. If Dennis is a personal favorite but you don't vote for him in the primaries, then I don't understand that either. The only explanation I can think of is that some folks have a horserace mentality. They pay a lot of attention to polls and plan to vote for the person the polls tell them is going to win... but this is not a horserace, is it?

[Charlls]

13. thats what im asking

I understand that people will vote for the nominee elected on the primaries...

the thing here is, that there are a LOT of people that is going to vote on the primaries by the candidate that looks more promising in the presidential polls, seemingly forgetting that, as have been said already in this thread, most people that is going to vote Anti-Bush (which are the overwhelming majority of the votes that are going to go to dems, nonetheless that dem candidate is Clark Dean or Humpty-Dumpty) are going to vote by the nominee, not just a particular candidate

[John_H]

10. That's just the one-percenters. They're loud enough to be 10 percenters

but they never seem to generate more than 1-2 percent of votes in nationwide elections. The majority of DK supporters are great Dems who will support the nominee.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. I'm caucusing for Kucinich in Minnesota in March

This is my one chance to express my deepest personal preference about the direction that the Democratic Party should take.

I'm not going to waste it on someone who doesn't match my views.

[bobthedrummer]

16. Dennis represents a much better future for US

His positions on issues are not extreme they are populist democratic issues in a very deep way. He merely wants to cut defense spending by 15% and invest it in our children, aren't we the only military superpower, can't we be strong with all that we have? The answer is yes, when not lied to and misused for corporate interests IMO.

I too will vote for Dennis 2-17-2004 in Wisconsin primary.
But I'm really paying attention to Howard Dean now, I know Dean can beat Bush in November. After that major course correction for the ship of state and diplomacy in the world, I hope the neo-conservatives are charged with treason and someday soon thereafter we all could vote for Dennis Kucinich's future.

BTW, I'm an independent voter and will vote for the Democratic nominee regardless of who that is, Howard Dean has always been my second choice from the field of candidates.

[dpbrown]

15. The most "Democratic" candidate will beat Bush the best

Kucinich not only has the best core, liberal Democratic positions on issues I care about: ending the death penalty, universal single-payer health care, making the Pentagon accountable to the taxpayers, demilitarizing space - he also has the best chance to beat Bush by greater than the Black Box margin of theft.

Kucinich will bring with him most if not all of the Greens who voted Nader in 2000 (and the Greens likely won't run a candidate if Kucinich is the nominee). That means 3 million extra votes for Kucinich, and if nothing else changed, that would mean a 4 million vote lead over Bush in November 2004.

But the 40/40/20 rule gives us an idea of how many voters will stick with Kucinich. Forty million of Gore's votes in 2000 were "core" Democrats, according to this rule - they're not going anywhere.

Of the 10 million who voted Gore but who considered themselves "independent" voters, applying a bell curve, we see that half, or 5 million of them, voted for Gore but wished he were more liberal, or put off voting for Nader to avoid hurting Gore. So those 5 million will belong to Kucinich as well.

That puts Kucinich up against Bush with 48 million pretty sure votes, and Bush only got 50 million TOTAL in 2000 - he won't get that many again.

But it gets better - there are still 5 million votes left over THAT ALL WENT TO GORE IN 2000.

That means that to cover a 2 million vote gap, Kucinich has 5 MILLION PREVIOUS DEMOCRATIC VOTERS to do it.

Compare the other frontrunners - Dean and Clark are banking on remaking the Democrats over into blustering, militaristic "fighters" in order to appeal to the former Bush voters they will need in order to beat Bush in 2004.

Kucinich nearly matches the Bush take in 2000 at the starting gate. He could lose 1.5 million previous Gore voters and still beat Bush.

Every other candidate needs ALL Gore's votes, PLUS previous Bush voters to win.

And a tie is a loss.

Republicans have gotten better at stealing elections - 8 million or more votes will be tabulated by Black Boxes with no paper trail in 2004. And electoral votes have shifted to Bush states.

Nominating Dean or Clark is asking for a repeat of 2000 - a tie, caused by forcing the candidates to compete for the SAME VOTERS - previous Bush voters and the 5% of the electorate that voted for Gore but wished he were more conservative.

I think this is a losing proposition.

I think the most Democratic candidate will beat Bush most soundly.

I think Dennis Kucinich is our best bet for taking back the White House, and actually having a plan for what to do with it once we get it back.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[JohnKleeb]

18. .

.

[Bandit]

19. I doubt I will get a chance either way ~ My state has a very late primary

if by the time my state gets to make a choice and it is still up in the air Dennis probably will get my vote. Pragmatically speaking though I don't think he has much of a chance to stay in the running that long. Frankly I don't know why. He speaks the closest to my beliefs. It is very good to have him in the running though because it gives us hope that some of his message will be received anyway. I will support the nominee whomever that turns out to be.

[cryofan]

20. THey have been given the bum's rush by corporate media

The corporate media and their wealthy owners and advertisers are of course afraid of what Kucinich represents. And so they have tried to foreshorten and pre-empt the primaries, hoping to avoid discussion of the important (and I do not means guns and death penalty--those are bogus, manufactured, red herring issues).

Kucinich is an old fashioned populist Democrat who wants to take us in the direction of the social democracies of western Europe. Of course, the common working person there has a lot more time off, and they don't need to worry about being unemployed-the govt will pay unemployment for years, if he/she needs it. And if he/she gets sick, the govt takes care of everything, save some small nominal fees. And of course they do not need to save up for their kid's college tuition--all free or very low cost. And even if you have a menial job like bagging groceries, you still will make at least $12/hr or something like that. In some fo these countries, people go on welfare for yaers. But there is no big social stigma attached. When they are ready to go back to work, they will.

And there is even more to the european social democracies than that...

Of course, their is a price to pay: those countries pay 45% or more of their GDP as taxes. And personal taxes are 35-55% or more.

The USA OTOH pays about 30% of of GDP as taxes.

Of course the wealthy backers of the media and the owners of the media and the people who run and operate the elite media outlets themselves are all millionaires, and of course they do not want to pay 50% or more of income and wealth to taxes--why would they want a welfare state? They do not need one.....

So they are giving Kucinich the Bum's Rush....blowing off the primaries to get rid of a threat....