Kucinich has beaten three incumbent Republicans - Dean, none

[dpbrown]

Kucinich has beaten incumbent Republicans for three separate offices in Ohio. His re-elect percentage has grown each time. He now takes 74% of the vote in his district. He gets 50% of the Republican vote in his district.

Compare Dean, who never beat an incumbent Republican to take a part-time job as State Representative for Chittenden District 7-4, never beat an incumbent Republican to become Lieutenant Governor, and who never beat an incumbent Republican to become Governor of Vermont. His re-elect percentages as Governor ebbed from a high of 74% of the vote in 1992 to barely 50% in 2000. In 2002, he declined to run, rather than risk being beaten by Republican Jim Douglas. Instead, his Democratic Lt. Governor, Doug Racine, ran against Douglas and got beat instead of Dean (who would have lost to Douglas). Vermont is now governed by a Republican.

Is this the track record of winning elections for Democratic values that we want?

The bottom line is Kucinich has a better record of beating Republicans than Dean does, and he's taken three separate seats from Republicans - Cleveland Mayor, State Senate District 23, and Ohio Congressional District 10.

Every one of those seats is now held by Democrats.

Compare Howard Dean - who has never, ever beaten an incumbent Republican.

Ever.

All of the seats that Kucinich won from Republican incumbents are now held by Democrats.

None of the seats Dean ever held, none of which he ever beat a Republican incumbent for, are now still held by Democrats. None.

Dennis Kucinich has an infinitely more defensible record of appealing to voters across the board, and securing seats in government for Democrats than Howard Dean does.

In fact, Dennis Kucinich took his State Senate seat away from a Republican incumbent in 1994, when most switches were going the other way, in the middle of the Gingrich revolution.

It's beyond disingenuous to imply that "polls" reflect the reality on the ground that Kucinich beats Republicans, and Dean doesn't.

And what is it with progressives anyway, who seem so willing to do battle against some great evil, despite the tiny likelihood of success, but throw up their hands and stop fighting for someone that can actually bring about positive change?

It's way too soon to just abandon what we want. It's too soon to throw up our hands and say, "Can't win this one, better settle for less."

How often (and how long) have progressives had to slog along to oppose something - a policy, a right-wing candidate, a war - and then, still did not win?

In my opinion, it's better to keep on keeping on for something I want, for someone positive for a change! It's too soon in the campaign process to give up. Way too soon.

Everyone is viable up through the March primaries - if not until June. One bit of analysis says this may be one of those "historical" campaigns where the nominee is determined at the convention. It's too soon to compromise and "settle" on someone else.

Poll numbers are not indicative of the potential at the caucuses. Poll numbers do not necessarily accurately measure the attitudes of the people most likely to vote, most likely to caucus, most likely to be motivated by one particular candidate, and poll numbers don't necessarily determine the candidate most likely to win.

Dewey beats Truman!!!

Not.

Dennis Kucinich has a winning record of beating Republicans. Howard Dean doesn't. Just because Dean's popular right now doesn't mean he's the one for the job.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[Sandstorm]

1. You obviously put alot of work into this

Good for you for supporting your candidate so wholeheartedly. I wish you the best of luck.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[dpbrown]

3. If you like him, you should support him

And then he'll be President.

Abraham Lincoln was funny looking and had a high voice and saved the Union.

Paul Wellstone was funny looking and became the "soul" of the Senate.

Dennis Kucinich hasn't missed a vote, and consistently represents his people, fighting for the little guy. He represents the best remedy to 16 years of Reagan, Bush, and Bush the Stunted trickle-down abuse of our society.

Kucinich has got a stronger position on:

1. The Death Penalty.
2. NAFTA and the WTO.
3. Family farmers getting into alternative energy and food distribution.
4. UN in, US out of Iraq.
5. Universal, single-payer health care.

...than Howard Dean.

I won't settle for someone "middle-of-the-road" who's offering little more than the status quo, along with a belligerent sounding "take back America" mantra that has all his disciples hypnotized.

Take it back and do what with it?

Unfortunately, that's where the good ideas end.

Kucinich: Better Ideas, Better Candidate - it's that simple

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[MuseRider]

4. I agree and

keep hearing little things about what his real support numbers are. Now, this may not be the case but I will be damned if I will "move on" at this point and am highly suspicious of anyone who uses that line and that line of thinking. Thanks.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

64. Wow. Why don't I start off this post by saying Dean looks "funny"

you know- big neck, kinda short? But let's just move on, shall we?

My opinion is that Dean is too wishy washy for most of the electorate.

[killbotfactory]

5. Dean's never lost a race

He's not going to this time, either.

[dpbrown]

7. That's an illusory statistic

Dean didn't beat an incumbent Republican for any of the three elected positions he held.

None of those positions are now held by Democrats.

Dean wasn't even "elected" Governor, he assumed the postion when Governor Snelling died in office. And Dean's re-elect numbers dropped from 74% in 1992 to less than 51% in 2000.

In 2002, Dean "retired" rather than lose to Republican Jim Douglas.

Vermont is now governed by a Republican.

That fact certainly puts an "asterisk" next to the bold and sweeping statement that "Dean's never lost a race."*

I'm impressed by the passion with which Dean acolytes tout their candidate, but securing positions for Democrats is not one of Dean's strong suits.

It is, however, one of Kucinich's.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

* but he quit in 2002 rather than losing to a Republican, Jim Douglas, who went on to beat his Lieutenant Governor, Doug Racine.

[RogueTrooper]

18. Some corrections

I know, I know, you have to try your best for your candidate.

Howard Dean "retired" in 2002 because he was running for the Democratic nomination for President. In Vermont, unlike, say, Texas, the Govenor has to do actual work. Had Dean no been running for President I very much doubt he would have retired because he was facing a tight race with Jim Douglas.

There are a lot more elected Democrats in Vermont now than there was before Dean became Govenor. Democrats, in Vermont, currently control the Senate.

[no name no slogan]

27. Question about that

If the governor had to do actual work, then why was he out of the state so often in 2002 that it took a court order for him to release his schedule?

I don't mean that as a slam, but I would think if he's so busy he'd actually stay at home minding the farm rather than traipse across the country raising money.

We had the same problem in MN with Jesse Ventura-- he was so damn busy with his "other jobs" that he wasn't around to help out. When the legislature got hung up on budget issues, he went off to Hollywood.

AFAIK, Dennis has only missed ONE vote in the House since he's been running-- it was the same one Geph missed because the Repubs scheduled it on the same day as a debate.

[killbotfactory]

20. Dean didn't have to ever beat a republican

because he never lost.

[Desertrose]

104. well if Dean gets the nom...he sure as hell will have to this time

...least with Dennis you know whe can do it because he's proven that he can!!

Dennis unelectable....not true!

Peace
DR

[CMT]

72. he retired to run for president

which he knew he would do following the 2000 election.

[RogueTrooper]

6. 2000 election

The reason the 2000 figure is that low was because of the civil unions issues. It was not the most pleasant of of elections, by all accounts. The religous right were particularly frolicsome ( to the point the Dean had to wear a bullet proof vest ).

The percentages were...

Dean (D) 50.45%
Dwyer (R) 37.95%
Pollina (P) 9.58%

Whilst, this was the lowest percentage win for Dean, out of any of his gubernatorial races, he beat his nearest challanger by 12 and half points. Civil Union supporters in the legislative branch were not so lucky. Many of them lost their seats.

On edit...

Dean has never had to beat an incumbant Republican.

[AP]

9. Do you think Dean's general election 04 numbers might be low because

of the civil union issue too? If it didn't play well in "liberal" VT, how do you think it's going to play all over the south and mountain west?

[RogueTrooper]

11. I thought

all the candidates supported civil unions? Does Edward's not support equal rights for all Americans AP?

Dick Cheney has come out in support of civil unions, does that answer your question?

[killbotfactory]

40. Yeah, but Dean is special

You see he's the next McGovern, or so I've been told.

[JohnKleeb]

71. and I dont believe that Killbot

[Padraig18]

10. Dean has never had to beat an incumbent Republican.

Not a point to be lightly dismissed.

[dpbrown]

19. Every office Dean ever held is held by a non-Democrat today

Not a point to be lightly dismissed.

[killbotfactory]

37. Dean can't run for everything.

He's aiming for the White House now.

[dpbrown]

15. C.U. Law passed 2000, Dean's re-elect 1998: 55.6%

Ruth Dwyer, Republican, took 41.1% in 1998.

His lead was 14.5 points, barely above the "civil union law impared" 2000 election.

And this is down from a 48.1 point win over his nearest competitor in 1996, and a 49.6 point win over his nearest competitor in 1994, and a 51.69 point win over his nearest competitor in 1992.

The truth of the matter is, Dean sank, relative to his nearest competitor, in every single race for Governor from his high-water mark in 1992.

And if the 2000 "near loss" can be attributed in part to the civil unions backlash, then the very nearly identical showing in 1998 has yet to be explained.

And I don't believe Howard was wearing any "protective gear" in 1998. He was just fading in popularity in a big way.

And the fact remains that every office Dean used to hold is now held by a non-Democrat, and every office Kucinich ever held, each of which was wrested in a battle with a Republican incumbent, is now held by a Democrat.

Kucinich: Better Ideas, Better Candidate - it's just that simple

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[killbotfactory]

38. Yeah, he won.

Despite passing a controversial law which has expanded the rights of gays and lesbians, and having "progressives" run to his left and sucking up votes.

Not bad.

[dpbrown]

54. 1998 was "before" 2000

Therefore Dean's 55% showing in 1998 can't be attributed to the Civil Unions legislation.

So that would be bad.

[killbotfactory]

56. Winning isn't bad

Especially when you do it all the time, by comfortable margins.

[dpbrown]

60. Increasing margins are better than decreasing ones, then

Given your logic.

Those, by the way, are the margins that Kucinich has, and the ones Dean does not.

[killbotfactory]

61. Yeah, he started getting attacked from both sides

From people who would later vote for Bush and Nader.

And he still won.

Not bad.

[dpbrown]

63. Fewer excuses in understanding if this is a liability would help

You're just supposing that those votes went to the Green Party of Vermont (which has endorsed Dennis Kucinich), or that they would have gone on to support Bush.

But the larger question is why did substantial numbers of the people of Vermont, even before the Civil Unions excuse came along to "absolve" good Howard of his downward electoral spiral in 2000, decide they'd rather have someone else other than the good doctor in 1998?

Do you suppose they had legitimate concerns, or were they just as ill-informed as any Democrat who would dare support someone other than Howard Dean for President?

And the "he still won"* comment will always have an asterisk with it, because Dean refused to run in 2002, and his stand-in was beaten by a Republican, and Vermont is now governed by a Republican.

No seats Dean ever held are in Democratic hands today.

* after receiving only 50.4% of the vote in 2000, Dean declined to run in 2002, and Democrat Doug Racine was beaten by Republican Jim Douglas.

[killbotfactory]

66. Dean easily keeps Vermont governor seat (1998)

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/11/03/election/governors/vermont/
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/1998/states/VT/G/

Not bad.

Then, two years later, he beat the republican by an even bigger margin, despite the strong republican slander machine known as "take back Vermont" and a "progressive" party running a candidate against him and taking 10% of the vote.

A bigger margin than what Al-gore beat Bush in VT by, despite Nader running to his left and taking 7% of the Vermont vote.

Not bad.

http://www.rutlandherald.com/election2000/elec_night/top_races.html

[dpbrown]

1998: 14.5 points, 2000: 12.5 points - 12.5 isn't bigger than 14.5

1998
Howard Dean, Democratic 121,425 55.6%
Ruth Dwyer, Republican 89,726 41.1%

2000
Howard Dean, Democratic 148,059 50.4%
Ruth Dwyer, Republican 111,359 37.9%

Your best argument is probably that he won, not that he won "better" because he didn't.

Vermont came closer every year to turning Dean out of office, and in 2002 he slipped out the door without giving them a chance.

Kucinich has a better record of taking elected office from Republicans and keeping those seats for Democrats.

Kucinich: Better Ideas, Better Candidate - it's as simple as that

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[killbotfactory]

70. Oops, you're right. Dean is still a winner

And the republican's lost votes.

[dpbrown]

76. Rep. votes 1998: 89,726, Rep. votes 2000: 111,359

1998
Ruth Dwyer, Republican 89,726

2000
Ruth Dwyer, Republican 111,359

I'm not aware of any sort of math that makes 111,359 smaller than 89,726.

Kucinich: Better Ideas, Better Candidate - it's as simple as that

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[killbotfactory]

80. 37% is less than 41%

Dean. A winner.

[dpbrown]

84. Dean 1998: 55.6%, Dean 2000: 50.4%

Progressive Party 1998: 0%

Progressive Party 2000: 9.5%

Dean. Sliding down the brass rail out of office.

[Frodo]

92. So Gore is more or less popular depending on whether

Nader decided to run?

If nobody ran on the Progressive ticket in '98 that's evidence that he's losing support when one decides to run?

[Frodo]

75. As long as the republicans decide to back out of the race.

If they run a steel mill worker from Ohio and give him no money DK is a shoe-in!

If Bush raises more than the 0$ DKs last three opponents have raised we have a shot.

[bearfartinthewoods]

182. what party is the 'P'? thanks

[AP]

8. I think there's a risk that, if Dean became president, he'd preside

over a terrible depression (thanks to his Hoover-like obsession with balanced budgets, financed by the labors of the middle and working class, and nobody else) and the pattern would continue -- he'd have to chose not to run, and Jeb Bush will run for president in 2008 and we'd see the Republicans win election after election, blaming Democrats for the depression the same way FDR was able to blame Republicans.

[RogueTrooper]

12. Do you have any evidence for this assertion?

[RogueTrooper]

49. Obviously not

:eyes:

[w4rma]

14. [Bush's] Tax cuts mirror era-Depression tactics (quotes from Will Rogers)

On Jan. 10, 1926, Will Rogers wrote:
"Now, when I tell you that if I was running the government, there would be no lowering of taxes, you know now a comedian is crazy .Š We owe more money than any nation in the world, and we ARE LOWERING TAXES. … All government statistics say that 70 percent of every dollar paid in the way of taxes goes to just keeping up our interest and a little dab of amortization of our national debts. In other words, if we didn't owe anything, our taxes would only be less than one-third what they are today."

Old Will Rogers was a pretty savvy dude. President Bush (or one of his aides who has a college education) should read his stuff. Do you know what happened in 1929?

On Feb. 1, 1933, Rogers wrote the following:
"The Reconstruction loaned the railroads money, medium and small banks money, and all they all did with it was pay off what they owed to New York banks. So the money went uphill instead of down. You can drop a bag of gold in Death Valley which is below sea level, and before Saturday it will be home to papa J.P."

So congratulations to the Bush administration on the $330 billion tax cut. Bush just skipped the part of dropping the gold in Death Valley and handed the money right over to the rich. I think they'll do just like they did in 1933 - pay off debts to other rich people and put the rest in the bank.

It took a Democrat to get us out of the hole dug by Republicans back then. I hope there will be another FDR to fix Bush's messes.
…
http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2003/06/05/letters/letters3.txt

[no name no slogan]

29. My favorite Will Rogers quote

That reminds me of my favorite quote from him:

"I'm not a member of an organized political party. I'm a Democrat."

:D too true, too true :D

[helleborient]

16. The economic picture looked at lot like it does now...

When Bill Clinton was elected President. It was followed by the longest peacetime growth in our economy in the nation's history.

Why wouldn't this happen under a Democratic president this time?

[LuminousX]

21. FUD

I fear that if candidate x gets elected, we will all be enslaved by brutal overlords.

[Padraig18]

22. LOL!

Brilliant! :P

[genius]

120. The trouble is more Democrats would leave the party under Dean

because of his right-wing views on the Bill of Rights.

[Padraig18]

154. How do you know that?

And how do you know his views wouldn't ADD more Democrats?

[helleborient]

13. Ummm...Dennis Kucinich also lost....

Re-election as mayor of Cleveland to Voinovich who used it as a springboard to be governor and then a member of the tiny Republican majority in the Senate.

Dennis also lost races for the U.S. House 4 times before finally being elected.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to put forward...but you are not including all of the relevant information about DK.

[Padraig18]

17. Well, now that you mention it...

.. I wasn't going to bring it up, but you are 100% correct.

[dpbrown]

24. Youngest Mayor Ever versus Part-time Representative

A man dedicated to public service his whole life versus someone who discovered he could dabble in politics on his off-time.

Yeah, there's "relevant information" out there, but it only serves to reinforce the idea that ol' Howard, Hamptons playboy, grandson and great-grandson of Wall Street investment bankers, part-time this and part-time that, lucked into his political career by moving to Vermont for his residency and discovering he had found a state that allowed legislating as a part-time job, before stumbling into the Governorship upon the death of Governor Snelling.

And there is the fact that Kucinich fought for the offices he took from Republicans (all of which are now held by Democrats), and experienced political rebirth based on saving Cleveland's public power (for which he was commended by the Cleveland City Council), and Kucinich's re-elect numbers have continued to grow with each campaign to the point where he's taking 74% of the vote in his district.

Compare Dean, whose re-elect point spread dropped every single race from 1992 to 2000, until he decided to "retire" rather than face defeat at the hands of Republican Jim Douglas in 2002.

Kucinich's attempts at public office signal a burning desire that Kucinich could only quench through ultimate success - a reverberating success that sees Democrats in those seats today.

Dean's consistent fade as Governor apparently then signals a growing and unquenchable desire for Vermonters to finally be rid of him - a sweeping desire that sees every single office Dean ever held in Vermont now held by non-Democrats.

It's important to include the relevant information.

Kucinich: Better Ideas, Better Candidate - it's just that simple

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[RogueTrooper]

25. Dan

Dean "retired" because he was running for President not because he was scared of defeat.

[dpbrown]

34. His re-elect numbers dropped every time

Call it what you will, but he would have lost to Douglas, and therefore there's going to be an asterisk next to his "never lost" claim - whether he had already decided to move on to greener pastures or not.

Compare Kucinich, whose re-elect numbers have gained each time.

I think it's significant.

[RogueTrooper]

58. He still won his last election by 12 and half points

what is your point?

[dpbrown]

62. But took less than 51% of the vote

And Vermont requires a majority, so not only did he almost lose, almost half of the people in Vermont wanted someone else.

And while Dean's margins shrunk every election, Kucinich's have grown.

And every office Dean ever held in Vermont is not held by a Democrat now. Every office Kucinich ever held in Ohio and in the US Congress is held by a Democrat.

The point is that Kucinich has done a better job of winning against Republicans, and keeping the seats he's won for Democrats, than Dean.

[CMT]

74. how do you know he would have lost?

if he didn't run you can't say that with certainty. It was a close election in 2002 and Dean might have pulled it off.

[Padraig18]

26. Ummm...

I'm sure every office DK ever held was held by Whigs at some point in the past, too. What is your point? Politics is rarely static...

[RogueTrooper]

28. It is just an attack on Dean

I wish these people would see that they are being played by Kucinich. It is just another candidates supporters attacking the frontrunner.

It could be worse. We could have Kucinich's poll numbers. :evilgrin:

[Padraig18]

30. *Hands you flame-retardant suit*

:evilgrin:

[RogueTrooper]

31. Takes Flame retardant suit

Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough. :evilgrin:

[Padraig18]

32. You're not supposed to mention 'that subject'

It's all fake, you know--- corporate media stuff, and so on... :P

[RogueTrooper]

52. Oops

Sorry, Padraig, I forgot about the pathetic conspiracy theories.

I think I need an icon that mixes :evilgrin: with :tinfoilhat:

[dpbrown]

36. You're obviously "reaching"

I appreciate your firm support for your candidate, but his strong suits are not winning re-election or beating incumbents.

Kucinich's are.

Please come up with a better rationale explaining away Dean's inability to preserve his seats for Democrats, and his consistent slide in the eyes of Vermonters from 1992 onward.

It's not an unwarranted attack every time someone criticizes your candidate. You really should understand that by now.

Kucinich: Better Ideas, Better Candidate - it's just that simple

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[Padraig18]

39. LOL!

There's nothing to defend--- he's *never* lost, unlike DK...

[RogueTrooper]

45. So, how many times has Dean won re-election

I cound five times as Govenor. The fifth being the hardest election fight, what with the religious right and the bullet proof vest.

I would argue, and argue with vigor, that winning re-election is one of Howard Dean's strong suits. It is quite unusual for somebody to be Govenor of Vermont for as long as Dean. I can not think of anybody, in recent electoral history, who has kept that position for as long as Dean managed too.

The Civil Unions fight was an exceptionaly vicious one. The religous right went into overdrive to defeat Dean and any other representative who supported the Civil Unions bill. The went after the Republican supporters in the primaries and the Democrats in the General. Many breav representative, in the face of the religous right's onslaught, lost their seats.

You are using sophistry to describe the electoral record of Howard Dean, Dan. He did not retire in 2002 so that have could avoid and election against Jim Douglas. He retired because he was running for President. He has not lost an election, not once, not ever.

[Mairead]

33. Dennis lost re-election as mayor because he'd just saved Muni Light

and the wealthy elites were so furious about their plans being thwarted that they bought his defeat. They put in Voinovich, someone willing to kiss the ring, and as a reward they later hoiked him up to Senator.

It'd be Senator Kucinich today, if Dennis had been willing to kiss the ring and sell out the people.

But he wasn't.

As to the elections Dennis lost? Some of the elites were still trying to keep him blacklisted in '96, when he was standing for Congress. He'd been so disruptive of their privilege from the moment he was elected to the council that they wanted to ensure he never got any power again, and they were vocal about it.

[Padraig18]

35. He lost because he didn't get as many votes from the voters.

However you want to dress that pig up, it's still not a lady... :shrug:

[dpbrown]

41. You're slipping into "attack" mode - please lay off the "pig" talk

As I've said before, I'm sure your heart is in the right place, but you should curb your rough impulses.

Thanks.

[Padraig18]

42. Not attack mode.

Just plain speaking. I live in a rural area, and that's a very common expression here for describing 'spin' of any kind.

[dpbrown]

46. So you say. Please present facts

Innuendo using words like "pig" is, even in the countryside (where I come from as well) generally considered coarse.

And Bill O'Reilly labels something "spin" as well when he doesn't have a counter-argument.

A "glib" retort can signal only "glib" underlying support for a candidate - "glibness" unfortunately won't wash in a debate with the Republicans.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[Padraig18]

53. LOL!

Thanks for the advice--- which I'll reject out of hand. You're being a sophist simply because you didn't like me stating plainly that DK lost his re-election bid as the Mayor of Cleveland because GV got more votes...

[Mairead]

78. Yes, GV got more votes. That's certainly a better outcome than

if he'd won by getting fewer.

The question is why did he get more votes. Dennis was elected on his promise to save Muni Light. He saved it. Who lost out? The elites who control the press. Who won? The people. So why did they vote against Dennis? Because of all the 'he bankrupted Cleveland', 'he set the Cuyuhoga on fire', 'he has dinner with Satan every night' lies from the elites.

[dpbrown]

43. For DK, losing signalled rebirth, for Dean quitting was the end in VT

Dennis was subsequently commended by the City of Cleveland for having the political will and foresight to save public power. He went on to beat two Republican incumbents, one during the Gingrich years when most seats were switching in the opposite direction.

Half the people of Cleveland pay less for their power today because of Dennis' courageous stand. The company that Dennis saved Muny Light from went on to become FirstEnergy, the company that just caused the biggest blackout in North American history.

And Kucinich's political rise came after he lost re-election as Mayor. This was not the end of the trail.

In comparison, while Dean has the excuse that he quit the Governor's job because he was going to run for President, his number spread versus opponents had declined every single race from 1992 onward, signalling that Dean's performance in that office merited, from the citizens of Vermont, a signal that they were ready for a non-Dean change.

In fact, every office Dean ever held in Vermont is now held by a non-Democrat, while every office Kucinich held in Ohio and in the US Congress is held by a Democrat now. Kucinich has done a better job winning and keeping Democratic seats.

Had Dean lost the Governor's election in Vermont to Jim Douglas the way Doug Racine did, how likely is it that Dean would have been able to turn a courageous stand he took, say on Civil Unions (oh, except the Supreme Court took the stand there, sorry), to build a political rebirth in Vermont. Not likely.

So for Dean that was the end of the line in Vermont.

Just the opposite for Kucinich. Being the youngest Mayor of a major city in the history of the United States of America was only the beginning.

Kucinich: Better Ideas, Better Candidate - it's just that simple

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[Padraig18]

44. That's your myopic view of events *only*.

Others see it differently, Dan. Ain't America great?

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[Padraig18]

50. "Myopic" is a perfectly good English word.

It's an adjective meaning 'narrowly focused'.

[Mairead]

79. "It's an adjective meaning 'narrowly focused'."

Check your dictionary.

[Padraig18]

93. Definition:

my·o·pi·a ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-p-)
n.
1.)A visual defect in which distant objects appear blurred because their images are focused in front of the retina rather than on it; nearsightedness. Also called short sight.

2.)Lack of discernment or long-range perspective in thinking or planning: “For Lorca, New York is a symbol of spiritual myopia” (Edwin Honig). (emphasis added)

myopic

\My*op"ic\, a. Pertaining to, or affected with, or characterized by, myopia; nearsighted.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

I rest my case.

[Mairead]

121. Perhaps you should un-rest your case and read it again

Try to find the word or concept 'narrow' in there.

Myopic means only able to focus near the eye: short-sighted. It means the same thing when used metaphorically. Narrowness is not part of the concept.

[Padraig18]

123. Sorry, but you are wrong. n/t

[Mairead]

125. When you say something false, it does you no credit. And repeating it

doesn't make it less false.

[Padraig18]

128. I will say it again

His post was myopic!

next!

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[Mairead]

90. Yep, that's true

And Smirk got almost 50M votes too. It's amazing what a relentless spin campaign can do, isn't it.

[Padraig18]

99. Non-sequitur. n/t

[Mairead]

126. Sorry that you aren't able to see the connection

Fortunately other people can.

[Mairead]

23. This doesn't seem to read right--can you still edit?

Wouldn't

It's beyond disingenuous to imply that "polls" reflect the reality on the ground that Kucinich beats Republicans, and Dean doesn't.

be better as

It's beyond disingenuous to imply that "polls" reflect the reality on the ground, which is that Kucinich beats Republicans, and Dean doesn't.


Perhaps it would also be worthwhile pointing out that Dennis's victories have all come in venues that are much more like the US as a whole--a mix of Black, Brown, and White faces--than Dean's have.

[redqueen]

57. That was another thing I was uncomfortable about as a Dean supporter...

"Perhaps it would also be worthwhile pointing out that Dennis's victories have all come in venues that are much more like the US as a whole--a mix of Black, Brown, and White faces--than Dean's have."

His record of winning re-election looks good, but then I read about the problems he consistently has when he makes those off-the-cuff remarks... and I thought how is he ever gonig to be able to get along with people in Washington, when he can't seem to get along with people in VT? VT is relatively homogenous, so you'd think it would be easier when compared to dealing with people from all walks of life and from all different perspectives. Just my opinion, though. :)

And it was really the pentagon budget being off limits to cutting that really was the deciding factor. The rest was just stuff that made me a bit uncomfortable.

[genius]

59. Yes, but Dean says he is unelectable and Dean is an honorable man

About as honorable as Brutus.

[Frodo]

65. Oh stop pretending he gets all this support against Republicans.

The man runs in an overwhelmingly Democratic district. When a multi-term incumbent runs in a "safe Democratic" district he isn't going to draw any opposition and he's going to get 70-80% of the vote. This cannot be compared to an actual election against a real candidates. There are probably 50-100 congressmen who get >70% of the vote. None of them is qualified to be President either.

Some facts/figures for you:

DK's 2000 (& 2002?) opponent was a law clerk. Not a judge, or a federal prosecutor or a state representative or even (I think) a lawyer. Just a law clerk.

How much money did his party give him to run? - 0
How much money did the various Republican committees give his campaign? - 0
According to opensecrets.org how much did DK spend on the race? .5Million
How much did his opponent spend? - 0

His '98 opponent was a steel worker.


So all DK has to do is get the Republican's to run a stuffed shirt against him with no money and he'll get a good chunk of the vote?

[no name no slogan]

96. Wrong

The man runs in an overwhelmingly Democratic district

Not so fast. His district is hardly overwhelmingly Democratic, as you claim.

The district itself is fairly conservative, and I believe it is only 40% registered Democrat. That leaves a whole 'nother 60% of non-democrats, be they Republicans, Independents, or whathaveyou.

The district itself is classic Archie Bunker-type ethnic working class people (parts of the movie "The Deer Hunter" were filmed there). It's a mixture of Blacks, Whites, Asians, Latinos, EVERYONE. Compare that to lily-white Vermont, where "ethnic" means you're German Catholic instead of WASP.

But if you feel that picking yet another tired New England elitist (like Dean, or Dukakis) is the ticket to victory in 2004, by all means support the good Gov.

Personally, I think it's time to ditch the losing DLC strategy and go for a pure POPULIST.

[Frodo]

102. We've been over this before. You're wrong.

The 10th is an overwhelmingly Democratic "safe seat".

40% registered democratic is pretty big, but I'm not sure where you get your "facts" since Ohio doesn't register by party. In competitive elections (Bush/Gore) the Democrat outpolls the republican by double digits. In a senate race the republican won by >20% there was a tie in that district.

And the other party doesn't fail to run a candidate in close districts. This is a district no republican could win - just look at the map. I believe your "Archie Bunker-type ethnic working class people" is a heavily minorty district (I know the county it shares with the 11th is very heavily African American). Regardless, it does not "look like america" demographicaly.

And don't assume that someone who does not support DK must be a Dean supporter. Heck I could be any of the 98-99% of Democrats NOT supporting Kucinich.

[Mairead]

127. Just for curiosity, where did you get those numbers?

[Frodo]

140. Most are from the Ohio Secretary of State office.

The "40%" is not mine, the 98% is extrapolation from the support polls.

The electoral results are from the Ohio SOS. Their website has a link to a (BIG) pdf file of a ~225 page report on the election. Race by race district/county by district/county on ballot issues, candidates, whatever. It's clearly a safe district.

But ignore the statistics and focus on this: the other team would have actually run a candidate if there was ANY chance at a Republican owning that seat. "Law clerk" doesn't get you elected to "county assistant gopher" let alone congress. They gave him no money at all.

The tenth district basically splits Cuyahoga county with the 11th district. Gore won Cuyahoga county 360,000 to 192,000. The 11th is also a safe Democratic seat and the incumbent wins there by 75%+ as well. But nobody pretends it's because she is "attractive to conservative and Republicans".

[VermontDem2004]

67. Dean has never lost a race, Kucinich has

I want an undefeated champ running for office.

[Frodo]

69. Yeah... but once he wins, watch out!

I mean, once he lost the House race three or four times he was a lock for the 10th from then on (as pointed out - he wins the vote of every breathing creature in his district).

So all we have to do is endure losses to shrub in 2004, Jeb in 2008 and 2012 and DK will finally win in 2016! By 2020 he'll be getting 70% of the vote and we'l get rid of term limits and vote him back in perpetuity.

It could happen. :eyes:

[Freddie Stubbs]

68. Dean was never defeated for reelection for any office

Kucinich was. Can anyone guess which one?

[dpbrown]

73. No office Dean ever held is held by a Democrat today

And every office Kucinich ever held, both in Ohio and in the US Congress, is.

Kucinich lost re-election as Mayor of Cleveland, an office he won as the youngest person ever to run a major city in the United States of America. He subsequently went on to take an Ohio State Senate seat from a Republican in the middle of the Gingrich Revolution in 1994, and to beat an incumbent Republican to become a US Representative.

Kucinich does a better job of winning seats for Democrats, and keeping them Democratic, than Howard Dean does.

Kucinich: Better Ideas, Better Candidate - it's as simple as that

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[killbotfactory]

77. Dean: A true winner.

How'd he do it in a rural, and classically republican state? Magic? I think so, yes.

[JohnKleeb]

81. his policies were perfect for that state

being a social liberal and more conservative on economic issues. So its not a suprise really but it is good that he was a sucessful governor although I am more of an all around liberal, I can respect that. Can't we just give to the fact that Dean was a popular governor and Kucinich is sucessful as well. I am sorry about this post really. I cant speak for my fellow Kucinich supporters here but we really try to be civil its just at least I have seen a lot of Kucinich bashing as of late, and people are people you know.

[killbotfactory]

88. I haven't said a word about kucinich, in this thread..

Just defending my man, Dean.

[Mairead]

130. I really love the Freudian-ness

If we ask why Dean gets a beating from Vermont Democrats for his coziness with Republicans, we get the big dismissal from the Dean machine 'aw, Vermont Democrats are so far left that nothing Dean could do would satisfy them'. And now you're telling us that Dean is wonderful because Vermont is a Republican stronghold.

How charming.

[Freddie Stubbs]

119. Kucinich was defeated by a Republican for Mayor

Some guy named Voinovich. Anyone ever hear of him?

[Mairead]

131. Kucinich was defeated by the wealthy elites, furious

that Dennis refused to kiss their rings. They bought Voinovich the office.

[Freddie Stubbs]

145. The voters voted him out of office

[Padraig18]

151. I've tried to point out that obvious fact, but it does no good. n/t

[CMT]

82. this thread is evidence that it isn't only Dean supporters

who are imflamatory and divisive. I say this as someone who has on several "Dennis can't win" threads come to DK's defense and used as evidence that he has consistently won re-election in a district with many so-called "Reagan Democrats" in it. I don't like it when people say that DK can't win and I don't like it when people say Dean can't win.

[JohnKleeb]

83. I disagree with the tactic too honestly CMT

I chuckled my ass of when I read someone thought Dean was a socialist and when people say he is McGovern. No offense but I think the reason why many of us including me in a way are on the offensive is because we saw our candiate bashed last week. I dont like it either, I am sorry this happened but it could be in response and anger to seeing our candiate bashed for a good part of the past week, I know its wrong to take out your anger like that, but it really is human nature. The example Dan used about Kucinich however is a good point.

[Padraig18]

94. Hey, John!

As I posted last week (maybe you missed it?), these 'bashing' things go in cycles, and it was just DK's 'turn in the barrel'. This week, it will be someone else's turn, and nexr week it will be yet another 'someone else' 's turn.

Trust me, as a Dean supporter, I'm totally[/b[ familiar with the feeling! :hi: :P

[JohnKleeb]

95. I known so

I dont remember the cycle shit.

[Padraig18]

101. Ok

Maybe 'cycle' isn't appropriate for some candidates, like Dean, Clark and Kerry--- they just get sh*t slung at them daily! :P

Buck up, ould son--- it'll pass! :hi:

[JohnKleeb]

116. It had better because it made me lose my temper

It will go I know, its just annoying.

[dpbrown]

86. I didn't say Dean can't win

I said he has a worse record of taking and keeping elected offices for Democrats.

I think that's worth thinking about, don't you?

Kucinich: Better Ideas, Better Candidate - it's as simple as that

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[Doomsayer13]

85. If Kucinich can't win the primary

it will be a testament to his unelectability. If he cannot win over fellow Democrats, then there is no evidence that he'd be able to win over the independents and moderate Republicans for the General election against Bush. We'll wait and see.

[JohnKleeb]

87. So if all the others who lose the primary that means they are unelectable

I have news for ya, some of the candiates in history ran for the nomination and didnt win at first but they came back later and won.

[Doomsayer13]

103. yes, it does

and if Kucinich can come back another year and win the nomination, the more power too him. But my point still stands - if DK cannot win the primary then that's evidence enough for me that he cannot win the general election

[JohnKleeb]

111. Does this theory apply for everyone?

[Doomsayer13]

115. as far as I'm concerned

whoever can't win the primary doesn't deserve to be president. If you can't win over your rank and file, how can you win over independents and moderates?

[Mairead]

129. That's a somewhat simplistic way to look at it

You're correct only if the whole thing is fair.

Based on 'deserves', McCain should have been the GOP nominee, not Smirk. But Smirk had Media Inc on his side in a shamelessly partisan way, so McCain was effectively competing not only against Smirk, but thousands of other people too. Those thousands created a pseudoreality that didn't exist in nature, and it made the outcome a foregone conclusion.

In the current situation, Media Inc has already anointed Dean and is relentlessly marginalising Kucinich (see the 6. October Nation article referenced in another thread in which at least 4 reporters admitted doing it). So the primaries are not going to be a fair assessment.

Now, why are these guys pushing Dean rather than being evenhanded? Well, they pushed Bush rather than McCain, so what does that suggest to you? I know what it suggests to me, and I don't like the idea at all.

[Doomsayer13]

135. the difference between McCain and Kucinich

I would argue that McCain actually had the media on his side since New Hampshire, but it was Rove Co. who threw a monkey wrench into his campaign by doing things like calling up republican voters in South Carnolina and asking "Would you vote for John McCain if you knew he fathered an illigitimate child?" That and you assume that the media is what was completely at fault for Bush's victory, when in fact Bush had better funding, and a better national apparatus for the primary. He had the national governors assoc. on his side, and made better use of his connections.

When Dean started out, he was little more than a longshot unknown with no money now he's the top tier candidate, not becuase the media has "anointed" him the front runner, but becuase he was able to build a grass roots organization that propelled him to the top. Of course he's getting media attention - that's becuase he's revolutionizing campaigning and is getting his message out via grassroots organizing and the internet. It's not like the poo-bahs in the networks just decided to make him the front runner, that is a conspiricy theory that strikes me as reductive and simplisic. Kucinich uses his media time to whine about Dean ads and repeat the mantra "US out UN in" and it obviously isn't resonating with Dem voters.

I like Kucinich. But as of now, I'm not voting for him. I'm still undecided personally, but I know that if Kucinich doesn't win the primary, he doesn't deserve to be President.

[Mairead]

137. Perhaps you don't care, but the field is being purposefully tilted

Personally, I think you should care. I think we should all care. It's anti-democratic not to care about other people making our choices for us.

Look at this http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031006&c=6&s=taibbi
down near the end of the article. Four reporters admitted filtering in favor of Dean and against Kucinich. How many others are doing the same thing?

Look too at the charts here: http://www.politicsus.com/presidential%20press%20releases/Kucinich/102903.htm Note that the difference in coverage is stunningly disproportionate to the difference in poll results.

The problem is a significant one. It favors Dean today, but what happens tomorrow? Are you willing to live with that?

[NNadir]

89. Dean never faced a recall election, whereas Kucinich has.

Kucinich scraped by with a few hundred votes, after which is disappeared from Cleveland for about 5 weeks, during which time no one knew where he was.

Rove would have a field day with that.

Kucinich is NOT electable because of his RECORD.

[dpbrown]

91. Which Kucinich survived, and went on to thrive in public office

And Kucinich was being threatened at the time for his courageous stand protecting public power, and had to wear a bullet-proof vest, which, as I recall, is a badge of honor for Howard Dean. Both were doing the right thing at the time.

And the Cleveland City Council later realized what Kucinich had really done in protecting public power and gave him a commendation for saving Muny Light. You can't get much more of an apology for a politically motivated recall than that.

The recall election is a non-issue.

Just because Bill Clinton was impeached doesn't mean it wasn't politically motivated.

Kucinich saved Cleveland residents millions of dollars by saving Muny Light - and at the time he was the youngest Mayor ever elected to head a major city. Yet even while that young (Bush wasn't even sober yet at the age that Kucinich was running Cleveland), he was able to make the right decisions benefiting the public good over the greedy corporations.

Kucinich would have a field day with Rove.

Bring 'im on.

Kucinich: Better Ideas, Better Candidate - it's that simple

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[no name no slogan]

97. And don't forget

That predatory power company Kucinich thwarted later became the same company that was responsible for the massive NE blackout last summer.

Talk about foresight, huh?

:hi:

[NNadir]

105. Oh Please...

This nonsense is continually raised by Kucinich supporters as if Kucinich could tell the future. In spite of his close relationship with Shirley McClaine and his many consultations with psychics this is nonsense.

He practiced brinkmanship and intransigence that lead his city into financial default. I don't want a President who practices brinkmanship and intransigence. I already have that in the person claiming to be President now. I want one with flexibility of mind and and ability to negotiate as to create situations in which everyone gets something so that the greatest good is reached with the minimal grief. Last I looked, the United States is heading towards a serious financial meltdown. The last thing the country needs is someone whose only demonstrated response was to back himself into a corner as Mr. Kucinich did. A better man would have certainly found another way to have resolved the situation. That dumb luck followed his brutish approach doesn't mean that this was either a wise or a successful method of approaching the problem.

The fact is that Mr. Kucinich was so demoralized that he abandoned his city after leading it into default. He was out of work for nearly a decade after his tenure as the nation's youngest (and most callow) mayor, and returned only as a middle aged congressman of no distinction. I respect that he has managed something of a comeback, but he is not, based on his record, in any way prepared or qualified to be President of the United States.

Maybe one of you can list one, just one important accomplishment of Mr. Kucinich's tenure as a congressman: One bill that he proposed, sheparded through congress and made into a law that has made an improvement in our country. Note: I am not looking for pie-in-the-sky proposals or "great" and "inspiring" speeches about what's in outer space. I am looking for an accomplishment. Because if all you've got is a 10% lower electric bill in Cleveland as an accomplishment in a lifetime in politics, that ain't gonna cut it.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

147. Deleted message

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

[redqueen]

156. Doesn't the author of that book also praise Daley of Chicago?

Case dismissed.


Also, your massive post there probably violates the sites rules on complying with copyright / fair use laws.

[Doomsayer13]

159. Daley of Chicago was a great mayor

well, great mayor in the sense he was influenetial and held massive influence over the state and the entire nation becuase of the machine he built. As far as I'm concerned, though Daley was authoritarian and was a machine politician, he was in an era much before Kucinich's time but also got a lot accomplished to be put in the legendary status.

you cant compare the records of Mayor Kucinich to Mayor Daley.

[redqueen]

165. Yep, no comparison

One was thoroughly corrupt, the other isn't.
:7

[NNadir]

167. The book is a compilation by 160 experts, not one author.

This is consensus, not one opinion. Belli's just writing it all up. The consensus is that Kucinich was the seventh worst mayor in US history. I'm sure some of the participants rated him higher. Some though, rated him lower. Case closed.

As for massiveness of my post, I certainly didn't put up even a fraction of what's out there. There is plenty available on Kucinich's incompetance and I could have gone for hours.

One of the more fun things to do that I didn't include is to see the outraged conspiracy theorists all over the internet who were upset by Kucinich's "betrayal" when he withdrew his bill HR 2977 to ban "Chemtrails." Preparative to his Presidential campaign, he was embarassed into conceeding that Chemtrails were actually jet exhaust, and hastily revised his bill, claiming with Bush-like buck passing that he didn't actually write (or apparently read) the bill he introduced. Like all other Kucinich bills, though, it didn't pass and didn't matter.

So called "right to lifers" are also upset about the Kucinich "betrayal" of course, since he suddenly decided that the government has no place in people's uteruses.

Say though, didn't you love that line in the Nation about how lionizing Kucinich is a clear demonstration of the economic (far) left's contempt for women? I did. I edited out the part BTW, where Kucinich voted against family planning services for poor women.

Have a nice day.

[Mairead]

175. Check your facts

Your spin is broken.

[dsc]

110. He did not thrive in public office

He was beaten, like a drum, by Voinovich a scant two years later.

[dpbrown]

118. And beat Tony Sinagra, incumbent (R) during the Gingrich revolution

Kucinich lost re-election as Mayor, but already had made his mark. As the youngest Mayor of a major city in the history of the United States of America, at an age at which George Walker Bush was not even yet sober, Kucinich kept his promise to the people of Cleveland, stood up to CEI (that went on to cause the biggest blackout in the history of North America), and refused to sell Muny Light. For which he was later commended by the City of Cleveland.

In 1982 he also lost the nomination to become Ohio Secretary of State - so don't forget that in your lists of Kucinich "failures."

And he later failed in a campaign to become Ohio Governor. Better not forget that.

In 1988 and 1992 he ran for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives and lost both times.

But in 1983 he was re-elected to the Cleveland City Council.

Then in 1994 Kucinich challenged incumbent Republican State Sen. Anthony Sinagra for his 23rd district seat. Although he was outspent by his Republican rival 2 to 1, Kucinich emerged as the victor in the race. And this was a rarity at the time, an amazing race that went the opposite of the way many races were going during the "Gingrich Revolution."

In January 1996 he entered the Democratic primary for Ohio's 10th District seat in the House of Representatives. Thanks to his experience as mayor and recent victory over Sinagra, Kucinich had significant name-recognition among voters, easily defeating his less well-known Democratic rivals, and went on to challenge two-term incumbent Republican Rep. Martin Hoke in the general election.

He relied on a grassroots campaign with ties to lower- and middle-class communities, and he received decisive support from environmental groups and labor unions, including the AFL-CIO, which poured more than $1million into ads against Hoke.

And he won.

And he's been winning ever since.

If there's a difference, it's that Kucinich has had to fight, hard, to be in a position to make a difference for the people he represents, and he's had to lose a few elections and take some upopular stands to stand up for what's right. And he's won in the end, securing his office and keeping the other seats for Democrats.

Every seat Kucinich ever held in Ohio and the US Congress is now held by a Democrat.

Dean, on the other hand, growing up in private schools and playing in the Hamptons, the son and grandson of Wall Street investment bankers, moving to Vermont after failing to make it as an investment banker, taking up politicking because he could do it "part-time" and then falling into the role of Governor accidentally, watching his re-elect margins fall further with each successive election, until quitting the Governor's office in 2002 just ahead of being turned out of office to "run for President" and watching his Democratic Lieutenant Governor get trounced by the Republican, Jim Douglas, has nothing on Kucinich when it comes to winning for Democratic principles.

Every seat Dean ever held in Vermont is now held by a non-Democrat.

Kucinich has an infinitely more defensible record of fighting for what he believes in, taking seats away from Republicans, and keeping them for Democrats than does Howard Dean.

So if people are looking for a Democrat who fights for Democratic principles, beats Republicans at their own game, and secures seats and keeps them for Democrats, they should pick Dennis Kucinich over Howard Dean.

Kucinich: Better Ideas, Better Candidate - it's just that simple

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[dsc]

132. Which is a testement to how Democratic those seats actually are

I do give him a lot of credit for Sinagra that was an impressive win and if you look in this thread I had already said that. Evidently giving people credit for what they say is something you just don't do. Join the Dean bashing wagon on that. But he left Cleveland with a Republican mayor for 9 years and is arguably responsible for the fact Voinovich is Senator now. If you are going to dis Dean for the fact that his Lt Gov couldn't win what does it say when not only could Kucinich himself not win but he let Voinovich be known forever as the man who saved Cleveland. Frankly, I don't blame Kucinch but under your own logic I surely should.

[dpbrown]

150. The difference is Muny Light and CEI/FirstEnergy

The fact that Kucinich lost the Mayoral race after keeping his promise to protect Muny Light doesn't detract from the (belated) recognition the Cleveland City Council gave him, nor does it negate the fact that Kucinich (the youngest Mayor of a major city in US history and Mayor at an age when George Walker Bush wasn't even sober yet) did the right thing without having the Supreme Court of Ohio and the Ohio Legislature force it down his throat.

And whether or not Kucinich was to "blame" for the Mayor temporarily being a Republican (while saving Cleveland Public Power from the company that went on to cause the biggest blackout in North American history and saving Cleveland residents tens of millions of dollars in savings over paying a private power monopoly), two things show through:

1. Kucinich rose again politically when people realized he had done the right thing and the Mayor's office came back to the Democrats as well, and

2. Kucinich's trend is upward. Once he had beaten Sinagra, he went on to beat another incumbent Republican to become US Rep. To paraphrase something someone said dismissively in a posting up the thread from here, Kucinich can't be everywhere - Voinovich's time will come. Dean, on the other hand, won big after succeeding Snelling in 1992 - 74%. But by 1998 Vermonters had so tired of him that he took only 54% of the vote, descending even further in 2000 to barely 50%, and slipping out the door in 2002 to "run for President" before Vermont voters could show him the door.

And the fact remains that today those former Kucinich seats are held by Democrats, and none of the seats Dean ever held in Vermont are.

I think Kucinich withstands your criticisms, and still looks stronger than Dean in winning Republican seats from incumbents, and in helping keep those seats for Democrats.

I don't think that's Dean "bashing", I think it's the facts.

Kucinich beats Republicans better than Dean does.

Kucinich: Better Ideas, Better Candidate - it's just that simple

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[dsc]

172. any bozo who wasn't a crook could have beaten Hoke

and I am still waiting for you to back up your contention that half of the Republican's in that district voted for Kucinich. I just don't think that is remotely true.

[dpbrown]

176. Then it helped to have been the candidate who saved Muny Light

My contention that Kucinich takes 50% of the Republican vote in his district is made based on what I've read on Kucinich's campaign site. If you have alternative facts, you're obviously free to post those facts. If you "dont' believe" those facts but offer no supporting facts with which to bolster your opinion, that's just contrarian.

I've attempted to research the positions I take before I take them. I do not find challenges based on "oh yeah, show me a link" or "I'm still waiting for you to back up (fill in the blank)" to be as compelling as fact-based rebuttals grounded in logic.

[Mairead]

124. He was beaten by the wealthy elites of Cleveland

who bought Voinovich the office because he was biddable.

[Padraig18]

134. He was beaten by the voters of Cleveland.

He got fewer votes than GV did--- period.

[JohnKleeb]

136. true he did get beat but people were angry at what had happened

Yet what he did in the long run was the right decision, and that makes all the difference.

[Mairead]

138. And I'm sure you feel that Florida was a 'statistical tie' and that

'Bush and Gore both won', too.

[Padraig18]

139. Huh, Mairead?

That follows as a logical response to my post how, exactly?

[MrSoundAndVision]

98. You don't know the story about Cleveland then...

He did the right thing, and a study (check http://www.kucinich.com) showed that he saved Cleveland $100 million dollars. Just go to his and READ.

And what about Bush's record huh? Cokehead? AWOL? Those aren't blemishes on his record. You think, comparing Bush to Kucinich America will choose Bush? Excuse me, but I just can't imagine a true Democrat (and a Dean supporter) saying such beligerant nonsense about a candidate with very true Democratic ideals. It is , shocking. A field day? WITH WHAT?!? Standing up to the energy companies? Not eating meat? What record?

So don't be so dismissal pragmatist. One day soon I'll start a nice thread on pragmatism and perhaps you will see (as Jefferson saw in invoking freedom of religion against the clergy of his day) why pragma is no substitute for real analysis: it requires no research, just a set of axioms, and intention.

Anyway, 'nough of that.

[MrSoundAndVision]

100. Oops...that's http://www.kucinich.us/

The website I previously listed doesn't belong to a Democrat to say the least.

[redqueen]

107. Yes, please go back and edit it!

You could be sending hits there. :)

[MrPeepers]

108. There's definitely a distinction to be made

between an incumbent and THIS incumbent, who happens to already have about $85,000,000 to campaign with, to Kucinich's 3,000,000

Peepers

[no name no slogan]

112. If it's about raising money, then support Jerry Lewis for prez

If all you're interested in is a candidate who can raise money, why not draft Jerry Lewis? He's done a sh!tload of fundraising for MD and would be absolutely fantastic if that's what really matters.

If you're interested in playing the press's (and Dubya's) game of "he who raises the most cash wins", then by all means go ahead.

Just don't be suprised when you come home with a serious case of redass after he hands you the beating you will most assuredly get when playing HIS game by HIS rules.

If you think that your candidate needs to rely on his fundraising skills to get ahead, you're playing the right-wing's game-- and you're playing right into the their hands, too.

You don't need the most money to win. In 1990, Paul Wellstone spent 1/10th of what his opponent did, and he WON. WE can do the same, only if we nominate a REAL Democrat, not just one who uses pro-Democratic soundbites.

[redqueen]

113. This needs defining...

"Just don't be suprised when you come home with a serious case of redass after he hands you the beating you will most assuredly get when playing HIS game by HIS rules."

Would that be similar to the case of redass we were handed in the form of the Welfare Reform Act, or the Telecommunications Act?

Or maybe something worse? FTAA?

:scared:

[Padraig18]

114. We *do* plan on nominating a 'real Democrat'

We just don't intend to let DK's campaign define what 'real Democrat' means for the other 98% of us.

[indigo32]

169. Amen to that

thank you

[PopArt]

179. For the record...

Since I saw an Ani DiFranco photo in your post, I thought I'd let you, and anyone else who was curious, that she's supporting Kucinich.

:thumbsup:

[MrPeepers]

142. It's not so much about the money

as it's about where that money is coming from. The money is a designator of support. We can't compare individual candidates funds to Bush's because he's got the whole GOP behind him fundraising and our money is currently factionalized. The point is that if Democrats are contributing so little to the DK campaign, what does that say about their support for his candidacy? I know you think DK is great and awesome and spectacular, but we don't all feel he's what's best for this country. I know it's tough to accept, that some of us aren't just ignorant of his positions or history and fail to see the light for that reason, but we don't see him as the best candidate out there. You don't need money to win, but you do need support. Kucinich just dosn't have enough. He's a good guy, I really like him, but I don't think he'd make the president, and neither do 98% of the other Democrats around.

Peepers

[redqueen]

143. Here again... we see the spin.

"I don't think he'd make the president, and neither do 98% of the other Democrats around."

Amend that to read 98% of the Democrats who know who he is and what he stands for, and it would be accurate. :D

[MrPeepers]

149. Why don't they know what he stands for?

Perhaps, instead of everyone being ignorant of Kucinich, they simply don't want what he wants to do. There's a reason no one knows who he is. There is a very large part of the American people who fall under the moderate/independent catagory. Those people don't know Kucinich because they don't care - they don't believe in what he believes in.

Peepers

[redqueen]

158. That makes absolutely no sense at all.

If someone doesn't even know who a candidate is how could they possibly not believe in what he believes in?!

:crazy:

[MrPeepers]

173. No, it makes perfect sense.

People can have objections to certain stances on the issues without knowing which candidates support those stances which they oppose. People needn't know what candidate supports stances they don't believe in, because they disagree anyway.

Peepers

[redqueen]

178. Ohhhh kaaaay

*backs away slowly*

seriously, though...

Here's what you said:

"Perhaps, instead of everyone being ignorant of Kucinich, they simply don't want what he wants to do. There's a reason no one knows who he is. There is a very large part of the American people who fall under the moderate/independent catagory. Those people don't know Kucinich because they don't care - they don't believe in what he believes in."

Then I pointed out that they don't even know who he is, so, by logical deduction, we know that they don't know what he stands for, since in order to know what he stands for, they'd have to know at least his name, right?

So you're saying that people can oppose candidates for having stances they don't agree with, even if they don't know the candidate has said stance?

You're kidding, right?

:crazy:

[Mairead]

133. If it's about money, then Smirk has already won

because there is no way that anyone is going to out-money Smirk.

[dsc]

109. Several things

First, he did win against an incumbent Republican in each race you site. His first win was a bit before my time as a politically aware person but he won a tough race and then lost to a Republican. Cleveland is not exactly a Republican bastion though by your standards Kucinich really botched it since Voinovich was mayor for 8 years after Kucinich lost to him. HIs second win was very impressive I will give him that. Sinagra was a well funded, non tainted opponent. His third win, sorry, just about anyone who was not utterly corrupt or incompetent could have won that race. The only reason his overwhelmingly Democratic district was represented by a Republican was due to the fact Mary Rose Ockar got smeared by the Plain Dealer. She ran for reelection in 1992 while under indictment and lost to Martin Hoke. In 1994, Hoke had yet another indicted opponent(no I am not kidding) who had bankrupted the entire county. Finally Dennis ran against him and Hoke was gone. After that Dennis hasn't had any opposition other than token. One of his margins was against a Libertarian as he didn't even have a Republican opponent. I would like a citation BTW for him getting over half the Republican vote in 2002.

[genius]

117. If there's a God up there, Dennis will win.

America needs him.

[Padme Amidala]

122. Right on

The Dean people keep saying that Kucinich is unelectabe yet Kucinich beat out a Republican incumbant 3 times. In one of Dennis's speeches, he said that he was used to running an unelectable campaign. He also mentioned that he was the only one who has been in all levels of the government. He has been mayor, state senator, and a congressman. He also said that the only time he got the backing of the Democratic Party was when he ran for his third term as congressman. If he can win under those circumstances then he can win the Presidency.

[The Sushi Bandit]

141. Way to go! Great Post!!!

Dennis Kucinich with Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez who beat a republican for her seat from Orange County, CA!

[Doomsayer13]

148. Loretta is a blue dog

But we love her from ridding CA of Bob Dornan.

[Vis Numar]

144. Here

Kucinich has lost, Dean never has.

[mzmolly]

146. Well uhm, Dean was Governor elected to 5 terms Dan...

In addition, is Dean your only concern?

[dpbrown]

162. True, but with smaller margins each time

Until he slipped out the door to "run for President" in 2002 rather than facing likely defeat at the polls.

Please check out the bit of the thread starting at post #6 for some of the numbers.

Other than Lieberman, Dean is my greatest concern as a potential Democratic nominee, yes.

Kucinich: Better Ideas, Better Candidate - it's just that simple

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[mzmolly]

163. Kucinich: Lofty Ideals, Pathetic Candidate - it's just that simple

:hi:

[dpbrown]

164. Dean: Shootin' Blanks With a Bigger Gun - it's just that simple

Thanks for playing.

[mzmolly]

181. "Kucinich: Shootin Blanks Without a Gun - it's just that simple"

;)

[dpbrown]

184. Dean: The Choice for Confederates and Angry Rich Whites since 2002

The metaphor of shooting and "without" a gun fails, by the way.

Thanks for playing.

[redqueen]

185. Dean: The Choice for less and less Angry Rich Whites every year

Couldn't resist. :)

[mzmolly]

187. Dup

*

[mzmolly]

188. Kuchinich: The Choice for less then 1% of the voting population.

My metaphor fails much like the Kucinich campaign does, thus the metaphor is an apt choice :P

Dean the choice of diversity.

http://www.blacksfordean.com/endorsements.htm

http://latinosfordean.com/

http://gaysfordean.com/

http://www.aapifordean.com/

http://www.outfordean.com/

Etc...

[dpbrown]

152. Cuyahoga County: Bigger than Vermont and more like the U.S.

A candidate who wins consistently in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, is better equipped to win across America than someone whose re-elect numbers dropped through five consecutive terms until he slipped out of office just before being turned out.

Cuyahoga County is more "America" than Vermont

Population
United States 281,421,906
Cuyahoga County, Ohio 1,393,978
Vermont 608,827


Total Housing Units
United States 115,904,641
Cuyahoga County, Ohio 616,903
Vermont 294,382


Single Race White
United States 75.1%
Cuyahoga County, Ohio 67.4%
Vermont 96.8%


Single Race Black
United States 12.3%
Cuyahoga County, Ohio 27.4%
Vermont 0.5%


If "Other" race, with White
United States 77.1%
Cuyahoga County, Ohio 68.7%
Vermont 97.9%


If "Other" race, with Black
United States 12.9%
Cuyahoga County, Ohio 28.2%
Vermont 0.7%


Language other than English at home
United States 17.9%
Cuyahoga County, Ohio 11.1%
Vermont 5.9%


Naturalized Citizens
United States 4.5%
Cuyahoga County, Ohio 3.6%
Vermont 2.0%


Private Wage and Salary Workers
United States 78.5%
Cuyahoga County, Ohio 82.5%
Vermont 75.3%


Families below poverty level
United States 9.2%
Cuyahoga County, Ohio 10.3%
Vermont 6.3%


Individuals below poverty level
United States 12.4%
Cuyahoga County, Ohio 13.1%
Vermont 9.4%


Kucinich: Better Ideas, Better Candidate - it's as simple as that

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[Frodo]

153. How about the one that actually counts???

Democrat/Republican (Estimate)
United States 50/50
Cuyahoga County, Ohio 66/33
Vermont 55/45

Gore/Bush vote
United States 50.1/49.9
Cuyahoga County, Ohio 66/33
Vermont 51/41

[Padraig18]

157. But, but, but...

... we don't want all those nasty, 'tainted' idependent/undecided voters. We must remain PURE you see? /sarcasm off

[dpbrown]

160. The issues that resonate in Cuyahoga Co. will do better in the US

The statistics you've cited for party affiliation are estimates, and the vote percentages don't take into account the number of people, nearly as large as that sample - who didn't vote.

In 2000, Bush got about 50 million votes, and Gore got closer to 51 million. Eighty million people did not vote.

The median measurements on that massive group of people are more likely to track closer to the measurements of Cuyahoga County than they are to track with the demographics of Vermont.

Therefore, someone who has been growing in appeal consistently for the people of Cuyahoga County (with a population more than twice that of the tiny state of Vermont), will be in a better position to reach those disillusioned or betrayed voters than a candidate from a region with an overwhelmingly white population who've themselves tired of the Governor they bore for five terms, voting him in less and less enthusiastically with each election until he slipped out the door in 2002 to "run for President" rather than be shown the door by the voters.

Kudos for having those statistics at hand, however.

Kucinich: Better Ideas, Better Candidate - it's just that simple

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[Frodo]

166. A massive load of hogwash

Let's assume you're correct (and you're NOT, but let's play). You claim that the people in Cuyahoga who did NOT vote track closely to those who did not vote nationally?

Ummm. Silly question, but if Kucinich wasn't able to get them to come out to vote before... why do you assume he will now? I would certainly hope that the national "no-vote" population is not at all like those people I can't get to vote in my own back yard.

My numbers are not all estimates. The key Gore vs. Bush number is right from the Ohio Sec of State. Gore got almost precisely twice as many votes in Cuyahoga as Bush.

So the county may "look like America" in terms of housing architecture... it may "look like America" in terms of what species of grass grows there... it may "look like America" by measuring favorite TV series (West Wing, of course).


BUT in the one category that counts? It does NOT look like America politically. Vermont doesn't particularly either, but at least it wasn't drawn intentionally to elect a Democrat. It is a solid Democratic district that does not give Kucinich ANY practice appealing to the kind of swing voters he would need to attract to win the White House. Larger and larger margins is EXACTLY what you expect from an incumbent in that district and it looks just like scores of other Democrats with four or five terms in safe districts.

[dpbrown]

168. And larger margins is what you find with Kucinich and not with Dean

I don't assume that the "don't" vote demographics in the rest of the US are like the "don't" vote demographics in Cuyahoga. I believe the opposite - the "vote" demographics in Cuyahoga are more like the "don't" vote demographics over the US.

People actually have someone worth voting for in Cuyahoga.

And people actually demonstrated that they thought by a smaller and smaller margin that they had a Governor worth voting for from 1992 to 2000 in Vermont.

That inability to successively build on the legacy of one's stay in office is one primary problem I believe Dean will have in translating an attraction he currently has with white, angry, otherwise comfortable Democrats if, heaven forbid, we end up saddled with him as the nominee to take on Bush.

Kucinich has a better record of taking away Republican seats, even when done in the middle of a "right-wing revolution" like that we had during the Gingrich years, than Howard Dean has.

And it belies the argument that it's a safe district if it was Republican until Kucinich took it away. And he took it away from a Republican in House District 10, and before that he took it away in State Senate District 23. Those were Republican seats, and they're not anymore.

Compare Howard Dean, whose every office ever held in Vermont is now held by a non-Democrat. Does that mean Vermont is a "safe" Republican state? Hardly. And if that is what it means, what does that say about Dean's ability to appeal cross-party? Vermont rejected his appointed successor, meaning they had tired of him, when he slipped out the door to "run for President."

Claiming that Kucinich only wins because he's in a "safe" Democratic district, and then not applying the same rationale to Dean's inability to facilitate the continued control of the Governor's office, the Lieutenant Governor's office, and Chittenden District 7-4 by Democrats seems disingenous and on its face denigrates Dean's ability to appeal to Democrats in Vermont and across the nation.

If Dean can't even fire up comfortable, white, homogenous voters in Vermont, how's he gonna do it with the rest of America?

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[Doomsayer13]

170. flawed logic

you're holding Dean accountable for races he didn't run in. Just becuase seats change hands doesn't mean that Dean was any less qualified of a candidate, in fact, exuctive seats in states like vermont which has a split in Republican and Democratic voters often change after an outgoing executive leaves office. If you're going to convince me that Dean left Vermont in such bad shape, show me some approval ratings which say that he was unpopular when he left office, then I'll believe you.

[Padraig18]

171. Kucitizens don't *do* polls. n/t

[dpbrown]

177. Believe what you want, 50.4% down from 72% is disapproval

Dean's numbers fell with each election, from a high of 72% after succeeding Snelling to a low of just over 50% in 2000, before he decided not to run in 2002 (choosing to "run for President").

That the Democrats have lost every seat Dean ever held in Vermont is easily a commentary on Dean's legacy in Vermont. A politician who did a good job, who was respected by his constituents, and who made progress for the people is going to lend credence to the party attempting to hold or regain those seats. That Dean has apparently no "coat-tails" when it comes to Democrats holding the seats he once held in Vermont is telling for:

1. Dean's appeal to the "independent" voters of the nation, because he couldn't hold seats for Democrats in made up of "independents", and

2. Dean's ability to offer similar "coat-tails" for other Democratic candidates if he becomes the Democratic nominee.

[Doomsayer13]

180. FDR's numbers dropped too

from 60 percent in 1932 to 55% in 1936 to 52 percent 1940. Does that make him any less of a great President? Again, show me approval ratings which show him unpopular when he left office, and show me indications that he will lose vermont if he runs for President and I'll believe you.

[dpbrown]

183. Racine lost, Truman won

Dean knew he would lose in 2002, so he quit to "run for President." His proxy, Doug Racine, lost to Jim Douglas, Republican.

Truman, as we know, beat Dewey.

Republicans changed the Constitution so someone like FDR could never earn four terms again.

FDR also took America through WWII and saved it from the Depression.

Dean signed a law that the Vermont Supreme Court told the legislature it had to pass.

No, the comparison with FDR and popularity fails, not least because Truman (FDR's successor) won, and Racine, (Dean's "proxy") lost.

Dean, who has never beaten an incumbent Republican in his life, and whose every office once held in Vermont is now held by non-Democrats, was on his way to being shown the door in Vermont when he slipped out to "run for President."

[Doomsayer13]

186. Yes. and Eisenhower won after Truman

Does that mean that Truman was a weak President? George Voinovich handily defeated Kucinich in Kucinich's single term in an administrative position, does that make him less qualified?

I tire of these arguments. I'll tell you right now that I'm undecided as to who I'm voting for in the Primary, but this primary is supposed to be about issues and records, not about who holds what office after who. It's rediculous and doesn't have any bearing on the candidate whatsoever. This primary is about issues first and foremost and somebody's record record next, and as far as I can see Dean has a fine administrative record in Vermond and maintained high approval ratings throughout. It'd rediculous to hold him accountable for races he didn't run in, because, as I said before, the exective seats like Governor often changes hands after even a popular officer leaves office. Popular Governor Tony Knowles left the Alaska governorship in 2002, and he was replaced by a republican. Does that have any bearing on whether he was a good governor or not, or fit to be governor? Not at all.

[Name removed]

174. Deleted message

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

[Doomsayer13]

155. by this standard

John Edwards and John Kerry are more qualified than Kucinich by representing whole states that are 20 times the size of Cuyahoga County, Ohio and in the case of John Edwards has a higher percentage of poverty and a higher African american population.

Honestly this is the worst strawman argument I've ever heard.

[dpbrown]

161. John Kerry and John Edwards are very qualified

Howard Dean is not.

Kucinich: Better Ideas, Better Candidate - it's just that simple

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[goodhue]

189. agreed n/t