Are Three Candidates Splitting the Grassroots Vote?

[rucky]

Dean. Clark. Kucinich.

They all have different faces, platforms & personalities, but for many of their supporters - what's primarily attractive (for me, at least) to each one of their camps is the grassroots structure of their campaign. Which grassroots movement people have chosen does depend on which candidate is most appealing, but there is still that common ground among the three support bases: We all believe - regardless of the person we're following - that grassroots should be the way Democracy works.

We've all been called 'cult members' or sheep or whatever, but none of us feel like that. It has been said about each campaign that the movement is stronger than the candidate. There is much more truth in that statement than anyone could imagine.

If the people itching for grassroots weren't split between three candidates, America would be seeing something much more eye-opening than the "sputtering" campaigns of Dean, Clark & Kucinich. They'd be seeing Millions of people mobilizing, raising Millions of dollars, and the collective voice would be resounding. I see these movements as a unified movement that's just beginning to find it's voice - even though we can't agree on a face behind it. Although the three-way split just may knock-out all three of these candidates, everybody is eager to somehow find a way to continue the movement.

That path is already laid out for us: www.moveon.org

No figurehead. Just one huge, resounding grassroots voice. One that has already captured national attention. One that has an infrastructure & fundraising base already built. One that already has many of us as members. And without the need for an all-appealing, charismatic leader, WE can take the lead - which is what we really want anyways. WE can control the media with advertising. WE can control the issues. We will be out of the boxes & free of the false choices that the restraints of conventional politics forces us into.

It's already here, and it's waiting for us.

Even if you are not a supporter of Dean, Clark or Kucinich - this is for everybody. This is the movement we need for America - NOW. We can't go on waiting for that one leader that will take us there. We have to do it ourselves - and now we can.

- rucky

[Feanorcurufinwe]

1. I'm grassroots for Kerry

[rucky]

2. Didn't mean to exclude any other supporters

I was just pointing out the common selling points of those three campaigns. It certainly doesn't mean the other campaigns don't have grassroots elements, or that those supporters are anti-grassroots.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

15. No harm, no foul.

But it is worth pointing out that Kerry does enjoy grassroots support all over the country - not usually from folks who first heard of Kerry during the campaign, or in the last year, but from folks he inspired as a Vietnam-war protestor, or as Lt. Gov., or like me, folks who saw him in the Senate and recognized someone who could be a great President. (I've been a Kerry fan for a decade.)

Kerry is an overnite sensation who has been working at it for 30 years.

[Eloriel]

3. No, they're not

They are three distinct movements, except I don't see the other two as movements at all.

I wouldn't vote for either Kucinich or Clark, and I know a lot of supporters of both these candidates who feel the same about Dean.

Dean supporters want a revitalization of the democratic process that Dean has sparked -- the other two camps don't offer anything like that (tho Clark has been heard to say "take our country back" in a shameless co-optation of Dean's words, a technique Kerry has perfected).

I have no idea what Kucinich supporters want -- a Department of Peace, I suppose. But they seem definitely in it for the ideology. You absolutely can't say that about Dean supporters who want the kind of truth and honesty and integrity and a return to power to the people and for whom ideology is far less important in general, tho honest opposition to the Iraq war and fiscal sanity are also pretty important to most of us. I think of Kucinich as the Green Wing of the Democratic Part, and there's nothing wrong with that.

As for Clark supporters, I have no idea what they're after. Electability-by-virtue-of-4-stars seems to be the primary rationale of Clark's campaign, though.

[Lisaben2619]

4. Will Dean supporters vote if the nominee is Kerry?

I've been thinking about this a lot lately. I supported Nader last time around and came back to the Dems only because of Dean. I don't know how I can stomach voting for Kerry after Iraq (no matter what he says now) or for a mainstream Dem who screwed us over almost as much as the Repubs for 15 years. I honestly think that if it's Kerry, I'll vote Green and hope that the Democrats are destroyed and rebuilt in my lifetime. Obviously,as a liberal, there are things about Dean that I don't like; but the idea of bringing regular folk back into the party made him more tolerable. I'm sick to death of having to vote for the Republican kind of Democrat because our alternatives are so bad.

[NashVegas]

5. No Solid Answer

Some will hold their noses and do it.
Some will not.

[Monte Carlo]

6. Kerry is not a Republican kind of Democrat.

And I say this as a lifelong native of the People's Republic of Massachusetts, Kerry's record is about as Democratic as they get in Washington.

[BurtWorm]

8. The Dean bloc can work within the party.

(Welcome to DU, fellow Dean person! :toast:)

I believe Dean supporters can work as a bloc within the party to force it "left"--i.e., toward the grassroots and away from the donors. It's the party's only hope. It may be possible to form a coalition with these other grassroots-based campaigns, but with them or without them, the Dean movement should flex its muscle and demonstrate what losing us this year would mean.

I'd like to see John Kerry apologize to us for voting for IWR, for belittling our anger about Election 2000, for attacking Dean for speaking the truth about the war in Iraq, etc., etc., etc. And I'd like him to sweat over the likelihood that a lot of us won't just go along quietly if becomes the nominee. He, or whoever else, has to demonstrate a clear understanding of what this movement means. He's very, very, very far from there, as far as I can tell.

[democratreformed]

7. Maybe I can help you with what Clark supporters are after

At least, THIS Clark supporter. When I joined the "movement" urging Wesely Clark to run for President, I saw in him a person who had a genuine concern and caring for the citizens of America. I saw a person who was willing to listen to different points of view and give everyone's opinions credence. I saw a leader who used intellect and input to shape beliefs and ideas based on something other that "what I can do to get myself ahead". I saw in him a refreshing change from the "I" mentatlity that seems to have taken over in our culture. I am sick to death of the idea that someone can walk all over whomever they want to and leave people laying by the wayside to get ahead and then be hailed as a "great person". I see that every single day more and more. This mentality has infiltrated our culture and seems, to many to be upheld by the very highest of postions in this land.

Whatever happened to what I was taught - that doing the right thing and striving to be good was the best way to achieve something in your life? Now, it's whoever can cheat and lie and deceive people the best. I am distressed at having to raise my children in such a society. One in which they are given the idea that they are nothing if they don't learn how to play games.

Sadly, that's one of the biggest things I have learned from watching this primary process. It's just another game. Whoever plays the best, it seems, will more than likely come out on top. In the back of my mind, I am always hoping that my candidate has learned how to play and that it will show in the end. To me, that is really sad. That he has to learn how to play to be able to win and that I even hope for that.

Ah, anyway, I still have some hope left. If only it comes to fruition, maybe I can once again be proud to be an American and believe that we are the best country on earth and that there could be no better place to live.

[maxr4clark]

13. I agree.

Clark represents what I think are the best of America's values: compassion, hard work, and honesty. Government shouldn't be like Survivor, a game that the most devious win. Government should try to make the lives of its citizens better, and the lives of the citizens of other nations better too.

Wes Clark is the most decent, neighborly candidate I can remember since Jimmy Carter. That is ultimately why I vote for him, and wave signs for him, and write letters for him. America badly needs a return to honesty and decency in politics, and Clark is the one candidate who I see as representing that part of America.

No, I am not fooled into thinking Edwards is like that too. He is clearly charismatic, but he has a long way to go to convince me that he is interested in public service, rather than self-service. Having been reelected to his Senate seat would have gone a long way; taking pro bono cases when he was a trial lawyer would have helped, too. He could sell used cars to anyone, but I'm not in the market.

Kucinich is fine with me, but he is such a radical that he will never get a large fraction of America to vote for him. Kerry is a decent man with a history that Rove will turn into an albatross around his neck, despite it being a good Democratic history.

If Clark doesn't win the nomination, he will find another way to help America; he always has, throughout his life. But it would be a shame to pass up such a wonderful man who could do so much good for this country.

[Tom Rinaldo]

9. A lot of us have explained

Why we support Wes Clark, and it isn't all about electability. I think Clark is the most Progressive of the major candidates (those positioned to win any primaries). I think he is the least corrupted by the political system. I think he is the best salesman our Party will ever find to carry progressive values deep into middle America, allowing us to turn around the Right wing coup. I think Clark has been fearless in attacking the Bush Administration head on on a number of issues. I think he is honest. I think he is extremely competent.

This has all been said so many times. Eloriel, it can seem a bit insulting that you don't give Clark supporters credit for backing our candidate because we actually believe in our candidate. I am not asking you to shift your loyalties, there is no reason why you should, but you are not the only one who wants to liberate this nation from right wing vested interests.

[democratreformed]

12. Yes, Tom, I am about sick to death as well of being

accused of only supporting Wes Clark b/c he is a four-star General. Just b/c the media hyped him as that in the beginning of his campaign, people believe that is his only appeal. And I am sick to death of being written off as silly by people with big egos.

[formernaderite]

11. I could vote for Kucinich...

and in a perfect world, so would everyone else. Dean was my choice because he's a moderate who could appeal to a nation.

[Bombtrack]

10. What evidence do you have to support that Kucinich has more grassroots

support as a fraction of his campaign than Edwards or Kerry.

I'm a Clark supporter but people exaggerate the grassroots both as how much and how lacking it exists in the various campaigns

[rucky]

14. Kucinich was drafted. Clark was Drafted.

But that's not as important as the fact that no politician (except Dean) really saw the demand there. And the demand outweighed the supply enough to "draft" two other candidates. I agree, it's marketing to a certain extent - especially when it's tied to a candidate. But these camps are calling themselves grassroots, and creating a rudimentary grassroots network because that is something that will attract more of a certain type of person to the campaign. I don't need to prove actual grassroots support - just the DEMAND for grassroots in a campaign. That's already been demonstrated.

Not too many people are anti-grassroots, and every campaign has grassroots elements, but there are three campaigns who are openly touting themselves as grassroots. Last election there were none - maybe McCain. Being grassroots is cool again. So cool that three campaigns were built from it (or the perception of it). So cool that even Lieberman people are using the word.

So we can have some candidate co-opt it & run it into the ground like every other trend, or we can take the concept out of conventional politics & use it to create something that will last longer than any one presidential campaign.

That's my point.

[Armstead]

16. It's a valid point. I hope the cumulative totals are noted.

There's obvious differences between Clark, Dean and Kucinich, and I'd add Sharpton.

But one thing they do have in common is that their supporters are trying to unfreee the "politics as usual" formulas of the political and media elite. All of them are based on people-power, and trying to re-open politics to the grass roots. And to bring a fresh message for the Democratic Party that is based on its best traditional values.

Regardless of his virtues, Kerry has been perceived by many people as the annointed candidate of the status quo. Maybe that's a "bum rap" but his image does represent a classic Washington politician in many ways. And much more in line with the DLC form of "centrism."

Regardless of who the nominee turns out to be, I hope that note will be taken of the total numbers and level of enthusiasm all of the outsider candidates have garnered. Whgatever individual differences they have, they all represent a real hunger for change, and they have all pointed to the way to accomplish that.

[rucky]

17. shameless, self-serving, unadulterated

:kick: