Here's a poser: Would you vote for Kucinich if he ran against Obama in 2012?

[Cal33]

I think Kucinich would make an excellent president. He is also for the
things I'd like to see done. But he has little chance of winning. You
know the way how many people make their choices. Does he look "presidential"
enough? What they really mean is: Is he tall enough, good looking enough?

And, to be practical, would this also mean you'll be helping the Neocons
to win, if you did vote for Kucinich?

[IndianaJoe]

1. It'll never happen, so why even think about it? n/t

[Motown_Johnny]

2. no

[msongs]

3. all conservative dems need to be primaried nt

[Maru Kitteh]

167. That's hilarious. n/t

[scheming daemons]

4. No..... and he ran against Obama in 2008 and nobody voted for him

He'd get less than 20% in every single primary.

[Cleita]

11. He dropped out before most of the primaries so it's

not like he wouldn't have gotten a vote if he had stayed in. Please tell the whole story.

[scheming daemons]

28. Before he dropped out, he was getting in the low single digits in every primary

[Cleita]

44. Perhaps because when he was left out of the debates, he

was made to look like a fringe candidate. Amy Goodman had him on Democracy Now! to answer the questions from the debates he was not allowed to participate in. It was a deliberate move by the Clinton, Edwards and Obama campaigns to squeeze him out because they were afraid of allowing him a national platform for his ideas. I had a Kucinich bumper sticker on my car and people asked me who he was and were surprised when I told them he was one of the Democratic candidates for President. This is how effective the DLC were in shutting him off the national airwaves so people, who don't pay a lot of attention to politics, wouldn't get to know him. It was dirty politics all the way and nothing more. I'm just as glad that he dropped out so he could concentrate on keeping his Ohio congressional seat. I would like to see him run as a Senator in Ohio. The Senate needs some shaking up with more progressive Senators.

[MineralMan]

52. No. He was left out of the debates BECAUSE he was a fringe

candidate.

He won't run as a Senator in Ohio, either. He would lose, and he knows it. He has the perfect position right now. Why would he give that up?

[Tarheel_Dem]

59. +1. Didn't his admirers wonder why he wouldn't run for the open Senate seat?

The answer was pretty clear to the rest of us, and it must have been clear to Dennis as well. If Dennis can afford to launch another vanity run, I say let him do it. He'll soon find out that it takes a lot more than "enthusiasm" from 10% of the base to raise money & win against a sitting president.

[MineralMan]

63. Dennis Kucinich is a very smart man. He has parlayed a

House seat into a national platform. That's not easy, and few House members are able to do that. He knows that he's not a national candidate. If he makes a "run" for the Presidency, he knows from the beginning that it will not end in his election. It's a purely political move to increase his visibility and ability to get his views in the news.

He's a local house member. He does a great job in that position. I doubt he's seriously considering anything else...or ever was.

[Cal33]

65. You are right. I'd like to see him take Pelosi's place as speaker.

He'd get things done. I'd also like to see Reid replaced. I wouldn't even mind
having a newcomer like Franken take his place. Pelosi and Reid combined did a
lot of damage to the Democratic Party in the past 3+ years.

[Tarheel_Dem]

73. Nancy Pelosi is plenty progressive enough for me. Dennis has become

a caricature, in my view. There aren't enough "progressives" in the caucus to elect him as Speaker. How long before progressives would get tired of Dennis being right on the issues, but unable to actually get anything done? They'd turn on him in a New York minute.

The ability to compromise seems to be a disqualifier around these parts. I'm still waiting for someone.....ANYONE....to present me with any piece of legislation, authored by Dennis, that made it to the full house for a vote, and eventually wound up on any president's desk. To date, no one has been able to show me that. Principles aren't worth a dime if you can't actually move legislation.

[Cal33]

78. I think of Pelosi as part of the spineless team. If she hadn't

taken impeachment off the table from Day 1 in January, 2007, the Neocons
would have been a little bit quieter and less arrogant today.

[Tarheel_Dem]

82. Outside a fraction of the base, was there really an appetite for a long drawn out trial?

I really would like to see some numbers on how much of the democratic base was clamoring for prosecution. I'm not saying it would have been a bad thing. However, it would be interesting to see hard evidence that outside the netroots, there was real popular support for indictments.

[Cal33]

87. Regardless of the number of people who were for or against it,

impeachment was the thing to do. Bush & Cheney were guilty of horrible crimes..... beginning with lying
our nation into a war. The number of Iraqi civilians killed (caught in the crossfire) - men, women & children
- numbered 1.3 million. The entire population was something like 26 miullion. Then think of the devastation
of the entire country -- all for the sake of oil profits. This alone was enough. And the Bush Administration
was guilty of more serious crimes than any other administration in American history!

It was the only moral and fair thing to do.

[Tarheel_Dem]

106. No fan of the Bush administration. However, you've already convicted them,

and to my knowledge, there's never been a trial. Do you remember the millions spent by the GOP investigating White Water? It didn't take long for the American public to sour on the chase. Only the wingiest of wingnuts wanted to keep pursuing that dead horse. Can you imagine the outrage when people saw millions of dollars being spent on hearings that lead nowhere?

For better or worse, the American people are pissed (and rightly so) about money these days, and long drawn out congressional investigations cost tons of taxpayer money. In a time where policemen, teachers, and other taxpayer funded jobs are being lost at an alarming rate, it would quickly come to be seen as a waste.

The American people are a fickled bunch. They can be for something one minute, and againt it the next. Just like healthcare, most people agreed that something needed to be done, but by the time the media and the blogs got involved, people didn't know which way was up. Whether we like it or not, we're influenced by the last thing we saw on the teevee.

[Cal33]

123. There is no doubt in my mind that the war in Iraq is illegal,

immoral, and was brought about by the Bush Administration's lying our nation
into it. This and so many other charges that could have been made. Of course
it's possible that the process of impeachment may come up with a conclusion
different from my opinion, but it's not likely, since there could have been so
many other charges of wrong-doing.

Regarding the question of expense: Business corporations are robbing the
American blind - possibly by the trillions per year. If the Bush Adm. should
have been found guilty of at least some of the charges, it would put some
fear into these corporate execs., since Bush was one of those who encouraged
them in their shenanigans. The re-establishment of government supervision laws
would very likely come earlier, and the savings to the American people from
corrupt corporate practices alsone would more than make up for the expenses
involved in the congressional trials - far, far more.

Furthermore, once information of details of the trials start coming out into
the open, people will become "interested" - to say the least. I can't believe
that Bush & Co. would have been found totally innocent of everything. Can you?
We hear enough of dirt as it is, even when there is no impeachment investigation
going on. And I guess most people would like to see justice done. It's
unfortunate that Pelosi and Reid are holding their leading positions just
at this time.

[Tarheel_Dem]

129. Do you really think that if there were overwhelming public support for

investigations, that any amount of declarations by Nancy Pelosi would prevent them? Your underground heroes didn't put up much of a fight, did they? Posturing...comes to mind.

You can be as principled as you like, but if you can't manage to get the public & more importantly, your Congressional colleagues behind your ideas, you're just a lot of hot air. And that pretty much sums up Dennis Kucinich. I have asked several times, in this thread, for anyone to name a piece of legislation, authored by Dennis, that passed the house, and made it to any president's desk. All I've managed to get is evasion and deflection, which speaks volumes.

You can make up any number of excuses as to why Dennis hasn't been able to break through with the American people, but at the end of the day, the people have rejected him & his ideological zealotry.

[Cal33]

140. The following pieces of legislation authored by Kucinich passed

the House:

"Right To Know" intorduced in 06, passed on 6-21-10

"Organic Farming Research" passed in Oct. 09.

Just google "The number of legislations authored by Kucinich that passed the House." There are others.

[Tarheel_Dem]

150. Well break out the band! You found something. Now I feel better.

Kooch in '12. :rofl:

Organic Farming Research? I mean, it's probably important to someone, but is that it? Nothing about UFO's?

[Cal33]

141. There are three bills authored by Kucinich that became law:

The liberal case against Dennis Kucinich - War Room - Salon.comMar 10, 2010 ... In Congress, Kucinich has authored and co-sponsored legislation to create a ... Notice that the bio never says whether any of that legislation actually passed. In fact, according to the Web site GovTrack, of the 97 bills Kucinich has sponsored since taking office in 1997, only three have become law. ...
www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/03/.../kos_kucinich - Cached
T

[timtom]

112. Oh, yeah.

She's a dandy, that one.

[Tarheel_Dem]

116. Cute, but you still didn't defend Dennis' legislative successes, if there are any?

:shrug:

[timtom]

118. How about quid pro quo?

Why don't you start by a list of Pelosi triumphs?

Impeachment of war criminals -- off the table.

Hold it! That's enough for me.

[Tarheel_Dem]

120. Way to evade a question. Are you a lawyer by chance?

:rofl:

The fact that Nancy was able to bring Dennis onboard for HCR, that his fans claimed to hate, was enough of a triumph for me. I guess "principles" are fleeting things, huh? It should be obvious to everyone that you conveniently glossed over the fact that Dennis has no legislative successes.

Dennis would have about as much support in Congress as he's had for his national political aspirations, and that ain't saying much.

[timtom]

128. I like your little "roll on the floor laugh" thingie...

I recognize that you are probably blind to the extremely aggressive manner by which the MSM marginalized DK in the past 2 presidential campaigns. That's probably what got my attention more than anything.

You're kinda like taking the position, "Well, if the State says Socrates has to die, I guess he has to die. Must've been pushing impiety on an unsuspecting Athenian youth."

You seem to be oblivious to the subtleties that many of us have picked up on.

Good luck with you and HCR and Nancy Pelosi.

I'm sure we'll have meaningful health care for all and be out of Afghanistan and Iraq real soon.

[Tarheel_Dem]

130. Now that it's passed, the American people, by a majority, want to give

it a try. Perhaps you missed the posts where people are already benefitting from portions of HCR (kids with pre-existing conditions, donut hole coverage for Medicare recipients, etc)? As for Iraq, I understand that we're right on schedule for the 2011 withdrawal. Do you have different information?

We also have a timeline for Afghanistan, and maybe the 65% of Afghans who approve of our presence, and have real security concerns, should just get over it? Of course, this information is readily available for anyone who isn't trying to mislead & create an alternate narrative. And "meaningful" is in the eye of the beholder. Talk to my niece about "meaningful", she has quite the story to tell about the benefits of HCR.

[Cal33]

144. Yes, Kucinich has had 3 legislative successes out of 97 tries.

It's not much, but it's something. More people found him too radical then, but fewer do so now.

The liberal case against Dennis Kucinich - War Room - Salon.comMar 10, 2010 ... In Congress, Kucinich has authored and co-sponsored legislation to create a ... Notice that the bio never says whether any of that legislation actually passed. In fact, according to the Web site GovTrack, of the 97 bills Kucinich has sponsored since taking office in 1997, only three have become law. ...
www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/03/.../kos_ku... - Cached

[Cleita]

69. Funny that he's considered fringe these days because

there isn't much difference between him and Eisenhower. And if you think Eisenhower was a war hawk, guess again.

[MineralMan]

77. Yah, Eisenhower was an interesting person, overall.

This is 2010. That was a long, long time ago. There is no relevance.

[Cleita]

79. Considering it seems like yesterday to me, I think there

is relevance and if we can't go back to the policies of FDR, which made our country the greatest in the world after the Great Depression, I think we should give this man a second look and his policies that kept this nation on an even keel after FDR and Truman.

[MineralMan]

80. I'm of that age, too. I remember all of it, too. I don't remember FDR,

though. I"m not quite old enough for that. You can give Dennis Kucinich as many looks as you like. It won't change his viability for national office. It just ain't happening.

[Cleita]

84. I never said it was happening.

I said further down the page that he wouldn't run against Obama and that he probably wouldn't run in 2016, age being a consideration. Other than that, I was arguing whether he's fringe or not. Actually, back in the fifties his ideas were considered main stream. Just because the USA has turned into a big corporate mall dominated by Wal-Mart and Goldman-Sachs instead of the country that is supposed to be governed by the people and for the people doesn't make what Dennis Kucinich stands for as fringe. Now Sarah Palin and Tea Bagging company are fringe, but no one seems to get it.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

99. A good friend of mine, who knows DK personally, tells me

that Dennis is going to run for the Senate eventually.

I think he'll make an excellent Senator.

[Radical Activist]

114. He also advised his supporters to caucus for Obama in Iowa

in those precincts where he failed to reach the viability threshold.

[Cleita]

138. Yes, I remember that. So calling him a fringe

candidate doesn't ring true.

[Richardo]

21. If history is any measure he'd get less than 5% in any primary.

So, you're not wrong, but.... :D

[Bluenorthwest]

49. In 2008 he was in one caucus and one primary

then threw his support to Obama, so that is not much of a tester, now is it?

[Richardo]

53. Quite the contrary, I'd say that was all the tester needed.

He announced in December 2006, and his high polling number was 7% in New Hampshire. He withdrew early in the primary season, but it's not like he was running for only a month.

[MineralMan]

54. He was, and he quickly discovered that his candidacy wasn't

viable. He's a smart man. He went with the winner. Smart men don't run for offices they haven't a chance of winning. Kucinich is a smart man.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

75. His candidacy was sabotaged from within

Those of us in Minnesota who had gotten him 17% statewide in Minnesota in 2004 (27% in the Twin Cities, thanks to relentless guerrilla marketing with little help from the MSM) tried to volunteer again but got no response. I heard this from Kucitizens all over the country.

He withdrew after the sabotage was uncovered.

[MineralMan]

76. 17% in a Minnesota primary does not a viable Presidential

candidate make. Not in any way. Sorry, but that's simply a fact.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

92. But it's an example of what is POSSIBLE with guerrilla marketing

when your candidate is ridiculed and ignored and called "fringe" and "minor" before a single primary vote has been cast.

He won the Iowa county that the Minnesota volunteers targeted.

We called the Twin Cities TV stations to cover his appearance at Roosevelt High School. They all sent cameras. The crowd of 1600 was enthusiastic. ONE TV station presented a 10-second clip. All the other stations ignored the rally and instead led with "important" story of a county sheriff who was having an affair with a deputy's wife.

I was present at a dinner that DK spoke at. Afterward, the kitchen workers flocked around and asked to have their pictures taken with him. They LOVED his speech.

Ridicule him if you like. Ask why he was dismissed as "fringe" and "minor" before a single vote had been cast, while Lieberman (Lieberman!) was treated with respect and given full coverage until he dropped out.

Ask why the New York Times listed the campaign schedules of everyone EXCEPT Kucinich (even Al Sharpton, for cryin' out loud) leading up to the Iowa caucuses.

His fourth Twin Cities appearance took place on the same day that Edwards spoke to 25 supporters at a fundraiser. Edwards got a full article. Kucinich, who spoke before 2500, got a brief mention.

No, there was no prejudice against Kucinich. He's on the DLC's and corporate shit list because he's a real Democrat, not a Rockefeller Republican.

BTW, getting 17% statewide is pretty damned good when you consider that his percentage in the Twin Cities was 27% and that he didn't even appear in any other area of Minnesota.

The difference between the successful areas and the unsuccessful areas was not the liberalism of the area but the cleverness of the guerrilla campaigns. That's why he got only 3% in Oregon (which went 7% for Nader in 2000) but 13% in Washington.

[1monster]

43. I voted for him. And I'm not "nobody."

[Individualist]

46. We're nobodies

according to DLC/NDC. I also voted for him.

[AnArmyVeteran]

89. Visionaries are always in the minority, others run in herds right over a cliff...

[sabrina 1]

61. That was then. People were terrified of taking any risks

even many who preferred him to the other candidates. Things have changed, I eg, would definitely vote for him in a primary now.

But, he is loyal to the Dem. Party and he will not challenge a Democratic president so it's not an issue.

[LWolf]

90. Most of the nation never got the chance.

Two primaries. Two caucuses. Two contested primaries. And 44 states left with only 2 bad choices on the ballot.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Hell yes. It would be novel to actually vote "for" a candidate.

Instead of holding my nose and voting for the allegedly "lesser of two evils".

[derby378]

6. By deciding to vote for the health insurance bill...

...Kucinich compromised his standing as the prophet wandering the wilderness and thus weakened his chances of running for the White House in 2012. Before then, he was the Democratic Party's favorite outsider.

[Cleita]

7. Dennis won't run against a sitting Democratic President

so I don't know why this question keeps coming up. I doubt if he will run in 2016 either because he's getting up there in years. However, we do have some up and coming young progressive Democrats to pick up the banner in 2016 where he left off.

[Naturyl]

172. We have a sitting "Democratic" president?

Coulda fooled me...

[Ozymanithrax]

8. No, with one qualifier...

Kucinich ran in 2004 and 2008. He has track record of failing to appeal to a broad segment of the American pupation. Yes, he has appeal to the progressive left, just as Ron Paul has appeal to the Libertarian right. But that appeal does not transfer to the large segment of the American population that would vote for either of these gentlemen.

Kucinich will simply not defeat Obama in a primary. Should he run and show that he can defeat a sitting Democratic President in the primary, I would vote for him in November 2012 knowing full well that whoever the Republicans run will kick his ass.

[w8liftinglady]

12. that's a good point.A moderate democrat is necessary to bring moderate repubs to our side.

that is exactly what's happening in texas.

[Ozymanithrax]

33. No a moderate Democrat is necessary to bring independents to our side.

Without them, no Democrat is elected to President. Without independents, no Republican can elected either.

If we want to make a statement, yea we should run Kucinich, but he won't win. He simply doesn't have the appeal. Hell, he doesn't have the appeal to win in a primary when only committed liberal and progressive voters make the choice.

Texas is a special case. In Texas, even the Democrats tend to be more Conservative than in many other states, (I do not mean that in a pejorative way) and real liberal Dems are uncommon. In a national election, it will take some appeal to Independents to win the election. Kucinich has not shown he can do that.

Let him run in the primary if he chooses. If he wins the primary, I will vote for him in the General.

[w8liftinglady]

41. I voted for Kucinich in the primary in 2008.He rec'd 1% of the vote.I know better now.

[Cal33]

71. Obama is a moderate. I don't think he is very popular with

moderates today.

[Tarheel_Dem]

115. "I don't think he is very popular with moderates today."

If we're speaking of independents as "moderates", you're right. But the last WP poll I saw in early July, had 41% of independents thinking he was too liberal, and that his "anti-business" rhetoric was hurting job growth. Whereas, the more liberal among us, say he's too cozy with big business.

Everyone has to appeal to these "moderates/independents" to win a national election. However, when you actually begin legislating, independents aren't a loyal bunch, but then neither are the 10%-15% of far left who keep trying to shove Nader and Kooch down our throats. How many times do these guys have to be rejected, before their enthusiasts get that they aren't viable?

[Ozymanithrax]

131. That may be true, but this isn't 2012.

All Presidents have bad spots during their term in office. Also, Even today he would take a lot more than Kucinich's roughly 1% of the vote among liberals and progressives.

Kucinch, no matter how progressive or liberal he is perceived to be does not have the appeal to win. 2012 is still a ways off.

[Tarheel_Dem]

132. According to most historical polling I've seen, year 2 seems to be tough...

for a new president. You sometimes have to make unpopular decisions, based on circumstances, at the time. Kucinich would win a straw poll at liberal gatherings, just as Ron Paul seems to always win at conservative gatherings. However, that doesn't translate into national viability, as Kooch well knows.

[w8liftinglady]

9. I voted for him in 2008.he stands by his convictions..I think the health bill

...he had little choice.

[TheManInTheMac]

10. Funny:

When I clicked into this thread I was welcomed by Fred Thompson asking me to urge Congress to keep the Bush tax cuts. Did NOT see that comin'.

[JonLP24]

14. LOL

I saw that ad before I logged in. Don't see the ads with the yellow star I have but I still see them before I log in. I also saw quite a few Toomey ads this summer.

[TheManInTheMac]

96. Alanis Morissette should sign up on DU...

to see what "irony" means. :rofl:

[Motown_Johnny]

15. donating to DU is Soooo.... worth it

[KingFlorez]

13. Kucinich is a phony and I wouldn't vote for him in an open race

Used to be pro-life, then flipped a switch to pander. I suspect that he's really more conservative than he lets on, he just panders to progressives who don't know any better.

[timtom]

117. So, you are AGAINST the things that

Kucinich is FOR.

You would want us to stay in Afghanistan and Iraq, for example.

You would think that single-payer, universal health insurance is a bad idea and the insurance and pharmaceutical companies are doing a fine job handling America's health care crisis.

Stop voting personalities and start voting issues! Please!

[jtrockville]

16. Absolutely.

[Richardo]

17. The same as I did in the 2008 primary.

Not vote for him.

Disclaimer: I didn't vote for Obama either, I voted for Biden.

[opihimoimoi]

18. Fuck NO...whad we don want is unneccessary divisiveness

Kuchinich is a good Dem....Don't make him a LOSER DEM

[treestar]

19. Couldn't do any better than Obama with the same Congress

Wasted energy, put it on electing more non-Blue-Dog Democrats to Congress, especially the Senate.

[JonLP24]

29. I don't know

I imagine his policies on Bagram and the fact that detainees can't challenge their detainment in US courts would probably be very different. Though it is highly possible (BIG IF) if Kucinich was President he would continue some Bush-era policies.

[ChoppinBroccoli]

20. If You Pine For Someone To Challenge Obama In 2012, Get Used To Hearing This

President Sarah Palin. OK, maybe that's a little far-fetched, but it's not any more far-fetched than the idea that some "true" liberal is going to challenge a sitting Democratic President and win.

Why not spend your time thinking about things with a better chance of actually happening. Like what you'd wish for if you ever managed to capture a Leprechaun.

[uppityperson]

40. What do you think of President Sarah Palin?

[MilesColtrane]

60. Or think about a McChrystal/Huckabee administration

That's one that would make you wake up screaming in the middle of the night.

[Oregone]

22. Not if he ran under this vampire platform:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8844666&mesg_id=8844666

[hfojvt]

23. he didn't make a viable opponent even when Obama wasn't an incumbent

what will make him more viable in 2012? He wasn't even on the ballot in Kansas that I was aware of, and I was helping to run the caucus. The way primaries seem to work anyway is that one candidate takes 80% of the vote in the first five states and is declared the presumptive winner.

Yes, I would vote for him if he was on the ballot. I would like to see a message sent that says "25% of us want you to move to the left, Mr. President". Of course, the danger is that it would backfire, that Kucinich would pick up a mere 4% of the vote, showing that us die-hard leftists are kind of irrelevant.

[Chan790]

24. Vote? I'd quit my job and volunteer for his campaign F/T. n/t

[flvegan]

85. +1,000

[obxhead]

25. I would vote for ANY Dem that ran against Obama in a primary.

I'm sick of Republican thinking and ideals being passed into law.

[Ineeda]

72. Really? Any Democrat? Even Ben Nelson or Blanche Lincoln?

Pffft.

[obxhead]

74. In my eyes they are not Dems.

Like I said, I'm tired of Republican ideals and policies.

[onehandle]

26. No. nt

[truedelphi]

27. Yep, and I'd live on Neptune if it had

Baseball, oxygen and good beaches.

[yowzayowzayowza]

30. No. n/t

[Umbral]

31. I'll vote for him even if he doesn't run. nt

[pnorman]

32. Perhaps, but ONLY in a state Washington

where it wouldn't be likely to put a Reptilican in the White House. For that reason I, a resident of Seattle, cast my ballot for Ralph Nader in 2000.

Oddly enough, many here who tried to pin the rap on us Naderites for the dismal outcome of that 2000 Election, are now singing our song! ("There's not a Dime's Worth of Difference Between...."}

Full disclosure: I still have some "Kucinich in 2004" memorabilia in the apartment, as well as a roll of "Nader in 2000" stickers!

[rollin74]

34. NO

Kucinich has no chance of winning a presidential general election.

[Individualist]

35. I'd vote for any progressive democrat who ran against Obama.

[Greyhound]

36. Won't happen, but yes.

[AlabamaLibrul]

37. Why not? I fully accept the fact that it is likely he will not win the primary

But it is important that everyone who believes in him and what he stands for make sure their numbers are seen. No third-party or "outside the mainstream" candidate will EVER win if we simply accept the myth that it's not possible for them to do so, and never vote for them. 70 million people voted for Obama in 2008, an astonishing turnout, and I simply will not accept that it's not possible for someone truly special (whoever it may be) to garner that support, especially in these times.

In the general I'd vote for whoever won the Dem primary, unless it was someone truly, truly horrendous on a level heretofore unseen in today's Democratic party.

So my answer is yes.

[johnaries]

38. No, for the same reasons I voted against him in the primary.

#1 - he can't get elected, and it has nothing to do with the way he looks. #2 - he would be an ineffectual President; he doesn't know how to compromise.

[Sebastian Doyle]

39. In the primary (or caucus in the case of my state)

I will vote for the candidate who best represents me. If that caucus were held today and the options were Dennis Kucinich or Barack Obama, no question it would be Dennis.

[1monster]

42. Yes.

[Wwagsthedog]

58. +1

[Time for change]

45. Absolutely

[dipsydoodle]

47. Yes

for what its worth. But then I can't vote anyway.

I don't really see what his height and looks have to do with anything : he's far better looking than her.

[w8liftinglady]

48. I would,however like to see him defeat the republican senator...

[NoPasaran]

50. No

[MineralMan]

51. What? No. He's a regional politician. He does a good job

for his district. He already tried the Presidential waters. Nobody was interested. So, no. Not a chance.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[Iggo]

56. Just like last time, yes I would.

And just like last time, it wouldn't help the noecons win.

[Lucian]

57. Absolutely I would.

He'd make a great president. I'm tired of all the bullshit where people say "Well it won't happen anyway" or "he doesn't look presidential enough." :wtf: He CAN get elected if we vote for him. Good gods.

[Lisa0825]

62. No. nt

[SeattleGirl]

64. Not only no, but hell no

For the simple reason that I don't want to give anything to the other side that might give them a chance to take back the WH. I like Dennis and think he has some good ideas, but I think he' too far to the left for lots of folks.

[blondeatlast]

66. He's unable to get even the most sensible legislation passed, so no. nt

[Stevepol]

67. Simple answer: YES

[TheKentuckian]

68. Yes and I never have before. Generally voted the company man even in the primaries

with ours being late to show solidarity and all that jazz.

However, I won't be repeating that mistake going forward.

The corporate politician entitlement program has officially been ended. Others can give the ticker tape parades for "pro-growth" "pragmatic" (D)empubliCon artists.

"Pragmatic liberals" and "sensible centrists" are stupid. You had me and people like me, absolutely locked the fuck down and you chucked us and did it arrogantly. Now the schism is broadened as well as deepened and it was mostly your own doing pulling a small lead over the doings that you cheer lead and try to dictate message discipline and cover for.

The tighter the grip the more that slips until control is lost, perhaps forever. Heckuva job!

[Naturyl]

173. Bravo. I've cast my last vote for corporate centrist stooges

And frankly, if it gets us President Sarah Palin, then oh well. Maybe we need that nightmare as lesson to us. Stand up for progressive principles or progressive will stay home.

[Recursion]

70. Vote for him in the primary, then vote for Obama in November NT

[Iggo]

125. LOL...yep, just like last time.

B-)

[pipi_k]

81. I wouldn't, but it would be sort of fun to be able...

to enter an alternate universe of some sort where he did win the Presidency.

How would the country look then, I wonder...


I decided that, given human nature, and the nature of politics in this country, it probably would not look very much different than it does now.

[Cal33]

86. True. Humans ANYWHERE are still humans. nt

[66 dmhlt]

83. Hell, NO!

[LWolf]

88. In a heartbeat.

And no, it would not help "neocons" to win. A vote in a primary that DK, according to you, "has little chance of winning," would not affect the GE.

I'd cast my vote with pleasure.

[proud2BlibKansan]

91. Yes

[CBR]

93. Nope. nt

[lunatica]

94. The only reason that's a hard choice is because Kuchinich may not win

But I think at the last minute I would vote what's in my heart. I would vote for Kucinich because he's a Progressive, but if we think Obama is getting obstruction now, we ain't seen anything yet if by any chance Kucinich won. I would wonder if he could get anything done.

[Cal33]

100. I agree with you that the only reason it's a hard choice is because

he may not win. As for getting more obstruction, I think the Neocons are going all
out right now. They'd do the same thing to any president who is not one of their
own. Look at how they went after Clinton. It isn't even personal. It's their
policy to bring down any Dem. president with claw and nail.

Obama's leaning over backwards to appease them only causes them to call him a
Hitler, a dictator, an alien ....the full range of personal lies. I think
Kucinich wouldn't let them get away with all those lies. He'd fight back
and show the nation that these lies are lies. He'd probably win more old-time
Republicans to his side.

[Skidmore]

95. No.

[HipChick]

97. Not a chance in hell...between seeing UFO's and them instructing him what to do..

it would be the fodder of neocons...and he's definitely not good looking enough

[LWolf]

98. I might vote for the UFO if it wasn't a neoliberal or neocon. nt

[HipChick]

101. I'm all in favor of UFO's..

but it doesn't go down as well as God telling you to do something...same principle though..

[LWolf]

104. Not really.

Seeing something you can't identify isn't the same as seeing or hearing something that isn't there.

Or following a leader you can't see, hear, or provide any evidence for other than the desire to believe he/she/it exists and is paying attention to you.

[nickinSTL]

102. depends...

on a lot of factors.

Realistically, I don't see Kucinich leaving the Democratic Party, so he'd run as a Dem - which means voting for him in the primary - in which case, yes, I would. He wouldn't win, but at least I'd have supported his run - maybe he could get enough votes to show Obama that the left is sizable enough to not ignore. Maybe not.

If he ran as a non-Dem, independent, Green, whatever...it would depend. I don't have a good answer for that as a hypothetical.

Doesn't really matter, because he's not going to run..

[USArmyParatrooper]

103. President. Obama. Will. Not. Have. A. Primary. Challenger

Anyone want to place bets on that one?

[Cal33]

105. You're very likely right. We're only talking hypothetically here.

[DCBob]

107. and what purpose does this serve other than stir up shit??

[Cal33]

119. I am interested in having some idea of how many people

have similar views and how many have different ones from mine. You may
think of this as "stir up shit," but I don't.

[DCBob]

139. its definitely stirring shit up and you know it.

but seems the mods dont care.. so stir away.

[Number23]

108. What in the world is going on with your avatar??

I don't know whether to :rofl: or :scared: !

:)

[USArmyParatrooper]

109. It's a beaver. They're quite popular around here.

[Number23]

124. LOL!!

:thumbsup: :rofl: :rofl: :thumbsup:

And gotta love that pose. I've never seen a beaver look so come hither! :rofl:

[proteus_lives]

110. No.

[timtom]

111. Sorry, but I must vote my conscience.

If Kucinich or Grayson ran, each would have my vote.

[Radical Activist]

113. I worked for Kucinich in '04 and Obama in ''08.

Dennis is great on the issues and I'm glad he's in Congress. But as an administrator, he would run the country into the ground.

Dennis is a great prophet of the left, but I believe Obama has a better sense of how to make tangible progress in the current political environment.

[Cal33]

121. It's great to hear an opinion from someone with first-hand

knowledge.

[tilsammans]

122. DK is unelectable, IMHO

I like the guy. No question, he's a real progressive from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.

But he couldn't get himself arrested in this current political climate. :shrug:

[BeHereNow]

126. You are proposing an alternate reality.

TPTB would never allow Kucinich to be elected.
Only puppets willing to do the bidding
of the multi nationals need apply for that position.
And so it goes.
BHN

[moksha]

127. Absolutely. It is a no lose.

It sends a message at least. Upsets a centrist at best.

[G_j]

133. In a heartbeat!

[rucky]

134. Primary or General?

Primary, yes.

After he loses the primary, no (and he would).
Running as a third party, no (and he wouldn't).

[Rincewind]

135. No

He is unelectable.

[Desertrose]

136. Absolutely...in a heartbeat.

Dennis gets my vote always.

[akbacchus_BC]

137. Wasn't he one of the candidates running for the Presidency in 2008,

if he did not get the votes then, why would he get the votes in 2012?

[LWolf]

149. 44 out of 50 states had only 2 choices on their primary ballots. nt

[Tailormyst]

142. Yes I would

As to your last question, when is enough enough? When has a party and candidate moved far enough to the right for you to say "no more", no more voting for neo-cons with a D behind their name? YOU may not have reached that point. Many of us have.

[Arkana]

143. No.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

145. Happily and proudly.

I voted for him the CA primary this last time. I would have no problem whatsoever in doing so again.

[Cal33]

148. I'll have to say this. At one time I did think that he was going

just a little bit too far. Now I no longer think so. In examining myself,
I think it's possible that this is my reaction to the Neocons' overly
aggressive, deceitful and stupid tactics.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

153. Look back to the 2004 and 2008 campaigns --

and you will see just how right Kucinich has been. He was the one person (along with Sharpton in 2004) who was telling a whole lotta Truth during those primary campaigns. I respect him for that and feel his inclusion in a 2012 primary would at least keep the debate honest.

[Cal33]

154. You're correct. nt

[joeybee12]

146. He wouldn't have a prayer, and yes, i'd vote for him...didn't last time..

...but i would now.

[Vinca]

147. I vote my heart in the primary and my head in the general.

Yes. In the primary.

[onenote]

151. no

[Vidar]

152. Absolutely.

[Barack2theFuture]

155. yes

[Spike89]

156. Absolutely not, though I find his positions perfectly aligned

with mine. The problem isn't positions, but tactics. Dennis is unelectable not because he's short, or because the MSM is out to get him, the fact is that people do not believe he would be able to get congress to do a single thing he wants, and others are afraid he might. I very much want to get to where Dennis says we should be, but I don't believe we can get there without first getting to the middle. Far too many people fear the big swings, even when they are swinging in their favor. Part of it is just fear, but it is also practical, big swings don't make good lasting law.

Single steps that get reinforced and improved may not be the only way for progressive change, but history shows that some of our very best liberal laws started out much, much more modestly than we remember.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

157. The chemtrails guy?

Fuck no, he's unfit for the job.

[hiphopnation]

158. Yes n/t

[bigwillq]

159. Yes

I voted for DK in 2008 (DEM primary). Would do so again.

My vote is my vote. I wouldn't consider it helping anymore except getting that candidate elected. I can't really control how other people vote. I can only cast my vote for the person I think would do the best job.

[Green_Lantern]

160. no...unless Obama dropped out like Johnson did....

I may vote Green as a protest vote but even that'd be tough for me being in a swing state.

[Blue_Tires]

161. No way in hell...And I say that as someone who voted for him in the primary

[madokie]

162. NO not on a bet

I'm here to tell you right now that I'm going to vote for the President because I think he is doing a hell of a job considering all. You have to realize that about 90%, (yep pulled that number out of my ASS) of what you read and hear is brought to you by those who can't stand that we have an actual intelligent President now. Kucinich is not Presidential would not make a good President and will never be a President of these united states of America. Now get on with your wrong headed bashing of our very fine President. Don't let me get in your way. mmm k

Unrecommended proudly too

[JoePhilly]

163. No ...

And it has nothing to do with whether he "looks presidential" ...

But your implication tells me in what low regard you hold fellow democrats.

DO you actually think that physical appearance is why Democrats don't get behind Dennis??

If so ... you might want to look for a new party ... not because we dems don't welcome YOU ... but because you think dems who don't support Dennis are so shallow.

I'm surprised you talk to us at all.

As to your last question ... equally vapid. Unless you expect Dennis to pull a Nadar ...

I think Dennis is too smart for that.

[Cal33]

164. There are shallow people everywhere -- just as there are

intelligent as well as dumb ones -- regardless of party affiliation.

[saltpoint]

165. Kucinich holds a safe blue seat, or a reasonably safe

blue seat. He has been primaried in that district but has prevailed.

Many posters here assert that Kucinich could not win a statewide ballot race in Ohio. I believe they are correct. He would of course carry his district and a good deal of the NE part of the state, many precincts in the Columbus area, run respectable totals in Montgomery County, and certainly carry Athens in the SE. But beyond those reliably blue or fairly blue districts of the state, he would be crushed generally and in SW Ohio especially.

He has offered his candidacy for the White House twice to activist Democratic voters and has both times been dismissed by those Democratic voters in landslide percentages. He was outflanked and out-organized by other Democratic candidates and gave voters a rationale for his nomination apart from their liking him as a damned decent human being.

It is very difficult to imagine that he is interested in a third run for the presidency, and even harder to see him reaching a conclusion that he would fare any better than the other two times.

In the extremely unlikely case that he would talk himself into a third run, I would not support him against President Obama because IMO a third try by Kucinich would fare worse than the first two, and the first two were landslide defeats.

[LostInAnomie]

166. Only on DU do people consider Kucinich an actual candidate.

[Larry Ogg]

168. I held my nose when I voted for the lessor of two evils

But never again will I vote out of fear, to slow the decent into corporate rule and fascism...
I believe corporate democrats would rather see a republican victory, instead of someone like Kucinich,
and if someone doesn't run against the corporate parties and win,
the working class of America will loose regardless of which corporately owned candidates wins.

If Kucinich is on the ballot I will vote for him, if not I will vote for a third party and let the chips fall where they may,
the day of reckoning is coming, and if the American people are too stupid to wake up, then let fate run its course.

[Kaleva]

169. No

[Naturyl]

170. Yes, gladly. (n/t)

[Pushed To The Left]

171. Are you talking about a primary challenge or a 3rd party general election challenge?

[grantcart]

174. I think it is rather offensive that you insult DK's intelligence by suggesting that he would

be a part of anything this idiotic.